1956-01-24

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General or to his parliamentary assistant. I have not given notice of the question because I thought they would know the answer. The question is this. Is the Post Office Department going ahead with the installation of television spying equipment in the Peterborough post office despite coast to coast protests against depriving the worker of his privacy?


Mr. Dufresne:: The post office officials have been wrong.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: As the Postmaster General is now in his seat, would he be able to answer the question I asked just a few minutes ago?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: As the hon. member has just pointed out, when he put his question I was not in the house. Would he repeat it?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is my fault. I thought one of the cabinet ministers had told the Postmaster General what the question was. My question is: Is the Post Office Department going ahead with the installation of T.V. spying equipment in the Peterborough post office despite protests from coast to coast against this equipment?


Hugues Lapointe: First may I say, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it has already been pointed out, that the installation of the T.V. system in the Peterborough post office is being undertaken purely on an experimental basis and it must be taken as such. It is meant to replace, if it proves to be practical, economical and successful, the observation galleries which exist in post offices throughout the country and have been used for the last 60 years, so I am informed, not only in the postal service of this country but in other postal services elsewhere. The system would not be used for any purposes other than those
for which the observation galleries are designed and are being used at the present time. If, as I say, this system proved to be practical, economical and worth while and was installed elsewhere, those are the only circumstances and conditions under which it would be used.



PROVISION OF DOORS ON WASH ROOMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General a further question in regard to the Peterborough post office. Has consideration been given to putting doors on the wash rooms in the Peterborough post office?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that perhaps hon. members' are using this question time in order to save themselves a certain amount of correspondence.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No.


Mr. Speaker:: So far as I have heard, the question is certainly not one of urgent and national character.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the postal workers throughout Canada think it is urgent to have doors on wash rooms.


Mr. Speaker:: I sympathize very much with the opinions of the postal workers of Canada, but unfortunately they are not members of this house, nor do they occupy the chair.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received any representations opposing a proposed 7 per cent increase in freight rates on lumber effective February 25 of this year? If so, will he inform the house of the position taken by the Canadian National Railways?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall), the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) have all

Inquiries of the Ministry drawn my attention to the question of a proposed increase in freight rates on lumber and lumber products moving from western Canada to eastern Canada.


Mr. Philpott:: Also the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott).


George Carlyle Marler: And also, as the hon. member points out, the hon. member for Vancouver South. I should merely like to inform the house that an application has been made by both railways to the board of transport commissioners for an increase in the rates to which I have just referred. Those who are opposed to the increase will have a period of 30 days, which I understand ends on February 25, in which to make representations to the board of transport commissioners on this subject.
Coming to the more specific question of whether I have received representations on the subject, I should like to say that I have received a telegram from the secretary-manager of the interior lumber manufacturers' association asking me to use every means at my disposal in the interests of the British Columbia lumber industry to prevent this unjust and unnecessary 7 per cent increase in Canadian rates. I may say that I have transmitted this telegram to the board of transport commissioners.



CROWSNEST PASS AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a recent press release in which the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway attacked the Crows-nest rate charges as being neither just nor reasonable? If so, can the minister give an assurance that there will be no upward revision of the Crowsnest rates?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the questions just put by the hon. member, I wish to say that my attention has not been drawn to the press release to which he has just referred. So far as the Crowsnest rate is concerned, an upward revision is not under consideration at this time.



REPORTED MOVEMENT OF EMPTY BOX CARS TO BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question of which I sent him notice in last night's

mail. In view of the shortage of box cars for western grain, can the minister state whether the Canadian National is in fact shipping a large number of cars empty out of Edmonton into British Columbia, I presume to pick up the lumber about which he has just been speaking? Can he state the numbers, if such is the fact, and could he suggest to the management that such cars might better be employed being sent there full?


George Carlyle Marler: The hon. member was good enough to send me notice of his question but it reached me only about three-quarters of an hour ago and I have not been able to obtain the information necessary to answer it. I shall try to obtain it by tomorrow.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: In view of the results of the recent Spadina by-election, can the Prime Minister state whether or not the great industrial belt in southern Ontario might expect to be represented in the cabinet in the near future?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I do not think that is a question I should answer on the orders of the day.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. Has dive bomber training, as was practised during world war II with Harvard aircraft, been discontinued or is it still continued as part of the training program? Has the Chipmunk aircraft not replaced the Harvard aircraft as a primary trainer?


Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: In
the absence of the minister may I take this as notice of the question?



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works or his parliamentary assistant.

Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of a statement in the Globe and Mail that the metropolitan Toronto council had stated in its brief to the royal commission on economic prospects that less than a third-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: -of the families in that area earn the minimum income to qualify for an N.H.A. loan-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: -will the government consider lowering the interest rate on N.H.A. loans so that a higher proportion of low income people can qualify?


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: I am
not aware of this statement but I will look it up and try to give an answer tomorrow.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries? I discussed it with the minister yesterday, but I am not sure whether the hon. gentleman had an opportunity to bring it to the attention of his assistant. Has the Department of Fisheries, or the government as a whole, received any representations from the government of British Columbia, or any other body, regarding the proposed Moran dam on the Fraser river? If so, are discussions under way as to ways and means by which the interests of fisheries and power would be reconciled?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I was absent from Ottawa yesterday and was prevented from discussing this with the departmental officials. I will do so as soon as possible and give the hon. member an answer tomorrow.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has any agreement been entered into or consummated between the government or the Department of Agriculture and the starch manufacturers of New Brunswick? If so, what proportion is the government going to pay per barrel of potatoes in the diversion program for starch?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I suggested to the hon. member the other day when he was discussing the matter, we have made a proposal to the people of New Brunswick. That proposal has gone to the government as well as to the producers, and we are prepared to carry it out. It is in the exact words of the document that I sent over to him the other day.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I take it that nothing further has been done?


James Garfield Gardiner: As the hon. member told the house the other day, we have had our officials down there. I am not sure that they are back yet. They have been down there discussing the whole question with the people of New Brunswick.



INCOME TAX


[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 Finance? Is the minister aware that the cost of oxygen to keep a patient alive has been disallowed as a deductible expense and that this disallowance has been confirmed by the income tax appeal board? Will the minister consider amending the act to take care of this unfair situation?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the decision of the income tax appeal board. As has been the custom with all my predecessors, we consider all tax matters every year.



NOVA SCOTIA APPLES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Have final arrangements yet been made between his department of the government and the growers of apples with respect to the proposals made by the government two weeks ago?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the apple proposals are in much the same position as the potato proposals. We have made the proposals to the officials in Nova Scotia and have had men down there consulting with them.

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale EGGS



PROCEDURE FOLLOWED WITH RESPECT TO SUPPORT PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the government take the eggs when they go below the floor price of 38 cents?


James Garfield Gardiner: The egg proposals are a little different from the butter proposals. Under the butter proposals there is a standing offer of 58 cents a pound for grade A butter, but under the egg proposals we undertake to take any eggs which are in storage as of the first of December in the year in question. In the meantime, we shall consider only the taking of eggs which have been purchased at or above the floor throughout the year. Records of that are kept throughout the year, and then it is dealt with towards the end of the season.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: May I ask a supplementary question? Is the minister aware that the eggs are selling at the grading stations now from 27 cents to 35 cents, and at 35 cents for grade A large?


James Garfield Gardiner: Thirty-five cents would be about it. The price is 38 cents plus carrying charges as of December 31, and it would still be above the floor at 35 cents out in some country districts. As a rule, the average is 32 cents.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 23, 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.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this house from western Canada, I would be very remiss in my duty if I did not take the opportunity at this time to deal with the critical grain marketing situation prevailing on the prairies.
Last fall I received continued representations from the farmers in my area concerning this problem and, in addition to the representation from individual farmers, I also had the privilege of meeting with the representatives of the various farm organizations. I recall that, at the session we had with the board of directors of the Manitoba

federation of agriculture, one of the warnings they issued was that the various political parties in this house should not play politics with this critical situation. I think, Mr. Speaker, that was a very necessary warning because, almost from the earliest times of wheat production in the prairie region, there have been politicians in the wheat bin, and it has not helped at all to clarify the situation.
As I have listened to other hon. members from western Canada speak on this topic, it has been encouraging to note that there is a large degree of unanimity among the members of the opposition regardless of their party affiliations. It has been encouraging to note that it appears for the first time that we are going to have a united vote of protest on the part of the combined opposition in a matter pertaining to the welfare of our grain growing farmers on the western prairies. One of the difficulties through the years has been the variety of solutions and opinions which have been expressed by western members in regard to the grain problem. I think it will help considerably in rallying the attention of the government to this problem if we have this united vote on the matter.
If we are going to achieve any semblance of good government under our democratic system we must avoid extremes. The tendency which has been peculiar to western Canada, based largely on the continuing economic instability, to pursue extreme philosophies to their conclusion undoubtedly has worked against the general welfare of the west.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but may I ask hon. members who are supposed to be listening to try to achieve that result as much as possible.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: These differences of opinion, arising largely from the pursuit of extreme philosophies to their logical conclusions, should be worked out within the framework of national parties and not in the House of Commons on the basis of multi-parties. I emphasize again that that is one reason why I am delighted to see this unanimity of opinion at this time.
Unfortunately we have not been able to gain the support of western members who support the government, and that is quite understandable. As I have listened to the statements of the various ministers directly responsible for dealing with this matter it appears to me that there is a sharp difference of opinion in their respective appraisals of the problem. I am reminded of the opinion of Sir Winston Churchill when he was required from time to time to deal with urgent

problems facing the nation and had to consult with the economists of the day. He summed it up by saying, "Whenever I ask England's six leading economists a question I get seven answers, two from Mr. Keynes".
As I have listened to the interpretation of the problem given by the various ministers responsible I am persuaded to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill: that whenever we listen to the answers from the various ministers, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), we get a different answer from each and two from the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
That conclusion arises largely from the speech made in this house just over a week ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I listened to it carefully at the time and I have since tried to analyse it carefully as it appears in Hansard. In examining it I have come to the conclusion that it was merely the use of the red herring technique, an appeal to the traditional prejudices of the prairies in order to divide the western members on this issue. It was not a very subtle appeal and not nearly so skilfully done as has happened in the past in the case of a former Liberal prime minister of this country.
The speech lumped together the Financial Post, the Winnipeg Free Press, the C.C.F. party and the farmers' union as being out to destroy the wheat board by advocating cash advances on farm stored grain. The most amazing part of the whole speech was that it linked the C.C.F. and the farmers' union with the grain exchange which has become the scapegoat for the perpetual grain problem on the prairies. That was an amazing burst of demagogical oratory and, of course, it will not go over very successfully on the prairies. There have already been press reactions to that effect.
It was further intimated that it was not the farmers who were advocating cash advances on farm stored grain but rather the city boys. As I have indicated, this is amazing to me and, having seen the situation as a western member, it is completely out of touch with reality. In fact, as I examined the speech from the throne I came to the conclusion that in dealing with this matter it was also out of touch with reality. The only reference to the problems of the grain farmers was something to the effect that some sectors of the economy are not participating fully in Canada's high level of prosperity. That is true, and it has been true over the years so far as our western agricultural economy is concerned.
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale
If we examine the history of grain production on the prairies, it has been one series of crises after another, at one time a period of shortage, at another time a period of abundance, although in recent times periods of abundance seem to occur more frequently than periods of shortage. That of course is largely due to changed production techniques, mechanization on the farms and so on. As a westerner raised on the prairies, my whole life has been influenced strongly by these continuing fluctuations and changes. My father, who homesteaded in the west in the early days, went broke during one of these critical periods.
Our problems with respect to lack of adequate financing for education, etc., largely arise from the uncertainties of the western grain producing economy. The loss of our young people through migration to eastern Canada and also south of the border in search of job opportunities is intimately connected with the unstable economic situation that has always prevailed on the prairies. It has resulted in widely fluctuating prices. It is connected of course with the inherent instability that is peculiar to agriculture and, as far as grain is concerned, arises largely from the fact that we are dependent on an uncontrollable and unpredictable export market to dispose of the major part of our production.
Today, and I would emphasize this point, the problem is much more serious than it ever was because it is connected with rapidly changing external conditions that affect the Canadian economy, among them being the declining world market for grain. In this connection it is significant to note that even India is making an attempt to become self-sufficient in the production of wheat. We need hardly refer to the stiff competition we are receiving from the United States producers. That matter has been discussed at length.
As well as the change in the external economy, we have the rapid changes in the internal economy as Canada proceeds from a primary economy depending on extractive industries to a secondary economy depending more and more on manufacturing. It only stands to reason that prairie agriculture, based largely on one product, will be caught in a vicious price squeeze as this trend continues. Surpluses are up. The costs are up. Markets are down. As a result, prices are going down. That is the essence of the situation as it faces the prairie producer at the moment.
In spite of the optimistic assurances of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and also of the Minister of Agriculture, from direct contact with producers in my own area-and we are one of the more stable and diversified

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale areas in Manitoba-I can say that there is an urgent, immediate problem today. It requires much broader treatment than the plan of government bank loans that has been referred to as the Howe plan, and the storage proposals that we shall be considering in this house within the next few days. The latter proposal will of course help, but it does not begin to get to the root of the matter which has caused this perpetual state of economic instability in the prairies since that region was first opened to settlement.
There is a short-term problem and it must be dealt with. As farmer after farmer has indicated, as have all farm organizations from the west, it can only be met by putting cash immediately into the hands of the producers. Farming has changed. It is no longer a subsistence matter where you can carry on your operation within the confines of the one-unit farm. Farming today has become a business proposition and the farmer needs ready cash, as does any other business man, if he is going to carry on his operation successfully. The only way to get that ready cash into his hands is by means of the widely advocated cash advances on farm-stored grain.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has tried to imply that the farmers are not asking for this measure and he tries to draw a red herring across the trail by saying that it is the city boys who want it and not the farmers. In my area the city boys to whom he refers are the local merchants of the small towns. In my area we have no large cities. They are the local merchants who make up the membership of our town councils, who serve on the school boards and who, in fact, carry the day to day responsibility of grassroots democracy in western Canada. They are the ones who have been making appeals to me.
Three years ago, as a matter of fact, when this surplus problem first began to appear on the prairies, we had community after community going on the strictly cash basis, refusing to extend credit to the neighbouring farm communities because the memory of the thirties was vivid in their minds. They realized that as this surplus problem continued to grow-and actually it has grown-they would not be able to carry the responsibility of financing the farm economy which today operates on a monetary basis rather than on the former subsistence basis. In fact, the farm economy is today much more vulnerable than it ever was in any former period of crisis on the prairies. Hence the city boys referred to are the town merchants-the small businessmen-who are the heart of our local government in this country of ours. Any attempt to arouse the traditional prejudice that exists


between farm and -city, between the rural areas and the urban areas, is an emotional appeal to try to stir up feelings of hostility and hatred. Today it will not take root.
Then the matter of the threat to the wheat board was emphasized. It was indicated that anybody advocating cash advances was out to destroy the wheat board. This is an appeal to fear because ever since the thirties the western farmer has clung desperately to the wheat board as the symbol for his economic salvation. When criticism of the wheat board arises, it is invariably said that at least 90 per cent of our prairie producers are in support of the wheat board. I would say that statement is broadly true. The reason the farmer is in favour of the wheat board is the instability and the insecurity to which he has been subjected down through the years. Hence you can always arouse a positive response in favour of government proposals if you imply that any other proposal is a threat to the wheat board. It is similar to the "King or chaos" appeal that was made back in 1935. Professor Lower has summed up that appeal in this manner. It will be recalled that the present administration first came to power in this country in 1935. Professor Lower describes the victory as follows:
The victory was not a tribute to Mr. King. It was not a proclamation in defence of liberty. It was not even in pronouncement on the issues of the day. Liberalism as it emerged in Canada after 1935 was the counterpart of Baldwin Conservatism in Great Britain, of Le Front Populaire in France and of Rooseveltian democracy in the United States. It represented the huddling together of frightened people uncertain of their way in a chaotic world.
I think that is a fair and honest appraisal of the situation then prevailing. Unfortunately you can still get that fear response. The farmers still cling desperately to the hope that they feel lies within the wheat board marketing of their grain which has in the past tended to iron out some of the wild price fluctuations arising from a basically unstable economy. That the cash advance formula is going to destroy the wheat board is a strange suggestion indeed, because the wheat board principle of marketing was established in 1935 in order to deal with the (repeated crises that come to our grain economy. If the wheat board cannot deal with the problem existing at the moment, anyone who makes that suggestion is merely indicating that it has fallen short of performing the task it was originally designed to perform. Perhaps it is high time that we had a complete reappraisal of the grain

marketing problem in the light of changed conditions to see wherein the present methods are impractical.
There is just one more point in the speech to which I should like to refer briefly. There was an indication that the western farmer, if he were given cash advances for his grain, might before the time period expired, dispose of the crop already covered by the cash advance other than to the wheat board. He might sell it for feed to local farmers and so forth. This implies that the western grain producer is dishonest. I feel that is the last implication that could be made in his case. I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gar-son), who comes from the west, would be only too willing to support me in this conclusion. During the thirties when governments came to the assistance of local municipal councils the farmers, at least those in Manitoba and my area, would not take full advantage of the money available to relieve them of their financial difficulties because they felt that in the long haul they would be able to take care of a major part of their accumulated indebtedness.
Farmers are essentially honest. Local governments are scrupulously honest. They do not behave in the way that the large centralized government in this country might have a tendency to behave. There is no reason at all for distrusting the integrity of the prairie farmer in this cash advance proposition.
While there is a short-term problem which must be dealt with by immediate emergency measures, there is also the continuing longterm problem which has been with us right from the beginning. As I have intimated this problem is aggravated today, Mr. Speaker, by the changing circumstances of the Canadian economy. We are moving to a secondary phase of production. Unfortunately Canada, unlike other countries that have passed through that transition, is not following the traditional paths of young countries progressing from primary activities like agriculture, forestry, mining and oil drilling into the more advanced activities such as manufacturing. We are still mainly occupied in producing raw materials which the more advanced countries like the United States make into finished products. We are hewers of wood and drawers of water for the more highly developed countries, and this has been the deliberate policy of our government.
Actually, the manufacturing share of the national income is not as impressive as it appears from a superficial observation. It has been dropping off since the peak year of 1943. We must remember that in this
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale manufacturing are included such activities as sawing logs, producing pig iron, pulp and paper, smelting and refining of non-ferrous metals. Even including those, the manufacturing share of the national income has been dropping off from the peak year of 1943.
The next point' I do not have to emphasize. It has already been adequately discussed by several members, including the leader of the C.C.F. party. This manufacturing process has come largely under the control of United States influences, and that again is a development that needs very close scrutiny by Canada. Recently, many voices have been raised on this subject. The most recent that has come to my attention has been that of our own Manitoba minister of industry and commerce, Mr. Turner. Speaking in New York last week, he invited further United States financial and technological aid in western Canadian development, but called also for a greater Canadian share in the ownership, financing and management of Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies. Canadians are not happy when they find themselves outside in their own country. These are words from our Manitoba minister of industry and commerce. This is becoming a matter of increasing interest in this country and it is something that bears very directly on the economic problem that we have in the midwestern region.
There is one more difficulty in this switch from primary to secondary industry. It is all concentrated in one part of Canada, mainly along what has become known as Canada's Ruhr valley, the St. Lawrence river. Unfortunately, because of that concentration, the western provinces are not finding the degree of secondary industrial activity to take up the economic slack that is resulting from the changing nature of our agricultural industry. I am reminded by an hon. member from the maritimes sitting behind me that it is also a problem that is peculiar to the maritimes. Western Canada is ripe for the establishment of industries. Our Manitoba minister is constantly harping on that theme. Opportunities have been missed by this government, particularly in the very extensive defence industry development.
The Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe, when he was asking for special powers to deal with defence emergencies, stated at page 5379 of Hansard for June 28, 1955:
I do not know whether they were thinking about the amounts of money I am talking about, but X can just tell you this. In the case of the Orenda engine and the CF-100 aircraft we had paid A.V. Hoe Company $122 million before the first finished aircraft was delivered.

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale
I believe $122 million would go a long way towards sparking our western Canadian economy and the production of military aircraft is largely a non-economic business. The government of Canada is the only customer and that sort of operation could take place successfully anywhere in the Canadian economy.
Private companies have begun to establish branch plants in the west. This is one of the most encouraging developments because it may overcome this long-term economic difficulty. If the government would reduce its high level of corporation taxes, I am sure we would see more of that sort of decentralization occurring. A start was made in this direction last year by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and we heartily endorse that procedure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to bring these remarks to a conclusion, I should like to point out that Manitoba, while it is suffering from the general problems of agriculture on the prairies, is perhaps not so seriously affected as is Saskatchewan. We have a diversified economy, both on the farm and in the urban areas to a larger degree, but we are still not participating fully in the tremendous upsurge of development that has taken place in this country during the past 10 years.
Several Liberal speakers have intimated that the members of the opposition preach blue ruin. My friend and neighbour from the constituency of Lisgar made much of this sentiment that the opposition are out to preach blue ruin, and particularly the leader of the official opposition. Well, I take very decided issue with that because in his trans-Canada tour last year he preached anything but blue ruin. I have before me the newspaper report of the speech he made in Manitoba's oil town of Virden. He used words to this effect:
"Many Canadians are still not fully aware of what has happened in their country during the last twenty-five years. From the United States border to the Arctic there has been development almost beyond the scope of imagination."
Mr. Drew said he has completely sounded out the picture during his travelling throughout the country, and it boils down to a decision between developing our own country or farming out the job.
"The right answer, if we make it, will result in industrial development across the nation, increased employment and the elimination of seasonal unemployment.
"This is the beginning of Canada's golden age, an age of vast expansion and even wider contribution."
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is far from the blue ruin charge that Liberal spokesmen have made against the opposition and against the Leader of the Opposition in this debate.


In conclusion, I say I can heartily endorse the amendment that is before the house in these words:
We respectfully represent that Your Excellency's advisers, by reason of their indifference, inertia, and lack of leadership in the face of serious national problems and their disregard of the rights of parliament, are not entitled to the confidence of this house.
There are shortages of steel, shortages of nickel, shortages of aluminum, according to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, (Mr. Howe). The United States is going ahead with a multimillion dollar steel expansion program. Russia has threatened that in the next five years she is going to outstrip the west in production. Canada has a large role to play in the west's program of development, not only internally but externally. If the government in office cannot carry the burden I would suggest that it move out and make room for somebody else who can do the job.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: dependent on imported defence equipment. An embargo could not possibly operate fairly in such cases, and might indeed encourage armed conflict over disputed territory. I can assure you that this is no hypothetical argument.
Let us see, for instance, how such an embargo-if it could have been agreed on and enforced internationally-would have operated in the Middle East in respect of Israel and its Arab neighbours. I gather from observations made in this house and outside that this is the policy that is advocated by at least certain members of opposition parties.
This area has been one of tension and unrest and indeed danger from the very day that the State of Israel was created. That creation-it should not be forgotten-was the result of a United Nations decision which Canada supported. If the embargo principle had been adopted, Israel would have been completely powerless to defend her very existence; unless she had agreed in desperation to throw herself into the arms of communist suppliers. If it had suited their purposes, and for a price-and it would have been a high price-the Moscow government which controlled these suppliers would have been quite happy to arrange such a deal.
An alternative, which could be in hon. members' minds, would have been to permit certain quantities and types of military equipment to go to Israel during this period of tension and to allow nothing whatsoever to go to any Arab state in any circumstances. That would, of course, have been considered as an unfriendly policy by those states with which Canada has normal diplomatic relations. Neither this policy nor that of the complete embargo for both sides has, so far as I know, been adopted by any country. Indeed a policy of control which has been adopted by the United Kingdom, the United States and France, the policy which has been accepted by the free world, is that which we ourselves are now following.
Another important principle which we have followed is that of consultation and exchange of information about orders and requests- except those of no significance in quantity or nature

with certain governments who have special responsibilities in this field. We do that so that one country may know what the others are doing and thereby ensure that so far as possible the principles that I have mentioned above are adhered to.
If, for instance, we are asked to supply some ammunition for 25-pounders for a particular country-and we have been asked for that, and it is still before cabinet-we try to

find out, before taking any action, not only whether such an order would be excessive having regard to the number of guns involved, and existing stocks, but whether orders for this ammunition have also been received by other governments. The responsibility for the decision, however, is of course ours.
Now, what is the procedure by which this policy is carried out?
Under the law, as I have said, the export permit must be given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Before doing so, if the destination is one of those 34 sensitive areas where consultation is required, he consults with both the Departments of National Defence and External Affairs and acts only after agreement with those two departments. If the application is a particularly significant one, either in quantity or because of the political circumstances surrounding it, and even though the three ministers may have agreed to the permit, the matter is referred to the whole cabinet.
In the case of shipments to NATO or most commonwealth countries, the Minister of Trade and Commerce may act after consultation only with the Department of National Defence, in order to make sure that security and supply factors are considered as well as our own defence requirements.
In all cases where government surplus supplies are involved, the matter must also go to the treasury board for approval. Even after there has been ministerial agreement on an export permit, that board, a committee of the cabinet, may also ask the full cabinet to reconsider a decision taken.
Now, having indicated the procedures laid down, I should like to show how they were applied to the case of the 15 Harvard trainers approved for export last July.
In the spring of 1955 a supplier of these aircraft received inquiries from qualified representatives of the Egyptian government concerning 15 Harvard trainers. There were also received at the same time somewhat less formal inquiries about F-86 jet fighters. There was no problem regarding the jets. The reception by the government to the idea was negative and the matter was dropped even though that order, and others for jets about which we have been approached from other quarters, would have been very attractive commercially and would have assisted in maintaining work and employment in our aircraft industry.
As for the Harvards, the matter was brought to the attention of the Department of Trade and Commerce by the company and referred
The Address-Mr. Pearson by that department to the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs for an opinion. The Department of National Defence studied the matter from the point of view of possible domestic requirements and of the military implications of supplying these aircraft to the particular government in question.
Information was also exchanged with certain friendly governments about the request. No objections were raised to the transaction from these or any other quarters. After all these steps had been taken, and as the matter in my judgment raised no new policy issue or important international consideration, and as the planes could not be made into effective combat aircraft, and as the request fell within the criteria I have mentioned already, I gave my approval. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was so informed and an export permit was issued in due course.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The first week in September. Before proceeding further I should like to answer the question addressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in these terms:
Whether any field artillery weapons are being or have been dismantled and the parts sold separately by the War Assets Corporation under circumstances which would make it possible for those parts to be sold outside of Canada.
That was the question. I am informed by the corporation, on the basis of a check going back to January 1, 1952, that where any gun barrels or breech blocks have been disposed of they have been sold as scrap and in respect of each sale there is evidence available that they were mutilated prior to delivery as scrap. Such scrap also requires an export permit. Surplus field artillery or surplus artillery parts, as opposed to scrap, that is to mutilated parts, can be sold abroad but always subject to the export control procedures I have mentioned.
What are the results of this policy in respect to arms shipments to the Middle East? An impression may have been created that Canadian arms were flowing into that area in great quantities. That is not the case. The amounts involved are small and do not contravene the principles which I have outlined as governing our policy. The impression may have also been given that we were releasing modern and dangerous weapons whose capabilities could disrupt the military balance among the countries in that region and encourage all-out aggression or an arms race. That also is not the case.
There are certain figures I should like to give and I give these figures although similar figures are not given in respect to arms shipments by other countries. In 1954 export
466	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearson permits for military equipment to the value of $735,574.60 were granted for Israel; for Egypt the figure was only $296; for all other Arab states, none.
In 1955 the figure for Israel was $1,332,110.59; for Egypt, $770,825; for all other Arab states, $70. The figures for the two years were $2,067,685.19 for Israel, and $771,121 for Egypt.
The Harvard trainers and spare parts for them were responsible for practically the whole of the Egyptian figure. The main items covered by the other figures are:
Harvard aircraft parts 75 mm. shells Anti-tank equipment
Tracks and spare parts for world war II type tanks (Shermans)
25-pounder guns and accessories [DOT]303 calibre Browning machine guns 3 [DOT] 1" anti-aircraft guns, accessories, spare parts and ammunition (This was a large proportion of the total)
The anti-aircraft guns are of course defensive weapons, and the 25-pounder guns are trailer guns in this case. In respect to the tank tracks and spare parts, which constituted a rather large proportion of the total, we were at our request given written and official assurances that they would not be re-exported and that they were all required for normal maintenance and servicing purposes for the existing stock of tanks. I have available the exact descriptions by item, quantity, value and destination of all the items covered by the totals I have mentioned. I am reluctant to make these figures public as the recipient government-there is only one in this case because in the case of Egypt the totals have already been made public-feels that, in spite of the relatively small amounts involved, the information might be prejudicial to her security. I would, however, be happy to let any hon. member who may desire, see all these details in confidence.
These figures show what has been approved. If there could be shown a similar table for the dollar value of the requests for military equipment that have not been approved the amount would be many times as great. Some requests had to be refused in toto, such as those for F-86 jet aircraft. Others covered a legitimate requirement of a type which did not contravene the principles we had established but in our opinion the amount was excessive for such requirements.
I mention these cases of rejection to make it clear that the procedures I described earlier are not merely a complicated method of in fact releasing everything we are asked for. The procedures do constitute an effective control system. This control has been applied aecause in the view of the government it is
IMr. Pearson.]

important that Canada should not contribute to the development of an arms race in the Middle East or any place else; that is, should not permit exports which would give either of the conflicting sides-if there is a conflict, a political conflict-a military advantage which the other would be bound to try to correct by increasing its military purchases in turn.
Surely the policies and controls which I have described and the nature of the exports which we have permitted make nonsense of the unfair and extravagant suggestion by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) that our actions in the field were comparable in this field with the activities of the Soviet bloc in these troubled regions. I think on the contrary the evidence is that we have been handling this matter carefully and conscientiously and with a sense of international responsibility.
I should like to turn now to the political situation in the area in order to give the background to the question we have been discussing. It is a situation which has been disturbing and unsettled, as I have already said, since the very foundation of the state of Israel. It is becoming increasingly clear that some solution must be found for the problem of the relationship between Israel and her Arab neighbours if that situation is to improve. If it does not improve it will get worse and the danger of conflict will increase. This is especially the case because there are governments which are cynically hoping to obtain political advantage from keeping the Arab-Israeli dispute burning without any concern for the damage that this would cause the Israeli and Arab people, or the danger to peace that might result. I think there would be no contribution on our part to improving the chances of peace in that area by cutting off all shipments of defence equipment to the state of Israel, if that is the policy of my hon. friends opposite.
It is the realization of this danger, the danger of conflict, which prompted western statesmen recently to offer the assistance of their governments and themselves in helping Israel and the Arab states find a solution for their disputes and problems. We in this government are very much in accord with the spirit of such pronouncements which point to the necessity of a settlement based on conciliation, understanding and compromise, which alone can afford a real basis of security and prosperity for both the Arab and Israeli peoples. The difficulties, Mr. Speaker, are great and the dangers are very real, as they always are when passions are high and feelings are deep.

We can sympathize with and understand the fear felt in Israel when they hear across their borders threats of destruction; and, of course, the United Nations did not establish _ the state of Israel in order to see its obliteration. Similarly, we can understand the feelings of Arab peoples at the alienation of land which was occupied by Arabs for centuries; we can sympathize with the sufferings of the many thousands of Arab refugees who have been made homeless. But surely to both sides the advantages of a confirmed and secure peace, instead of the present condition of precarious armistice, are so great both economically and politically that a negotiated settlement should not be impossible.
I cannot, Mr. Speaker, mention the armistice without paying tribute here, and I know the house will join me in this, to the work of Major General Burns, the chief of the United Nations truce supervision organization for Palestine. He is not, of course, serving as a Canadian but as a United Nations official. Nevertheless, since he is a Canadian,
I am sure that all hon. members are as proud as I am of his devoted and skilful work in safeguarding the armistice in most difficult and, indeed, at times dangerous circumstances, and of the high regard in which he is held by both sides for his sincerity and impartiality.
As hon. members know, I have had the privilege recently of exchanging views with Israeli and Egyptian leaders. In July the Egyptian foreign minister visited Ottawa and I had the honour of being received by the premier of Egypt, Colonel Nasser, at Cairo on my way back from southeast Asia in November. I might at this point answer a particular question put to me by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he inquired whether I would "equalize" Canada's position in the Middle East by going to Israel, in view of my visit to Egypt. I hope that it may soon be possible for me to visit Israel to see for myself the exciting and constructive things that are being done there. The reasons why I could not do so during my recent journey have been fully explained already, and I will not waste the time of the house in repeating them here, especially as they were made known to and understood in Israel at that time. I was all the more pleased, therefore, because I had not been able to visit Israel on this trip, to welcome to Ottawa at the beginning of December Mr. Sharett, the foreign minister of Israel, who came here at the invitation of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Prince Albert that our attitude should be "equal" but I doubt whether anyone would seriously
The Address-Mr. Pearson contend that the criterion of such an attitude is an exact and prompt balancing of my journeys to foreign capitals. This "equality" which, as I say, I endorse, must rest on a sturdier basis than that.
In any event, during 1955 two cabinet ministers, two senators and six members of parliament visited Israel from Canada and each spent some time there. The members included the leaders of two parties, and, above all, they included the hon. member for Prince Albert himself. I am flattered, Mr. Speaker-indeed, I am flabbergasted-by the suggestion that all of these visits by such distinguished Canadians were more than equalled by a day and a half stopover by me in Cairo on the way home from a Colombo plan meeting.
My own discussions with Egyptian and Israeli leaders about the problems of the Middle East and my study of these problems, which I share with others in the house, have left me with the impression that, while the issues are complex and difficult, and even dangerous, there is a basic desire for peace on both sides because it is realized, it must be realized, that this is indispensable to social and economic progress. There seems, then, to be at least this foundation upon which a settlement could be reached.
I believe that the western powers are ready and anxious-I know that Canada is -to assist in the achievement of a settlement. I hope sincerely that the Soviet government and its friends are equally anxious. If they are, they will not stimulate and encourage an arms race in the Middle East which can have no good result, except for the political machinations of the stimulators. I agree, of course, with the hon. member for Winnipeg North that the way to blunt the machinations of those who seek to gain advantage from inflaming the troubles of the Middle East is to bring about peace there. I am sure any Canadian government, any government, would wish to do what it could, along with other similarly disposed governments, to assist in bringing about such a peace.
With all respect, however, I do not think that the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North made much of a contribution to that end. Among other things he complained of the "passionate admiration" of officials in the London foreign office for the Arabs. His own attitude seemed to me to be one of passionate hostility to the Arab governments. Passion on either side of this issue is not likely to help; indeed, it already has hindered and bedevilled the chances of a settlement. The hon. member implored this government to pay a "more significant part" in bringing about such a settlement.
468	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearson The attitude he took in the house, however, would make it more difficult, not less difficult, tor any Canadian representative, if he were charged with any responsibility in this matter, to be considered as an impartial and objective conciliator and to pay effectively what he referred to as an "honourable part".
It is easy enough to criticize indiscriminately those powers and those persons who have had to cope directly with this complex issue. It is easy enough to put forward proposals which fortunately no one is expected to put into practice. If our response to recent Soviet moves in the Middle East were to abandon friendly relations with the Arab states and support Israel, completely and exclusively, with our diplomacy and our arms, then we should indeed be playing the communist game. The moral position of the western powers in that area is based on the fact that they have, though not without mistakes and contradictions, tried to preserve peace on a basis of mutual accommodation rather than on the triumph of one side over the other. I suggest we must not abandon that position because the Russians have done so for their own purposes.
The important question is, however, how can an honourable and satisfactory solution be brought about? The main issues are now commonly known. It seems clear that both sides, if they recognize the desirability of a settlement, must give something to achieve it, must make some compromise. There can never be a negotiated settlement where one side or the other remains adamant. Each must enter into negotiations prepared for some sort of give and take although, of course, no one would expect one of the sides to make prior or unilateral concessions.
It seems to me that an essential, indeed, a first requirement, is that the Arab states should recognize the legitimate and permanent existence of the state of Israel. That, as I see it, necessitates abandonment by them of the impractical stipulation that we must return to the United Nations resolutions of 1947 which provided for a divided Palestine. The Arab states took up arms to prevent these resolutions becoming effective and I do not see how they can claim the right to have them accepted now as the price of peace in that area. The people of Israel have the right to know that their national existence is not at stake. That seems to me to be fundamental. Efforts to bring peace and all its benefits to the Middle East will be of no avail unless Israel and the people of Israel are released from the overhanging fear which naturally envelops the country as a result of the threats of destruction and of the political and economic warfare directed against it by its neighbours. Deep 

fear leads to desperate acts which, though they cannot be condoned, may at least be understood. Surely it is essential, therefore, that this basic cause of fear must be removed if there is to be a solution of the Arab-, Israeli dispute.
Just as we should like to see Israel freed from the fears and economic pressures which are being imposed on her, we must also hope that the Arab populations will be enabled to move forward toward their goals of economic betterment and social progress. There have, indeed, been concrete proofs that this is the hope of the West.
It may perhaps be said that there is fear also on the part of the Arab states lest they should be attacked. But so far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, the 1950 tripartite declaration of the three leading western powers is still valid, that they would oppose the changing of borders by force. Moreover, the United Nations is dedicated to the prevention of aggression and the house will be aware of the fact that only recently the security council of the United Nations, in considering a most regrettable development of the Arab-Israeli dispute, gave unanimous evidence of its determined opposition to the resort to aggressive force. These, I maintain, are no inconsiderable safeguards. They would be even stronger if there were permanent frontiers settled by negotiation.
The Arab states on their part are, however, entitled to certain assurances. There must , be a fair and honourable solution to the problem of Arab refugees. That is a subject which my hon. friend touched on the other day. The unhappy plight of these refugees is of serious concern not only to the Arab countries and to Israel because it poisons their relations but also, for humanitarian and political reasons, to the whole free world. These unfortunate people have largely been maintained by the United Nations, and Canada has contributed its share toward their support. But that cannot go on much longer. Shelter and a dole are pitiful substitutes for a permanent home and opportunities for gainful work. As I see it, some compensation should be paid these refugees by Israel for loss of land and home. But it is clear that so large a number cannot return to their former land, which is now in the state of Israel whose total population is less than two million; nor in all probability would many desire to live in what would now be to them an alien country. A limited amount of repatriation might be possible such as that which would be involved, for example, in the reuniting of families. For the rest, resettlement

as an international operation, to which Israel among others would make a contribution, seems to be the only answer.
But even more important is the question of boundaries. There are at present, Mr. Speaker, armistice demarcation lines. They are therefore lines which have not been finally determined by a peace settlement. I believe that they could be susceptible to readjustments. This, of course, is by no means to suggest one-sided concessions of territory or any such thing as the "truncation" of Israel which would be crippling to the new state. But perhaps certain boundary rearrangements could be made so as to produce mutually acceptable permanent borders. There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that if the permanent borders could be agreed upon in this way the United Nations would be deeply interested in the maintenance of their security.
In return for the international guarantee which might result from this interest, with security and stability in the area which would result, I should think both the state of Israel and the Arab states would be willing at least to discuss such readjustments at a peace conference table. It seems to me also that any state which would refuse to discuss peace at such a conference table-and on some such basis of principles as that outlined above, although sketchily-would be taking on a very heavy responsibility indeed. I share, however, the optimism of the Secretary General of the United Nations, who is now visiting this area on a mission of conciliation and peace, that such an uncompromising attitude will not be adopted by anyone and that a settlement based on justice and security will be found. Please God it may be so and that this tense and torn area, the Holy Land of so many millions, may become again a land of prosperity and of peace.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the reading of this statement this morning by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has served principally to expose the fumbling and floundering way in which the government has handled this issue since it arose in this house. It is not without significance that while this statement was being read by the minister ten officials of his department were reading the same statement in the gallery. I presume they have all had a part in preparing it. One naturally asks this question. With a battery of competent assistants like that why could this statement not have been prepared and submitted long ago? Indeed, since this issue first rose to the point of being a matter of discussion and interest in the house, the attitude of the government and its handling
The Address-Mr. Fleming of the issue have been characterized by evasion, want of candour, ineptitude and incompetence or a mixture of all four.
This is the 24th day of January, Mr. Speaker. It was on the 11th day of January, may I remind you-13 days ago-that this question was first raised in the house. It was at that time that the same hon. gentleman from whom we have just received this statement this morning said this as reported at page 9 of Hansard:
... I believe X can say at once that I know of no shipments of Canadian aircraft to Egypt or of any orders for such shipments.
That statement, of course, is completely at odds with the information that he has now disclosed to the house. He says he did not know at that time. However, he has told us this morning that this matter was before the cabinet at the end of the summer, that it went through various departments and that the permit was issued in the first week of September. Why the minister did not know what was going on in a matter as delicate as this, namely the shipment of arms to an area of the world that he has correctly described as one in which a sensitive situation exists, will remain a question to be answered, because it has not yet been answered.
I would ask you to look at the whole record of contradictions and evasions in the period of 13 days. If hon members opposite think that they have heard a comprehensive statement this morning, let every one of them be fair enough and honest enough to ask himself this question. If the matter is so clear, so simple and so forthright, why could it not have been delivered to the house many days ago? If it is simple, if it is comprehensive, all the more is emphasis given to the contempt that this government has shown in withholding this information from the house and in not withdrawing earlier contradictory and misleading statements.
I have pointed to that statement made just 13 days ago, Mr. Speaker. It has taken a long time to correct that one. It will not be forgotten that, on the following day when the question was renewed in the house, the inquiry was met with evasion on the part of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
It will not be forgotten either, sir, that the question was raised again on January 16 by my colleague the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes), when he turned to another minister, this time the silent Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney), and asked of him what shipments of military equipment were being sent over the weekend on the Star of Assuan, and the destination thereof. The Minister of National Defence
470	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming made the bland reply that he had no knowledge of the matter. So far, Mr. Speaker, from the Prime Minister, from the Secretary of State for External Affairs and from the Minister of National Defence we have a sum total of no knowledge of the matter. This was five days after the issue had been raised.
Then, we move forward to the following day, January 17. Here now we are told, this time by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that approval had been given last summer for the sale and shipment of 15 reconditioned Harvard training aircraft of world war II vintage. He added that these, of course, were not combat aircraft. Then, when further discussion followed, the Secretary of State for External Affairs made this statement as recorded on page 184 of Hansard for January 17, 1956:
-I do not know how you could put a gun mounting on a Harvard training aircraft.
As he made that statement, the Minister of National Defence was sitting beside him in the very next chair but did not open his mouth. He simply turned his favourite ear to his colleague.
On the following day, January 18, now a full week after the issue had first been raised in the house, we had from the government a statement that no consideration had been given to the question of cancelling the export permit for the shipment of these training planes to Egypt. There was a statement also from the government that they knew of no reason for reconsidering the matter or believing that the permit should be cancelled.
Then again, on January 19, we have the Secretary of State for External Affairs coming forward with a limited form of correction. It was a very half-hearted form of correction of a misstatement given to this house which should have been corrected at the time it was given. It should have been corrected by his colleague the Minister of National Defence. When it was readverted to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs one would have thought that if the attitude of the minister towards parliament was a correct one, his remarks would have been attended by some form of apology for the misleading statement he had made on January 17. But, of course, ministers opposite do not apologize. They simply lay down the party line. They heed the demand of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that from now on Liberals shall toe the line whether they are in this house or in the other place.
IMr. Fleming.]

On the 19th we have this very limited form of correction by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who says on page 277 of Hansard for that date:
I am quite ready to amend and amplify the answer which I gave on this point . . .
He says:
I said X did not believe this could be done.
He was referring to the fact that gun mountings could be put on Harvard training aircraft.
Apparently it can be done.
He was well aware by that time that photographs had been issued by the Department of National Defence showing Harvard training aircraft with guns mounted on them. Is that not an amazingly generous statement from a minister of this haughty and autocratic government? He says: "Apparently it can be done." Such unwonted generosity is enough to overcome one.
Now, we move forward to January 20. Here the matter is raised in challenging form by my leader who set before the house a motion to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely the need for a definite government policy regarding the shipment from Canada to foreign countries of arms, military equipment and ammunition and the effective supervision thereof. God bless the Leader of the Opposition for putting this issue forward in such terms that it could no longer be evaded by a government which has been looking for every avenue of escape, every opportunity of evasion.


Mr. MacDougall:: The Lord will have to do more than bless him: He will have to vote for him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May He help you, because you are badly in need of it. From the discussion that day, sir, there emerged an undertaking on the part of the Prime Minister which will be found at page 344 of Hansard for January 20, 1956, when he said:
. . . there will be no shipments for that area-
He mentioned the Middle East, but I think it should have included the Near East too, because indications had been given there might be shipments to that area. Then even the Prime Minister, after giving what appeared to be the first clear-cut statement on the matter and at least an undertaking to the house, had to come forward yesterday and, in keeping with the handling of this matter by the government right from the start, somewhat qualify the undertaking he had given to the house on January 20.
One matter remained crystal clear from the statement of the Prime Minister on January

20. It has not been withdrawn yet nor has it been the subject of one of those corrective statements, and that is that in matters of this kind the decision is reached at the cabinet level. In his statement this morning the Secretary of State for External Affairs has emphasized that. He has made the unqualified statement that with respect to the contract to sell these 15 Harvard aircraft to Egypt, of which three have been shipped and
12	remain to be shipped, the decision to sell those aircraft to Egypt was reached at the cabinet level. Let no hon. member opposite overlook that fact. This has been done by a decision at the cabinet level

yes, and it was done five months ago according to the record.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Seven months.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There, you see; you have more of it. It is not enough, sir, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs contradicts himself about four times in the last
13	days, but our old friend-I am sorry, our friend-the Minister of Trade and Commerce has to step into this. He just cannot keep out of anything where there is confusion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The date was July 7.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Confusion is not enough. He has to get into it and add to the confusion. Now, this morning the Secretary of State for External Affairs said


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has accused me of inaccuracy and I was just trying to prevent him from an inaccuracy. The date of the order in council was July 7, 1955.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then that makes six months and four days until the secretary of state made his first misleading statement in the house within the hearing of the right hon. gentleman who has just interrupted. Why did he not rise and correct the Secretary of State for External Affairs before that hon. gentleman put himself in the foolish position in which he just put himself?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I just rose to correct the hon. member who is speaking, but he has not thanked me as yet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the Minister of Trade and Commerce does or says the first thing for which I ought to thank him, Mr. Speaker, then I certainly shall thank him; but that has not happened as yet, sir. The statement the Secretary of State for External Affairs made this morning, the one to which I was directing the attention of the house, was that the permit had been issued in the first week of September.
The Address-Mr. Fleming


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right, but the order in council was passed on July 7. He told you that, but you were not listening. You were thinking of your own speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The house was sitting at the time and the Secretary of State for External Affairs was here. The permit was issued, as we were told this morning, in the first week of September.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the great issue of the Conservative party for this session, I assume, 15 training aircraft.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will tell you there is another one, and that is the way in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce tries to reduce every Liberal member opposite to the rank of a cypher by telling him to toe the line. It will be so until the end of time as long as the Minister of Trade and Commerce is where he is. We have seen evidence in abundance so far of the haughty, autocratic attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce towards parliament, with which he has infected his colleagues. The leopard cannot change his spots.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member is funnier now than I was the other night.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not see how I could be. I will say this, I have not made any serious effort to compete with the Minister of Trade and Commerce in trying to be funny. I would not enter into any competition with him in cracking the whip over the heads of innocent members of the house.
Now, sir, how are cabinet decisions reached? I have always observed, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce leaves when he does not like things that are being said in the house. It will not be forgotten by hon. members that he frequently found it necessary to leave the house in the midst of an historic debate last June and July when Her Majesty's loyal opposition won the day for parliament and for freedom. And so, the Minister of Trade and Commerce having now withdrawn his presence from the house at the moment, perhaps it will be evidence to hon. gentlemen opposite who may have any lingering doubts in their minds at this time that the house can get on without him.
Now, sir, is it possible that decisions are reached on very delicate matters, matters of high importance, by general admission at the cabinet level, without members of the cabinet knowing about them? That seems to be an issue that is raised here. We are told that a decision was reached by the cabinet. At least, I presume that is what is meant when

The Address-Mr. Fleming [DOT]they say it is taken at the cabinet level, unless it is a matter of decision perhaps on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce exercising some of his powers under the Defence Production Act. Perhaps that is regarded by the government as reaching decisions at the cabinet level; but in the untutored minds of the others of us it could, I think, be taken to mean that decision was reached by the cabinet. And yet, it appeared that no one member of the cabinet, when this important issue was raised in the house in January, 1956, knew anything about it, not one of them. On the contrary, we are faced with this concatenation of contradictions, flounderings and evasions; confusion thrice confounded. That has been the record of this government. That is the record of men who, we are told, dealt personally with this shipment of airplanes six months ago.
Well, sir, it takes more than the at times flippant way in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs dealt with the subject this morning to put the record right and to restore a proper relationship between the government opposite and parliament.
When it comes to the policy, I think I may fairly say that in my view the policy which ought to guide Canada is this. First of all, we must all recognize the grave danger to peace that exists in this area of the world that we have been discussing, and particularly along the border between Israel, Egypt and Syria. It is indeed a sensitive area; and any responsible policy with regard to this situation must be based, in the first instance, upon the recognition of the gravity of the situation there.
Second, it must take account of the fact that we have friendly relations with both sides, and that the paramount interest of the rest of the world, ourselves included, must be the preservation of peace, because it would be a bold man indeed who would say that if open warfare broke out in that part of the world, it could be confined to the local area.
The third factor in this situation, sir, and the one which this government has characteristically, systematically and deliberately left )ut of its calculations is that parliament must iecide. It is a matter for parliamentary lecision; it is a matter on which parliament s entitled to all relevant and proper informa-ion. It is not something to be decided on he basis of denial to parliament of essential nformation, or on the basis of telling par-iament in effect that it is more the concern >f the government than it is that of the iected representatives of the people in >arliament.
Every Canadian has a stake in world peace, md the extent to which that grave situation
fMr. Fleming.]
in that part of the world constitutes or contains a threat to the peace of the world, every Canadian from the Atlantic to the Pacific has a stake in that situation and a deep concern over it. It is in parliament that matters of this kind must be decided; it is in parliament that decisions must be taken with regard to the proper policies to be followed in these matters; and this government has lamentably failed in its duty to parliament on this issue.
And, sir, so much contradiction has so far bestrewn the record of government statements on this matter, in the period of the thirteen days since it was first raised in the house, that it must shake the confidence of any member in the house in regard to any statements on the matter that now come from the government. Sir, it seems to me, in the face of the statements and misstatements that we have listened to in the past thirteen days, and in the face of the evasion of the government of searching questions on this point, that before we are through this issue ought to be referred to a committee of this house so that there will be an opportunity to probe into the facts first hand, to bring officials concerned before such a committee and question them as to the facts.
Sir, I believe it is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, prior to the adjournment I had been discussing the government statement concerning the shipment of arms abroad. I point out that this whole issue in this house arose out of a shipment of airplanes to Egypt. It should be seen in that light and in that light alone. It is no secret that arms have been shipped abroad by Canada in recent years not simply to her NATO partners but also to countries in the very area of the globe where the troubles do now most seriously threaten. Indeed one has only to look at the publications of the Department of Trade and Commerce that are available to hon. members and to the public to see what is the value of arms shipped to Israel, to Egypt and to other countries in this troubled area in recent years. There is no surprise about that. No question was raised in regard to the shipment of arms to Israel. The Secretary of State for External Affairs this morning sought to throw out a challenge in that respect to hon. members of this house to declare whether they were advocating a complete cessation of shipment

of arms or military equipment to Israel. I wish to make it quite clear that this question does not arise and is not raised in this debate. It is rather an issue as to government incompetence and blundering and as to the rights of parliament to be treated as a parliament.
When the house heard me making some passing comments upon the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the blunders which it exposed, I am sure the house observed that I exercised restraint out of deference to my old professor. Regardless of whether or not the professors of one's student days are old in years, when one looks back on one's student days one invariably refers to one's professors of those days as old professors. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was my professor in history 33 years ago and I can only say that his knowledge of ancient history is much more accurate than his knowledge of recent history on the strength of his showing here today.
I just wished to make that comment by way of explaining the very evident restraint under which I spoke today. It was out of the deference that a former student naturally pays to his former professor; and in his charitable approach to these questions-I am speaking now for myself-he is bound to ascribe the errors into which his old professor has fallen to the fact that apparently the professor has been keeping bad political company in recent years.
In the limited time that remains I have several other matters upon which I should like to touch, although I am afraid I cannot touch on them more than briefly in view of the limitations of time. I have, first of all, a word on the subject of radio broadcasting and television.
At the end of July the government announced in this house that a royal commission was to be appointed to inquire into the whole question of the control of radio broadcasting and television in Canada. The government took another long time to announce the appointment of the commission. The announcement came about the first of December. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce were here-and we note that he has again taken his departure-we would have occasion perhaps to comment on the fact that six months seems to be the time within which the government forgets about the things it has done or promised to do.
Apparently the government nearly forgot about the appointment of the royal commission until the very end of the year, almost on the eve of the opening of the session of parliament. They finally got around to
The Address-Mr. Fleming appointing a royal commission and I have no criticism, at this stage at any rate, of the men whom they have selected for that commission; but I do wish to say that I deplore the decision of that commission not to open its hearings until the first of April. This whole question is an urgent one. The government dilly-dallied with it far too long. We were pressing for an inquiry of this kind a year ago. The Prime Minister gave some indication that he was considering it at that time but the government went on dillydallying in a manner that is so familiar to this house, and now this commission has announced that it is not going to commence its hearings prior to the first of April.
I regret that very much because it means, of course, that debate on the subject is going to be hampered during the course of this session and it is quite evident that we cannot expect the report of the royal commission to be available at the present session. If the government is contemplating an election this year this would neatly serve its purposes. I do not suggest that the commission has deliberately been a party to meeting the government's exigencies in this matter, but it is unfortunate that the delay in the opening of the sittings is going to create that benefit for the government in trying to cover up the short-comings of its policies in that respect and this tremendous burden of cost under which virtually the whole policy In regard to television is breaking down today.
I have time to make only one comment on the matter of political telecasting. It is evident from the speech the Prime Minister made in this house two weeks ago that he personally has had a good deal to do with delaying political telecasting in this country. It suits the interests of the government to keep political telecasting from the people because, of course, government ministers are frequently called upon to broadcast over television. When we raised this question in the radio committee last spring we were told, of course, that when these ministers are telecasting they are making statements of general interest to the country, as though no member of the opposition was ever to be called upon to make comments before a television audience on similar matters.
The reason the government has been delaying any sensible attempt to make political telecasting available to the Canadian people is quite evident; they have the advantage now, they are exploiting that advantage, they want to continue to claim that advantage, and to play the dog in the manger. This cannot be held up any longer. It is about time the government grew up in this respect and realized that other countries have political telecasting. There is no
474	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming reason why Canada cannot have it on the basis of a fair division of time among political parties. Moreover, we do not propose to submit to any form of government censorship in that respect, as was proposed by the representative of the Liberal .party who attended the recent meeting of political parties with officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to discuss this subject.
I have just one comment to make on one matter that was raised by the hon. member who moved the address. It is in regard to the appointment of a woman to the civil service commission. For my part I support and advocate the appointment of a woman to fill the present vacancy on the civil service commission, as I think I was the first member in this house to advocate some years ago the appointment of a woman to the board of directors of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I should like to say now I entirely support the proposal to appoint a woman to that commission. There are capable and competent women available for the appointment.
I have just one or two observations to make to the Minister of Finance. I realize that perhaps by the time this subject is next discussed his proposals may already have been introduced to the house, but in framing his budget proposals I hope he will not overlook three things that have been overlooked in the past and which are now crying for immediate remedy. The first is that the limitation upon the policy and the legislation of making grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes, where the federally-owned property exceeds 2 per cent of the total assessment roll of the municipality, ought to be widened. Those provisions should be widened so that grants will be made to municipalities out of the federal treasury equivalent to taxes on all federally-owned property in municipalities. These municipalities are suffering today very greatly from an urgent need of revenue. They are obliged to provide services for these properties and the provision of such services is not confined to municipalities where the federally-owned property happens to exceed 2 per cent of the total assessment roll.
The second point is that the federal sales and excise taxes on goods purchased by municipal bodies, whether municipal councils or school boards or boards of education, should be eliminated. We have advocated this for years, and the time has come for action.
The third point to which I hope the Minister of Finance will give effect in writing his budget proposals is that the present exemptions from income tax, $1,000 for single persons and $2,000 for married persons, are entirely inadequate and should be increased.


If the Minister of Finance is not prepared to go as far as Conservative policy advocates in this respect, namely $1,500 for single persons and $3,000 for married persons without dependents, then at least we hope he will take a generous step in that direction.
There is one other matter quite unrelated to what I have been discussing with which I should like to deal. In view of recent events I think it should be commented upon. I refer to the succession of crimes committed upon young girls in a number of Canadian cities. This has been mentioned by several hon. members previously in this debate. The expression "sex deviate" is I think too euphonious to apply to the kind of people we are speaking of. I do not share in the inclination to speak of these people as though they were just sick, as though they were well-meaning people who could not be held to be responsible for the results of their criminal acts. I think we will be taking a more realistic approach to this problem, for problem it is, if we call these people by their true names, criminals, rapists, murderers, brutal inhuman monsters.
In London, Hamilton, Toronto and other cities there has of late been a shocking succession of crimes of this kind. The public is aroused today as it rarely has been. It is a great pity that the report of the royal commission which is studying this question or some aspects of it is not now available. Let us hope that it will be available early enough during the course of this session so that whatever legislation may be intended to arise out of that report may be brought into effect at this session.
Part of the trouble of course is inadequate enforcement of existing laws and inadequate police forces to cope with crimes of this kind which are usually practised by stealth. I think the unhappy and sordid experience has pointed to the need of strengthening the law in relation to the protection of society. That points in the direction of detention. When I speak of detention I do not mean just to pat these criminals on the head and tell them to be good boys. The warning I should like to give is a warning against a soft approach in dealing with this problem. We are not dealing with soft people, we are dealing with monsters and murderers.
I had wished to say something today concerning our trade but I fear that that must wait for another occasion.
I wish to close these remarks by directing some observations to hon. gentlemen opposite who in the last analysis by their attitudes at this session will determine whether there is or is not to be a change in attitude on the part of the government. Let me say to them that the attitude of the government toward

parliament which was manifested last summer in the debate on the defence production bill is evident again. There is no indication as yet that this government has learned the sound and salutary lesson which it ought to have learned from that experience of last summer. Apparently we are just back where we were before with the government determined to have its own imperious way regardless of parliament. We, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, must continue to fight for parliament's rights and to defend those freedoms of the people which are inherent in parliament and in a proper relationship between parliament and the government. Make no mistake about it, if that battle has to be waged we are here to wage it. But it rests with hon. gentlemen opposite, the private members supporting this government, to decide whether there is going to be a continuance of that haughty and overbearing attitude toward parliament.
There have been certain developments in this house since the conclusion of that historic and momentous debate last July. At that time there happened to be at least two Liberal members of this house who were independent in their approach and who over the years stood firmly on their feet and even on occasion did not hesitate to be critical of a course of action taken by the government. But those two hon. members are no longer with us. I refer to the former member for Spadina and the former member for Temiscouata. Whatever there was in the Liberal ranks by way of independence as represented by the attitude of those two hon. members has now been removed from the Liberal membership in this house.
We do not hear an independent voice of any Liberal in this house any more. The member for Spadina, to whom I referred, has been succeeded by a Conservative member, and properly so. The former member for Temiscouata, with his original and independent approach to questions, has been succeeded by an hon. gentleman who while vocal enough during his campaign has since proclaimed that he will be mute in this session and has imposed upon himself a self-denying ordinance of vocal asceticism.
I can only say to that hon. gentleman at the outset of his parliamentary career, and I do so in good part, that he should carry on the tradition of Temiscouata, the tradition of independence, the tradition of a member who stands up and does not forbear to be critical of the government and its errors. An example
The Address-Mr. Bertrand has been left by the hon. gentleman who preceded the hon. member and who made the name of that riding famous in this house and throughout the country. He did not make that name famous by being a mere sycophant of the government, and I commend his example to his successor.
In the amendment introduced toy my leader we have complained of a lack of leadership on the part of the government, of its indifference and its inertia. We see in this government a complete unwillingness to face up to problems. The problems are there and every member of the house but the government knows of them. Hon, members from the prairies representing the government, like the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) for instance, know what kind of a wheat problem there is today and how it jeopardizes the whole economy, not only that of the west but of all Canada.
We wish to hear these voices of Liberals from western Canada. We have heard very few of them so far. They are voices that ought to be heard, and in the absence of leadership on the part of the government I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is about time for some of the backbenchers opposite to be heard to draw to the attention of the government the existence of these problems. The government has no solution. The government has ceased to think, but the denial of solutions will not cure the problems. The problems are there. We demand action.
(Translation):


Mr. Lionel Bertrand (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be long in my remarks but I thought I had to call the attention of the government during this debate to a situation existing in my county and which concerns more particularly the rubberized fabric footwear industry. I believe that it is here in the house that members of parliament should, with as much sincerity in their words as loyalty towards their constituents, voice the representations which have been made to them and deserve to be brought to the attention of those who run the country.
In these last 16 years I have never been reluctant to speak in this house on behalf of the people of Terrebonne county who, four times, have shown me not only their usual unflagging friendship but also increasing confidence. I have never been reluctant either to speak in this house for any group that might think itself aggrieved by the laws of this country and, with a courtesy I want to mention here, would come to me with its representations.
476	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bertrand
At this time it is the officers of the Dominion Rubber Company, in St. Jerome, the employees of that plant and the labour organizations of that city who request my support in order that the Canadian rubberized fabric footwear industry be not jeopardized any further by the importation of the same kind of footwear made in Hong Kong, and particularly in Japan, and which are being dumped in large quantities on our Canadian market.
I believe there are in Canada seven companies directly concerned with the manufacture of rubberized fabric footwear. They are B. F. Goodrich Canada Limited, in Kitchener, Ontario; British Rubber Co. Limited, in Lachine; Acton Rubber Limited, at Acton Vale; Kaufman Rubber Co., in Kitchener; Miner Rubber Company Limited, in Granby; United Rubber Limited, in Toronto and Dominion Rubber Co. Limited, in Montreal. This last named company operates a very large plant in St. Jerome, in the county I represent.
These companies, I take it, manufacture leather footwear, tires and other products, but all manufacture canvas footwear and rubber footwear, rubber being a basic product they have to use in various ways. However, I understand that the manufacture of canvas and rubberized fabric footwear, becomes, though in varying degree, an indispensable factor in their general progress.
I know that in my constituency, at St. Jerome, there is an extensive production of rubber soled canvas footwear and of waterproof rubberized footwear, including overshoes.
I am told that, in the field of rubberized fabric footwear, the Canadian production which, in 1947, was 24 million pairs, had gone down to 12 million pairs in 1954. I am also told that whereas the pre-war export figure of rubberized fabric footwear was six million pairs, the corresponding figure in 1954 was only 92,000 pairs, including a high proportion of special types.
It is not my intention to enter into a lengthy enumeration of figures and statistics; the government knows about them. But I do wish to dwell for a moment on the reasons for this state of affairs. Canadian production of canvas and rubberized fabric footwear has decreased significantly. Production for export, in fact, has gone down so much that, right now, it is practically non-existent. The explanation, it would seem, is that our Canadian products must face the unbearable competi-

tion of similar products manufactured in India, the United Kingdom and mainly Hong Kong, products which have access to our markets, under trade treaties. This situation will become even more desperate since Japan, which now has a trade treaty with this country, is also flooding our markets with canvas and rubberized fabric footwear, Japan has always been and is still recognized as a major producer of that commodity.
A few years ago our Canadian firms could serve the domestic market and also produce millions of pairs for export. Now not only have they lost their export market but they are also in the process of losing their domestic market too. Imports into this country of canvas and rubberized fabric footwear are constantly on the increase. These products, which are manufactured by extremely cheap labour can be sold in this country, with all taxes paid, at a price far below the very lowest manufacturing costs of the same product in Canada. Here are some figures which have been provided by the federal bureau of statistics. In October 1955, 211,903 pairs of canvas footwear entered the Canadian market as against 4,568 pairs in 1954. In October 1955, 163,593 pairs of waterproof rubberized fabric footwear entered this country, as against 89,981 in 1954.
I gather from these few figures that the rubberized footwear industry in Canada is at a low ebb. On June 22 last, their representatives officially presented the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) with a brief during an interview at which I had the privilege to be present. Later on, a committee consisting of the representatives of the departments, companies and trade unions concerned, was set up to review the situation. And all I could personally find out is that the Dominion Rubber plant, at St. Jerome, is no longer operating at capacity, the number of workers that used to be employed in that plant has been substantially reduced, and that the people are deeply concerned about it.
The Canadian rubberized fabric footwear industry has requested an embargo on those products. My information is that the government could not grant this request for the only reason that Canada, having signed treaties with the countries referred to, has to take the products that those countries manufacture if it wants to sell them products that they lack. Now, in those countries I am referring to, the manufacture of canvas or rubberized fabric footwear represents a prosperous industry,

and Canada seems to be forced to take their products, even though by so doing it prejudices and paralyzes production in the Canadian industries concerned with the manufacture of similar products. That, I believe, is the reply given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). In his opinion, he must first consider the general economy of the country and Canada must keep its rank in international trade. I know that if we trade with someone the advantages cannot all be on the same side and that concessions, which sometimes hurt, must be made. If I am not mistaken, the volume of goods we sell to these countries greatly exceeds that of the goods we buy from them. That deserves consideration, which proves, Mr. Speaker, that it is not always easy to govern a country like Canada.
It remains, however, that Canadian industries are seriously prejudiced in their production by the treaties we sign. Let us suppose for a moment that the government, for the most legitimate reasons under the circumstances, could not prohibit the importation of foreign goods into Canada. Could it not, however, by revising its trade treaties, set a maximum quantity on canvas rubberized fabric footwear admitted into Canada? At present, our companies are faced with the constant threat of imports increasing even more from month to month and they are appalled at the prospect of an industry going to ruin, an industry built up at the cost of great sacrifices and on which so many other fields of economic activity are dependent.
If the government did set a quota on the volume of canvas or rubberized fabric footwear that foreign countries could ship to us, Canadian companies could at least know the eventual extent of the competition and then take steps to face it, either by means of publicity, or by new methods of production, or by manufacturing new and more attractive types. At present they are loathe to adopt a definite stand. They simply see the fruit of long years of labour crumbling before a situation they have to accept, that is forced upon them. Under the circumstances, it is impossible for them to face competition. Shoes from Hong Kong and Japan, which are of good quality, I am told, are sold, however, at much lower prices, for the simple reason that salaries paid in industries in Hong Kong and Japan are ridiculously low. I am assured that the salary of a woman represents 6
The Address-Mr. Bertrand cents an hour and that the man earning 15 cents an hour must have an exceptional yield. At the same time, it is quite obvious, the average salary paid in our footwear industries amounts to $1.45 an hour. There is also a matter of employment. I understand that at present employment in this country reaches an unprecedented high but, nonetheless, some cities must not be deprived of their share of national prosperity. In St. Jerome, several hundred workers, employed for years by the Dominion Rubber Company, do not work at their regular jobs because the factory no longer manufactures for export and is slowed down to the level of the local market which is already saturated with imported products.
In my opinion, the government could do something. It is not so much the case of the Dominion Rubber Company that I am pleading at this time as that of the working class of my constituency. I am not much of an economist, but I dare say that, if the government has to stick to its decision and, first and foremost, consider the economy of this country as a whole; if, in order to ensure a still more marked advance in other and perhaps more elaborate fields of our national economy, the government necessarily has to jeopardize existing Canadian industries, it should also, to my mind, adopt certain legislation to compensate the losses sustained by these industries because of government decisions.
We are paying subsidies for wheat; I am not opposed to this, for it is an important phase of our economic life. We are devoting large sums of money to the support of agricultural products; I don't object, for agriculture is the wealth of a nation. I am aware that it is not a matter of compensating the losses of private companies by means of a subsidy, but I wonder whether the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) could not, in all cases where Canadian industries are in any way prejudiced because of our laws, give them a priority with regard to the numerous contracts his department is placing every year, and which, I think, these industries could easily accept without much retooling. It seems to me that this would be only fair. What I am primarily aiming at is to have in my county, as well as everywhere else, an abundance of remunerative employment. The government confers contracts by the million every year. Would it not be possible to direct some of these contracts towards
478	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dufresne industries like the canvas or rubberized fabric footwear factories, and those that are or could be some day equally affected as a result of our trade?
I am making these few suggestions with the best intent. I submit them because I believe them to be appropriate. I put them forward because I think that, in so doing, I am advocating a just cause. Some tariff barriers, the raising of customs or excise duties, the imposition of quotas or compensation; these are suggestions that do not all deserve to fall on stony ground.
Just a last word, Mr. Speaker. At a time when discussions between the central power and the provinces are being held with regard to the adoption of a national health insurance scheme, I must say this: the people of the county of Terrebonne favour such legislation. Our social security program will only be complete when legislation of this kind is incorporated in the statute books. In this century of speed, every Canadian must be sheltered from insecurity. I wish that, out of this meeting will spring, for the good of all, other social security legislation that Canadians are expecting and that it would be fitting for the government to apply as soon as possible.
(Text):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, may I first be permitted to associate myself with all those who have already expressed their admiration for the man who always presides with so much dignity, tact, competence and fairness over the debates in this honourable house. I should also like to congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
You will undoubtedly note, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to my usual practice I am now expressing myself in the language spoken by the majority. I am doing so-and I have decided with pleasure to make my whole speech today in the language of Shakespeare -in order to show my admiration for the hon. members on both sides of the house who, since the opening of the present session, have quite successfully made a magnificent effort to use my mother tongue for a few minutes during their speeches. I congratulate them and thank them. I rejoice at the ever-increasing number of those who speak the two official languages of our country. Their noble gesture is a consecration of the well-EMr. Bertrand.]

established principle that Canada is a bilingual country. May their example inspire all Canadians, particularly those who are at the head of the various departments of the federal administration. Unfortunately, many of them seem to ignore completely the principle of bilingualism.
I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to salute the electors of the constituency of Quebec West whom I have the honour of representing in this house and to assure them once again of my most faithful devotion. May I be permitted to say to my electors, and more particularly to those of the labour classes who form the great majority, that for them I shall not cease to ask all they need not only to ensure their existence but to make them feel that they are on the same level with the other classes of society. This leads me to ask the government to give special attention to the alarming unemployment problem which still prevails this winter in my constituency and also in the whole city of Quebec. Even though the federal statistics proclaim an improvement in the employment situation, the fact remains that the situation is just as serious this winter as it was last year. The statistics published are far from representative of the true situation. They merely indicate the number of those who receive unemployment insurance benefits and forget to mention those who, by the nature of their work, are not eligible to receive such benefits but who are unemployed nevertheless.
Furthermore, there are those who do not possess a sufficient number of stamps to entitle them to collect any benefits. What of those who have already used up all the benefits to which they were entitled and no longer receive any? They are not included in these statistics. Last but not least, we find a great number of unemployed persons whose rightful demands have been rejected because of this interpretation of the law by an allpowerful bureaucracy. It is only by adding up all these unemployed persons that a true picture of the unemployment situation is given. This is something the government is not interested in making public in order to conceal its own incompetency in finding a solution to the problem. I shall return to this subject in a few moments.
Until the situation improves, would it not be possible to undertake more public works as they are the only truly efficient remedy?

I have often requested public works of a nature that might be helpful to the unemployed, works which would improve the lot of the working people and would also provide improvement in the field of public health to the benefit of my fellow citizens. The St. Charles and Lairet rivers which cross my city did not improve during the past year and continue to threaten public health. These two open dumps, which are a local and national disgrace, still continue during the summer months to spread foul and dangerous odours over the city of Quebec. Incidentally the extremely hot summer we had last year contributed to imposing upon our people a torture that they alone can describe.
When will the government decide to take some action? When will the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), as the member for Quebec East, give some thought to his poor electors who are considered as real orphans without any representation in the parliament of Canada? I ask the government and more particularly the Prime Minister to have, if not affection for those he is supposed to represent, at least a little sympathy. The people of Quebec pay their taxes to their government and I believe they are entitled to a little more consideration. I repeat what I stated in Quebec on October 25 last when reporting on my mandate. I have no objection to protecting the health and life of those who live thousands and thousands of miles from our country. However, if the government refuses to apply to the letter the proverb that charity begins at home, then I think it is only logical we should demand that they should begin protecting the health and life of those who daily contribute their work, their labour and their taxes to the greatness and prosperity of Canada.
If instead of spending the summer at St. Patrice de Riviere-du-Loup, 120 miles from Quebec city, which is situated on the enchanting shores of the river that bears his name, the Prime Minister had decided to build a summer home on the shores of the Lairet river, he would have soon freed his constituency from the foul smell which, like his electors and mine, he would have been compelled to breathe. The Prime Minister behaves, therefore, perhaps not with wisdom but at least with caution by staying 120 miles from his constituency during the summer, since this is the best way to remain in good health.
As for the electors of Quebec East, those poor orphans who never see their member except in the newspapers, they are far less important. They continue to be poisoned little by little through contact with these rivers. Nevertheless they have the satisfaction, if I may call it that, of saying that they
The Address-Mr. Dujresne are represented in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister of Canada.
I would venture a suggestion to the Prime Minister in this connection. If his government does not want to undertake this work, if it prefers to throw federal responsibilities on the shoulders of the provincial government, why does it not grant the city of Quebec an annual subsidy which would allow the municipality to undertake the work? This subsidy would be a logical compensation for property taxes the government does not pay on its many buildings and sites. If this were done, the federal government would be following the generous example set by the government of my province which has granted the city of Quebec a subsidy of $1 million to help solve its administrative problems. Just two years ago the provincial government granted a quarter of a million dollars for the same purpose. If the Prime Minister could accept that suggestion, which would be beneficial to Quebec, and would specify as the purpose of the grant the deepening of the St. Charles river and the reclamation of the Lairet river, I would be the first to congratulate him in the name of those who, for too many years, have had to put up with these dumps.
Another means of helping the working class and of fulfilling in some way the needs of these larger families would be to increase family allowances, even doubling them if possible, because the cost of living has more than doubled since the enactment of that social legislation. There is not a single government, not a single industry, that has not substantially increased the salaries of its employees since 1945. Even the indemnity of the representatives of the people has been doubled under the pretext that the cost of living has risen in that proportion. How could one argue today, Mr. Speaker, that family allowances fulfil the aims for which they were established when one knows that the 1945 dollar has lost more than 50 per cent of its value? I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to discuss this important matter with his colleagues in the cabinet and bring forth the necessary remedy at this session.
While I am on the subject of social security, may I be permitted to ask the minister to amend, with the least possible delay and make more generous the legislation enacted at the last session to help disabled people. It should extend to all those who, at birth or later in life, are affected by a disability or disease which prevents them from earning their living. As it stands, the act helps only a few and I am under the impression that the cost of administration is as high as the cost of the pensions.

The Address-Mr. Dufresne
I wish to thank the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) for having agreed, after numerous protests it is true, to postpone the implementation of the rule which prevented stevedores and seamen who operate on the St. Lawrence and the great lakes from drawing their unemployment benefits during the winter. This rule was the work of bureaucracy and a blatant injustice to these seasonal workers. If these people cannot engage in their regular occupation during the winter, it is not through an act of chance but through an act of God. If they did not get these benefits to which their numerous contributions entitled them, I can tell the minister that the economic expansion of my city and my district would be seriously prejudiced.
Speaking of bureaucracy I should like to tell this same minister, if he does not know already, that the employees of the various unemployment insurance commission offices have a handbook that was drafted and distributed by the senior officials of the commission and which deals with the interpretation of the act passed by parliament at the last session. If I recall correctly, under the legislation enacted last year the amount of benefits was increased while the number of weeks during which an insured worker drew benefits was decreased. I want to tell the house that since the enactment of the new legislation the commission has paid much less than before. Through the intervention of bureaucracy and its interpretation of the act, I assert that at least 60 per cent of the claims submitted to the Quebec offices are rejected.
Thus, distress and difficulties are on the increase in our families. This, Mr. Speaker, through the complacency of the government in power, is still another encroachment of bureaucracy upon the supremacy of parliament. Legislation must be applied according to the spirit of the lawmaker and not sabotaged through the whims and fancies of bureaucrats whose influence is growing ever more dangerous to the prosperity of this country. I am not blaming in the least the minor officials, but I do blame those who in certain departments and commissions seem to have more authority than the minister himself and parliament. It is more than ever time to put a brake on the influence of a few overly ambitious bureaucrats and to return to the true democratic system; that is to the authority of the people's representatives responsible to those same people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on something which was the subject matter of a question I put a week ago to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), concerning the sale of butter to communist countries.
{Mr. Dufresne.]
Nobody in this house was opposed to the establishment of a support price for butter of 58 cents a pound. On the contrary, every member supported this measure on the ground that it safeguarded the dairy industry of this country. This industry is so important that it would be unwise to prejudice it in any way.
However, because of the inertia of the government and its excessive optimism, and because also of the incompetence and lack of foresight of those whose business it was to conserve our markets, we find ourselves in a deplorable position. We have had to keep in storage, regularly over the years, approximately 60 million pounds of butter, and this year over 80 million pounds.
The consumer must still pay between 63 and 65 cents a pound for this commodity, besides having to pay, through his taxes, the difference between the support price and the selling price; that is, about 25 cents a pound.
Production being far above domestic consumption, the government decided to sell its surpluses in the communist countries. If every pound of butter sold in those countries had corresponded to the price paid by the Canadian consumer, or, at least, to the price guaranteed the producer by the government, there would have been no protests such as those which have arisen in all parts of this country. But when one thinks that Canada is selling butter to communist countries at 37 cents a pound while the Canadian consumer pays at least 25 cents per pound more for the very same butter, I say that that is a policy of exploitation of public funds for the benefit of the most dangerous enemies of democracy. While Moscow continues to sell its satellites, at a good price, deadly weapons which might eventually be turned against us, the Canadian government is exploiting the labour of our farmers and the taxes of our fellow citizens by selling butter at bargain rates. That is going beyond the bounds of generosity. It is such as to bring upon us economic chaos and ruin.
Why should the Canadian people not benefit from this generosity? They are the ones who are constantly paying the shot. Why, for once, should they not at least have the satisfaction of paying for something for themselves?
I, therefore, object with all my energy to the money and work of the Canadian people being used to feed our most dangerous enemies, those who nurse the hope of crushing us in order to establish in Canada the policy of slavery and persecution so much in honour in these countries under the whip of the

Kremlin. If we do not put a stop to government extravagance, it will not be surprising to see before too long our surpluses of butter being shipped to red China, which the government is about to recognize.
A debate is to be held shortly on the recognition of communist China, a debate in which I will certainly take part, so I shall not deal any further with this matter today. Suffice it to say that this recognition by Canada would amount on our part to giving our agreement to slavery and our guilty approval to concentration camps and religious persecution. In a word, it would amount to voting in favour of banditry in its most heinous form.
Mr. Speaker, how can you expect the Canadian people not to look forward to an opportunity to pronounce its verdict on its administrators and by this verdict condemn their policies which are becoming increasingly disastrous for the future and security of Canada?
The Liberal party is panic-stricken in the face of failure of its administration and the fate it can expect at the next general election. They can amuse themselves on the other side of the house and take the situation lightly, but we feel more than ever before the indignation of a whole population, and in-digation which will manifest itself soon by the fall of the regime.
The Conservative party, to which I have the honour to belong, led by a man of vision and a great statesman, is making giant strides on the road to victory which will mean the liberation of the Canadian people from a party that was once great because of its leaders, but which is now being drawn rapidly into the valley of humiliation. Already we have significant signs of the defeat in store for that party. The last by-elections in the country have shown clearly that deliverance is not far away.
Confusion and discord are rife in the Liberal party, and the younger members would like the old guard to disappear, particularly those who have been in the cabinet twenty years and have come to look upon themselves as the dictators of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No names mentioned?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: No names mentioned.
I would like to make a short excursion into the different counties where by-elections were held not long ago and analyse, Mr. Speaker, the results which were encouraging to us and which should give food for thought to our friends to the right.
In Toronto-Spadina, a Liberal majority of nearly 9,000 some two years ago has been reversed and the citizens of that constituency 67509-31
The Address-Mr. Dufresne have elected a brilliant and devoted member who is sitting here, to my right, and who will make a generous and intelligent contribution to our party and to Canada. But there is an interesting fact to be noted. The Canadian communists, who had an official candidate, got nearly 5,000 votes, which means that when the communists do not have an official candidate in certain ridings they vote solidly for the Liberal party. As a matter of fact, that was the recommendation which Mr. Tim Buck himself made to them in 1945.
I leave the province of Ontario to go into New Brunswick, into the constituency of Restigouche-Madawaska where a Liberal stronghold was demolished and became a Conservative fortress. The new and dynamic member for that riding, a man with an engaging personality, did not wait long to show that he was a formidable parliamentarian, when he made known the needs of his large constituency and sharply criticized the Liberal government for its inertia and its indifference. And when he shouted, "We in New Brunswick are fed up with the Liberal government", he was voicing the feelings not only of his province but of all Canadians. I congratulate him on his election and on his firm stand, and I am very happy to have given him last September my small but very sincere support.
We have also had by-elections in the province of Quebec, and the constituencies of Quebec South, Bellechasse and St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville have had such sharp reductions in the enormous Liberal majorities of previous elections that these meagre results demonstrate clearly what will happen at the next general election. Yet these by-elections gave us the opportunity to add up the different kinds of Liberals whom we have and who will probably appear in many other counties. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we are now convinced that panic has seized the party, for it now consists of eight different kinds of followers. Let us count them and keep them in mind.
First of all, there are the official Liberals whom the masters of the party want to impose and whom the people reject. Then we find the self-imposed Liberals whom the party has to accept. There are others who are called collaborators. There are also the straight Liberals, the independent Liberals, the St. Laurent Liberals and Liberals-in-a-hurry; that is, socialists and communistic liberals or those who vote for the liberals when there is no official communist candidate.
At last we come to the future paradise on earth, right in the promised land, the county of counties where a spoiled child may obtain

The Address-Mr. Dufresne the only thing he has not got yet, a seat in parliament. I refer, of course, to Temiscouata. Many are the Liberal members who rejoiced at the victory of their new colleague and who are still trying to prove that it was a significant victory.
Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. Everything that could possibly be done in order to ensure the election of this "papa's son", as he calls himself, was done.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to believe that the hon. member is speaking in rather a light vein but on the other hand he knows that under our rules he should not use any expressions which will involve personalities, and when he refers to an hon. member he must preface his remarks by the words, "the hon. member for Temiscouata".


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Under the rules of the house, am I not entitled to read some of the statements made by the hon. member for Temiscouata at the time when he was only a candidate in the by-election?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member and myself should enter upon an argument in this regard.


An hon. Member:: Call him the hon.
member.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Practically every Liberal member in the province of Quebec, including the ministers, made an effort and even gave a speech in his support. Those who are generally silent in this house, and you know, Mr. Speaker, that the greater part are silent, suddenly found they were gifted speakers. This was necessary because the prestige of their leader was at stake. This powerful army of ministers, members and party workers-and perhaps I should add senators -should not, however, take the credit for this success. True, a week after the beginning of the Temiscouata campaign the candidate received a prepared text and was instructed not to depart from it. However, I am convinced that he himself had roused the sympathy andi the pity of the people by his former speeches. A Prime Minister's son is a rare thing, quite an attraction, and when he talks people swallow his words. They cannot but think he is a saviour and will, through his great influence, transform the poor county of Temiscouata into a heaven on earth.
It was delightful to hear him say, "My friends of Temiscouata, I am papa's son. Is this a bad thing for the people of Temiscouata? I am not only papa's son, but mamma's little cabbage. Is this not wonderful for Temiscouata county? For don't forget, mamma being the Prime Minister's wife, she has


to attend many official functions where she meets influential ministers. I am going to give you an illustration. Suppose I have not been able to see daddy at all during the day, I still can say to mamma: 'Mamma, you are going to a banquet tonight, and no doubt you will be sitting next to Mr. Howe-you know Mr. Howe, the Minister of Trade and Commerce-Mamma, would you be kind enough to say a good word to Mr. Howe on behalf of the people of Temiscouata?' The following day she might have dinner with Mr. Pearson,-you know Mr. Pearson, the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Well, I would say, 'Mamma, speak to Mr. Pearson about my Temiscouata people'. Is it bad for Temiscouata to be papa's son and mamma's little cabbage?" That is the end of the quotation. I understand now why the people of that constituency could not resist voting for him. Political pull-


Mr. Mallais:: May I ask a question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You may ask any questions you like when my time has expired.


An hon. Member:: You are afraid.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am not afraid of anyone.


An hon. Member:: Your time is nearly over.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am prepared to answer any questions when my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.
Political pull meant something when he said to his constituents, quite seriously: "I am the only one, besides my mother, who can see the Prime Minister early in the morning, when he is still in his pyjamas, to discuss with him a matter of concern for Temiscouata."
Was this not the same man who said at Riviere-Bleue on September 11, 1955, in order to prove his so-called importance: "I am the Gray Eminence of Louis St. Laurent, therefore he is not the one who governs, I am. Is it not better to have a candidate who governs the whole country?" And to all these declarations, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members who accompanied him applauded loud and long. So convinced did they become of these childish sayings that last Thursday the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault), in his speech on the address, made the following comment, and I quote from Hansard of that day at page 303:
During that by-election, which won him the right to represent one of the greatest counties in the province, the hon. member for Temiscouata has indeed shown uncommon leadership and thus proved himself worthy of the man whose name he so proudly bears.
What a man! What a leader!
The hon. member for Temiscouata should have warned the people of his constituency, however, when he was still a candidate that

he did not intend to take part in any debate in the house or state before his colleagues the needs of his county and that he was going to remain silent so that his remarks might not be construed as being papa's words. It is not the voice of papa which the constituents of Temiscouata want to hear in the defence of their interests but rather the voice of the man whom they have chosen to represent them. No, no, Mr. Speaker; if this is the latest 1956 edition of the Liberal party, then the succession proves disastrous. I appeal to the people of Canada and say that the time has come for a change.


An hon. Member:: What an appeal.


An hon. Member:: That appeal would not be heard.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Let us give the distinguished leader of the Conservative party an opportunity to show his real statesmanship, and under his enlightened leadership Canada will advance towards the fulfilment of her great destiny.


Lauréat Maltais: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Yes, go ahead.


Mr. Maltais:: From the statement of my hon. colleague that the customers in Quebec were required to pay 60 cents plus a subsidy which they were compelled to pay to make up the difference between 33 cents and 60 cents which amounted to 25 cents per pound, and seeing that he put a lot of emphasis on the fact that the people of Quebec-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I think I know what the question is and I will answer right away.


Auguste Maltais: Answer my question right away. Does the hon. member say that the taxpayer should not pay that subsidy, that he should refuse to pay it in the form of a tax? Does not the hon. member know of the party in France which preaches that the people should not pay taxes? Is the hon. member advocating the same thing in Quebec?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: May I say to the hon. member for Charlevoix that if he wants to read my speech in Hansard-I hope he can read- he will find out that I have never said anything like what he suggests. I am going to answer the hon. member by saying that I hope the people of the city of Quebec are given exactly the same privileges that this government is giving to the people in communist countries, our dangerous enemies, because I know they will be glad to have butter on their table at 37 or 39 cents a pound and for which they have to pay 63 or 65 cents.
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, a great portion of this debate so far has been taken up with a discussion of the problems of western Canada. Amendments have been moved that propose to rectify this injustice. I am greatly disturbed at the fact that members of parliament should consider a bountiful harvest as a serious national problem, to use their own words. I can immediately assure hon. members of this house that the primary producers in the county from which I come would not view a bountiful harvest as a serious national problem.
Some of the primary producers in my county had a lean year this year, and this has been the case for two or three years past. This has not been due to overproduction, it was due to scarcity. I can assure you that they would be most grateful today if they had a year's production stored away safely with a guaranteed price assured to them. I do believe that there are members in this house from western Canada and that there are farmers in western Canada who have gone down on their knees to thank God for the four or five consecutive bountiful harvests He has provided for them.
I do not intend to discuss this matter at great length except to say that in my opinion there is shown a great lack of appreciation of the enormous benefits we have received. I only wish I could report that there are primary producers in the maritime provinces who are in the same position. On Christmas eve, just a few weeks ago, a member of the Salvation Army delivered a copy of their paper at my home. It is always a privilege and pleasure to support this unselfish organization. That particular issue contained a poem written by Colonel Edward Joy entitled "The Silent Mill" which reads:
One winter's day I came upon a mill,
Its long, gaunt sweeps were silent, quiet, and still; And, looking to the leaden, low-ring sky,
I thought, "God has no care for such as I."
The miller came, and saw me dreary stand-
A blot of sadness on the snow-white land;
And called, "Why thus so cheerless thou?"
I answered, "Why? The mill is silent now." Said he, "Dost think that God has ceased to care. And that His thought for us is waste and bare? Oh, faithless one, why doubt and sigh and weep? God still His promises to us doth keep."
"Come, look and see! The Lord doth still provide, His creatures' wants are safe and sure supplied." And then the granary door he wide did pull;
I looked, and lo, a storehouse deep and full.
I think that is descriptive of the attitude we as Christians should take when our storehouses are deep and full.
For a few moments I should like to deal with certain remarks made a few days ago by the hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska (Mr. Van Horne). At the present time

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart the hon. member is sitting with the Tories, but I can assure you that in my province there is a great deal of confusion as to which political party he supports. During the recent Tory convention which was held at the Chateau Laurier the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the leader of the Conservative party, strongly denounced any action toward or thought of a coalition with any other political group. That statement was loudly applauded by all the delegates and all members of parliament belonging to that party.
Much to my amazement, I find the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska strongly supporting the Social Credit movement, both verbally and financially. My statement is supported and borne out by a letter written by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, and published in the Vers Demain, a paper which is supported and published by the Social Credit party. I want to put that letter on the record. It was published on January 15 and was written by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska on November 29 last. I shall not go into the first two paragraphs because in them the hon. member is simply praising the work this organization is doing in our province, but the last paragraph reads:
I was to. enclose a cheque in my last letter, and it gives me pleasure to send you the amount of $50 for new subscribers to Vers Demain, a newspaper published at the right moment and which I read attentively and with a deep feeling of interest. Could you give me a list of books and writings that would allow me to study your movement more thoroughly?
If I can be of some use in any way, do not hesitate to let me know.
Yours truly,
J. C. Van Horne, M.P.


Mr. Van Horne:: On a point of order, I am a member for all of Restigouche-Madawaska, not just a few.


An hon. Member:: Pretty weak.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I do hope the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Social Credit party in this house and the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska can get together and decide where that gentleman should sit. This energetic member had been in the chamber less than a week when he saw fit to use language which was most unparliamentary and which showed a lack of common sense and good judgment, language such as I have never heard before in the 15 or 16 sessions I have been here.
Many maritime organizations have suggested over the years that all maritime members should work together for the good of the maritime provinces. I am sure that this new member made a fine approach in that

regard. The excuse which he gave for making such a statement was certainly weak.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I notice you have not done very much for the maritimes.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I did not interrupt the hon. member the other day when he was speaking.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is why the people down there-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Tory members in referring to the speech of the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska emphasized other arguments he had made, but my experience is that any weak argument generally needs extraordinary emphasis. The remarks made by the hon. member in the House of Commons may have made an impression upon members of his own group, but as far as those who are familiar with the facts are concerned they did not go too far. In his speech the hon. member referred to the premier of our province in glowing terms and he quoted the remarks-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is the best premier we have ever had.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: -of Premier Flemming before the Gordon commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the attention of the house. I did not interrupt the hon. member when he spoke, and I would ask the same indulgence.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Because I was not speaking nonsense like you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska not to interrupt unless the member who has the floor consents.


An hon. Member:: He wants to blow his horn.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: He quoted these remarks of the premier of New Brunswick before the Gordon commission:
Though It is my firm conviction that the great economic experiment undertaken by confederation to make trade flow artificially east and west instead of naturally north and south was like trying to make water run uphill-it has turned out to be like our own famous magnetic hill in New Brunswick-a definite illusion.
I agree 100 per cent, Mr. Speaker, with that statement of the premier of the province of New Brunswick. I can hardly realize, however, that it could come from a Tory premier. To me it seems like the criminal returning to the scene of his crime. It must be that his conscience is bothering him. We were given a very fine opportunity to rectify

this great injustice in 1911. What stand did the Tory party take at that time, the party to which the hon. member belongs today? What stand did the father of the premier who made this statement take at that time? What stand do they take today? You will find they are the same flag wavers today they were 45 years ago; no truck nor trade with the Yankees.
If Premier Flemming is really sincere in the statement I have quoted may I say to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska that it has taken 45 years for the Conservatives in New Brunswick to realize that the attitude taken by their party in 1911 has retarded the growth and expansion of the maritimes over that period of time, and has contributed greatly to the growth and expansion of the central provinces of Canada.
That is the price the maritime provinces have paid for the greatest Tory blunder of all times, and now the hon. member is trying to blame us for it. When Premier Flemming says that the defeat of reciprocity forced the maritime provinces to trade artificially rather than naturally he is absolutely correct. I fear, however, that he would have a real problem on his hands to convince the federal Conservative members that his statement was correct, that the situation could be met by adopting the method suggested by Sir Wilfrid Laurier 45 years ago.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) said during his remarks a few days ago that Rip Van Winkle woke up after 20 years. Poor old Rip Van Winkle's record has been completely broken by the Tories in the province of New Brunswick. It has taken them 45 years to realize that we have been trading artificially east and west when we should have been trading naturally north and south. Again I agree with the premier of New Brunswick that for 45 years we have been trying to make water run uphill, and they have only now decided that that statement is correct.
On January 18 the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska asked the Minister of Finance a question regarding the financing of the Beech wood power project in New Brunswick. This seemed to me a very odd question for him to ask because during his remarks, which are to be found in Hansard, he stated that we had power to sell in the province of New Brunswick and would be prepared to sell it to the county of Temis-couata in the province of Quebec in order to serve industries for that county. In one breath he is saying we need federal assistance to develop power, and in the next breath he is informing people that New Brunswick has power to sell. In my opinion this is another irresponsible statement.
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart
In that connection, however, I look back to the great Tory disaster at Grand Falls, when our heritage was given away; when one of the power sites we had in the province that should have been developed was sold to United States interests by a Tory government. It may be that incident which makes him believe that power is still for sale in that province.
On page 174 of Hansard of January 16 the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska speaks of making use of our idle and wasting natural resources. He does not state, however that from the forests on our crown lands we receive revenue by way of stumpage, and that from our coal mines we receive a certain amount for every ton of coal taken from the ground. He failed to say that the ore discovered in northern New Brunswick through the efforts of a Liberal government is given away without one cent of revenue to our people. It is like the Grand Falls project. The people of our province are being sold completely down the river.
In New Brunswick we also have far different mining regulations than in any other province of Canada. All rights of the individual land owner have been taken completely from him by the provincial government. In other words, the big interests have taken over our heritage. The whole procedure has been shrouded in secrecy. I agree with one statement the hon. member made; these developments are controlled by a very few.
In describing the Beechwood project the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska failed to mention one fact, namely that there is a fly in the ointment so far as that project is concerned. At the present time we have a $50 million cart without a horse. The Beechwood development will never be economically sound until we get storage rights in Quebec and Maine. The people of New Brunswick are anxious that an explanation be made regarding this development. Why is there this great haste to start the project before the storage rights are guaranteed?
In my opinion a similar investment in the development of power from steam plants would have given us more power at less cost. I am firmly convinced that the natural flow of the Saint John river is a most unreliable source of power. I believe the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) was absolutely right when he made this statement.
Then the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska went on to discuss family allowances. When the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) informed him that the leader of his party had opposed family allowances

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska said, "That is not true." I have here a dozen statements made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) on this subject when he was premier of the province of Ontario, but I will not quote them all. I have quite a number of radio addresses and statements that were made by him in the Ontario legislature, and I believe the statements he made at that time were sincere in every way. In a broadcast on August 9, 1944, he said:
But I assure you that the government of Ontario intends to do everything within its power to make sure that this iniquitous bill does not go into effect. It is not this bill alone but the whole principle involved which we intend to resist.


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: Listen to that.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has used the word "untrue". I state that what he has said now is untrue. He knows he has been told in this house on other occasions that the statement he has made is utterly untrue. We supported family allowances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, we supported family allowances and, in fact, I have stated on earlier occasions in this house that it was with the assistance of the government I had the honour to lead that family allowances were introduced in the province of Ontario. We assisted in every way.


André Gauthier: What a joke.


An hon. Member:: What a laugh.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: These statements are known to all the people of Canada and to the members of this house.


George Alexander Drew: They are known to you, and you know that these statements are false.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Here is another statement taken from the Globe and Mail of August 3, 1944:
The government of Ontario will resist, in every way possible, this carefully planned attempt to break our constitution by a steady process of attrition.
Would these statements by the Leader of the Opposition be considered so complimentary by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska? Many Canadian citizens do not view them in that light.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the statement the hon. member has made is false. That has been stated before. He has just put his finger on it. The issue that was being discussed was the constitutional issue of the right of the provinces to have their

position stated with regard to matters of this kind. What I have stated before is that it was a matter of record-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to continue?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I stated that it is a matter of record.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is extremely difficult at the moment for me to accede to the request on the one hand of the hon. member who has the floor to continue his speech, and on the other hand that of the Leader of the Opposition who wishes to interject a correction because the words that apparently are being dealt with are words that were uttered by the Leader of the Opposition prior to coming into the house.


George Alexander Drew: That is quite right.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Leader of the Opposition wishes, at the end of the hon. member's speech, to correct a part of the hon. member's statement concerning him which is contrary to the facts, he will be allowed to do so.


George Alexander Drew: I intervened only because the hon. member repeated a falsehood.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I think the Leader of the Opposition should deal with the broadcasting stations and the press, which have copied the statement and put this out to the public. I do not believe he should tell me I am inaccurate. If there is anything that is inaccurate it is the press and the radio of this country. That is where the correction should be made, not here.


George Alexander Drew: It has been dealt with often, and the hon. member knows it.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska then raised in this house a subject which in my honest but humble opinion should never be mentioned in the House of Commons by any Tory member from New Brunswick. I refer to the matter of old age security or old age pensions. The attitude taken on this subject by the Conservative party in my province for 10 years, I can assure you, fills many black pages of our provincial history. In 1926, when the old age pension act passed this house, we had a Tory government in New Brunswick. They had promised the old people in that province that they would be paid old age pensions immediately after that election, but for four years they sat there with their arms folded and did nothing.

In 1930 came the grand betrayal of all time. That was when the Tory candidates from one end of my province to the other, had in the hands of every clergyman in the province the application forms for old age pensions, urging them to get the forms into the hands of the old people immediately because after that election they were paying old age pensions. That procedure won the 1930 election; then they folded their arms for five long years. God knows that if ever there was a period in the history of my province when the old people needed a little boost it was during the hungry thirties, when we had a Tory government in New Brunswick and a Tory government at Ottawa. They did not pay them one single dollar.
The Liberals took over in 1935 with a promise to pay pensions within a year. Ten months from the day they took office, pensions were paid. For any Tory from my province to mention old age pensions today is to do something he ought not do. He had better leave the matter alone, because it is a black record so far as they are concerned in New Brunswick. It took the people down there 17 years to forget it, but I have not forgotten it yet. It is like the old hymn "I Love to Tell the Story". It is a privilege for me to get to my feet and do so, because I lived through that period and I saw the people suffer.
Then the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, in his remarks as reported in Hansard of January 16 at page 2 of the translation said this:
If the government had been loyal to the Canadian people, it would have raised the amount of this pension in proportion with the rise in the cost of living.
In those hungry thirties I have just mentioned-that is up until 1935-we had, as I have said, a Tory government in New Brunswick and a Tory government here in Ottawa. I should like to ask the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska whether or not the 20 cents a day paid by his government at that time was based on the cost of living. That dole of 20 cents a day is the only social service that any Tory government in my province or here can ever take credit for, in my memory.
The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska and the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) have also suggested that this federal government can see only as far as the Rideau canal, as far as the province of New Brunswick is concerned.


An hon. Member:: That was not my statement.
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It may not have been your statement but it was the statement of one of your group. He said that the federal government could see only as far as the Rideau canal.


An hon. Member:: He does not know what he is talking about.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Don't worry; I am just talking about some things you do not like me to talk about.


An hon. Member:: Tell the truth.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am telling the truth.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Partially.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I will defy any Tory to show where I have ever said anything at all that was untrue.


George Alexander Drew: I have shown you one case.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I can show-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The hon. member
has spoken once.


Gage Workman Montgomery: And I will speak again.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I know it hurts.


Gage Workman Montgomery: It does not hurt.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: These are the latest figures available for federal assistance to New Brunswick.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It was Mackenzie King who said, "Not a five cent piece to a Tory government".


Andrew Wesley Stuart: These are the latest figures available with regard to federal assistance to my province. They are for 1955. There was $55 million for Camp Gagetown; $7 million for the Chatham air base; $20 million for public works; $16 million for family allowances; $13 million for old age security. I am giving these amounts in round figures. There was $1,500,000 for old age assistance; $256,000 for blind persons allowances; $1,500,000 for hospital grants and other services; $18 million for payments under federal provincial tax agreements and $1,500,000 for loss of the right to levy customs duties. Those amounts total about $133 million, when it is said that the federal government has not done anything, and when the total revenue of the provincial government is about $50 million, including the $18 million we give them. In other words they are collecting about $33 million in provincial revenue and we have increased that by $100 million, and they still feel that we are not doing anything.

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: How long has that been going on?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It has been going on ever since we have had a Liberal government. I mentioned the fact that there was an amount of $1,500,000 to make up for the loss of the right to levy customs duties, but that is not quite correct. We still have not any customs duties down in my province but, as the result of the sales tax which the Tories promised to discard, we now have an interprovincial tax. For example, if I have an automobile in my own county and I want to trade it, I can do so, and I am given a credit of $700 or $1,000, whatever the trade-in value is. In other words, I do not have to pay the 4 per cent tax on the trade-in value. But if I trade that car in Nova Scotia I must pay it. So, we have now a customs duty as between provinces, as a result of the action of the Conservative government in New Brunswick.


Mr. Studer:: They are almost as bad as the socialists in Saskatchewan.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I want to put something else on the record. I have quoted figures showing contributions to my province by the federal government. It might be of interest to note that our total income tax payments in that province are less than $20 million. I will agree that if we had won the election in 1911 they would be $50 million today. The Tories have kept the figure at $20 million for 45 years.
The figures I have quoted, I believe, would convince any fair-minded person that everything possible is being done by this government to try to assist us in that province of ours. It was a bold stand taken by the Prime Minister to try to distribute the wealth of this country equitably and fairly. No other government ever had the energy and vision to do such a thing. Even with regard to the discussions going on in this building today with regard to health insurance, what is the suggestion he puts forward? It is that the provinces pay according to their ability. How could anything be fairer than that? If the doctors and the hospitals had the same vision we would not need health insurance. If the wealthy paid plenty and the poor paid nothing, we would not need health insurance.
The attitude of this government has been to try to distribute the wealth of this country equitably and fairly, and that is what they have done in my province. I want to give them full credit for it, even though some people may not agree with me. In fact without the $18 million which we are given under the federal-provincial tax rental plan we could not exist in my province. The services


we now have would have to be greatly reduced, because that amount is more than one-third of our total revenue.
It must have been most embarrassing to those sitting to my left when the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska criticized our appropriation of $26 million under the Colombo plan. Many of the hon. members of his party have said that this was not enough, that it was a niggardly amount and it was not sufficient.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is not correct.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Your words are in Hansard and I believe I can understand them. Certainly the members of this party do not agree with such statements.
I do feel his crowning effort came when he criticized the billion dollar gift to Britain. In this statement he definitely refers to the British people as "foreigners". I know that must hurt a great number of the members sitting in his group. The years of blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice of those gallant people who faced the German hordes alone for two long years mean very little to this hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska. The leadership of that great man, Sir Winston Churchill, perhaps the greatest of all time, is just another name to him. It is very noticeable that the Tory press in my province made no reference to this statement. But in my humble opinion, never in the history of this old world of ours did so many owe so much to so few as during those long dark years when Britain stood alone behind this great leader, defending the freedom which all democratic countries enjoy at this time. Their sacrifice was not in vain.


Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: After listening to a portion of .the debate this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I wonder just what the purpose of our meeting in parliament really is. I believe that once again we have come together in a parliamentary session for intelligently reasoning together and exchanging counsel on all those things which affect our people and the conditions in which they presently live. We are here to re-examine methods in order that we may operate successfully in the future and keep our communities and our country strong. In that respect I believe every single member has an important role to play and at the very outset of the session I believe it is a good idea for us to evaluate that role.
This parliament accepts as the symbol of progress the right of members to justly criticize and give full and unrestricted expression to their thoughts. This, of course, does not preclude members on the government side from continuing to backslap their government

for past accomplishments and repeating unimportant platitudes with respect to their present policy. I do not wish to offend anyone, but it seems to me that is not characteristic of a progressive democracy. The decisive characteristic of a progressive democracy is the far more important right and, indeed, the duty of members from all parties to offer a better way, better ideas and better alternatives to many of our present policies which today deny making economic and social security, with freedom, abundantly available to all our people.
We believe that the strengthening of our way of life can best be done by constructive criticisms and the early acceptance and management of our affairs on solid moral and economic principles. We are dedicated to such a cause, and we in the Social Credit movement shall continue to call upon the people of Canada to recognize that this movement is indeed the alternative to the old line parties. Our parliament meets at a time when there are certain happenings in the world which stress the urgency of putting our own house in the very best order. There are many opportunities for us to do that. The speech from the throne contains the following:
* Canada has enjoyed, on the whole, a high level of prosperity. Some sectors of the economy have not fully participated in this increased well-being.
I repeat:
Some sectors of the economy have not fully participated in this increased well-being.
May I just dwell on that for a moment. We live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. I certainly do not know of any other place on God's earth that has the potentialities for development which face us here in Canada in abundance. We have enormous quantities of the best wheat in the world; food, clothing and all the other essential materials from our fields and our factories. Great as our production is, it is only a scratch on the surface compared with what it could be if we gave inducements for capacity production. When we add to this picture the political freedom of our society, then surely we recognize that this parliament has the greatest opportunities ever, not only to raise the living standards of Canadians to the very highest levels but also to help others raise theirs.
By doing this we will not only be serving humanity but also making a contribution toward reversing the present setback which the free world has experienced in international affairs. Let us be honest. The struggle between the east and the west is not going well for our side. Since in my opinion communism is simply the outgrowth and essentially the result of people losing 67509-32
The Address-Mr. Holowach faith in there being another way to resolve injustice, exploitation and hunger, there is a big job to be done. This job is to make democracy so dramatically dynamic and real that all will want to emulate us.
In order to make that a reality I believe we should come to grips with the essential issues. Clearly the problem is not one of production. The grain growers of our west have produced record crops, but their sector of the economy has not fully participated in the increased well-being. Our factories have produced an abundance of goods, but people cannot afford to acquire all the essentials they need. When they do so it is only by means of instalment buying, which is nothing more than mortgaging most of their future earnings to pay for the things they need today. The problem then, in my opinion, is one of the interchangeability of goods, distribution, marketing, and purchasing power. Since the accepted medium of exchange is essentially money, in some form or other, the problem is one' of finance.
I am not saying that all our fiscal policies are wrong. I am saying that many of them are only temporary solutions, since the very problem they try to solve remains unsolved and is becoming more serious all the time. Since monetary science performs an important function in modern society, I propose that in this session of parliament we set up a council of research to undertake a comprehensive study into all the factors of production, exchange, prices, consumption of goods and services. I grant that this would not provide all the answers to our problems. There are many unforeseeable factors that enter into such problems. The findings of such a research council, I do believe, could have historical significance and might well establish a solid and a secure background for sound fiscal policy formulation.
The terms of reference of such a research council should be all-embracing, and in my opinion very similar to the terms of reference given to the national survey of potential product capacity in the United States, an organization of 60 technicians and economists which was financed by the United States government in 1934 for the purpose of discovering: first, the ratio of actual production to capacity production; second, the manpower required for (a) existing production (b) capacity production; third, the degree of interdependence among industries to ascertain possible bottlenecks in the flow of materials from the natural resources to the ultimate consumer; and fourth, what purchasing power would be necessary to command capacity operation of the existing plant, at any given price level.

The Address-Mr. Holowach
It is interesting to note that the national survey of potential product capacity was also empowered to translate capacity production into consumer goods and services, and translate the consumption of these goods and services into terms of life (a) for society; and, (b) for the individual.
The royal commission appointed last year for the purpose of investigating the economic prospects of Canada's future was certainly a step in the right direction, and it had the support of all members of parliament. Its terms of reference, however, limit its study to economic potential and development and not, as I understand it, to the distribution of that potential.
We all approve the setting up of the national research council and various boards to study the natural sciences. Would not a major research project investigating the field of monetary and social science be equally important? Professor C. L. Barber, assistant professor of economics at the University of Manitoba, concluded his article on Canada's economic prospects, appearing in the autumn edition of the Queen's Quarterly, 1955, with these words:
The truth of the matter is, of course, that economists do not have the data they need to determine how long our present prosperity will last. While they understand a good deal more about the way our economic system operates than they did in 1930, very little research has been done on the vital question of what determines our economy's capital requirements. I know of no major research project that has investigated or is currently investigating the relation between population growth and the demand for capital. And the relationship of technological progress to capital requirements is still largely unexplored. The analysis of capital requirements has been listed as one of the topics which the new royal commission on Canada's economic prospects intends to explore. But in the time at their disposal they can hardly more than scratch the surface of this important topic. If our government in Ottawa can find $300,000 to finance the hasty and forced research that is inevitably produced by a royal commission, it can scarcely afford not to set aside funds to finance a long-range program of economic research. Canada badly needs a program of research in the social science field that is the counterpart of that provided by the national research council for the natural sciences. Until the results of such a research program are available economists can do little more than guess at the answer to my initial question..
I should like to turn at this time to a few specific sectors of our economy. The total figures of our gross national production and disposable income make it clear that we are enjoying a high level of prosperity, but there are facts behind the figures which indicate that very many people do not share in that prosperity. I think the lesson to be learned is that the mere fact of an increase in the gross production is not sufficient in

itself for real prosperity unless that production is accompanied by government policies that make possible the consumption of that production.
I believe it is time to talk straight, and this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is the place to do it. Every member in this house fully understands the value of our agriculture and the wonderful contribution that is being made by farmers of our country in the production of food. The number of speeches that have been made on the subject is an indication of that understanding.
In my own province, farm products exceed Alberta oil and coal wealth. Those of us living in urban constituencies know that the farmer not only feeds us, but we also rely on him buying the services of our city merchants and the products of our workers. Consequently the decline in his farm cash income affects all of us. Let me give one single example of this effect on heavy industry. This is taken from the dominion bureau of statistics news notes of October 28, 1955:
Less harvesting machinery sold. Canadian farmers bought only $26,194,827 worth of new harvesting machinery last year, 62-4 per cent less than in 1953 when the wholesale value of sales totalled $69,579,783.
Just how serious the cash drop has been is further shown in the latest figures released by the dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin, volume 25, No. 14, Friday, January 20, 1956, as follows:
Cash income from the sale of farm products and from participation payments on previous years' prairie grain crops in 1955 amounted to an estimated $2,323,330,000, 2-3 per cent below the 1954 estimate of $2,377,800,000 and 18-5 per cent below the all-time high of $2,849,300,000 in 1952.
This means that farmers have suffered a loss of $526 million of revenue in 1955 as compared with revenues received in 1952. It does seem very peculiar that in a world in which hundreds of millions of people are threatened by starvation and when even in a great producing country such as Canada there are many people who have not enough to eat, our farmers should be forced into economic uncertainty. Here in this very city of Ottawa one sees posters appealing for donations to buy food for hungry children in distant lands, and pictures of children with puffed-up stomachs.
The point I make is that methods must be found to see that our farmer is paid cash, and methods must also be designed so that those nations that require our food are able to get it, irrespective of whether they have gold or dollars.
My second point is that whether we have a poor wheat crop or a bumper harvest,

farmers just never get a square deal. Long before this time the government entered into an arrangement with the farmers. The farmer was to produce; the government was to sell. Let us ask ourselves, who has broken that contract? Mr. Speaker, this government cannot escape answering to the western farmers for their omissions. As a matter of fact the farmers' problems have never been solved by the Liberal government, with the one exception of wartime financing when there was a greatly increased domestic and foreign demand created by the havoc of war. Even at this late hour, when the farmers are united in protest, the government has nothing better to offer them than legislation which, while it may assist some, carries with it far too much liability because it is an open invitation to the farmer to get into debt. It is not debt the farmer wants for having produced a great abundance of the very staff of life, bread; it is a fair cash return for a job well done.
Fortunately there are brighter sides to the picture. The decline in the number of unemployed is perhaps one of the best pieces of news we have heard thus far. It is good news in comparison with the situation a few months ago. We recall that unemployment had reached the top figure of 633,000 last March. It is presently claimed that our current unemployment figure in Canada is slightly over 200,000, and that this figure is normal. Certainly unemployment is never normal for a person who wants a job and cannot find one, and it is certainly not normal for the family that depends upon the earnings of that person.
I submit that the undertaking of one project alone would solve the present unemployment situation. The urgency of a trans-Canada highway system to meet the requirements of western Canada merits attention at this time. It was my privilege to have spoken on this matter in previous sessions, at which time I referred to the desirability of the federal government assisting the various provincial governments in the building of a road from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast by way of Saskatoon, Edmonton, Jasper park and the Yellowhead route. We have consistently asked for that consideration. The other day the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Yuill) also stressed the importance of the Yellowhead route.
All that is needed is a little action from the Liberal government. The federal government's expenditures on highways is completely out of line with the income it receives from the various industries associated with good roads. The provincial governments have a big enough job building their own local and 67509-32 i
The Address-Mr. Holowach marketing roads without having the additional burden of constructing throughways and possible defence roads.
I should like to say how pleased I was to see that we will be considering new legislation on housing. This will, I am sure, contribute much to the elimination of poverty and slum conditions in which juvenile delinquency thrives and which impair the health of our people.
There is one other area in which there is a very great need. During my visit home it was my pleasure to meet with many of the old age pensioners in my constituency and to address their society in Edmonton. In numerous meetings with them I have learned to understand more fully the many extremely difficult problems they face because of the inadequacy of their pensions and the high cost of living. They impress me in other ways, too. I found them to be one of the most alert and thoughtful groups of citizens in our country. They are alert to what is happening in parliament, and they are thoughtful of the difficulties involved in the furtherance of aid to them by governments. Their case is very strong. Because I believe in it, I think it is proper for me to focus the attention of hon. members on it. It is true we have come a long way together in the field of social security legislation, and we are all grateful for that. Equally true is the fact that those on fixed incomes, such as old age pensioners, veterans, the blind and handicapped and all low income groups, are struggling desperately to make ends meet in the face of rising costs.
If everything else in our economy had remained static, perhaps their claim for additional help would be less justified. However, this is not the case at the present time. The production of our country is moving substantially upward, and it is not unreasonable to expect that this prosperity be reflected in improved welfare of the aged and others.
In January, 1951, when the federal old age security pension was made effective, the national income and national production in our country at that time must certainly have had a bearing on the amount this government earmarked for the senior citizens. Since that date the national income and the value of the gross national product have risen by over $2 billion in each category. This would work out to an average increase in income of over $120 for every man, woman and child in Canada.
We hear a great deal of talk from various hon. members regarding the need for markets. I have always maintained that one of the best markets we could have is right here in our own country, our own people. If this market

The Address-Mr. Holowach
is to be used the purchasing power of the people must be increased in the same ratio as our production. If we weigh the problem carefully we see that elementary mathematics are on the side of the demand for an increase of at least $10 for old age pensioners. This would merely mean placing the present pension with the addition of $10 in the same ratio as the pension they received in 1951. As I see it, social justice is also on their side, because after all what is our job if not to devise policies which will alleviate the burdens of the people and fairly distribute increased bounty amongst every level of the Canadian people.
I think the same principle applies to the blind of our country. Just a few days ago I received a letter from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind written by Mr. W. E. Milton, assistant superintendent of the western division, and by Mr. A. DeCoursey, chairman of the Alberta division of the Canadian Council of the Blind, which reads as follows:
Last year, in response to representations by the C.N.I.B. and The Canadian Council of the Blind, parliament amended the Blind Persons Act to lower the qualifying age for blindness allowance to 18 and to slightly raise the means test ceilings on allowable income. We greatly appreciated your support of these amendments and your interest in the welfare of the blind.
Further to the letter you recently received from our national headquarters, we are writing to urge your support of our current one-point legislative objective. This important objective, a federal allowance without means test to all blind Canadians over and above the existing maintenance allowance to help meet the unavoidable expense of blindness, was advocated but not implemented last year. It is explained in the attached pamphlet and continues to be an urgent need. The principle of such an allowance is endorsed by the United Nations and by the world council for the welfare of the blind, and is in effect in some countries.
You will be interested to learn that, at March 31, 1955, the blind population of Canada exceeded 21,000 persons. Only 7,570 of these were in receipt of the blindness allowance. Approximately 1,400 were too young to qualify while 7,344 were 70 and over and therefore, in receipt of the old age security pension. The remainder about 5,000 were ineligible for various reasons including inability to qualify under the rigid means test which limits a single person to an annual income including the allowance of $960 and a married person to $1,560.
It will be obvious that the unavoidable expense of blindness is a real concern to every blind adult regardless of whether he qualifies or not for the maintenance allowance provided by the Blind Persons Act. Present legislation ignores his blindness if he is employed, but the unusual expense of blindness continues. Present legislation ignores his blindness when he reaches 70 and recognizes only his age. We, who know the need, earnestly solicit your support of our reasonable aim.
With appreciation for past courtesies and best wishes for 1956, we remain.
There are a few signs of warning that we should heed. The debt in which people find themselves is at an all-time high. I believe that most hon. members who read the local
papers will have seen the report in yesterday's Ottawa Journal which was captioned "Consumer Credit Up $305,000,000" and which read as follows:
Consumer credit ballooned during the third quarter of 1955 to $2,212,000,000, up $305,000,000 from the first quarter of the year.
The taxation policies of this government make it virtually impossible for people to save and put away a little bit for a rainy day. I urge this government to make tax reductions, especially for the relief of those in the lower income brackets. It is a complete fallacy to claim that government revenue would decline. The very reverse is true, because reduced taxes would increase purchasing power in the hands of the people which in turn would stimulate consumption, investment and production. Consequently in the end our government would benefit by a greater increase in our economy.
In carrying out our program let us continue to guard against what I consider to be a real danger, namely the growth of the bigger and bigger government, which means more centralization and bureaucracy. There is far too much of that even now, and our efforts should be to reverse the trend. I think one way to do it would be to decentralize decisions as much as possible, and make available to every level of government adequate finances to enable it to do a good job.
The failure of the last two federal-provincial conferences, one in April and one in October, to my mind was a result of the government's refusal to do that very thing. There is more truth than fiction in the statement that Ottawa continues to attempt to create the impression that they are doing the provinces a favour by giving back to them a small share of the provinces' income. In the present crisis of outside events, when we need unity more than anything else, I think it is inexcusible for this government to continue hogging everything.
I think decentralization could be brought about in many other fields, such as the fields of aviation, radio and television. Why should the government have monopolies in these fields and then ask the taxpayer to foot the bill? Would it not be more sensible for us to bring about the desired expansion in these fields by inviting various voluntary and private organizations to enter them? There is every indication that there are many such organizations which would like to do so. There would be a double effect; on the one hand we would have the expanded services which are required, and on the other hand the cost of such expansion would not necessarily fall upon the shoulders of the Canadian taxpayer.
IMr. Holowach.]

On previous occasions I have drawn to the attention of responsible ministers the need of a post office building in Beverly, Alberta. I examined the situation several times last autumn, and I can honestly say that the facilities are deplorably inadequate. In view of the requests made by their member in numerous debates the public there have a right to know why this government is still ignoring their request. I think these people are entitled to have a public building in which satisfactory post office premises would be available. Through me they once again respectfully draw the attention of the new minister to their need.
In conclusion may I just join with others in my constituency and elsewhere and ask in all sincerity that this government, which is charged with the responsibility for making decisions, do so solely in the light of objective thought and respond to the observations on some of the problems which I have briefly outlined.


Mr. N. A. Matheson (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I should like to discuss briefly. Yesterday I was at home in my riding of Queens, and while there I met with and talked to a great number of people. I met and talked with many more during the last weeks and months of 1955. There are many things about which my people are happy, but there are several things which are causing concern and I should like to mention two of them.
Our provincial economy is largely dependent upon agriculture. While Canada as a whole is prosperous and booming, that is not true of agriculture in our province. This industry has experienced comparatively difficult times. Potatoes constitute only one phase of our agricultural economy, but they are the main cash crop of many farmers. They provide the extra cash which pays outstanding bills and provides the means to make purchases for the home or for the farm plant. You know as well as I do that when our farmers have cash to spend the urban centres benefit. Charlottetown, the capital city, is in the centre of my riding, surrounded by rural areas.
Right now the question of a tariff on potatoes is causing concern in my area. This matter was the subject of an intensive inquiry during the past summer by the tariff board, whose hearings in Ottawa I attended. Members of the board visited various parts of Canada and talked to producers and shippers and investigated the industry as a whole pretty thoroughly. I was glad to hear during the last day or two from the Minister of Finance that this problem is going to be studied further in the near future.
The Address-Mr. Matheson
The change last year in the Unemployment Insurance Act has caused considerable difficulty at home. Our office advises that as a result of one of the changes made, approximately one-third of those eligible previously for benefits were ineligible last fall. I believe I was one of the first in Canada to draw this problem to the attention of the Minister of Labour, who happened to be in my area early last fall when I discussed the matter with him. I have discussed it further with him since coming to Ottawa. I know that other areas face the same problem, and I hope those responsible can effect a solution. I see no reason why they cannot.
I want to thank the Minister of Labour for having come to my constituency at that time, and also I want to thank the Minister of Finance who was in our province yesterday, when he spoke to several meetings. I feel quite sure that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries, the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught), would want to associate his name with what I am saying, as he was there with us.
The hon. member for Prince had a most unhappy experience recently, when his constituency was hit extremely hard by a severe sleet storm. The western part of my riding was also affected adversely, and as a result there are many people who will not have their electric power restored for several weeks. But the entire area of Prince took the brunt of the storm, and they have had and are having extremely difficult times. They are still having difficulty, and it will continue for some time to come. I want to express my sympathy to those who are so very seriously handicapped by the loss of service and the crippling disruptions that loss entails.
Yesterday, while in Charlottetown, I talked to the manager of our local employment office. He was very happy, he told me, about the manner in which business firms and people generally are co-operating in the very fine effort his office is making to stir up interest in providing extra winter employment for people who would otherwise be idle. I know he would like me to put his appreciation on record today.
I spoke a few minutes ago about some of the economic difficulties we have in our area. I regret the manner in which some of the members opposite approach the problems of the maritimes. I say that because I do not think we can get anywhere by just being belligerent. My own idea is that we should seek to attract listeners and get their attention.
It is true that other parts of Canada have prospered beyond the fondest dreams of some of the people in our area. They have

The Address-Mr. Matheson advantages of geographic location. They are close to large centres of population. This means good markets. They are close to sources of abundant power which is available at a cost that makes it economically feasible to use that power in industry. They have many advantages, and I recognize that.
I bow to no one in my loyalty to my own area, but our lack of progress perhaps may not all be the fault of someone else or some other place. In my own personal experience I have found one cannot advance just by pushing somebody else down. You have to climb the rungs of the ladder yourself if you are going to ascend. In this connection I am very happy to note that the Atlantic provinces economic council is a most live and active organization in our area. It is generally known as APEC and is composed of some of the best men in our provinces. They are probing and searching for ways and means to advance our interests, to promote new and better industries and to improve and extend, if possible, the ones we now have.
If I may state their object in a few words it is this: self-help for the provinces in which they are working. A number of men from my own province are working with that organization. I do not mean we shall not accept and, indeed, seek help and economic assistance from the federal government in an effort to improve our position. I have in mind now a project that would be of tremendous benefit to us in Prince Edward Island. I think it would also be a boon to some of the adjacent provinces, particularly New Brunswick. It would practically revolutionize our transportation facilities so far as connection with the mainland is concerned.
We have a modern and powerful icebreaking car ferry. We have a second stand-by boat that is now over 40 years old. These ships render a good service to the extent that their facilities enable them to do so, but there are times when their facilities are not capable of handling the traffic that is offering. At best the delays are annoying to the tourist, and they are very costly to the industrialist and the businessman. If one misses a boat he may have to wait several hours for the next one.
The proposal I have in mind would end these delays and would assure us of continuous communication with the mainland as was envisioned in the pact of confederation. I am proposing a causeway across the strait of Northumberland. Before someone tells me this is fantastic or even economically unsound, let me say that the proposal has received and is now receiving the very serious attention of people who are qualified


to consider and discuss such things. I cannot give any details, because the knowledge I have of details is knowledge given to me in confidence for the moment. I can say, however, that preliminary studies of the project indicate that the proposal may well be feasible from an economic standpoint and is entirely feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Several firms qualified to study such things have been looking into the possibilities. Included among them is one of the most highly regarded causeway engineers on this continent. May I suggest that the annual deficit on the operations of the car ferries on the Borden-Tormentine run would finance the cost of construction. By that I mean it would pay the interest on the money it would take to build the causeway.
The distance across this strip of water is much greater than across the strait of Canso, where a causeway was built and is now in efficient operation. On the other hand the water is not nearly as deep. Certainly the development would be most desirable in so far as the improved service that would be rendered is concerned. There would hardly be any comparison between the service that would be available and what is available now.
A causeway would translate into terms of modern development and modern thinking the pledge of confederation to provide continuous communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. Some might say it would join Prince Edward Island to Canada. I should like to say that it would join Canada to Prince Edward Island.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up the time of the house for too long. At the outset I should like to join the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Matheson), who has just taken his seat, and pay my tribute to APEC, the Atlantic provinces economic council, which through its own efforts is trying to find ways and means to benefit our provinces. I should have liked to be able to express the same complimentary remarks about the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), but I am afraid I have heard him make that speech too often in the house to compliment him on it. It is the type of stump speech we have heard for the past 35 or 40 years in the little schoolhouses of the province of New Brunswick.
The hon. member referred in uncomplimentary terms to the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska. The people of Resti-gouche-Madawaska have expressed their opinion of the hon. member for that constituency, and have done so in no uncertain terms

in a constituency which for over 50 years, I believe, with two exceptions, has returned Liberal members to the house with large majorities. The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, a young man who had never been in politics before, came into the picture and by his personality and his hard work, and by placing the issues before the people of that constituency, won it for the Conservative party. I think that speaks for itself, and no detraction by the hon. member for Charlotte or anyone else can take that away from him.


Mr. Robichaud:: It will not last long.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member also spoke about the government of New Brunswick. We have a Conservative government in the province of New Brunswick after 20 years of Liberal government, and I predict that when the present government go to the people they will come back with a larger majority than they have at the present time. To cast reflections in connection with Grand Falls is an old, old story.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Is it not correct?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The pulp and paper industry we have in the province of New Brunswick today was based on the hydro development at Grand Falls, and there are thousands of people in Edmundston, Campbellton and other sections of New Brunswick who today thank the Conservative government of that time for developing Grand Falls and getting this industry for us. If the hon. member wants to talk about industry, why does he not speak about Milltown in his own constituency?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I can assure the hon. member that Milltown is working nearly full time, and that things are going very well.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is the very statement I was going to make, but no thanks to the Liberal government. If matters had been left to the Liberal government Milltown would have been closed the same as Marysville, and there would not have been any work in Mill-town.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But owing to the energy of the people of that town-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I want to tell the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) that the provincial government he speaks of found
The Address-Mr. Brooks money for other industries in the province, but they could not find any for Milltown.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. Perhaps it might be well, before this discussion goes further, to remind the house that matters of fact in debate are not matters of privilege.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There are just these few things I want to mention. I am not going to take up much time answering them. The answers are too obvious. The people of New Brunswick know them.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I'll say they are obvious.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member spoke about $18 million given to us in subsidies, while in the next breath he said that the people of the province of New Brunswick pay $20 million in income tax. Where is the gift from the federal government if they give us $18 million in subsidies and we pay out $20 million in income tax?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am suggesting $130 million.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is characteristic of the whole argument the hon. member tried to make this afternoon.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I did not try to make it. I made it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The biggest boast he has made in the House of Commons since I came here was that he was a smuggler and a lawbreaker. He does that in the face of the minister who is supposed to administer the laws of this country.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is parliamentary language for you. Apparently I got under his skin.


An hon. Member:: You admitted it.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes; I admitted it and I am proud of it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He has admitted it and he says he is proud of it. Having admitted being a smuggler and lawbreaker, he says I do not know what I am talking about.


An hon. Member:: There are other things that are lawbreaking.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In a paragraph in the speech from the throne I was pleased to note that the royal commission to examine and report upon our economic prospects is proceeding with its inquiry. I am hoping they will recommend for one thing the decentralization of industry in this country. It is something we in the maritimes have asked for on many occasions,

The Address-Mr. Brooks and it is something in which this federal government could have given us a good lead in connection with the matter of defence production. It is also something which I believe would have been economically and militarily sound.
Another paragraph in the speech from the throne states as follows, as reported at page 2 of Hansard:
Canada has enjoyed, on the whole, a high level of prosperity. Some sectors of the economy have not fully participated in this increased well-being.
It is also a statement of fact, Mr. Speaker, that in certain sections of this country there has been a high level of prosperity. However, we in the maritime provinces have not enjoyed that prosperity, although we are pleased that other sections of the country have done so. This has been true not only for this year but for a great many years in our part of the world.
The people who today are suffering the most and who have the greatest problems are the farmers of the dominion. We have in this country today great surpluses of wheat, of butter and of apples. We cannot sell our apples, as a matter of fact, and we have a surplus of potatoes. I sometimes wonder what would happen if potatoes and apples were non-perishable goods, as are wheat and butter. If they were non-perishable, in addition to having millions of bushels of wheat and millions of pounds of butter stored up in this country I am satisfied that we would have millions of bushels of apples and millions of bushels of potatoes.
This is a great problem for the Dominion of Canada. The fact that we cannot export or sell our goods is a greater problem for us than for any other country in the world. In order to live, Canada must export from 20 to 25 per cent of her goods. In the United States 95 per cent of the production is consumed there. Hence the problem, so far as they are concerned, is not the great one that it is for us.
I am not going to discuss wheat this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, because I know little about that problem. I know a little bit more about butter. In my constituency of Royal, particularly in the county of Kings, we are a dairy-producing section. We have some of the finest dairy herds you will find anywhere, not only in the maritime provinces but in Canada. My town of Sussex is known as the dairy centre of the maritime provinces. In the town of Sussex we have two large and well-run butter factories.
The fact that it is not possible for Canada to sell all her butter ere ites a serious problem


in my section of the country. I know there are many young men today who say this: If the future of the dairy industry and the butter industry does not get any brighter, I shall have to give up the farm or leave the farm that my father worked for years, leave the herds of cattle which it has taken so many years to improve, and find work in some other part of the country.
Just recently we were honoured in the province of New Brunswick by having held there a meeting of the dairy farmers of Canada. We were pleased indeed to have this convention held in the city of Saint John on the 14th day of this month. I might say that it is the first time this convention has ever been held in the maritime provinces. To have these men representing 455,000 producers meet in our province was a great compliment to us and, I believe, a great inspiration.
I was pleased to read in the paper the objectives of the dairy farmers of Canada. They are as follows:
With their primary objective "To promote the betterment of the dairy industry, and to co-operate with all organizations to this end," the dairy farmers of Canada have many other aims. They endeavour to maintain and improve the high quality of Canadian dairy foods; to encourage the adoption of uniform grade standards; to promote research by recognized government and other established agencies, and to develop markets, lower production costs and generally benefit the industry and the consumer.
These are laudable objectives, and I am sure we wish the dairy farmers every success.
I am not one who would try to prescribe a solution for the present situation. I have always felt that our farm products should have greater sale in Great Britain. Before the war we had a great market in Great Britain, particularly for our apples, wheat and cheese. Had some effort been made to try to develop this market further since the last war, I believe that we would not have in Canada today such large surpluses of wheat and of butter.
By the way, I might say this. When one reads the press it is extremely confusing to note that while, according to an answer received from the minister's department, there is in Canada a surplus of some 100 million pounds of butter, nevertheless the Minister of Agriculture says that there is no surplus. It is very difficult indeed to reconcile statements of that kind. So far as I am concerned, and I believe so far as the people of Canada are concerned, they are going to believe the statements put out by the bureau of statistics.

Another complaint which the dairy farmers have, and which I feel is a very just complaint, is that we are using too much vegetable oil in this country. Many times in my own constituency I have heard it said that some effort should be made to curtail the large quantity of vegetable oils being used today. I understand that vegetable oils which are imported into Canada are the basis for margarine. In an address to the national dairy council at Lake Louise on September 5, the president of the council had this to say:
It may be noted in this connection that our good neighbours across our southern border are this year anticipating a record crop of soy beans. The price of soy beans has already dropped drastically, and is reflected in recent large price reductions of margarine in Canada. In other words, our dairy farmers are being exposed to price competition from foreign produced oils in large surplus supply, without benefit of any effective tariff and without any attempt being made to meet the competition in the only way the consumer will recognize, namely, price.
It is ironic that the consumer demand for cheaper food which comes largely from foreign sources, is undermining the prosperity of a large segment of our producers of basic raw products and thereby also undermining the prosperity of these same consumers.
As I said a moment ago I think the dairy farmers have a very just cause for complaint in this connection.
I have been quite interested in the speeches made by hon. members from my own province. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska upon his maiden speech. He gives every indication of being a very courageous and valuable member of this house. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, a young member who is certainly taking his place in this House of Commons. I congratulate the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. I doubt if there is anyone in the house who understands the problems of the potato producer in Canada better than this hon. member.
I should like to say a few words with reference to some matters which were brought up by hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) again mentioned the Chignecto canal. The hon. member knows my attitude on this subject. The Chignecto canal is something which was discussed in this house long before the hon. member for Wetmorland ever had any connection with politics. I recall my old friend Mr. Black, the former member for Cumberland, speaking on this matter many years ago. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) has spoken on it on many occasions, and I have done the same. I do not believe there was ever a time in the history of New Brunswick when the Chignecto canal meant more to the people than it does now.
The Address-Mr. Brooks
I shall not weary the house by reading it, but in 1949 when we were discussing the St. Lawrence seaway I made a speech in which I said that if the St. Lawrence seaway were developed, we in the province of New Brunswick were prepared to pay our full share of the cost of this development. However, the only practical benefit we could receive would be through building the Chignecto canal, which I consider to be supplementary to the St. Lawrence seaway. It would mean a reduction of over 400 miles in the carrying of freight from Saint John, New Brunswick, the bay of Fundy or ports along the New England coast. I do not see how the federal government, when it goes on with the development of this St. Lawrence seaway, can neglect the Chignecto canal.
But I want to say to the hon. member for Westmorland

and the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Lusby) who also mentioned it-if they had been here five or six years ago when a delegation came from the maritime provinces, representatives from all parts of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and had seen the brush-off those men received from this government in the railway committee room they would feel, as I feel, that if the Chignecto canal is ever built it will have to be built by some other government than the present one. The Conservative party has been in favour of the Chignecto canal ever since it was mentioned here a number of years ago.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another subject about which I should like to speak for a few minutes, and that is Passamaquoddy. Before I do so, I want to say to the hon. member for Charlotte that I was very much surprised at what seemed to me to be an attack on the Beechwood project here this afternoon. We do not expect that Beechwood will be the answer to all our problems so far as hydro development is concerned. It will hardly more than carry the load over the next eight or ten years. It is not necessary in the development of Beechwood, as the hon. member knows, that we obtain storage rights in Quebec or Maine. If the full development of the Saint John river is ever undertaken, then it will be necessary to obtain such rights. However, so far as Beechwood is concerned, the storage we have in the province of New Brunswick alone will give a waterhead sufficient for the development of this project. When the hon. member tries to draw a red herring across the Beechwood project by saying we must obtain authority from Maine and Quebec, he is making a statement which he knows is incorrect.
Now, so far as the 'Quoddy development is concerned, that has been advocated for a good many years. There is a long history to

The Address-Mr. Brooks the proposed development of tidal power on the Passamaquoddy river. I recall that when I was a member of the provincial legislature some years ago a man by the name of Dexter Cooper, one of the leading hydroelectric engineers in the world, came before us with a model for the proposed development of hydroelectric power from the rise and fall of the tide in the Passamaquoddy river. He explained it to the members then, but there was not much interest in New Brunswick at that time. As a matter of fact the reception was rather lukewarm.
Then the depression came and after that the war, and there was very little interest taken in the proposal except in the United States. President Roosevelt was very much interested in it. He had lived during the summer months on Campobello island near the Passamaquoddy, so he knew the possibilities of developing hydroelectric power there. He was in favour of it as was his successor, President Truman. The state of Maine has been able to interest not only the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States, but they have been able to get congress to vote money for further investigation into this development.
Stated briefly, I believe this development is feasible. I believe also that if it is developed, and if the province of New Brunswick and the Dominion of Canada will share in the development and the province of New Brunswick is able to get its full share of the horsepower, which is considered to be about a million-New Brunswick's share would probably be about 450,000 horsepower-New Brunswick would be placed on a par with any other province in this Dominion of Canada so far as electric power is concerned, and we would have sufficient power for any industries that might wish to come to our province in the future.
As I said a moment ago, there was indifference in the past, and I am afraid that at Washington they still think there is indifference on the part of the people of Canada, represented, of course, by this government.
I received a letter dated February 9, 1953, from Senator Margaret Smith, of Maine. That is nearly three years ago. The matter was then being brought up at Washington by Senator Smith. Her letter reads:
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Washington is very interested in the Quoddy proposal. However, there is a general impression here that Canada has a relatively negative attitude on the proposal-
I sometimes wonder whether that is true.
I hope it is not, Mr. Speaker. I hope this government will do everything it possibly can to prove whether or not it is a feasible proposition. If it is proved feasible, I hope 
the government will do everything it possibly can to develop this great waterpower.
I continue to quote:
-al}(t that impression is acting somewhat to the prejudice of the proposal. I hope that is not true and that you can help to clear up the matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the current legislation. The Maine delegation has a conference set for this coming Tuesday morning to talk with President Eisenhower on the proposal.
Thank you for your generous comments about my senatorial record. I have a real affection for our neighbour Canada and enjoy every opportunity I have to go to Canada.
Sincerely yours,
Margaret Smith.
There is another matter which I had intended to mention briefly, but it has been well discussed by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White), the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), and others. I refer to veterans affairs. I was disappointed that no mention of veterans was made in the speech from the throne this year. They should have been mentioned. There are problems. The other day the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Balcom) mentioned the war veterans allowance ceilings, and suggested that they should be raised to $1,200 for single veterans and $2,000 for married veterans. Members of the committee know that last year and other years I had amendments and resolutions to this effect.
The senior hon. member for Halifax mentioned service in England. I should like to say to the hon. member for Halifax that for the past 15 years, ever since the War Veterans Allowance Act has been discussed either in committee or in this House of Commons, opposition members and our party in particular have pressed for the inclusion of the soldiers who served in England under the war veterans allowance. It has been turned down repeatedly by his own party. I assure him that if he ever expects these men to be included under the terms of the War Veterans Allowance Act he will have to look to some party other than his own to take the initiative.
Certain amendments to the Pension Act should be considered this year as well. Since I am speaking of veterans affairs, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief reference to a trip I made overseas this year in company with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). First I want to thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney), for the kindness they showed in making the arrangements for us to visit the cemeteries in France, Holland, Belgium and Italy.
At the outset may I say there is a mistaken idea, not only among our own people but among people of other nations, that those

cemeteries are cared for and looked after by the people of the different countries in which they are located. That is not true. I read in the visitors' books of many of the cemeteries that some persons from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain, who had visited the cemeteries, had written in the following remarks: "We are grateful to the people of Holland", or "We are grateful to the people of France", or Belgium, "for the care they are taking of our soldiers' graves."
Nothing could be further from the fact, Mr. Speaker. These graves are being cared for by the imperial war graves commission. This is an organization that was set up in 1917. The head of it is the Duke of Gloucester. There are representatives from all of the countries of the commonwealth. They have a tremendous task to perform. They care for the graves of 1,104,000 men who died in the first war and 569,000 who died in the second war. Their activities extend to Africa, Asia, Europe and wherever commonwealth or British Empire soldiers are buried.
I was amazed and pleased; I can hardly find adjectives to describe the manner in which those graves and cemeteries are looked after. There could not be any finer cemeteries anywhere in the world than the cemeteries that are being looked after by the imperial war graves commission. In those graves you will find lying side by side men from all parts of the commonwealth and the British Empire, soldiers from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, South Africa, or wherever they may have come from. The resting places of our dead are places of beauty and peace. On every grave you will see flowers, rose bushes, or shrubs of some kind blooming.
If any hon. member has an opportunity to visit Europe, I suggest that he go and see for himself. It would be impossible for him to visit all the cemeteries, because it would take weeks. The hon. member for Calgary North and I spent three weeks there and we did not see nearly all the cemeteries. None of them is truly Canadian, but those that approach the nearest to being Canadian and are called Canadian are at Beny-sur-Mer, Bretteville-sur-Laize, Dieppe, Calais, Bergen op Zoom, Cassino and Ortona in Italy.
In addition to visiting the graves we visited the memorials. The Canadian memorial at Vimy Ridge is probably the finest memorial of any nation in the world. I was a little concerned to read in the press not long ago an account of the visit to this memorial of Captain Sharpe of the 1st Canadian division. He went there on November 11 expecting to find a ceremony of some kind, and was very
The Address-Mr. Brooks much surprised to find that only he and the caretaker visited the memorial on that occasion. The caretaker presented him with a wreath and asked him to place it on the memorial, which he was very proud and happy to do. Upon his return to Canada he wrote an article and expressed surprise tha1 a ceremony was not held at Vimy Ridge or November 11. I am sure this information must come as a surprise to a great manj people and I think it is a matter that should be very carefully looked into.
Another memorial in which I am particularly interested is the Newfoundland memorial in Belgium, and I want to congratulate the people of Newfoundland for arranging for this splendid memorial. It is perhaps the most practical memorial of any I saw. It consists of 100 acres of land which have beer left in the same state they were in following the war; that is, there are trenches, shell hole: and machine gun emplacements there whicl present a realistic picture of battle condi tions. There is just one thing I might criti cize in relation to this memorial; that is th< caretaker's home, which is in a state o disrepair. I think some attention should bi given to it.


Hugues Lapointe: It is being repaired thi year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister informs me tha it is being looked after this year. Anothe memorial which is of particular interest t people in the maritime provinces is the on erected by the 85th battalion. The 85tl battalion is supposed to have advanced, am I think it did advance, farther than any othe unit of the Canadian army at Passchendaek At the spot where they were held up the; have erected a monument. The 85th battalio: association has looked after the care am maintenance of this memorial for approxi mately 40 years. Many of the men of th 85th battalion have passed away and it wi! be only a matter of time, I think, until thi organization will not be functioning.
This memorial is not under the care c the imperial war graves commission and would recommend to the minister that i should be. It is quite difficult to find, in ths it is in the centre of a wheat field. Doubtles the association owns the land immediatel surrounding the memorial, but I doubt if th path leading into it is in their possession. Thi is a matter which I hope the department wi look into.
I have nothing more to say, Mr. Speake: except to make it clear that in speaking aboi the people in these different countries nt taking part in the decorating of the graves,

The Address-Mr. Bourque is because the imperial war graves commission do not wish them to do so. They fear they will litter up the graves with material which they would not wish to have there. We did learn, however, that school children from various countries, together with their masters, visited the graves and were told about the Canadian soldiers and others of the commonwealth. The cemeteries are visited practically every day by some of the people who live in those areas.
(Translation) :


Mr. Romuald Bourque (Oulremoni-Si. Jean):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this speech, I should like to congratulate the movers of the address in reply (Mrs. Shipley and Mr. Laflamme) on the way they handled their task.
The hon. member for Timiskaming pointed out various matters of great concern to her on behalf of her constituency and, as it is the first time that a member of the fair sex moves the address in reply, she deserves the compliments that have been extended to her by the members of this house.
The young and new member for Belle-chasse also deserves congratulations from his colleagues, and I do hope that he will often take part in the debates which will be held in this house.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, in the time I have at my disposal I intend to speak on two subjects which will no doubt be the subject of many discussions in this house and throughout Canada in the years to come. Automation and free enterprise have been responsible for many discussions, and I should like to express my views thereon.
During the past year or so people have oecome aware of a new word. They have already become familiar with such terms as atomic energy, radar, and microwave for :elevision and electronics. Now they hear and read about automation and a few of us ook forward to the great new things that automation will mean to the world. Others are worried and fearful and think it will aring about unemployment and poverty.
Just what is automation, and what does t mean to us all? Automation is really aothing new. It is just the continuation of a long, long process of technological advance, t really began a way back when man first nvented the lever to help him to lift a leavy object, and it continued through all he ages as man sought to make his daily vork easier and his production greater.
For a long time no one feared these mprovements in working tools because they ould see how helpful they were. Then, ibout a century ago, men invented machines

that could do much of the work they had had to do. They began using steam to provide the power that had formerly been created by man's muscles. Then they used water power to make electricity.
This brought about what was called the industrial revolution. Machines, it was found, could knit yarns and make it unnecessary for thousands of women and children to work in the knitting mills. Machines could do more in less time and work became easier.
People were frightened then, too, because they thought the machine would do them out of jobs. Some of them went so far as to smash the machinery, thinking it was a job thief. But the machines did not make unemployment. They created new employment. Thousands of people had new jobs at higher pay, making the machines. Working conditions were improved. The things the machines made cost less to produce, so more people could buy them. And as more people bought them there were new jobs in the mills and new jobs making the machines, delivering and selling the goods they produced. Everybody was better off than they had ever been before.
During this century we have seen even greater advances in mechanization. Nobody would want to go back to the days of hand work, when everybody worked long hours for poor pay and were unable even to buy the things they produced. How many people could own their own homes today if all our houses were built as they were in the past? In those days, home building could be done only during the summer. Plasterers and bricklayers, masons and roofers worked only six months a year. Everything was done by hand, from the digging of cellars to the laying of shingles.
Then technological improvements began in the building trades. Mehanical shovels dug out excavations in a matter of hours instead of days. Electrical welders went to work. Building materials were fabricated in the factories. Thousands of houses could be built in a season, and year-round employment was provided for those making components.
The same is true, of course, in many industries. The motor car and the television set are possible only because of mechanization. The telephone and the electric refrigerator would be impossible if they had to be made by hand.
All of us accept these modern things, and when we think of it we realize that we could have none of them without machinery. Every year in research departments and in experimental factories new things are made and new ways are devised for making them. All

this is simply technological development, new advances in the field of technology. And all this helps to make possible our modern way of life.
Now we come back to that new word, automation. It is really just a further step in technological advancement. Certainly it goes far beyond what our forefathers thought could ever happen in our industrial world. The first machines required many men to operate them. Under automation there will be many machines which do all the things the human operators used to do. New machines will work automatically.
The simplest illustration is the automatic gear shift on a new car. It has always been necessary for the driver of a car to change gears when he wanted to stop and start, drive through mud or snow, or speed up or slow down. Now an automatic gear shift does all that for him. The car knows when to change gears and does it all by itself. So we have automation.
In a factory automation will work the same way. At a certain time of day the automatic machinery will start a press or a weaving machine going; it will watch to make sure the machine is operating efficiently, and it will stop the machine when a certain amount of production has been achieved. It will also do such things as test the product from time to time and make sure that nothing is wrong.
So it will not be necessary to have an operator standing guard all the time to keep the machine running. This is what is called a push-button operation; you push a button and the machine does the rest.
What will be the next result of automation? In the first place it will release a number of people from humdrum jobs and enable them to take work with more opportunity. It will do away with the need for common labour and make more jobs for skilled workers. In short it will upgrade our workers, giving them better employment, better working conditions and better pay. At the same time it will reduce our production costs and enable more people to buy the things they want.
Instead of being afraid of automation we should welcome it. It is another step along the road to a more abundant life for everyone. Automation, the word of the future, holds out great promise to us all today. It is part of the brave new world in which we live, and is something our children will accept as one of our great contributions to their happiness.
So much for automation. Another term which is so often misunderstood is the word enterprise. Many people have misinterpreted this word, many fear it and many praise it.
The Address-Mr. Bourque In the first place, let us admit that there is no such thing in this world as free enterprise, if by free we mean enterprise that is completely beyond any control. In fact none of us would want such a thing. If there were perfectly free enterprise there would be no government, no laws, no control. There would just be chaos. So I think all of us agree that we have enterprise, but it is subject to many laws and conditions which make it acceptable to society.
No individual or company is allowed to carry on an enterprise which is harmful to society. We do not permit the selling of dope or narcotics except under strict medical and governmental supervision. We have imposed certain restrictions on the selling of comic books. We do not permit people to publish libelous statements. In all these respects enterprise is not free.
At the same time I think it is also a mistake to refer to private enterprise. Certainly there are some enterprises that are private, that are carried on by one man or by very few men, but most of our great enterprises in the country are public enterprises in the sense that they are made possible by joint ownership of a great many people. The telephone company, for instance, is owned by hundreds of thousands of shareholders. Every big manufacturing company has many, many shareholders, and so do all our great corporations.
In law we make a distinction between private and public companies. A private company is restricted to a certain number of shareholders, usually less than 50. A public company sells its stock on the market and may have many, many owners. So it is correct to say that our enterprise in Canada is very seldom private. It is usually the result of participation by the public.
We in Canada have been fortunate in devising a method by which enterprise can thrive. We admit the responsibility of the government in certain fields, but in the bulk of our national activities we rely upon the enterprise of those Canadians who seek to build and create and serve their fellows at a profit. We all believe in one form or another of the profit system.
The man who works for wages sells his time and his labour at a profit. He seeks enough for his efforts to enable him to buy the things he wants and do the things he likes to do. He realizes, also, that those who pay him must be able to realize a profit on his services or they will soon be out of business and he will be out of a job. The need for a profit goes all along the line. Our whole economy is based upon the desire and ability of each of us to profit by his own endeavours.

The Address-Mr. Bourque And because this system exists we enjoy the second highest standard of living in the world and are one of the great development countries of the world.
Since the last war Canada has seen the investment of millions of dollars and the employment of hundreds of thousands of people. We are growing, and we are growing quickly, because not only do we have the resources here to develop but we have the right economic and political climate in which to develop them. Nobody wishes to invest his time or his money in something of which he can be deprived without warning. No one wishes to live in a country where his political freedom is constantly in danger.
In Canada neither of these conditions exists. We on this side of the house recognize the need for supervision and control. We realize that in essence all the resources of Canada belong to the people of Canada, and that these people must not be exploited. But we realize also that our resources are of no value unless they are developed, and that in order to develop them we must encourage enterprise and allow it to be rewarded by a profit.
Enterprise in this country recognizes its responsibility to the people. It seeks to provide employment for Canadians and to encourage them to develop their skills and increase their earnings. It endeavours to provide goods and services at reasonable prices, and it maintains strong competition in order to give the public an opportunity to pick and choose. We have on our markets many cars in many models, our banks compete strenuously for customers, and in men's and women's wear we stock our counters with a great variety of styles and colours.
There was a time when some people thought this enterprise system was wasteful. They thought it would be preferable to have only one company and one product in a line; then, they thought, costs would be lower and prices would be cheaper. Now, however, we know that competition leads to lower cost production methods, competition creates new markets, competition lowers prices. That is the fruit of enterprise. More goods of better quality at lower prices all come from our system of letting men freely and honestly seek to improve their products or their services. It has brought us unparalleled prosperity. It has provided work and opportunity for most of our citizens.
Because we are enterprising people, and because we believe in true enterprise that seeks to serve rather than exploit, we in Canada are envied by people in other parts of the globe. Many thousands of people have


come here to live with us, and many more thousands will follow. Some of them come from countries where true enterprise has never existed, or where it has been stamped out by false theorists. Those who have lived where there is no enterprise know what it is to live without freedom. Under our blue skies, in this great expanse of territory, they will find rewards for hard work, for skill, for ingenuity, for perseverance and for courage. This is not an easy land in which to live. It is not a land for weaklings or for people who place security above all else.
Canada has been built upon struggle. We have had to fight against nature. We have been forced to work hard because we are next door to a rich and powerful neighbour. But we have established certain values that have paid us well. We have rich soil waiting to be worked. We have great mineral deposits waiting to be brought out of the rock. We have vast forests and fisheries waiting to be developed. There is room here for men and women with enterprise. They can and will make this country one of the most favoured lands on earth.
Now may I take just a few minutes to talk about the common-sense aspects of economics. Let us look at the situation on this continent and in the world today as it affects us as plain, ordinary, everyday citizens. In Canada today we are enjoying another spurt in what is the greatest boom in history. Everybody and his uncle today are buying motor cars. Almost every home you visit has a television set. Everywhere you look there are new homes under construction, and the furniture companies are just waiting to sell the new owners the furniture to go in them. All this means jobs, higher pay, more vacations and more spending, until it all goes round just like a circle.
The danger is, of course, that in our mad rush to buy new things we may forget some of the other values of life. When you are busy making the payments on a car it is sometimes hard to remember that nobody is calling on the family next door because they happen to belong to another race, have a different religion or speak a different language. Yet surely good neighbourliness is just as important as driving a motor car. Or is it? That is one of the things we should take time to think about, even if it means turning off the radio or the television set.
James Farley, the United States politician, recently pointed out that the United States, with all its prosperity, is losing some of its spiritual wealth. Like everybody else Farley enjoys the good things of life, but he thinks

one of the good things is good behaviour based upon faith and a sense of spiritual values. Perhaps we should all take time out to consider whether or not we are becoming so obsessed with material things that we are forgetting the basic values of our civilization. It sometimes seems strange today to suggest that man cannot live by bread alone. Some cynics laugh and say "No, he needs cake as well". But the truth is that it is spiritual food we need to supplement our bread, not richer material food.
I am not one of those who believe that the world is going to the dogs just because we all have more money to spend and more leisure time in which to spend it. No one, I think, would want to go back to the days of the hungry thirties when a man did not know where his next job was coming from. Prices are high today, but we have the money to pay them. Prices were low back in 1935, but very few people could afford to buy what they needed. The good old days sound wonderful to the old-timers, and sometimes we can even convince the younger generation that it was fun to live in the horse and carriage age, but the truth is that we all have a chance to live better lives today than our parents or our grandparents did 50 or 75 years ago.
Nobody has all the answers. But we can all seek some of them on our own. A United States magazine recently suggested that juvenile delinquency today is a result of our lack of discipline. We try to understand children instead of training them to do right. That is one editor's answer. James Farley says we should pay more attention to spiritual values, and no matter what church we go to or what faith we hold we should seek better understanding there.
Labour unions demand higher wages. Employers say if wages go up prices must rise, too. Consumers, and that includes both labour and employers, sit in the middle, caught either way. To the amateur in economics it is all very confusing. But sometimes the amateurs are smarter than the professionals. Why not have a discussion group in your own families and invite the neighbours in as well to discuss everyday problems? See what you think about these problems and reach your own conclusions. Are we too material? Think it over. You probably have the right answer yourself.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The Address-Mr. Campbell AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Battlefords):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be of congratulation to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I might say, however, that I am not going to lay it on too thick, because I think there is a saturation point beyond which one must not go since there is always a danger of spoiling people by praising them too much.
Tonight I want to talk about the people in my constituency and the conditions in which they find themselves. I am going to make some criticisms but I am also going to offer some suggestions which, if followed, I think would benefit the people I represent.
I travelled in my constituency during the recess and logged some 10,000 miles. I talked to a great number of people about their problems, and I think I know something about them. One of the last of my constituents whom I saw before coming to Ottawa was a man I met on the streets of Saskatoon. He said to me, "I hope you people down there will be able to do something to alleviate the conditions that we are experiencing at the present time." Tonight it is my purpose to try to do just that. I want to try to do something that will help the people whom I represent.
First of all may I say that I deplore the fact that some of the members in this chamber and at least one of the cabinet ministers have played down the real situation existing in the wheat-growing areas of western Canada. I have lived in that country for over 50 years. I homesteaded there and went through all the pioneering stages. Never since the hungry thirties, and not even then, have I seen a greater scarcity of money. The situation then was not much worse than it is at the present time. The whole plea of the population in that whole area is this: Try to get some money in the pockets of the farmers.
During this debate most of the talk has been centred around the farmers' need for cash and certainly their need is great, because their costs of operation have been going up steadily and their income has been going down rapidly. Not only have farmers come to me; never before have so many businessmen come to see me to ask if something could not be done to get money into the hands of the farmers.
The farmers are in this position. Last year they had a small crop of extremely poor quality, and they received little money for it. The result was that many of the merchants in the smaller towns advanced credit.

The Address-Mr. Campbell Those merchants are obliged to pay cash for the things which they sell on credit. Many of these merchants are in the position of not being able to meet their commitments and of not knowing how long they are going to be able to carry on. They are almost in a worse position than are the farmers because they have rent to pay, help to pay and so forth and so on. I therefore deprecate the fact that at least one cabinet minister has played down the situation there.
I may also say that I attended many meetings of farmers. Those meetings were attended not only by farmers but by businessmen, heads of boards of trade and so on. They all asked for one thing, namely that the government should make an advance payment to farmers for grain stored on the farm. I am not going to spend any time belabouring that point, because the government and this house has decided that that is not going to be done. But as I said before, I deplore the fact that at least one minister of the crown has played down the real situation that exists in that country.
I read now an extract from the Globe and Mail of January 24 reporting what happened when the Minister of Agriculture was speaking in the city of Winnipeg. According to the extract this is what he said:
Agriculture Minister Gardiner said today that farmers are not as hard up "as some people would try to have us believe."
I think the minister is playing down the actual situation. I am going to say this. If there were an election tomorrow, neither the Minister of Agriculture nor any other Liberal would be back here from Saskatchewan. I have never seen the people as angry as they are now over the lack of action on the part of this government in the present situation. They are angry at the government and I am quite sure they are going to be angry at some of their own members-that is the Liberal members from the western provinces
for not standing up in this house and at least making an attempt to get a better deal for their people.
I was quite interested in some items that have appeared in the press, particularly one editorial that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press. Everybody knows that the Winnipeg Free Press has been a supporter of this government. It is known as a Liberal newspaper. This is what they have to say about the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). This editorial is dated January 23, 1956 and reads as follows:
The constituency of Rosthern in Saskatchewan should consider itself well served. It has two House of Commons members. Official lists, it is true, show only Mr. Walter Tucker as the member. But lists are poor things. They cannot show that there is a western Mr. Tucker and there is also an eastern Mr. Tucker, quite distinct.

On the afternoon of October 17 the executive of the Liberal association met, 50 strong, in Rosthern. That evening the western Mr. Tucker wired Prime Minister St. Laurent and Trade Minister Howe and, on behalf of the meeting, pressed for cash advances on farm stored grain.
But the air of Ottawa has caused a strange metamorphosis: and on January 17 the eastern Tucker rose in the House of Commons and repudiated the western Tucker. The eastern Tucker was not only against cash advances on farm stored grain. More than that: he charged that the C.C.F. party, by its advocacy of cash advances on such grains, was attempting to wreck the Canadian wheat board.
The implications of the eastern Tucker's charges are obvious; they charge the western Tucker with attempting to wreck the Canadian wheat board; for the western Tucker also advocated these cash advances.
The eastern Tucker was, of course, simply parroting Mr. Howe. But he seems to be stepping beyond the line of duty, or even the requirements of expediency, when he carries Mr. Howe's theory of guilt by association even farther than Mr. Howe did. It may be tempting to a Saskatchewan politician to feel that anything is good enough to throw at the C.C.F. But it is, apart from anything else, poor politics.
The charge that the C.C.F. is against the wheat board simply will not stick. And while Mr. Howe was wise enough to refrain from so direct an attack on the C.C.F., he was also kind enough to refrain from listing the Liberal Association of Rosthern, and the western Tucker as its spokesman, among the enemies of the wheat board. It really was rather cruel of the eastern Tucker to step in and do it himself.
That statement was printed prior to a report that was made by Mr. Arthur Blakely of the Montreal Gazette on January 20, with respect to a meeting that was held by the Liberal party the evening before. This report reads as follows:
The big Liberal party dinner honouring trade minister C. D. Howe and agriculture minister James G. Gardiner on the completion of 20 years of continuous service in the federal cabinet, turned out to be quite an affair. As a matter of fact, it still has the Liberal back benches buzzing.
I am going to leave out part of this statement and start in again where it is headed "Leadership Assured". Leadership was what they had been discussing.
The matter of leadership out of the way, the two honoured right honourables selected another text. At all costs, they advised Liberal backbenchers, toe the party line.
Mr. Howe was emphatic on this point. Ruggedly individualistic courses of action, by individual Liberals, could bring on trouble. And plenty of it. And in that way the existing Liberal majority- however large it might appear-could be wiped out.
Superb leadership had long been a Liberal asset. And when the Prime Minister had decided on a given course of action, that should be accepted as the proper policy by all true Liberals, whether they agreed with it or not. Decisions by the leadership were taken only with the greatest of care. And they could be disregarded only at the cost of inviting political disaster.
"We must pay a good deal of attention to the party line," Mr. Howe warned. "If the party is wrong, you are going to be defeated anyway. We stand or fall together."

Once this party line was laid down "I don't care whether you are a member of the House of Commons or the Senate, that line should be adhered to."
Later, in another section headed "Party Loyalty", we find this:
Mr. Gardiner, who has had his wayward moments on such issues as the $65 million payment to the wheat farmers and the south Saskatchewan dam project, added his plea.
"When the majority of the Liberal party agrees that a thing should be done, I'm going to work to see that it is done."
And he submitted, for consideration of the faithful, something in the way of an object lesson.
Years ago, when Mackenzie King had been prime minister the government accepted a decision which he had strongly opposed. In the commons, when the matter came under debate, Mr. King asked him to speak in support of the measure.
He did so. And with such effect that as he was leaving the house, a colleague stopped him offered his congratulations and said with admiration, what would you have sounded like had you really believed in what you were saying?
I take it from that, Mr. Speaker, that whenever the Minister of Agriculture speaks now we will not know whether or not he believes in what he is saying.
Last fall I attended a meeting of farmers. At the end of the meeting a farmer asked me this question. Is it true that there is a great deal of empty elevator space in the city of Saskatoon? He said he was talking to a man who worked there and he told him there was a lot of space in the elevator. My answer was that I could not conceive that there would be any elevator space in any terminal elevator in Canada at this time, because I thought the Minister of Trade and Commerce was too good a businessman to allow space to be empty when it was needed so badly, and when the farmers needed the money so badly.
I did not think very much more about my answer to that question until some time in November, when I picked up a copy of the Edmonton Journal in which there was a report of a meeting attended by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the city of Edmonton. I do not remember the exact figures, but the report was to the effect that there was a considerable amount of storage space available both at Vancouver and at the lakehead. On January 20, 1956, I asked this question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as reported at page 347 of Hansard:
Would the minister present the latest figures concerning the amount of empty space now available in terminal elevators?
I might say that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) had stated in the course of his address that there was space available in the elevators for something
The Address-Mr. Campbell like 100 million bushels. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) interjected at that time and said, "No, the amount would not be much over half of that". When I got the answer to the question I found that the interior elevators had space available for 700,000 bushels of wheat; the Pacific coast terminals at Vancouver and New Westminster had space for
8.200.000	bushels; Victoria, 400,000 bushels; Prince Rupert 700,000 bushels; and Churchill
600.000	bushels.
I am not going to say anything about the eastern terminals because the minister pointed out that as the lakes were frozen we could expect to have quite a lot of space available there. I find, however, that the space available in western elevators amounted to
44.700.000	bushels. Well, there is something wrong there. There must be a nigger in the woodpile somewhere. Who is responsible?
I have always believed that the responsibility lay with the transport controller. In the debate a few days ago we were given to understand that the railroads were making the adjustments and saying where the railroad cars were going to go. This is a serious situation.
I shall refer to only the effective amount of storage, because as the minister said the other day they want to keep 10 per cent of the space available in case a certain amount of the grain has to be dried or something like that. The effective storage space available now is 44,700,000 bushels. One of the suggestions I am going to make is this. We should get the transport controller to work. We should make that name plate on his door worth something. We should see that cars are made available so this space in the terminal elevators could be filled. I believe the transport controller should be given orders to get this done and get it done quickly. If it were done, and done rapidly, we could then distribute to the farmers $53,640,000- without any cost to the government and without making any loans. I am going to prophesy right here that this is a far greater amount of money than will be borrowed by the farmers under the loan scheme.
I want an answer to these questions, and I hope some minister will give that answer. The Minister of Agriculture has not spoken as yet. I am sure the farmers of this country and the members of this parliament will want to know why this space has not been filled. Have the railroads been going on their own without any direction? Is it because the Crowsnest rates are low? Speaking in Montreal a few days ago the presidents of both railways objected to the Crowsnest pass rates. They claimed that those rates were only one-third of the rates they were getting
506	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Campbell on some other products. Are the railways passing up the hauling of wheat because they can make more money on other products? If that is the case it is time the controller stepped in and saw to it that the farmers in western Canada got their fair share of box cars.
Are we short of box cars? The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce said some new box cars were going to be made available soon. We have had this trouble in other years, and the transport controller was appointed to do just what he should have been doing during these past months. We had trouble when the lake boats were hauling iron ore and passing up the hauling of wheat. If the government sees to it that the transport controller goes to work and makes cars available to fill this space, then this $50 or $60 million can be paid to the farmers as soon as that grain is delivered. It is a pity it could not have been done before, because the farmers in western Canada are running up against another problem, something that is new.
Our crises follow each other in succession year after year. We have never experienced this crisis before, though I remember one winter in 1906-07 when we had a tremendous amount of snow. Today the roads in western Canada are blocked with snow. There is so much snow it is almost impossible to clear it. I have been getting letters and I have been reading in the papers about farmers trying to get into town by means of teams of horses. They have not many horses, and the horses they have cannot work because they have not done any work for two or three years. It is going to be almost impossible for many farmers to deliver much grain, even if box cars are made available, unless the government accepts the suggestion I am now going to make.
About the only farmers who are going to be able to deliver grain are those living on built-up highways which are snowplowed. The back concession roads cannot be opened and probably will not be opened until May. I suggest that the farmers who live in the back concessions be allowed to exchange wheat with the farmers who live on the built-up roads, so the farmers in the back concessions can get some money out of the little quota that is to be made available, I do not know when.
My other suggestion is this. To put a little more money in the pockets of the farmers, enough to keep them going, the government should make an interim payment on the 1954-55 crop, and make it soon. These are my suggestions.


I now wish to say something about the wheat surplus. Since a lot has been said about this surplus I am not going to repeat what has been said up to now, but my attention has been drawn to an editorial that appeared in the Western Producer of December 1, 1955. It is a long editorial, and of course I cannot put it all on Hansard. It deals with FAO and what FAO was set up for. The Minister of Agriculture should tell this house why FAO has failed and why something has not been done along the lines of the great plans that the people who set up FAO had for the handling of surpluses.
As I said, I am not going to read the whole editorial because it is too long, but I am going to read a short extract from what President Eisenhower had to say about surpluses a year after he took office. The editorial reads:
Here is President Eisenhower speaking after a year in office and declaring a new kind of total war:
"... total war, not upon any human enemy, but upon the brute forces of poverty and need. The peace we seek, founded upon decent trust and co-operative effort amongst nations, can be fortified-not by weapons of war, but by wheat and cotton, by milk and wool, by meat, by timber and by rice. These are words that translate into every language of the globe."
What an exhilarating prospect but what a bleak realization with Mr. Benson today wringing his hands over unsaleable surpluses and calling for sharp cuts in production!
More recently there was Sir Anthony Eden to this effect:
"We all know what unparalleled resources the scientific and technical advances of the age have placed within our reach. We have only to stretch out our hand and the human race can enter an era of prosperity, such as has never been seen."
The other day the foreign office called Bulganin hypocritical. What would be the appropriate term for Sir Anthony who dares talk about "only stretching out the hand" well aware that "the hungry sheep look up and are not fed."
One could quote interminably in this vein from the great and near-great of the world, but we must content ourselves with only another from Lord Boyd-Orr, first FAO chairman. A few months ago he complained of international conferences "talking about isms instead of about food and food production where they would know what they were talking about." In the same speech he said:
"In a world where two-thirds of the people are hungry, there is no world food surplus. If the plans which FAO put forward in 1946 had been carried through, there would have been a big world reserve of food, with a big fund behind it, and in the countries where there was a surplus, that would have been bought and the farmers would have got the money and the food would have been sold to the countries that were hungry."
I come to another matter I wish to discuss, namely air mail service to the town of Lloyd-minster in Saskatchewan. When the former minister of finance, Mr. Abbott, introduced

this legislation he made a definite commitment to this house. He was talking about the increase in the postal rates on first-class mail. He said:
When the new rates come into effect all first-class mail will be carried by air it air carriage will speed up delivery. Canada already has the most advanced air mail service of any country in the world and this service will be further improved.
This quotation may be found in Hansard of Tuesday, December 8, 1953, at page 691.
The chamber of commerce of the town of Lloydminster, the board of trade of North Battleford, and the provincial board of trade have all passed resolutions and have all written the government and the Post Office Department asking that this mail service be made available to the people in that community. The town of Lloydminster is situated on the border between the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. It was first settled by the Barr colony. It is also the centre of the first oil development in Saskatchewan.
I have not time to go into all the resolutions that were passed by these different organizations. I ask the government and the Postmaster General to see to it that the commitment that was made by Mr. Abbott when he was minister of finance is carried out, and that the benefits which can be derived by the carriage of mail by air be extended to that district.
There is another matter I might have brought up when I was discussing the wheat problem, namely inland storage. The board of trade of North Battleford and many farmers' organizations in that area have been requesting the government for years to do something about an interior elevator at that point. They have sent in resolution after resolution. I saw the Minister of Trade and Commerce about this matter several years ago. We think the time has now come when the Minister of Trade and Commerce should take a different look at this situation. Because the city of North Battleford is centrally located, wheat can be shipped to the port of Churchill in Hudson bay; it can be shipped to the west coast, or to the great lakes. I urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce to take another look at the suggestion and see if it would be possible to give us inland storage, which is needed so badly at that point.
I am going to make another suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture. I see he is just leaving the house. Perhaps he will sit down for a few minutes, because I will not take up very much more time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am glad the hon. member thinks it is still necessary for me to be here.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: We have heard a lot about diversification. At this time many of our
The Address-Mr. Batten farmers are wondering what would be the best course to take and where they can diversify their farm production. The Minister of Agriculture and his department should give more leadership than they are giving along those lines. I know of certain farmers who grew a considerable amount of rape last year. How many more acres of land can be put into rape? How many more cattle can be produced? How many hogs should we produce next year? How much land should be put down to grass, and so on and so forth?
I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his department should give a lead. I heard Professor Ramsay speaking in Saskatoon a few days before I came here. He urged that the farmers go in for more cattle. He pointed out that in the past we had shipped more than 400,000 head of cattle to the United States in one year. The minister and his department are in a better position than anyone else to give leadership as to how much diversification there should be and what changes should be made. I would ask that he endeavour to do something between now and the spring, and that he give an indication to the farmers concerning the possibility of changing to other products, how much they might produce and how much they could expect to market in the future.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, may I have the pleasure of joining with those who have preceded me in extending congratulations to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. May I also say I believe they have honourably discharged their responsibility, which in itself was an honour to them and to their constituencies.
Last session when I spoke in this debate I gave a description of the riding of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, which is the riding I have the honour to represent. I do not propose to repeat that now, but there is one point I should like to mention. The industrial town of Corner Brook is situated at the mouth of the Humber river, at the bottom of Humber arm, 30 miles inland from the sea along the south shore of bay of Islands. In 1923 the settlement of Corner Brook consisted of just a few families who depended for their prosperity on the operation of a small lumbering industry. In that year the government of the day decided to build a paper mill on this site. Since that time it has grown to become the largest integrated pulp and paper mill in the world. It has a daily production of over 1,200 tons and at peak periods employs 10,000 peopje in the plant and the wood areas. Just to the east of Corner Brook is

The Address-Mr. Batten an area known as Corner Brook East, which is perhaps more familiarly known by Newfoundlanders as Humbermouth. This area for many years depended for its prosperity on the fact that it was a terminal for the Newfoundland railway. It still is a railway terminal for the C.N.R.
Just to the west of Corner Brook is an area known as Corner Brook West which grew up because of the operation of the paper mill there. Still further west is an area known as Curling, a very old and well established settlement. Heretofore these four townships were governed by separate town councils. Last spring a plebiscite was held and the people of the four areas voted to amalgamate and form one unit. In August of last year an election was held and a mayor and eight councillors were elected. On January 1 of this year, just about three weeks ago, these four townships were officially incorporated into the new city of Corner Brook, which is the second largest city in Newfoundland and the twenty-eighth in Canada.
The year 1955 was a prosperous year for Newfoundland. In fact I think I am able to say that it was the, most prosperous year in the entire history of Newfoundland. In those industries which brought prosperity to Newfoundland there was one exception, the fishing industry. The total landings of ground fish in 1955 amounted to 545 million pounds, with a value of $13-2 million. This was a. decrease of 62-4 million pounds or $1-5 million from the year 1954. The herring industry, which is particularly important in my area, also experienced a decrease in 1955. This decrease amounted to approximately 2 million pounds compared to the catch of 1954. On the other hand the lobster industry, which is also extremely important in my area, had an excellent year; 5-3 million pounds for the whole of Newfoundland were landed, with a value of $1-4 million. It is interesting to note here that since the year 1930 the lobster industry in Newfoundland has shown a continuous increase year after year. The year 1955 produced the highest catch of all the years since 1930. This increase has not been due solely to an increased number of fishermen engaged in that branch of the fishing industry, but is also due to the fact that regulations governing the lobster fishing industry were rigidly enforced, and it is also due to the co-operation of the fishermen themselves.
We all recognize that the provincial government in Newfoundland and the fishing industry itself are giving very serious consideration to what should be done to improve the status of those men who are engaged in that industry, but while I say that fishing 
is generally a provincial matter there is also a national aspect to that industry. In that respect I believe the federal government can do much to help in the work that is going on in Newfoundland to improve the lot of the fishermen, and I should like to make three suggestions.
I would suggest first-and this relates to my own riding in particular-that the federal Department of Fisheries make a complete survey of the fishing potential on the west coast of Newfoundland so the different types of fish, the quantity of fish and where the different types can be found will be known by those people who might be inclined to invest money in the fishing industry. In that way the government would be giving some guidance to those people who might invest money in the industry as is done, for example, for those who might invest money in mining.
Second, I would urge the Department of Fisheries to establish more bait depots along the coast, particularly in my own riding. We need bait depots for the operation of the industry. Some people ask why there is so much talk at this time about bait depots in Newfoundland when years ago the fishing industry was operating without the use of bait depots.
The answer, of course, is very simple. In the first place, in Newfoundland we do not now get the same adequate supplies of bait at the right time of year and in the right place that we used to get years ago. Second, if we are going to improve the lot of the fishermen it is necessary that they go to work earlier in the year and that they remain at their task until later in the year. In Newfoundland we are not able to secure sufficient fresh bait early in the year, nor are we able to secure sufficient fresh bait later on in the year to keep our men working long enough to increase their production sufficiently to give them a good return for their work. In the lobster industry in particular if fresh bait is not available at the time the lobster fishing begins, then the lobster fishermen are seriously handicapped.
The establishment of bait depots would be of vast assistance to them. In my area there is but one bait depot, at Port aux Choix, which was built three or four years ago. If the federal Department of Fisheries intended this to be an experiment I can assure the department that it has been highly successful; and in the light of what has been done in that area and from my own experience I know that the catch in that area has been more than doubled because of that bait depot. I suggest that bait depots be built at strategic points along this coast, and I would suggest

such points as Lark Harbour, Bonne Bay, Cow Head and Reefs Harbour.
My third suggestion does not apply to my own riding or province alone but to all parts of Canada where the fishing industry is prosecuted. I refer to unemployment insurance for fishermen. I believe that if unemployment insurance were extended to the fishermen of Canada it would do much to encourage them to carry on in the industry in which they make their living. Last year when the unemployment insurance commission presented its report to the committee we all noticed that it was a negative report. Maybe there were some who felt that a more positive approach would have been more acceptable, but on reflection I am not too sure that a negative approach is wrong. At least it does point out the obstacles which have to be overcome if we are to have fishermen included among those who are considered to be insurable.
These are the three suggestions I would make; first, a full-fledged survey of the fishing potential of the west coast of Newfoundland; second, the establishment of more bait depots, and third, the inclusion of fishermen in the unemployment insurance scheme.
I turn now to the problem of transportation in Newfoundland, and may I say that this has always been a big problem for us in the island province. For many years the only method of trans-insular transportation was by the Newfoundland railway. Although this railroad is of narrow gauge it has given real service to our island since the project was first discussed in 1847 and brought to practical reality by the railway bill of 1881. There has been a steady improvement in the services and facilities since the first crosscountry train left St. John's on July 24, 1898. We can trace its growth from the days when it was known as the Reid Newfoundland railway to the time it was operated as a state concern giving yeoman service during world war II, until finally it became a part of the Canadian National Railways in 1949.
Since confederation there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of traffic with which the Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland has had to cope. In 1955 carloadings were up 13 per cent over 1954. From 1949 to 1954 freight coming into Newfoundland from Nova Scotia was up 65 per cent; in the same period local freight was up 28 per cent; passenger traffic had increased by 17 per cent; express by 50 per cent, and the mail traffic had doubled.
A real effort has been made by the C.N.R. to cope with the problem of increasing traffic. The completion of the dieselization of the
The Address-Mr. Batten Newfoundland district, together with the increase in rolling stock, will do much to increase efficiency on the C.N.R. in Newfoundland. In addition I would suggest that the plans for the immediate future include the improvement of terminal facilities at Deer Lake, Corner Brook and the Stephenville area so as to provide a service more compatible with the growing needs of these expanding communities.
I recognize that a proportion of C.N.R. operations in Newfoundland have to do with the coastal steamship service. The problem here has been accentuated by a serious decrease in the number of vessels engaged in the local trade. If I may digress here for a moment I should like to support my colleague, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter), in the plea he made here the other evening for an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act so the annual inspection regulations which now apply to all vessels over 150 tons will apply only to vessels over 250 tons. Coming back again to the C.N.R., I believe that some of the problems with which they are now faced will be solved at least in part when the two new ships now under construction in the United Kingdom are put into service.
During the recess as I went around my riding I was happy to hear from time to time of the good work being done by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. May I as a backbencher commend them for the stature which they have given to Canada in the councils of the world. They have discharged their responsibilities with credit to Canada and distinction to themselves.
I think it is true that we live in a world fraught with danger. I remember that a few years ago, before the atomic bomb became a reality, in certain circles there was some doubt as to what would happen if the atom were ever split. Some wondered if there would not be a chain reaction which would destroy the whole universe. Today we know that such a result is improbable, but I do not think that in the world in which we live today we are entirely out of the woods. The presence of the atomic and hydrogen bombs may, under certain conditions, initiate within the minds of men a chain reaction which may produce exactly the same effect.
I was pleased to note that in the speech from the throne mention was made of Canada's continued and further participation in the Colombo plan. In the awakening of nationalism in the countries of Asia there must of necessity be the growth of a desire
510	HOUSE OF
The Address-Miss Aitken on the part of the peoples concerned to improve their standards of living and take their places among the peoples of the world. The decision on the part of western countries to help them achieve that aim will have a real impact upon these countries, and we sincerely hope will be a stroke for the advancement of world peace.
During wartime the democratic nations of the world spent billions of dollars to ensure that man might swim through the sea like a fish. The democratic nations spent billions to ensure that man would fly through the air like a bird, and I think it is a great thing in peacetime that the free nations of the world can afford to spend a little in an attempt to ensure that free men will walk the earth as men.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in the throne speech debate, but when I returned to Toronto this week end I received many messages, telephone calls and letters asking that I raise my voice in parliament on behalf of what could only be described as an aroused citizenry. The number of sex crimes which are taking place in and around Toronto and throughout the country have alarmed people right across the country. I know the Minister of Justice must feel sympathetic and appreciate the fear that parents have, and I know that all hon. members of this house must feel horror and revulsion on reading of these crimes which are increasing week by week.
Mr. Speaker, through you I do beseech the Minister of Justice to give leadership in this matter. As things stand now the people, and I am speaking particularly of Toronto, are far ahead of the government in their concern and fear, and in their determination that something must be done immediately. On Monday afternoon in Toronto a 13-year old girl, the victim of a sex maniac, was buried. A little more than a week ago in London a five-year old child, the victim of a sex maniac, was buried. In Hamilton eight women have been assaulted in as many weeks. After each of these crimes we read in the newspapers that the police have rounded up 300 or 400 known sex degenerates for questioning. Surely our laws are wrong, Mr. Speaker, when they allow 300 to 400 known suspects to roam the streets. Surely our laws are wrong when innocent little girls are the prey of these known maniacs.
We have been warned by medical men and psychiatrists that sex offenders are not responsible. You punish them but they strike again and again. Our magistrates and our judges are not doctors or psychiatrists, and in


our courts minor offenders of this nature are not recognized when they first appear in court. The result is that such afflicted people are not sent for the necessary treatment at a time when future crimes might be prevented. The permanent solution of this problem, it seems to me, rests with the government and the government alone. There must be a revision of our Criminal Code to provide for the holding of offenders or even suspects indefinitely, whether they be held in prison for crimes they have committed or whether they be held for psychiatric treatment.


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend would not attempt to misrepresent the law that she helped to pass. There is provision in the code at the present time to hold them indefinitely, and all that is required is that action be taken by the law enforcement authorities in the various provincial centres to that end.


Margaret Aitken: Again I say that the law is not being enforced.


Mrs. Shipley:: That is provincial.


Margaret Aitken: From the large number of people who have appealed to me, both as a member of the house and as a journalist, I know the public feel that the law is not being enforced. What can be done about it I do not know, but these people blame the government for the situation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Certainly we cannot enforce it. It is not our responsibility.


An hon. Member:: Well, take some responsibility and do something about it.


Margaret Aitken: In St. Catharines the other day a man committed an offence against two little girls and was taken to court. He pleaded guilty, but he claimed that he was drunk when he committed the offence. Press reports said that he was extremely embarrassed and contrite, but to be embarrassed and contrite was no comfort to the parents of those little girls or to the little girls themselves. However, it seemed to be some comfort to the judge, because he gave the man a suspended sentence of two years. If the man had stolen a motor rug from a parked car he would have received a greater sentence. I claim that the magistrate in giving that sentence was simply adding another young man to the 300 or 400 known persons suspected of sex deviation; yet the man's only defence was that he was drunk at the time.
Is it any wonder that citizens are aroused? Under the Criminal Code the maximum penalty for rape is life imprisonment. Yet last September here in Ottawa a man who had committed rape was given 10 years. Under our Criminal Code indecent assault calls for a

maximum penalty of five years. Yet in Toronto within the past few months a youth of 19 assaulted a nine-year-old girl and was given nine months.
I know that a royal commission under Chief Justice McRuer is engaged at the present time in studying aspects of this terrible problem and, as I understand it, the report is to be forthcoming within the next few months. But, Mr. Speaker-and again I am speaking not only for my own constituents but for many thousands of parents in Toronto-we cannot wait for that academic and careful study while these murders are taking place.
In Toronto an organization was formed some time ago called the parents' action league. Its purpose is not to study the problem but to take action, to go on the offensive against this scourge of our society. Like all modern societies it is becoming known by its initials and is referred to as PAL. The parents' action league is urging that magistrates send sex offenders or even suspects to hospitals for psychiatric study. The provincial government of Ontario is trying to co-operate within the confines of its authority. Offenders are to be segregated at Guelph reformatory and an extension of psychiatric facilities is to be carried out in all Ontario hospitals.
The parents' action league now represents about 70 organizations. Indeed, I think you can say it represents three million people in the province of Ontario. But it is not the parents' action league or any other citizens' group that can give leadership in solving this problem. We the people are calling on the Minister of Justice, who tells us that the code is there, to take action. It is the setting up of psychiatric institutions that is needed. It is a cure, a preventative that is needed, and I feel that is the responsibility of the dominion government.
Even before the royal commission finishes its deliberations it is essential to take known sex degenerates out of circulation. At the funeral of little five-year-old Susan Cadieux of London, who was assaulted and murdered, Father O'Rourke had this to say:
Degenerates like mad dogs are allowed to roam our streets at will.
In the press report of that tragic funeral there was one sentence that caught my eye, and it was this:
In that assemblage of people the shame and degradation of one man rests on all men.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I do beseech the Minister of Justice to give us the leadership in solving this problem for which people are asking. Throughout our society fear and horror run rampant while we wait for the government to assume its responsibility and take action.
The Address-Mr. Trainor


Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to extend the traditional congratulations to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and more particularly to the hon. member for Timiskaming because she is something in the nature of a trail blazer and very possibly the honour accorded to her now may be the augury of greater things to come in the legislative councils of the country.
In this debate many hon. members have complained of the paucity of information contained in the speech from the throne and the legislative program of the government. I think, however, this is probably understandable, because if the government does not intend to submit legislation to parliament but rather intends to deal with matters by the more expeditious method of order in council, why bother announcing legislation in the speech from the throne?
As usually happens in debates of this type, the more interesting points are often raised in speeches from the opposition side of the house. I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, who chose to complain of the influx of United States capital in the development of the resources of this country. I do not happen to share his alarm in this respect, because I believe that capital is essential for the development of the country. If a foreign nation chooses to put its capital into our country, I believe we should welcome it.


Irvin William Studer: Saskatchewan goes begging for it.


Owen C. Trainor: I also note that in a recent address Mr. Muir, the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, stated that while in the occasional field this type of investment was excessive, on the whole he did not think it was nearly as bad as many people thought it was. I therefore do not think it is a subject that should give us too much concern. As a matter of fact we ought to welcome it, because we want to see our resources developed and we want to see our country grow. It certainly cannot grow without financial resources.
I also noted that the hon. member for Yorkton was greatly concerned about three large soap companies and bemoaned the fact that Canadians were unable to participate in these organizations. For his information I may say that all three companies have their securities listed on the New York stock exchange, and they are available to him by the simple expedient of going down to his bank and placing an order. He can become a partner in any of these organizations and

The Address-Mr. Trainor can participate in the enormous profits that he appears to think are available there.
All this stuff is typical of the sniping at private business that is indulged in by the socialists and, I may say, by the Liberal socialists of whom there appear to be more than a few in the present government. This is merely a manifestation of the operation of the free market. There is no greater guarantee of freedom, economic and political, than that which exists through the operation of the free market. When a man buys something on the free market he is, in effect, casting his vote as a citizen in a free economy. True, his vote may be outweighted by other votes, but the sum total of those votes will determine the economic outlook of the people. There does not seem to be any possibility of achieving such economic freedom under any other system. I know that the socialists argue in favour of what I think they call the controlled economy. Is that the expression they use?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The monopolistic system is what we have.


Owen C. Trainor: You would substitute the controlled economy. Is not that the expression you use?


Mr. Herridge:: Control by the many instead of by the few.


Owen C. Trainor: All right. Let us take the controlled economy as an example. How would it work? I submit that it would be impossible to have political freedom under such a system because such a system would mean that the government would operate all business enterprises and all features of the economy. How would it be possible to hold democratic elections under such a system? I think it would be impossible to hold democratic elections. One would be obliged to resort to elections in the Russian style, with one party and one slate of candidates.
It is no accident that the Russians resort to this system. It is simply the result of a controlled economy. You might just as well explode a bomb under the economy as hold an election under those circumstances. You cannot take the directing heads of a business out of their chairs whenever you feel like it without producing a drastic effect on the operation of the business. The holding of an election would simply be taking the directors out of their directing chairs. The socialists and the Liberal socialists are merely trying to bribe the citizens of the country to relinquish their freedom as the price of so-called security. In other words the choice is between liberty and a mess of security pottage.
As a member representing a western constituency I would feel somewhat remiss in


my duty if I omitted all reference to wheat. It is not that I know much about wheat, but I hear a good deal about it and about its effect on the economy of western Canada. To my mind there are two separate and distinct problems involved in the wheat situation. The one is immediate. It is the problem of relieving the crisis that exists in the western economy. Judging from the debates here there seems to be only one logical way of achieving this end, namely by putting money in the pockets of the farmers, which money in turn will permeate the whole economy. It seems that the simplest and easiest way of achieving this end is to grant advances on farm-stored grain. The government have introduced substitute measures providing loans at 5 per cent and the payment of storage charges. These provisions seem to be inadequate; at least they are so interpreted by the farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought the hon. member was in favour of private industry?


Owen C. Trainor: This is an emergency problem.


James Garfield Gardiner: You want the government to get into this.


Owen C. Trainor: This is a fire, a conflagration that is burning in the economy. You must do something about it. I say it is an immediate problem. I do not suggest that procedure as a permanent practice because I do not believe that even the western farmer would wish to the supported in perpetuity on the charity of the Canadian taxpayer. A different solution must be found for the long-term problem, but the immediate problem must be met in this way because the situation has gone too far. It is the moral responsibility of this government to do it.
After all, they said in effect to the western farmer, "We will buy your wheat and we will dispose of it. It is definitely illegal for you to dispose of it in any way except through us." If there is not a moral obligation implicit in that statement, I do not know what a moral obligation is. Therefore I say that the immediate obligation is the payment of advances on farm-stored grain. If there is any member from a western rural riding, a grain-growing riding, who wishes to dispute that I would challenge him to appear on the public platform in his constituency and say that he did not believe advances on farm-stored grain was the correct solution, but that the government plan of 5 per cent loans was right. He should take heed, however, of the experience of the Minister of Justice in this regard. He tried it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I tried it in my constituency in two or three places.


Owen C. Trainor: I do not know what your experience was, but I do know what the experience of the Minister of Justice was. The press reports state that his suggestion was greeted by hoots of derision. If other members chose to do that they would probably receive a similar response.
However, that is only the immediate question. There is the whole question of agricultural marketing which seems to bedevil this country, and has done so for some years. So far as we can see it is probably going to continue to do so. There has to be some constructive solution found for this difficulty. I would make a simple suggestion to the Prime Minister. We have heard a good deal of special pleading and a number of exparte solutions presented here. One does not always like to depend upon amateurs for a solution to this type of problem. I believe this problem demands the best brains we have in the country; therefore I suggest that the Prime Minister set up a royal commission to solve the marketing problems of this country, not only with regard to wheat but for agricultural products as a whole. Possibly such a commission might come forward with a solution. If not, they would at least have amassed all the evidence and there would be a basis for an intelligent discussion of the subject. I offer this solution very humbly as something of which the Prime Minister might take note.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call attention to what I think is an extraordinary departure in the field of diplomatic procedure. I refer to a current periodical, to wit Look, in which appears an article by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) presuming to lecture the United States administration about the deficiencies of their foreign policy. I am not prepared to criticize the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps this is the new diplomacy. If so, I would suggest that he let us have a very good look at it, because to my mind it has implications that go far beyond the simple presentation of a point of view. This procedure would probably be all right if you could hold it to a one-way street, but you cannot very well indulge in such opinion presentation without conceding the other fellow the right to do likewise.
We may have an exchange of diplomatic opinion carried out through the periodical press. I would hesitate to peruse our periodical press if I were to find that Mr. Dulles had been belabouring the conduct of foreign affairs in this country. I do not feel it would be quite proper; it would be an offence against propriety. As a matter of fact this practice is rather insidious, because we do not know where it might end. It could even end up 67509-33
The Address*-Mr. Masse that we might have interference in domestic fields as well as foreign affairs. We might have the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or even the Prime Minister appearing on the hustings in the United States in defence of the Democratic party. I have no doubt they would be very welcome.
On the other hand, we would have to expect the reverse of that. We might be faced with having Dean Acheson, Mr. Truman and others of the Democratic party up here trying to hold the fort for the weakening Liberal party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Dulles would be on your side.


Owen C. Trainor: Oh, no, he is not. As a matter of fact, we might possibly muster some support for our side, and perhaps the socialists could find a few men who would talk for them. However, I would suggest that this seems to be somewhat of an offence against propriety. I do not believe such diplomatic exchange has been recognized before. It may be that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has discovered a new modus operandi, shall we say? Perhaps the whole pattern of diplomatic exchange is going to change. However, I can see implications that are not altogether palatable, and I do not believe they would be palatable to many in the country.
Nov/, Mr. Speaker, one of the gravest situations with which we are faced in this country today is unquestionably our agricultural situation. I do trust that the Prime Minister will take note of all the contributions to this debate, because if he does I cannot see any reason to expect that he will not take constructive action to relieve the situation.
(Translation) :


Mr. Arthur Masse (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, may I offer my congratulations to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply who, on this occasion, have shown us why their electors have honoured them with their confidence.
The remarks I propose to make will express the feelings shared by my constituents.
I shall first review the developments of the past year, briefly comment on the legislation forecast in the speech from the throne and inform you of the projects dear to the electors of the constituency of Kamouraska. The subject matter of my speech will therefore be as follows: the past, the present and the constituency of Kamouraska, for which I have great admiration, like Mr. Arthur Buies, who wrote such interesting chronicles about that community.
Each session, since I have the privilege of sitting in this house, I have heard nothing

The Address-Mr. Masse but complaints and lamentations from my hon. friends opposite. Yet, we have had a by-election in Quebec, in a riding quite close to mine, and the people of Temiscouata, who are close friends of the citizens of the constituency of Kamouraska, did not hesitate to renew their confidence in the Liberal party.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: They have felt quite disappointed since.


Arthur Massé: If the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) spoke at the time as he did in the house this afternoon, I am not at all surprised with the result.
I went into that constituency not to make promises but to tell the people I am convinced that the Liberal party was doing its best to maintain unity in this country and to ensure the proper balance of our national economy.
As a son of a farming family, whose members have been living for generations on the family farm, I like to keep myself abreast of the development of my district, while at the same time keeping informed about what is happening outside.
In order to answer the arguments of those who claim that everything is amiss in this country, I should like to quote an article from the publication "1955 Report on the Prairie Provinces". I will not quote the whole article; it would be somewhat too long and especially too disastrous for our hon. friends opposite.
(Text) :
An agricultural province must take a longterm view of things. With this in mind, it is revealing that Saskatchewan farms have a record of production, particularly during the past ten years, that has no equal for an area of similar size and population.
The extent of the Saskatchewan market can be appreciated when we consider that from 1944 to 1954, inclusive, 112,000 farmers in this province produced wheat, coarse grains, livestock, poultry and eggs, dairy and miscellaneous products to a value exceeding $6 billion.
Manufacturing in Saskatchewan has also been on the ascent, with the result that during the same period our factories have produced goods to the value of over $2 billion.
(Translation):
The article continues in about the same vein.
(Text):
Industrial development in this province continues to show encouraging growth. During 1954, 341 new companies were incorporated, with a total capital of over $47 million.
(Translation):
And now I should like to quote an article from the Monetary Times concerning the province of Quebec:

(Text):
The year 1955 surprised economists. After a slow start, the pace of production seemed to quicken. Experts hope that when all the statistics are assembled, the present year will prove to have been the most prosperous in the history of the province.
The people of Quebec have never forgotten the heroic efforts of their ancestors to clear, possess and maintain the land they own, the success of today and the hope of the future.
Agricultural production is down slightly this year. Preliminary estimates suggest net value of farm output was $325-2 millions, compared with $325-9 millions in 1954.
Farm cash income dropped somewhat this year. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that prices of agricultural products have decreased to a certain extent in the course of the year. We cannot deny statistics. However, in the light of the extracts I quoted from the Monetary Times, it seems to me that we should be happy with the progress made by Canada during the last year.
Like the hon. members who preceded me, I have listened to and reread the speech from the throne, and I am still convinced it has been conceived with the purpose of serving the interests of the whole of Canada. Of course, the leaders of our country are men and, admittedly, anything human must fall short of perfection. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that the Liberal party does its best to maintain unity between the various groups making up the Canadian nation. With the best of goodwill, it cannot perform miracles. It cannot change wheat into uranium, nor surpluses into dollar bills. However, it must be admitted that the speech from the throne is so conceived as to balance the economy of the country.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have just been
informed by the Clerk that it is 9.30 p.m. Pursuant to the provisions of standing order 38, paragraph 4, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment to the amendment and the amendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the main motion lost.
May I point out to hon. members that the taking of a division is an extremely delicate operation, especially for the Clerk and his assistants. I would venture to say that if there are no errors in the division list as it appears in the Votes and Proceedings tomorrow, it will be because those gentlemen have performed a miracle tonight. I would ask hon. members for their co-operation.
May I direct that appeal especially to hon. members sitting in the vicinity of the table, having in mind the fact that the microphones are open and that they do not discriminate. They pick up the noise that is being made around the table, and this noise competes with the voice of the Clerk Assistant who calls out the names. It also makes matters difficult for the Clerk who must catch all these names, and for the deputy clerk who must register the vote as it is being taken. I hope that hon. members, who realize the importance of the taking of a vote, will give us their co-operation.


Mr. Weir:: Mr. Speaker, may I move the adjournment of the debate?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: In order to preserve all rights and in order to give hon. members an opportunity to discuss what may happen tomorrow, it looks as though I might as well give the floor to someone who will not move an amendment. I will therefore give it to the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He might move an amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not he.


Mr. Speaker:: I would be surprised if he did so.
On motion of Mr. Weir the debate was adjourned.


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

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

Mr. Bertrand: How many persons, by provinces, are now in receipt of allowances for disabled persons?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
(latest statistics No. of available from Province Recipients provincial records)
Alberta	1,079	November	30British Columbia	595	December	31Manitoba 	677	November	30New Brunswick	883	December	31Newfoundland .	544	November	30Nova Scotia	1,128	December	31Ontario 	
Prince Edward	7,403	December	31Island 	290	December	31Quebec 	10,411	December	31Saskatchewan ..	651	November	30
23,661

Wednesday, January 25, 1956