December 1, 1953


William Earl Rowe

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rowe:

That was why they called the election at that time.


George Clyde Nowlan

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nowlan:

I simply want to make this point about falling export trade. I think the minister made, for him, a fairly reserved and objective statement in dealing with this matter, but when he blandly-I will not say "blandly"; that is unfair. He accepts the fact that export trade is falling and apparently infers that it is going to continue to fall further and perhaps faster. I do not have to impress upon the house that this country depends upon export trade. If our export trade has fallen the percentage which he said it had yesterday, and if it is going to fall next year the percentage we sometimes hear indicated by those who are in a reasonably good position to know, then this government is going to be confronted with a problem. All our social services, our whole system of government, our standard of living are dependent upon an expanding export trade, not a diminishing trade. Certainly to us in the east with our ports it presents a most serious problem.

I have spoken longer than I had intended in discussing these problems in a somewhat rambling way, but perhaps that is one of the things you would expect from an Irishman. Later when the estimates are before the house I can perhaps deal in greater detail with some of the matters I have indicated today.

The Address-Mr. Caron (Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):

Mr. Speaker, may I rejoice, along with every other member of this house, at your elevation to the important yet somewhat frightening post of Speaker of this exalted gathering. I have a double reason to be happy about this. I remember very well that one day, back in 1948, while in my office, I may have had an opportunity to give you a bit of advice on a convention which was about to take place. Such advice is often tendered by old hands. That is why I take pride in what I have been able to do- even though it was little enough-since it shows that I had placed my trust in a man whose value was immediately recognized on his arrival in the house.

I know that your integrity, your spirit of fair play, your impartiality will rank you along with the greatest Speakers this house has had. I hope your stay in this highly distinguished post will be long and successful. May it last at least until such time as the government will reward your services by naming you to another important post where you may continue to display your talents as a lawyer.

I have taken pleasure in listening to the marvellous speeches of the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Hollingworth and Yilleneuve). I known how nervous we feel when we get up for the first time in this house, when all eyes are upon us. I believe that in the circumstances they have fulfilled their function in a masterly fashion and I wish to congratulate them. I congratulate them especially for having given proof of their remarkable bilingualism. In doing so, they have shown that the younger generation is aware of the importance of a dual culture.

The hon. member for Roberval has shown that even in a part of the country which is remote from Ontario and the maritime provinces French-Canadians make it their duty to learn English, in order to better understand the mentality of their English-speaking brothers. As for the member for York Centre who, at the age of 23, did not know a single word of French, he has shown very elegantly that, with a determined will, it is possible to solve all difficulties and I congratulate him. He has asked me to speak to him in French only, which I shall gladly do.

I therefore rejoice at this state of mind which will help improve national unity based upon mutual respect and understanding among all Canadians.


Some time ago the New York Times was introducing new Canadian correspondents,

and it referred to Tania Long, in private life Mrs. Raymond Daniell, as follows:

When the war started, she and her mother went to Sweden. Swedish was the first language she learned. After the war, she returned to Berlin. There she learned German and, at home, Russian.

Miss Long attended school in Paris, where she learned French, and went to college in England. Her facility with languages enabled her to render unusual service to the allies during world war II. The American office of strategic services needed a woman for counter-espionage, who spoke German like a native, but who also knew French and Russian. Miss Long was the woman.

Is it not marvellous that the one person can speak Swedish, German, Russian, French and English fluently? Is it not sufficient to make us think of the great superiority we would have if all Canadians could speak the two official languages of this country?

That is why I do not agree with the suggestion that there should be established in this chamber a system of translation similar to that which they have at the United Nations. Such a system would tend to stop efforts to speak the second language. I hope such a system will not be installed in this house. I have noticed with considerable pleasure that many hon. members are trying to address the house in the other language, and I hope there will be more of this sort of thing.

It will come one day. It may be far away in the point of view of an individual, but in the life of a nation time does not count. On that day all prejudices will fade away and Canada will find unity in diversity, with no one having to sacrifice one iota of his national characteristics.

At times people have blamed the province of Quebec for taking controversial stands, but I ask every Anglo-Canadian not to judge us harshly. You must understand our history and the battles we have had to fight to maintain our national heritage. It is only with time that the wounds inflicted in the past will disappear. France, which was invaded three times by Germany since 1870, is careful in accepting the co-operation of the new Germany. This is quite understandable.

The same thing can be said about the French Canadians. But as France is indicating a willingness to collaborate with the allies in creating a new Germany, so are French Canadians giving their full cooperation toward our national life. All they ask in return is more comprehension in the other elements.


The success of the Liberal party springs mainly from the fact that it was the first to recognize that national unity can only be brought about through a good understanding of the aspirations of all the elements that

make up our country, without ever resorting to incendiary statements aimed at ruling by dividing. The seed sown in Canadian soil by Sir Wilfrid Laurier sprouted during the administration of Mr. Mackenzie King, and the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) reaps the harvest with a masterly hand. If the constituency of Hull elected me with a majority of some 15,500 votes, it was to thank the Liberal party and more particularly the right hon. Prime Minister for having worked so hard to preserve national unity without compelling either of the two great races that make up the Canadian nation to sacrifice the smallest portion of its national pride.

I wish to thank my electors for the confidence they have placed in me and pledge that I shall do everything in my power to be worthy of it.

May I touch upon certain items in the speech from the throne? I read therein that the government will continue to strive for world peace. There is no question but that is an ideal towards which all nations must strive. Unfortunately the ideological differences between the democratic countries and the communist countries might break out, any day, into armed conflict should we fail to show a firm determination to maintain our ideals, whatever the cost. That is why I congratulate the Canadian government for having put into actual practice the old saying si vis pacem, para bellum. Yes, Mr. Speaker, history shows that strong nations ready to defend themselves by force, if necessary, have earned the respect of other strong nations. This constant preparation, achieved in common with other peace-loving countries, is the only way to spare our own country the awful misery of war.

Among the means employed to strengthen the Canadian nation there is one to which the government have had recourse, a fact which, by the way, has earned them the confidence of the people. This consisted, on the 2nd of June last, in proclaiming our gracious sovereign "Queen of Canada". Our country has reached full maturity and it was only fair that this should be proclaimed throughout the whole world, and I say to those who still have fears about the greatness of the commonwealth that it was the surest way to maintain its influence; the journeys that our sovereign is making or proposing to make are bound to strengthen the ties which had a tendency to weaken.

Under the impetus of the Liberal party, Canada, which was but a small unknown country half a century ago, has become one of the most important middle powers and its influence weighs increasingly on world

The Address-Mr. Caron affairs. Everywhere we listen carefully to Canada's recommendations and the advice given by our statesmen is earnestly sought after. I must say to the credit of the members of all our political parties, which widely differ over domestic policy, that the unity which is taking shape in matters of international politics is impressive, indeed marvellous, and we have had striking evidence of this in the statement made last week by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).

I read with pleasure that the government intends to make more funds available for housing. The growth of this country is such that the necessity of building new homes is felt everywhere, and this is the only means at our disposal to clear the slums which are often dens of iniquity. Besides, Leo XIII himself, that great sociologist, says in his encyclical letter Rerum Novarum which has inspired so many statesmen:

To be virtuous, one needs a minimum of welfare.

This government measure is highly social and should be welcomed with joy by all.

It was also essential, in the social field, to give assistance to the disabled. Years ago, I advocated in the Quebec legislative assembly a single pension system for those who are disabled through old age, sickness, accidents to workmen, or as a result of a sickness such as polio. The state should show a loving compassion to those who are suffering, even if the fortunate and the privileged people have to make sacrifices for them, for that is true Christian charity. I hope that this bill of the federal government will be well received by the provinces in the interest of our unfortunate fellow citizens.

We have heard a lot lately about a protective tariff for certain industries. I believe we are all agreed on that score. But we should not forget that Canada produces much more than she can consume. It is evident therefore that our government has to look for markets in order to dispose of those surplus products. Inasmuch as we cannot set up tariff barriers without giving something in return for what we get, we should be careful, in trying to rescue certain industries from temporary difficulties, not to do harm to the rest of our production. In that field as in many others, sacrifices will have to be made, and I have enough confidence in the ability of our ministers to know that they will bring to a successful issue their talks with those countries where we can find good markets.

I will seize this opportunity of commending the right hon. Minister of Trade and Com-

The Address-Mr. Caron merce (Mr. Howe) for his tireless efforts in that direction.

There is one thing I would like to ask for at this time. If we happen to go to the United States, we are not allowed to spend more than a certain amount during each trip. Those trips must not be more frequent than once every four months. As a general rule, it may he excellent; but let us suppose that a man goes on business to the United States and brings back to his wife and children a few souvenirs amounting to $25 for instance. Under the present regulation, if the same person goes back to the United States before the four months are over, he will not be able to bring back, this second time, even a mere $10 worth of those little presents which afford such pleasure to those who stay at home.

Would it not then be possible to raise the amount to $25, instead of the $5 or $10 one is allowed to spend at the present time? Considering the cost of most things today, $25 certainly is not sufficient to purchase luxury items.

I have heard certain people speak about autonomy-the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), for instance. I would be loath to venture too far on this most delicate subject. I fully admit that it is the duty of the provincial governments to keep careful watch over provincial rights. There is one thing though that strikes me as being illogical and that is the position taken by the provincial authorities who refuse to accept certain grants in aid to our universities. I agree that education comes under provincial jurisdiction; that is recognized by everybody. As a matter of fact did the right hon. the Prime Minister not state, in replying to France, that the federal government could not interfere in matters of education because they come strictly within the jurisdiction of the provinces? However, could it be considered as interference in the field of education to present universities such as Laval, Montreal or McGill with gifts which would enable them to build modern laboratories for the teaching of physics, chemistry or other sciences? I think not. It seems to me that the province of Quebec could accept these generous grants as long as the federal government did not try to interfere with the educational system itself.

But if one day the federal government- that, very likely, will never happen-tried to interfere, that would be the time to say, "Stop"! and to refuse those princely gifts. It must not be forgotten that the citizens of the province of Quebec pay their share of those gifts, and that, due to the attitude, strange

to say the least, taken by the Quebec government, the other provinces alone benefit therefrom.

The premier of Quebec must not make the same mistake he accused the Taschereau government of committing on the subject of old age pensions.

I read recently a brief presented to the Tremblay commission by Dr. Cyril James, president and vice-chancellor of McGill University. It would doubtless be rather hard to accuse Dr. James of playing politics and it would be equally hard to claim that Dr. James is not today an outstanding public figure. Dr. James based his brief on the British North America Act and proved that there was nothing inconsistent in accepting gifts from the federal government; he aimed to prove that the Ottawa government did not even have to ask permission from the provinces to come to the help of our universities because it was its duty to give them money to better their situation, and that without interfering with the teaching given in those institutions. I do not wish to quote Dr. James' brief in full because he spoke for 80 minutes. That brief, however, deserves to be printed and distributed not only in the province of Quebec but everywhere in Canada, because it would be an inspiration to all those who are active in the field of education. I will just quote a few of the ideas expressed. For instance, he says somewhere . . .


On the question of provincial rights, the brief said flatly: "There is no control of education, no infringement of provincial autonomy in the grants."

It said that: "Neither the members of parliament who voted unanimously for the grant, nor the universities of Canada which were equally unanimous in accepting it, entertained the remotest idea that the federal grant carried any implications of control."

The possibility of any future danger to provincial rights is obviated by the presence of a provincial representative on the joint federal-provincial commission which administers the grants, it added.

Then further on we find this:

Dr. James said the land grant to Manitoba university was cited "because many men who participated in the confederation discussions were still active at that time."

And further:

. . . "it has never been suggested that in making such gifts the donors were legislating with respect to education" . . .

Similarly, while the Quebec government cannot legislate with regard to education in France, it nonetheless contributes generously to the Canadian students' house in Paris "and provides equally generous scholarships for students wishing to study in French universities."

And still further:

"It is difficult to see how the legality of such federal grants can be questioned without similarly

calling into question a wide variety of governmental practices, provincial as well as federal, which have been part of our accepted tradition for many years."


Some years ago the Quebec government made a $50,000 grant to the University of Ottawa, situated in another province, and for that gesture 1 congratulate the government most heartily. The University of Ottawa is a well deserving educational institution. On account of the services it renders everywhere and more particularly to large numbers of people from the province of Quebec, it deserved the help of the Quebec government to overcome some of its difficulties. The Quebec government was well-advised at the time to make that $50,000 grant to be paid in yearly instalments of $10,000 for five years. I ask the government to repeat that grant as long as the University of Ottawa exists. However. I would like to ask the following question of the Quebec government: Did they seek the authorization of the government in Toronto to make a $50,000 grant to the University of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario? No, and I do not think they had to do it, because such a grant does not constitute an encroachment in the field of education. The grant was made generously and the government deserves our congratulations. The fact that they did not have to ask permission from the Ontario government to do so clearly proves that the federal government does not need to ask permission from the provincial authorities to make grants to our universities in Quebec.

I am asking the provincial authorities and their representatives in this house, the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and the member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne), who agreed to act as spokesmen for the government of the province of Quebec, to go and tell the government of that province what I just said and to explain to them what happened in the case of the University of Ottawa.

For goodness' sake, let us recognize the fact that our universities are in distress and let us help them.

Some time ago, a citizen from Hull, Mr. Aime Guertin, lashing out at the federal district commission, accused it of driving out our industries. May I say that Mr. Guertin, in all fairness and honesty, had no right to make that kind of statement. As a matter of fact, not a single industry has left the city of Hull since the federal district commission started developing to some extent that part of the Quebec shore which is included in the national capital plan. Every time an industry must move to make way for a generally very valuable building, such as the 83276-33

The Address-Mr. Caron printing bureau, we have found a very satisfactory location for it and it has remained in Hull. Such is, for instance, the case of Pilon Limited.

It is true that, as a precaution for the future-and Mr. Guertin knows something about it-the Eddy company has bought a site in West Templeton, near Gatineau Point. But this is a very long-term project because, since then, the Eddy company has spent millions on its present location. I could add now that if we obtain permission to annex part of Hull South, the city of Hull will have sites to offer within its own limits and, in conformity with the Greber plan, we will find some way of keeping this company in Hull.

Some also claim that with the demolition of a large number of buildings to make way for parks, the city of Hull is losing a great deal of revenue. It is true that, at the present time, the city is losing revenue. But if we examine the enormous advantage which this development brings to Hull, we realize that it would take 25, 30 and perhaps 50 years for the latter to make such improvements, at the present rate of loss.

We are proud of the commission's participation in the development of Hull. There have been differences in the past, particularly with those who wanted a federal district similar to the District of Columbia. We want to remain in the province of Quebec just as the people of Ottawa want to remain in the province of Ontario. There have been misunderstandings on some points, but we have finally succeeded in reaching a peaceful agreement and today, thank goodness, things are going better. We shall have difficulties in the future, no doubt, for the commission is made up of men like us, and they all know that it is not always easy to understand one another.

If we show good will and act in good faith, we shall be able, in the interest of the surrounding municipalities, to co-operate with the municipal councils and the federal district commission, in order to ensure the welfare of all our fellow citizens. Mr. Guertin need not worry; our municipal authorities know how to protect and defend the city's interests. As long as I remain a member in the House of Commons, I shall see to it, without however indulging in extravagant statements.

Having heard the hon. members for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne), we might be inclined to believe that Ottawa Liberals are nasty old wolves, watching for the first opportunity to devour something or somebody. Would I then be allowed to tell them that the story


The Address-Mr. Caron about Little Red Riding Hood is not a true story? The sooner Quebec Conservatives are convinced of that fact, the sooner will their bugbear disappear.

Mr. Speaker, those gentlemen seem to be living in constant fear of something which will never materialize. We are attached to our traditions as much as anyone else. The government at Ottawa would not be serving their own interest were they to divest the provinces of the rights which they hold by tradition, and which were granted to them under the various treaties and the act of 1867. We might differ about the means leading to a similar goal; but let it be admitted at least that our intentions are pure. If it is true that there is no single race which enjoys the monopoly of virtue, it is no less true that the Conservative party alone does not hold the monopoly of patriotic feelings.

I would not like to insult the Conservative members by questioning their sincerity; but they are prey to an excessive fear which might lead them astray. They remind one of a certain Senator McCarthy who thinks he sees communist sympathizers everywhere, except in his own entourage.


Speaking of Senator McCarthy, I have to be very careful because the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) may go on record against me. But on Friday evening the hon. member for Lethbridge asked us what we meant by McCarthyism or McCarthyists.


An hon. Member:



Alexis Pierre Caron


Mr. Caron:

It is the same. It is his master's voice anyway. I am inclined to answer that they are the Tartuffes of American politicians, or that they are like big drums making a lot of noise without harmony, setting the pace for politicians in search of publicity. For the benefit of the hon. member for Lethbridge let me give the difference between a politician and a statesman. It has been said by someone that a statesman is one who prepares for the next generation and a politician is one who prepares for the next election. The latter are the McCarthyists. I am sorry to say that in Canada we also have our own McCarthyists, as hon. members can see.


Mr. Speaker, in concluding I assure the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet that they can count on my full co-operation.



Victor Quelch

Social Credit

Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):

Mr. Speaker, I intend to confine my remarks to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) which proposes to

substitute the words "private enterprise" for the words "free competition", and also advocates the acceptance of sterling in payment for exports to the sterling area.

We believe in the general principle that industry should be operated as a private enterprise under efficient government supervision. Personally I believe the real enemies of private enterprise are those people who, while giving lip service to it, nevertheless refuse to agree to any reforms or policies that are absolutely essential to its efficient operation.

We insist that if industry is to serve the people efficiently there must be a number of changes in the government's fiscal and financial policies. The speech from the throne refers to the general level of prosperity that we have been enjoying in Canada. A number of Liberal members have referred to it. I listened with interest to the optimistic speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I noted he pointed out that expanding production in this country would also require expanding markets, and that is the thing we are having difficulty with at the present time. We in this group would agree that there has been in this country a general level of prosperity, but on the other hand we do notice that there are definite danger signals. After all, the best way to stop a depression is not after it has started but before it even gets a chance to start.

There is no doubt the peace talks that have been taking place recently have caused a good deal of fear in the minds of many people. It has been noticeable that the stock market has reacted to them. I recall that during the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in a broadcast tried to reassure the people on this matter, and judging from the results of the election apparently he was fairly successful in his endeavour. I listened to one of his broadcasts in which he pointed out to the people that we had been enjoying a number of years of prosperity and that we had enjoyed prosperity in spite of the fact that the government had been obliged to spend $2 billion a year on defence. Then he argued that if it were possible to maintain prosperity while at the same time spending $2 billion on defence, how much greater prosperity could we have when we finally achieved a permanent peace. He said the government would no longer have to spend $2 billion on defence, and would be able to use that money for the purpose of raising the general well-being of the people.

I am sure we would all agree with the Prime Minister that this could and should be the case, but that has not been the record of the Liberal administration during the past

25 years, or for that matter of the Conservative party either. I want to record very briefly what has taken place in the past 25 years in order to prove my point, and I will do it as briefly as possible. Go back to 1928. In that year most people thought we had at last established a fairly sound foundation for peace. We still had a good deal of faith in the league of nations, so nobody can claim that what happened was the result of fear of war. Yet in 1929 conditions started to get difficult. We began to have difficulty in marketing our produce. Foreign markets became restricted, and so in 1929 we started to go down into a depression.

By 1930 we were well on the road to a depression, and as a result the Liberal party was defeated and the Conservative party came into power. I am going to jump the next five years because the Conservatives were in power, and I come to the year 1935. It is true that conditions were not as bad in 1935 as they had been from 1930 to 1935; nevertheless we continued in the depression from 1935 until 1939.

It was during the early years around 1934 and 1935 that the Social Credit movement was born in Alberta. What was the situation at that time? We had half a million unemployed, a million people on relief, and industry operating at less than 50 per cent of its capacity.

It was a common thing in those days to hear people criticize industry for that situation. They said, why does industry not expand its production, employ the unemployed, put them to work and produce the goods that people require? I do not think that was a fair criticism, because at that time industry was having a great deal of difficulty in disposing of even its limited production, and industry knew only too well that if it expanded its production it would just have that much more goods left unsold. Therefore we emphasized the fact that the solution surely must be to expand the purchasing power of the people so they could buy more goods, and as the demand for goods expanded industry would be only too glad to employ more men, expand their production and satisfy the needs of the people.

In 1939 the banking and commerce committee met and Mr. Graham Towers, governor of the Bank of Canada, appeared before it. I pointed out to Mr. Towers that during the preceding four years Canada had had a favourable balance of trade amounting to an average of approximately $219 million. The only reason that favourable balance of trade was not used to bring more imports into the country was that importers knew very well that if they brought them in they would 83276-33J

The Address-Mr. Quelch not be able to sell them, not because the people did not need them but because they lacked the money to buy them. I asked Mr. Graham Towers if there was any reason why the government could not issue $200 million in money for the purpose of putting the unemployed to work to construct a number of national projects that were urgently needed. Mr. Towers replied to the effect that it might be done, but that it was a matter of government policy. In the house we asked Mr. Dunning the same question, and Mr. Dunning's reply was always the same, that the government could not start large-scale national projects because it had not the money. The only money the government had was what it could get from the people's pockets.

And so during those years we continued to lack the services we needed, refused to go ahead with large-scale irrigation projects or to build roads, houses and various other things, merely because the government insisted at that time that it did not have the money, and that the only money available to it was money it could get from the people's pockets. Furthermore the government pointed out that if it increased taxation it would have to increase that taxation upon the people in the lower income brackets, because it was already taxing people in the higher income brackets to as great an extent as it could. Of course, to increase the taxation upon the people in the lower income brackets would not in any way expand the purchasing power of the people, because they were already spending all they had.

Then what happened? In 1939 war broke out. I was interested in the speech made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). He gave what he considered were the main reasons why, almost overnight, we changed from an economy of depression into one of prosperity. To my mind he left out one of the most important factors of all, and that was that overnight we had a complete change in the financial policy of the government. Before the war we could not get money to do this, that and the other thing. Yet within a very few weeks of the declaration of war the government got the chartered banks to create for its use $200 million in new money. The minister of finance of that day, Mr. Ilsley, in explaining the reason the government had taken that action, stated in words to this effect:

We want to expand our war effort as rapidly as possible. We have undeveloped resources. We have in this country unemployment. Therefore we have created this new money to put the unemployed to work and to develop our resources in order to expand our war effort as rapidly as possible.


The Address-Mr. Quelch

The only comment I would make on that is this. It a few weeks after the declaration of war the government could create money to put the unemployed to work, why could not the money have been created in exactly the same way before the war in order to expand the peace effort and improve the conditions of the people who, during that period of time, suffered such dire poverty and destitution?

It is interesting to note that during the war we never once heard any member of the government, or any member on the government side of the house, say we could not do this or that because we did not have the money. There were just two things taken into consideration during the war in connection with the building of ships and planes and the expanding of the army; that was whether or not we had the men and the material with which to do it. Provided we had the men and the material, there was no trouble at that time in finding the money. And during the war the government got the banking system to expand the money supply by over $4 billion in new money.

It is true that during the wartime period we had an inflationary situation. We had that situation during the war not as a result of the expansion of the money supply but rather because the money was being used for the purpose of expanding war industries. War industries did not produce consumer goods. Consequently when that money was paid out in the form of salaries and wages it could not be spent on the goods it had produced, with the result that the money became a demand against the restricted supply of consumer goods available. Therefore it was highly inflationary.

Some members have suggested that we in this group do not believe in controls. The record proves the contrary to be true. Let me point out that we in this group were the first in the House of Commons to advocate price controls. That was in 1940. I recall that when in 1940 we advocated price controls we were severely criticized by Mr. Ilsley, the minister of finance of that day, who became quite agitated about the matter. Why, he said, this would mean a spy in every grocery store. He said that might be all right in Germany, but it would never work in a free country such as Canada. Well, within one year the minister of finance of that day had to eat his words because he himself introduced a program of price controls in Canada. And of course it was absolutely essential at that time.

Let me point out that it would be an entirely different situation in peacetime. If

new money then was used for the purpose of expanding production of consumer goods, such new money, when paid out in the form of salaries, wages and dividends, would become a demand against the workers' own production, and would not in the same way be inflationary, as it would be in wartime.

At the end of the war in the minds of some people there was an idea that we would have a depression. One has only to read the report of the Bank of Canada to realize that at that time the government were building up a kind of resistance against this danger, a procedure which I suggest was to its credit. But we did not go into a depression; and there are three main reasons for this. The first reason was that the government had adopted a program of compulsory savings during the war. At the end of the war those compulsory savings were released, thus providing money to the people to buy the existing supply of goods.

Then, second, we had a large program of conversion under which war industries were converted to the production of peacetime goods. The moneys paid out in the program of conversion became a demand against the existing supply of goods. Then, third, we made large loans to foreign nations to buy our goods.

As a result of those three things we man. aged to raise the level of production, employment and income in this country. That situation continued until 1949. Then in that year, just five short years after the end of the war, conditions in this country began once again to become difficult. In 1949 the first serious drop in agricultural prices took place. By April 14, 1950, the situation had become so serious that the minister of resources and development of that time, speaking before the advertising and sales club of Toronto, warned the people that unless they stopped saving and began to spend more money we would go into a depression. Industry would not be able to sell goods; they would have to curtail production; there would be increased unemployment and also a reduced purchasing power on the part of the people, thus putting us on the road to depression.

That was on April 14, 1950, just four or five short years after the end of the war. Now, what suddenly changed that situation? The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) referred to this matter yesterday when he said that Korea had given the system a shot in the arm. It is not a very healthy situation when, to keep a country running on an even keel, you have to give it a shot in the arm. That shot in the arm came with the outbreak of war in Korea. As a result of the

war in Korea two things happened. First of all, as rapidly as possible the government expanded the amount of defence expenditures. And second, as the result of an increase in demand for certain strategic materials, United States investments in this country expanded by several billion dollars.

As a result of the increase in war expenditures and investment of United States capital in this country we continued to have a high level of production, employment and income. So I say that when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) states we should have greater prosperity when the fear of war is removed, he should remember that history has shown just the opposite to be true. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce said last night, war provides a shot in the arm. It is not a healthy condition when an economy cannot be kept operating except by a shot in the arm brought about through going to war.

What of the situation today? There are many danger signals for those who are not too blind to see them. Surpluses are accumulating. We have heard members on all sides of the house tell how their constituents are unable to sell their fish, their wheat, their lumber, their fruits, and the many other things that have become unsaleable. On the other hand, in certain cases production is being curtailed, and the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce refers to this fact in his annual report. Then, at the same time this has been developing, we find that today, in order to satisfy their day to day requirements, many people are having to go quite heavily into debt. Well, it is not a healthy situation when, in order to maintain prosperity in this country, the people have to go into debt.

I was interested in a statement made by the president of Barclays Bank the other day, as recorded in the Ottawa Journal of November 18. Mr. H. A. Stevenson, president of Barclays Bank of Canada, at the annual meeting in Montreal said:

Consumsr credit had jumped 50 per cent in volume over a year ago, and accounted for almost one-third of this year's total retail purchases. But for "the stimulant of lavish credit facilities", Mr. Stevenson declared, internal demand, production and sales would probably have declined along with the drop in export sales.

And so at the present time we are maintaining so-called prosperity by the people steadily going further and further into debt.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), in a speech before the retail men's association, also gave a similar warning. He warned at that time that credit sales in the past year on charge accounts and instalment buying had reached the figure of $1,500 million. He warned the industry that that was not a

The Address-Mr. Quelch happy situation, that it had certain dangers, and he suggested that they should curtail their credit sales, but he did not give industry any alternative.

What would be the alternative? Why is industry selling so much on credit today? They want to sell their produce, and the only way they can do so is by selling on charge accounts or on the instalment plan. If industry had taken the advice of the Minister of Finance and had cut off all credit sales-not all, but cut down on credit sales- they would not be able to sell their total production. They would have to curtail their orders to the wholesalers, and the wholesalers would have to curtail their orders to the manufacturers, and the manufacturers would have to reduce their production, throw people out of employment and reduce their purchasing power, which would further reduce the demand against goods, and we would be on the road to a recession which, unless checked, would very rapidly lead us into a depression.

Now, what of agriculture? According to Dr. Kannam the purchasing power of the farmer today is only 80 per cent of what it was in 1948. According to figures given by Gilbert Jackson, which we all received, farm debt has expanded by 25 per cent since 1948. No one would suggest that this is a very healthy situation in so far as agriculture is concerned. It is all very well to talk about cash returns. Cash returns themselves mean absolutely nothing unless at the same time you quote corresponding costs. When you have a situation where farm prices are going down and costs are going up, then it is certainly not healthy.

I say therefore that as a result of the situation being somewhat precarious I am not surprised at the Liberals bringing on the election early in the year, because there was the danger that the situation might deteriorate.

I know some people in this country look upon a depression at some future date as being inevitable. So far as they are concerned it is not a question of if we have a depression, but when is it going to come? Is it going to come in 1954 or in 1955? They seem to think it is bound to come at some time or other. On the other hand we all know that if war broke out tomorrow, immediately the government would take whatever action was necessary to maintain our economy at a high level and provide for the full development of our resources in order to provide for the maximum war effort. They would not hesitate to use whatever monetary policies were necessary in order to achieve that objective.


The Address-Mr. Quelch

When the government will not hesitate to do that in wartime, why are they so hesitant to do it in peacetime? In the past two years we have had cabinet ministers in this house say, "Well, we cannot do this or we cannot do that because it costs too much money." Well, as I say, in wartime you never hear that mentioned once. There is never any question of whether we have the money. It is then merely a question of whether we have the men and material to produce the things which we desire.

I would say the present situation is inevitable as a result of the government's financial and economic policy. I was very interested in a statement made by the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce in his annual report last year. I quote from page 4:

If it is agreed that gross national production should as a minimum be sustained at present levels, then deterrents both to personal and corporate saving (investment) require immediate and careful examination. Income cannot be redistributed for consumption and at the same time invested to expand productivity without some serious strains developing.

And further on:

Increasing consumption, both domestic and foreign, is necessary if the heavier volume of goods and services arising out of our enlarged capacity to produce is to be absorbed.

Most people will recognize the soundness of that statement. If in order to maintain our production at a high level we must save more and invest it, then how are we going to sell the results of that expanded production? As the bank president points out, you cannot invest your money and at the same time spend on consumer goods, and to the extent you expand' your savings you reduce your expenditure. Yet at the same time, in order to maintain our high level of production we need both expanding investment and expanding purchase of consumer goods.

There is nothing new, of course, in that statement. That has been emphasized time and again by many prominent economists, by John Maynard Keynes, by Cole and again by Professor Soddy, and of course Social Crediters have recognized that fact for many years. That is the point we have always emphasized. We have said that it is necessary, if we are going to continue to expand our production, to provide the means by which additional money can be put into circulation in order to maintain an effective demand against our production, because if you do not maintain an effective demand against your production you will have a reduced production. That is what always happens over any prolonged period of peace.

Therefore we find that as the result of the system we have a steadily expanding

debt. We have had a steadily expanding debt in Canada ever since the days of confederation. In wartime you have an expansion of federal debt; in peacetime you have an expansion of private, municipal and provincial debt. Then when credit becomes curtailed you go down into a depression, and of course that is what happened in the 1930's.

I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), both to what he said and the way in which he delivered it. I agree wholeheartedly with one of his statements. He said the old system had done a magnificent job in expanding the production of the country in both quality and quantity. He then went on to point out that it had failed to provide the means for distributing that expanded production. I agree with that one hundred per cent. That is something we in this group have emphasized for years.

In view of the fact that private enterprise has done a magnificent job in expanding production in the country, we cannot see why there should be any need to socialize it. Industry can do a good job; let it continue to do it; but on the other hand, introduce policies which will assure that that expanded production will be distributed to the people who need it. After all, never let us forget that governments, the federal government particularly, must accept a very large measure of the responsibility for providing an effective demand in this country, because the British North America Act gives them control of the issue of currency and credit, and to the extent that you have an unequal distribution of income that can be taken care of through taxation policies. Therefore I say we consider it highly desirable that there should be reforms of both our fiscal and economic policies, reforms that will provide for an effective demand against our production.

That could be done in many ways. It could be done by increasing social services. It could be paid out in the form of price discounts, as was done during the war in connection with the price of milk. It could be done in part by a reduction in the sales tax, which would have an immediate effect upon the purchasing power of the people.

I should like to take a little time to deal with our amendment regarding the acceptance of sterling. Various hon. members have already expressed a good deal of concern about our foreign markets for certain products such as wheat, lumber, fish and other commodities. It is interesting to note that the United States is reducing its acreage of wheat, I believe by 25 per cent. Mr. Hannam,

president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, has warned us that unless some machinery is set up for getting our surplus goods to nations that need them, similar action will be required in this country.

On the other hand, the FAO now meeting at Rome warns that while we have increased our production of food, at the same time there are millions of people in the world today on the verge of starvation and that it would take only one or two crop failures to make the situation extremely serious. In the light of that, how can anyone defend a reduction in the production of food? What we need are increased storage facilities and methods for the processing of perishable goods so we can build up a substantial reserve to take care of the crop failures of the future. Furthermore we require immediate action to make it possible to get surplus foods to the people of the nations in dire need.

There is a shortage of food in many countries which is due mainly to two things. First, some nations lack resources, and they have failed to develop their existing resources. Second, there are many highly-developed nations which are unable to pay for the imports they bring into their country because the nation exporting to them is not prepared to accept their exports in payment thereof. Of course these two situations require different treatment.

In so far as the first is concerned, the program of technical assistance being carried on by the United Nations has provided most valuable assistance. We have advocated an extension of that program. Also I hope we in Canada will play our part in helping to expand the program of economic aid to needy nations.

Let me make one point in that regard. The granting of aid to needy nations is the responsibility of the people of Canada, not that of one group. If we are to extend the giving of aid in the future to have-not nations let us see to it that we spread that burden equitably upon the shoulders of all the people of Canada, and do not try to place it upon the shoulders of the farmers as was done in connection with the British wheat agreement, which cost the farmers of western Canada hundreds of millions of dollars.

Let me turn now to the question of the highly-developed countries. We know that many of these highly-developed countries would like to import more goods from Canada, but they are prevented from doing so because they lack the dollars with which to to pay. I noticed that in a speech made in Calgary the United Kingdom high commissioner stressed very strongly that the United

The Address-Mr. Quelch Kingdom would like to buy more goods from Canada but they lack the necessary dollars and will continue to lack those dollars until Canada is prepared to balance its trade with the United Kingdom. The fact is that we are exporting about twice as much goods to the United Kingdom as we are willing to accept in return.

I am glad to note that some members of the Progressive Conservative party and the C.C.F. are urging the acceptance of sterling in payment for some of our exports to the sterling area. That is a departure from their former stand.


An hon. Member:

Oh, no.


Victor Quelch

Social Credit

Mr. Quelch:

Just hold your horses. It indicates a complete departure from the stand they took in 1945 when we were debating post-war financial international policies. I know they supported it this year and they supported it last year, but in 1945 they supported the Bretton Woods agreement. We opposed the Bretton Woods agreement because it was a violation of the fundamental principle that international trade should provide for the exchange of goods and services between nations on the basis of mutual advantage. That is not the policy of the Liberal government. The Liberal government insists that a nation must have the right to sell its goods for dollars without any obligation to accept payment in goods. I should like to quote what was said by a former minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, in this house on April 11, 1946, and I quote from page 764 of Hansard of that date:

-we must be able to use the proceeds of our exports to the United Kingdom and the continent of Europe in paying our own bills and debts in the United States...

On April 16, 1946, as reported on page 919 of Hansard, I asked this question:

How will the United Kingdom maintain convertibility of the pound if Canada and the United States do not provide the United Kingdom with dollars by purchasing British goods to the extent of the British credit?

Mr. Ilsley replied:

She can pay for Canadian goods by exports to other countries as well as to Canada. Under a multilateral trading system and convertible currencies-

It was suggested that Great Britain can pay for our exports in dollars by exporting to some other country, but the fact is that the exports by Canada and the United States to Great Britain are far in excess of those of any other dollar country, so how can the United Kingdom possibly export goods to


The Address-Mr. Quelch other dollar countries to the extent necessary to pay their debts to the United States or Canada?

At six o'clock the house took recess.


AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Victor Quelch

Social Credit

Mr. Quelch:

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Bretton Woods agreement violated a fundamental principle of international trade. Let me explain why. In the first place the Bretton Woods agreement gave the creditor nations the right to demand payment in their own currency without any obligation whatsoever to accept goods from importing nations. Second, it provided a fund from which the debtor nations could borrow in order to settle their unbalance of payments.

But here is an important point. It stipulated that if the loan was not repaid, then the rate of interest could be increased by a specified amount for each year until it had reached 5 per cent and then, when the rate of interest had increased to 5 per cent, the international monetary fund had the right to charge that nation any rate of interest it liked. That is the vicious type of policy that was supported by the other three parties in this house.

Mr. Rasminsky, who was a witness before the committee and who was chairman of the foreign exchange control board at that time, pointed out that the purpose of the fund was merely to give a breathing spell to deficit countries, and to provide them with money to carry them over that period. Therefore he justified the proposed rate of interest as a means of discouraging them from borrowing from the fund.

I pointed out to Mr. Rasminsky that it could not be considered a short-term problem because our international payments difficulties would be magnified many times over after the war. For example, Britain lost the greater part of her foreign interests in the dollar area during the war and would have great difficulty in meeting her unbalance of trade. Finally, after we had discussed that point at some length Mr. Rasminsky, turning to me, said, "Well, what would you do about the matter? How would you force creditor nations to accept payment in goods?" That debate went on for some time and finally the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) got up and pointed out that Mr. Rasminsky was the witness. The chairman upheld him, so I did not carry the point further at that time.

At the conclusion of the discussions on Bill No. 238 I summarized our stand in these words, and I am going to quote that part pertinent to this question. This will be found at page 131 of the report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, dated December 11 to 13 inclusive, 1945:

What we want in the act mainly is a provision that a debtor nation in order to pay for its imports shall be recognized as paying for them when they establish a credit within their country in favour of a creditor nation and that that credit can be used to buy anything purchased within that country. Then if the creditor nation is not willing to accept goods from a nation with which it has a credit if it desires to trade on a multilateral basis it may trade the credit established on that basis for the credit of another country on a multilateral basis. So I say if the great industrialized nations are really sincere in this matter they should have shown it at this time and been willing to have an article to that effect put in the Bretton Woods agreement.

I believe the time is long overdue for a thorough overhaul of the international monetary fund in the light of the experience we have gone through in the past seven years. In 1945 Mr. Rasminsky said he hoped there was going to be a change of policy on the part of the United States as a creditor nation, but if we look at the report of the Bank of Canada for 1952, at page 12 we find:

The difficulties involved in the deficit countries achieving balance through an increase in "hard currency" exports rather than by continuing to rely heavily on import restrictions and discrimination may well appear to them insuperable if United States actions limit severely their chances of earning dollars by competing in the American market. Restrictions in the United States cannot fail to encourage restrictions elsewhere.

And the report points out that actually the situation is worse today than it was in 1945. On the other hand it is interesting to note that today the United States is accepting sterling in payment of a proportion of their exports. Therefore we feel justified in asking the government at this time to accept sterling in payment for a certain proportion of our exports to the sterling area at least until such time as we can establish international machinery that will facilitate the movement of surplus goods to needy nations.

So far as the question of private enterprise is concerned, I have already dealt with that; but I would just like to point out that we are not asking the house to support free enterprise which may be of an undesirable type. We are not asking the house to support free competition. We are merely asking it to support the principle that industries should be operated as private enterprises. We have supported a widening of the powers under the Combines Investigation Act in order to deal more competently with combines and

cartels, and we are prepared to support any controls that are essential to the efficient operation of private enterprise.


Owen C. Trainor

Progressive Conservative

Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):

Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to add my congratulations to those you have already received on your elevation to your high office. The unanimity of these congratulatory remarks speaks for itself, and all bespeak your eminent suitability for the position.

I note that it is the fashion for new members speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to talk at length on the physical characteristics and extol the merits of their constituencies. I do not propose to fellow their example, principally because everyone knows all about Winnipeg anyway, and to those who may not already be apprised of the fact, I should say that Winnipeg South is the best part. I do not expect corroboration of this last statement from the other Winnipeg members, which is perhaps natural, if unfortunate.

I have been surprised at the number of hon. members importuning the government for assistance in the form of direct subsidies, or otherwise, on behalf of various worthy causes. I wonder if it would not be more realistic if these hon. members were to substitute the word "taxpayer" for "government" in this connection wherever it occurs in their speeches. For assuredly, Mr. Speaker, it is the taxpayers they mean.

The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), for example, desires the Canadian taxpayers to subsidize the Nova Scotia coal industry, alleging a sinister conspiracy on the part of the Dominion Steel and Coal company to keep Nova Scotia coal out of the Montreal markets. Surely he does not expect the members of this house to believe that a company in business for the purpose of making a profit would deliberately forgo a profitable market for its own product. May there not conceivably be other more reasonable explanations? May it not be that the Montreal market refuses to accept the Nova Scotia product and prefers the American? I know there are great differences in coal, and can well believe that a customer might very well prefer one variety to another. Has the hon. member considered that when natural gas is brought to the central provinces, as it will be, I hope, in the near future, his market will be still further curtailed? Does he propose that the Canadian taxpayers provide subsidies for the mining of Nova Scotia coal that cannot be sold?

Assuredly, Mr. Speaker, a halt will have to be called to this demand for subsidies to all and sundry, unless the government is prepared for the ultimate absurdity of granting 83276-34

The Address-Mr. Trainor subsidies to the taxpayer to enable him to pay the taxes necessary to pay subsidies. The answer to the hon. member for Cape Breton South in his very real dilemma does not lie in the provision of subsidies, but in a real effort to develop the industrial potential of his area to the extent that a satisfactory local market will be created for coal. Any assistance the government can give in this direction should be given eagerly.

I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to convey the impression that I am opposed to all government subsidies. They may be justified as a temporary expedient to relieve economic disaster or alleviate hardship, provided they are used judiciously; but as a long-term remedy for our economic ills they will be found wanting.

Members of the C.C.F. party have been vocal in deriding the principle of free enterprise, in particular the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), who waxed eloquent on the subject. But it is interesting to note that their show window, the province of Saskatchewan, was very glad to implore free enterprise capitalism to develop its oil resources, even to the extent of offering greater inducements than were found necessary in the case of the other two prairie provinces.


An hon. Member:

Not at all.


Owen C. Trainor

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Trainor:

True, this may be regarded

as a pact with the devil; and Premier Douglas, to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, "may be prepared to pact with the devil if it is for Saskatchewan". It appears far more likely, however, that it is a case of ordinary political expediency. When the socialist dogma encounters stark reality, that is the end of the socialist dogma.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), as reported in the press, urges the Canadian farmer to "produce to the limit and take his chances like everyone else". What a chance for the wheat farmer, in the face of the demonstrated inability of the government marketing agency to sell the 1952 and 1953 crops. I would advise the minister and the government to realize that the halcyon days of order-taking appear to be over, and from now on it will require real merchandising ability to sell wheat on the markets of the world, Does the Canadian wheat board possess it? The onus is on it and on the government. Should they fail-and the indications are that they may-then comes the day of reckoning. The responsibility is all theirs.

At the same conference the minister is quoted as having told the potato growers of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to set up their own marketing boards. That


The Address-Mr. Trainor suggestion is but cold comfort at this late date with a perishable product, but at least one notes with some relief that the minister apparently has had enough of compulsory government marketing agencies.

Mr. Speaker, one notices with regret the complete absence in the speech from the throne of any mention of the parlous state of many of the people of Canada. We have heard them listed by speaker after speaker in this debate; the wheat grower, the potato grower, the apple grower, the beef producer, the fisherman, the textile worker and the industrial worker in the farm implement industry. Most of these, Mr. Speaker, are primary industries vital to the welfare of all of us. If these industries are sick, the whole economy is threatened.

The government is silent. The speech from the throne contains not one single reference to this catalogue of woe; and the throne speech is supposed to be an outline of government policy. Can it be that the government have no policy? Are they so used to riding the crest of the wave that they are unable to navigate the trough? The people of Canada will expect a better answer.

The C.C.F. party is apparently obsessed with health insurance. Perhaps it should consider changing its name to the health insurance party. This subject now appears to have become the raison d'etre of the party. Gone are the days of the Regina manifesto and the brave new world. Recent developments in the British Labour party in its flight from a policy of nationalization have apparently diluted the enthusiasm of the C.C.F. for government control of the machinery of production, etc. The emphasis now is on government-operated compulsory health insurance and practically nothing else. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has embarked on a crusade which he openly boasts will eventually force the government to adopt his ideas.


Hazen Robert Argue

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Argue:

Hear, hear. He will win. He always does.


Owen C. Trainor

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Trainor:

It is because there may be more than a grain of truth in this assertion that I venture to call the attention of the house to certain implications of this policy. First there is the question of cost. The leader of the C.C.F. party is, I believe, on record as estimating the cost at $600 million annually. Such estimates are notoriously optimistic, and the actual annual cost will probably be much greater, perhaps in the neighbourhood of a billion dollars.

I recognize that economic factors are probably not a matter of much concern to the hon. member. Nevertheless I believe the

house will be interested in the economic impact of such social security measures on the economy of countries in which the welfare state exists. France is a country of seething labour unrest, and one is constantly told that French workers are shockingly underpaid. They, however, have very extensive social security benefits amounting to 43 per cent of the average payroll. This adds tremendously to labour costs and illustrates the danger of trying to transform the wage mechanism into a huge social security system. It is obvious that the French workers are paying for their own social security through deterioration of the wage structure. There is constant dispute over how an inadequate cake should be sliced, and a neglect of the real problem of increasing the size of the cake. Let us be under no illusion as to who will really pay for these grandiose plans. It is the worker himself, either through taxes, lowered wage structure, or increased costs of the necessities of life.

All this is not to say that I oppose health insurance. On the contrary, I believe it to be an urgent necessity. There is an alternative method, however, to that proposed by our friends of the C.C.F., which will provide all the benefits of theirs at a mere fraction of the cost to the taxpayer. This party has such a plan which will be presented when the appropriate occasion arises.

The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has been taking great credit for the program of health grants instituted several years ago. I do not desire to detract in any way from the over-all benefit of these grants, but would call the attention of the house to a serious defect which has become evident so far as the hospital construction grants are concerned. Under the terms of this grant the sum of $1,000 per bed, to be matched by the province, is provided in respect of new beds added to existing public hospitals, or provided in entirely new hospitals. At first sight this might appear to be a fairly generous amount. I wonder, however, Mr. Speaker, if the minister fully realizes the degree of inflation which has taken place in the construction industry, even since these grants were first instituted. The proportion that this grant bears to the total cost of a hospital bed is much smaller today than when the grant was first instituted.

This leaves a relatively large amount to be raised by the individual hospital. Moreover, long before the advent of these construction grants many of the provinces assisted with hospital construction in variable amounts. In the case of my own province the amount was 20 per cent of the total

cost. At today's prices this would represent a much more substantial contribution than does the present combined federal and provincial grant. I would urge the government to extend the grants to cover a definite proportion of the construction costs of a hospital. Beds are, of course, essential to the functioning of a hospital, but they are no more essential than are other facilities provided by the institution as, for instance, such things as laundries, kitchens, power plants, etc.

In closing I should like to compliment the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on his skilful handling of the very troublesome Gouzenko affair, and on his very concise and understandable presentation in the house.

I should like also to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) on calling our attention to the necessity for moderation of language where the personalities or actions of a friendly government are involved. International good will is too precious a commodity to be jeopardized, even though it means the restraining of what we may regard as an expression of righteous indignation.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the Social Credit party has made a very fair and judicious contribution to the debate in this matter. I am sorry I cannot subscribe to the implied threat contained in the remarks of the leader of the C.C.F. party that if Mr. Gouzenko should choose to go to the United States for the purpose of giving evidence before the Senate subcommittee, he be informed that all protection so far accorded him will be withdrawn. After all, this man has rendered a signal service to Canada, in recognition of which this country has very properly accorded him and his family such protection as was within our power. Merely because he chooses to go to the United States for the purpose stated, which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has said he has a perfect right to do, does not release this country from its rightful obligation. It may be that it will not be possible to assure his security while in the United States -that is not our responsibility-but the moment he again sets foot on Canadian soil our obligation to protect him is just as real as ever it was. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in this respect the national honour is involved.

Finally I should like to pose a question; and if, as I suspect, the answer is in the negative, I should like to offer a suggestion to the government. Has the government ever considered the advisability of providing a suitable residence in this country for Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, one that might be occupied by the royal family for a portion of each year at her pleasure? If not, I would 8327C-34i

The Address-Mr. Carter suggest that the exigencies of atomic warfare may at any time make such an offer imperative. Apart from consideration for her safety, however, I am sure the members of the house would hail with enthusiasm the suggestion that our gracious sovereign might be prevailed upon to live in our midst, even for short periods.


Chesley William Carter


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to use the opportunity afforded by this debate to say a few words about the fishing industry of my province. This is a matter of vital importance to all Newfoundland and particularly to my own riding, and it is of such urgency that I feel its discussion ought not to be deferred until later debate on the budget and the estimates.

Before proceeding further, however, I should like to extend to you, Mr. Speaker, my sincere congratulations on your election to your high office. The capable manner in which you discharged your duties as Deputy Speaker during the last parliament aroused the admiration of all, and we know that the talents and qualities you have displayed in former posts will enable you to attain even greater distinction in the position you now hold.

I should also like to congratulate our new Deputy Speaker and wish him well in the office for which he has proved himself to be so well qualified. I join too with all those who have complimented the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address in reply. The excellence of their speeches has set a very high standard for all of us to follow as we make our individual contributions to the debates of this house. I feel that this is also an appropriate time to express once again my sincere thanks to my constituents for returning me to parliament for a second term. I assure them that I shall do everything in my power to justify their confidence in me and in the Liberal party, which they have displayed in such an overwhelming manner. I should like to remind them again that we have a mutual responsibility to hold each other to the highest and best that is in us.

Hon. members are aware that the riding of Burin-Burgeo which I have the honour to represent is a fishing constituency, and they will have learned from the press that for some time now our fishing industry has been undergoing a series of crises which at times have almost reached emergency proportions. Though this is true principally of the salt fish industry it is also true, if in lesser degree, of the fresh fish industry, and in both cases it has been particularly hard on the inshore fishermen. I wish all hon. members could

The Address-Mr. Carter see the plight of these fishermen as it was demonstrated to me in scores of settlements as I travelled through my riding.

Picture these hardy people going out in their little boats long before daylight in the morning and continuing their toil until late into the night, often with no more than three or four hours rest out of twenty-four. Picture them repeating that labour day after day from early spring until late autumn and in many cases the whole year round, braving the elements, risking their lives, facing all kinds of weather, undergoing untold hardships and performing the most arduous labour in their efforts to wrest a living from the sea. Imagine then the satisfaction which many of them derived from the knowledge that their efforts had been rewarded with a record catch, and then imagine also their consternation and their utter disappointment and despair when they realized that in spite of all their effort and toil and hardship their work had been for nothing; that even the most fortunate of them can only hope to meet the costs of production and that none of them will have anything left over to provide the shelter, food, clothing and fuel their families require for the winter.

Scripture tells us that the labourer is worthy of his hire, but what encouragement is there for people to continue in an industry under such conditions? Small wonder that many of them are deserting the industry in droves and trying to secure jobs on shore which will carry with them the added security and protection of unemployment insurance. Hon. members may feel that this is a good thing to happen, and that the sooner our fishermen get away from such an unstable and unprofitable industry the better for themselves and the better for everybody else.

But people who reason along these lines fail to understand or appreciate the position which the fishing industry holds in the economy of our province. For the past 450 years, with all its ups and downs, with all its faults and failures, the fishing industry has been the cornerstone on which the prosperity of our province has always rested, and it must continue to be the cornerstone of our prosperity for many centuries to come. The wealth of the sea is the greatest resource our province has. It has tremendous potentialities. As yet we have only begun to realize a small fraction of its potential wealth. It is a resource that perpetuates itself year after year and, with reasonable efforts at conservation, can be handed down intact and even enhanced from one generation to another.

We applaud the efforts our provincial government is making to create new industries.

rMr. Carter.]

It is the part of wisdom to broaden the base of our economy and place our eggs in more than one basket. But industrialization, however successful, can hardly be expected to expand sufficiently to absorb all the fishermen now employed in our fishery, together with those who are working on shore at construction work and defence projects which sooner or later must come to an end. Our industrial program will have more than justified itself if it can provide those extra jobs required to take care of our natural increase in population.

The greatest calamity that could befall our province would be to see our fishing industry become permanently depressed, or that it should disappear altogether. It is for this reason that we note with such satisfaction the reference to our fisheries problems contained in the speech from the throne. I should like our Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and our Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) to know how much we appreciate the personal interest they have shown in our fisheries problems, and particularly their visits to our province to get firsthand knowledge of our conditions.

During the last visit of the Minister of Fisheries there was some disappointment among our fishermen because he had not been able to announce a program of price support. It must be borne in mind that at that time our fishermen had just seen a whole year's labour wiped out and reduced to nothing. At that time, in the mental anguish and distress they were suffering, price support did appear to be an easy solution to their problems. They could hardly be expected to realize that even an assurance of price support at that particular time, when marketing conditions were turning more in their favour, might not be in the best interests either of the fishing industry or of themselves. Indeed it could easily have the very opposite effect, if it should happen to take away the incentive of the exporters to do their best bargaining, in which event the only people who would really benefit would be the foreign buyers of our fish. Neither do our people understand that price support payments cannot be made on very short notice, but rather can be determined only after all the stocks of fish have been sold and the average returns estimated.

Fisheries development must always depend to a large extent upon the provision of adequate marine facilities, and I feel that my constituents would wish me to express on their behalf our sincere thanks to the Minister of Public Works and his capable staff for the generous consideration they have

always given to our requests. We have very many problems to overcome in the fishing industry; but the main problem is not one of production, as many people believe, but rather the problem of processing and marketing.

One very troublesome feature of the fishing industry is the wide fluctuation in supply from year to year, from season to season and even from day to day. If a processing plant is geared to maximum supply, then it must operate at less than full capacity for a great part of the season. This results in excessive overhead and other production costs, which lower the prices that can be paid to our fishermen. On the other hand if a plant is geared to an average or minimum supply, then in the best part of the season it will not be able to handle all the fish which the fishermen can catch. In the western part of my riding, the Rose Blanche area, it is an actual fact that even with our old-fashioned methods of production, during the best part of the season-in the winter months and the early spring-the fishermen can catch enough in two days to keep all the plants in that area operating for a full week. Hon. members can realize how much the earnings of our fishermen are reduced under such conditions, just as would be the earnings of a miner or a factory worker whose employment was limited to two days per week.

Our fresh fish industry has been almost entirely dependent upon the United States market. That market has not expanded to any appreciable extent in recent years. In spite of considerable increase in population, fish consumption in the United States has remained almost at the same level for the last seven or eight years. Last year we had to face unexpected and severe competition from Iceland, when they were able to place on the United States market an inferior product but one which sold at a market price much below our production costs.

Our own domestic market in Canada for fresh fish is capable of much greater expansion and we hope efforts will be made to bring this about, because this must be done if our fresh fish industry is to continue in a healthy condition.

So far as our salt fish industry is concerned, in the past we used to sell a large proportion of our catch to Brazil and Portugal. In recent years Brazil has not been able to purchase any fish at all, and our sales to Portugal have diminished almost to the vanishing point. We know that Brazil has been undergoing a series of economic crises for several years, and we appreciate

The Address-Mr. Carter the efforts the Brazilian government are making to stabilize her economy. We hope and pray they may be successful, because one of the very best things that could happen to Newfoundland would be the recovery of the Brazilian market. Anything Canada can do to speed this recovery will also be in the interests of the Newfoundland fishermen.

The case of Portugal is somewhat different. After world war II Marshall aid enabled the Portuguese to build a large fleet of modern trawlers. This fleet uses our Atlantic ports as a base for their operations. They secure supplies such as fuel and food and acquire stocks of bait at prices far beyond the prices our Newfoundland fishermen can afford to pay. It has been very often the case that the prices paid by the Portuguese have restricted the supplies of bait available to our own fishermen. These Portuguese trawlers often fish on the near offshore grounds upon which, our own Newfoundland fishermen, have traditionally depended. When they do that they deny the use of these grounds to our fishermen, who cannot risk fishing on the same grounds for fear of losing their gear, which they would never be able to replace.

Under cover of fog and darkness these ships have been known to invade our territorial waters and fish on our inshore grounds; and some Newfoundland fishermen have had their gear destroyed by the operations of these ships. Our generosity in this respect enables the Portuguese fleet to supply a large proportion of their home market with low-cost fish which they could not otherwise get. The Portuguese fisherman works on his trawler for an average wage of about $50 a month, whereas the Newfoundland fisherman receives $150. The cost of feeding the crew is about in the same proportion, because the Portuguese live on a cheap subsistence diet, with very little variety, as compared with the higher food standards which prevail on our Canadian boats.

Our proximity to the fishing grounds cannot offset this wide inequality in production costs, and I feel that in return for the services we render to Portugal the least she could do would be to purchase the remainder of her fish requirements from Newfoundland at a remunerative price, having regard to our higher costs of production.

Newfoundland people have always had a traditional friendship for the people of Portugal, with whom we have so very much in common. But charity begins at home, and we cannot permit our friendship to be exploited to the detriment of our people and to the extinction of our industry. We are in a very-strong bargaining position. We can restrict the tonnage of Portuguese ships using our ports, or we can exclude them altogether. We

The Address-Mr. Carter can also restrict the supply of bait, and we can place a heavy tax on bait itself. Our first duty is the protection of our own people; and the time has come when we must impress upon Portugal that we really mean business and we intend to do some very tough bargaining when she renews her application for the use of our ports.

We are living in an age, Mr. Speaker, when there is a tendency to believe that money, brains and legislation can provide the answer to all our problems. I am one of those who do not believe that money, brains or legislation, either alone or in any combination, will ever find a solution to the problems of our fishing industry. We know from experience that whenever a solution is provided by these means it is very often the case that one or more problems are created in its place, which are far more difficult than the original one.

If we are to achieve a permanent and lasting solution to the problems of our fishing industry I feel that we must take an entirely new approach. Hitherto we have approached our problem in a spirit of trying to see what each one can get out of it for himself. I do not believe we shall find the right solution until everyone, including fishermen, processors, merchants, exporters and even governments, begins to think in terms of feeding hungry people.

As several hon. members have already pointed out, a large proportion of the people in the world are starving to death, and we who can produce food have a moral obligation and a sacred duty to feed them. Personally I should like to see Canada call a conference of all fish-producing nations, or even all food-producing nations, to try to work out a plan for feeding the hungry nations of the world. As a great food-producing country it would be appropriate that Canada should take the initiative and give leadership in this direction.

Nothing we can ever do will be economically right, or can be economically right, if it is not also morally right; and nothing can be morally right unless our motives are right. When the main motive stems from our realization of our sacred duty to feed hungry people, to feed our hungry brothers and sisters in other lands, and a genuine desire to care for their needs as fellow human beings, then other things will fall into place and many of our problems will disappear overnight. We shall then all be better off financially and materially, as well as spiritually and morally.

Every fisherman would then catch as much fish as he possibly could because he would think in terms of the people who depended on him for food. Every processor would find ways and means of processing all the fish the

fishermen could catch. What could not be filleted and frozen could be pickled and salted or smoked and cured and even tinned. Our governments would intensify their program to find new ways and means of preserving the food so it could be transported to those countries which do not enjoy the benefits of quick transportation or refrigeration facilities.

I should like to see our own government intensify its research into the processing of tinned fish, both fresh and salted, cooked and uncooked; and much benefit could also be derived from more intensive research into methods of processing our caplin, which we have in such great abundance.

Exporting countries would work out a scheme whereby those who can produce fish most cheaply would sell to those countries that were financially the poorest off. Whatever sacrifice might be involved, and it would certainly be very little, would be more than repaid in other ways. I do hope the minister will consider this suggestion, because I believe it holds the key to the solution of all our problems, especially our economic and marketing problems.

I am confident that our Canadian industry is able to meet that challenge, and can demonstrate to the world the miracles that can be performed under a system of free enterprise which at the same time is also responsible enterprise.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):

Since the beginning of this parliament we have heard a good deal about Canadian-American relations. Very briefly this evening I should like to comment on that subject. Every hon. member will agree that in the past our two nations have been perhaps the friendliest in the world. I also think hon. members would agree that in recent months we have seen a sharp deterioration in that friendship. Most of us hope this trend will not continue.

What has caused the uneasy and strained atmosphere between our two countries? I suppose that superficially one could say it is a queer combination of spy hunting, witch hunting and so-called McCarthyism. But actually it is a reflection of something deeper. The basic cause of the friction between Canada and the United States today as I see it is economic. As far as most Canadians are concerned, it is caused by the attitude of the United States toward tariffs and trade.

Every Canadian, certainly every member of parliament, realizes how dependent we are upon the United States for our export market. Last year about 54 per cent of all our exports went to that country. However, this trade is not a one-sided proposition, because every

year since confederation, with one or two exceptions, we have sold less to the Americans than we have bought from them. For instance, in the first eight months of this year our purchases were $413 million in excess of our sales. Thus it is clear that the United States also have a very deep interest in maintaining cordial trade relations with Canada. Some hon. members now in the house were here at the end of the war. The United States government at that time announced to the world that its official trade policy was to expand multilateral trade. With that end in view Washington inspired the Geneva agreements. Hon. members will recall that, at the behest of the United States, Canada readily turned her back on the imperial preference system, and enthusiastically supported the Geneva agreements. We did so in the belief that they would lead to freer trade. I think it is fair to say that Canada played a substantial role in influencing Great Britain and other commonwealth countries to come into the Geneva agreements.

What has been achieved so far by GATT? Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said that a great deal had been achieved, and I agree with him. But I think a great deal more could have been accomplished if our American friends had displayed a greater willingness to translate some of their lofty statements, some of their encouraging words on trade, into tangible trade concessions.

From the very beginning of the agreements, most of the United States concessions, as far as Canada is concerned, have been made on raw materials, or materials very slightly processed. Year after year the United States have been most reluctant to make tariff concessions on manufactured goods. The greater the degree of processing, the higher their tariff seems to be. So today in most cases the Canadian manufacturer finds that the United States tariff is practically prohibitive.

An example of how Canadian industry often finds itself in an impossible position because of the United States tariff is the electrical appliance industry. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce said yesterday this was one of the soft spots in the Canadian economy. What is their position today? I think most economists will agree that price is determined, at least partly, by the size of the market. The United States electrical appliance manufacturers have a home market of 155 million people; the Canadian appliance manufacturers have a home market of only 15 million people. But the latter

The Address-Mr. Thatcher must share the Canadian market with their American competitors because of our tariff levels.

Take electrical refrigerators as an example. Last year 50 per cent of all refrigerators sold in Canada came from the United States. However, when our electrical appliance manufacturers want to ship to the United States, they are barred from doing so by the United States tariff level and by arbitrary customs evaluations. So far as these Canadian manufacturers are concerned there is competition north of the border, but no competition south of the border.

I believe in low tariffs; I am a convinced free trader, but I believe also in fair play. United States businessmen are constantly preaching the virtues of competition. They are constantly telling their neighbours they lack the kind of competitive spirit which has made the United States great. I say, why do they not practise what they preach.

I wonder if our United States friends are afraid of Canadian competition. I wonder if their huge, sprawling, long-established industries are so inefficient or so ineffective that they have to be protected from Canadian competition by practically prohibitive tariff barriers. I think if some of our United States friends were in the house tonight, they would agree that some Canadian industries have been hard hit by this one-sided kind of competition. As I understand them, the Geneva agreements originally called for a progressive lowering of tariff barriers. The United States have not lived up to the spirit of those agreements.

What is even more serious as far as Canada is concerned is the fact that in several instances the United States congress has actually violated the agreements. Every hon. member knows what happened in the case of dairy products when, contrary to GATT, they placed an embargo upon those products. That embargo has caused real hardship among our dairy producers. If the United States congress can so flagrantly violate the Geneva agreements in that particular case, how are we to know that they are not going to do precisely the same thing where other products are concerned? I am reluctant to say this, but it seems obvious that some congressmen in the United States look upon the Geneva agreements as a scrap of paper which can be ignored at any time, for political reasons.

In the second place, as I understand it, the signatory nations to the Geneva agreements agreed to a simplified, uniform evaluation method of computing customs tariffs and rates. The object was to eliminate

The Address-Mr. Thatcher obsolete procedure. Canada put this clause into effect at once but today, five years later, the United States have still not carried out the pledge they originally made. What does this mean to Canadian exporters? It means that certain United States exporters are enjoying advantages under the Geneva agreements which Canadian exporters do not enjoy.

The point I want to emphasize tonight is that the United States tariff is not the only obstacle our exporters meet when they try to sell goods in the United States. As some of us see it, many of the United States customs officials at the border seem to think their main duty in life is to keep goods from other countries out of the United States. Time and again their arbitrary evaluations have prevented Canadian goods from going south of the border. A recent example of these tricks was a decision by United States customs officials in respect to ping pong balls. For customs purposes they were classified not as ping pong balls but as ammunition. The basis for that reasoning was that ping pong balls might be used instead of corks in pop guns, and as a result the tariff was increased to nine times what it should have been.

Another case which came to my attention was that of a carload of Nova Scotia apples which was held at the border by a United States customs official. Why? Because although each crate was stamped "product of Canada" each individual wrapper was not stamped "product of Canada". I think I can say without exaggeration that Canadians find rulings of this kind exasperating and infuriating.

I repeat that in my opinion the United States have not been living up to the spirit of the Geneva agreements. Apparently the United States are contemplating something which will affect Canada even more seriously. At this moment pressure groups in the United States are calling upon congress to introduce further restrictions against lead, zinc, barley, oats, rye and certain fish products. These pressure groups are receiving a good deal of support in congress, even though the restrictions would be contrary to the Geneva agreements. There is a chance these restrictions may pass, because only this morning I read the following statement in the Montreal Gazette:

U.S. moving toward curb on Canada rye.

The U.S. agriculture department disclosed today it was recommending to President Eisenhower that steps be taken to curb imports of Canadian rye.

The same thing may be done with other Canadian products. I suggest that if the

United States should proceed with such restrictions contrary to the Geneva agreements, there is not a province in Canada which will not be adversely and seriously affected. Apparently the Americans who are contemplating such legislation think Canada should be used simply as a marginal supplier. They are quite willing to take our goods when they are scarce, but as soon as they become plentiful they seem to lose interest.

I make this statement reluctantly, but I do feel the time has come when this parliament and the government should object to being pushed around by the United States in trade matters. Either the Geneva agreements bind all countries who signed the agreements, or they bind none. The United States cannot have it both ways. I therefore urge this government to make it crystal clear to our American friends that if they implement further restrictions of the nature I have mentioned, it will result in retaliation by Canada. It will mean counter-measures. If the United States continues to violate GATT I think Canada will be reluctantly forced to re-examine, review and re-assess her whole position under the Geneva agreements.

Let me hasten to add that I hope the counter-measures will not be necessary. If they are, they may have to include restrictions and embargoes on certain American goods. They may have to include heavy export duties on such products as nickel and asbestos which the United States must buy from us. No Canadian wants to embark on this kind of trade war, and I certainly hope the steps I have mentioned will not have to be used. Certainly no one can win in this type of economic struggle, least of all Canada.

I think both our countries should realize that they have an enormous stake in the maintenance of friendly relations. But our American friends should also realize that their attitude toward tariffs and trade has created disappointment, frustration, and even hardship in Canada and throughout the western world. Surely the American people must recognize that in this critical period of world history they need friends. It appears to me they have not too many friends today.

No nation however great can assume world leadership without having friendly partners. I think Canada would like to be such a partner. I think Canada wants to be such a friend. But if the Americans want us as a partner let them without delay remove the petty obstacles to trade and friendship which are at present causing such irritation north of the border.


William Marvin Howe

Progressive Conservative

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the other

members of this house who have extended in no uncertain terms their heartiest congratulations to you on your election to your high office. As a new member feeling as I do, not too sure of myself, and having observed with what dexterity and diplomacy you have handled the many and varied problems which have presented themselves, I do appreciate the wisdom of this house in electing you to oversee its affairs.

I was rather taken aback yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when you called on the member for Weliington-Huron; but I was greatly relieved when the right hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Howe) arose in his place to speak.

After sitting in this house since the opening of parliament and hearing speeches by so many hon. members covering such diverse subjects as fishing in Newfoundland, the potato growers in Prince Edward Island, the shipping industry in New Brunswick, the textile industry in Quebec and Ontario, the grain growing industry in western Canada, the lumbering industry in British Columbia, and listening to the vivid portrayal of the difficulties confronting such industries, it is rather hard for me to co-ordinate these speeches with the glowing picture presented to this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in his address yesterday. His statement that we are now in a buyers' market is only too true, with the result that the sellers are attempting by every means available to retain their sales volume to the extent that margins of profit are dropping to an alarmingly low level, with the result that the incidence of failures in business is increasing. Private enterprise is definitely not in the same position as the government who, I understand, are at present selling pork abroad at prices far below cost.

Last year at the time of the redistribution of ridings the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Cardiff) was highly incensed at the government, and at that time predicted that in spite of this jerrymandering he would bring back to Ottawa at least four members from his part of western Ontario. That is a wonderful district, populated by very intelligent people; and so the citizens of Welling-ton-Huron riding did their part to make his prediction come true.

As part of my riding lies in the valley of the Grand river, it was the scene of one of the first large-scale conservation projects in the Dominion of Canada, which has since been followed by similar projects in other parts of the country. As the question of conservation has been mentioned by some other hon. members of the house, namely the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White)

The Address-Mr. W. M. Howe and the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), I considered that it might be interesting for other members of this house if I enlarged on this subject, as I understand there are similar projects coming up from time to time in other parts of the dominion.

The necessity for this great project was brought about by the fact that years ago the early settlers of what was known as the Luther swamp, which is a huge bowl of impervious clay designed as a natural reservoir and of perennial and everlasting benefit to the people of the valley, decided to indiscriminately remove the trees, and later ditches were dug to draw off the standing water. The natural strata of the area was interfered with, the result being that in the spring this river becomes a raging torrent, overflowing the lower parts of the valley and causing millions of dollars of damage, then in summer dwindling down to a mere trickle of water. Due to the industrial and domestic increase in population along its lower reaches, it became an ineffectual malodorous sewer until fears were entertained for the health and sanitation of the public.

Mr. William H. Breithaupt of Berlin was the first to give serious thought to the problem, in 1905. But it was not until March, 1942, through the indefatigable work of such men as Dr. Hugh Templin of Fergus and Gordon Cockshutt of Brantford, that the first dam, the one called the Shand dam at Bell-wood, was completed. Since that time a further holding dam has been built in the Luther marsh itself; and as the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. White) intimated, there is to be a further dam built next year on the Conestogo river, a tributary of the Grand. This project was financed 37.) per cent by the federal government, 37-J per cent by the provincial government and 25 per cent by the municipalities involved.

I would now like to turn my remarks to the economic conditions existing in my riding. In this respect it should be divided into two segments, that of the towns and villages and that of the agricultural portion of the riding. First, I shall deal with the towns and villages; and in this respect I would like to refer to a matter which has been much discussed in this house, that of decentralization of industry.

During the second world war, when we read of the devastation of property and the tragic loss of lives in the great industrial regions of Great Britain and the continent, it was said that steps would be taken to see that we would not make the same mistake and that it should not happen here. But with the almost daily increase in the distance travelled

The Address-Mr. W. M. Howe by the great bombers of today and the tremendous advances made by science in the field of atomic and hydrogen bombs, as indicated by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) in his speech to this house last week, one shudders to think of what would happen to our great cities in the event of another world war. Last week when on an excursion promoted by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), and looking down on that great city of Montreal which has grown by leaps and bounds in the last few years, one could not help but think of the vulnerability of that great metropolis.

As I intimated, this matter has been discussed on many occasions in this house. On November 15, 1949, the then hon. member for Fraser Valley said, as reported at page 1812 of Hansard:

We have heard it said, and we presume that it was meant seriously, that it was the desire of our great leaders to decentralize industry and to build up the smaller communities where the labour situation is easier and the living costs are less.

On September 29, 1949, the then hon. member for Calgary East, speaking on the matter of civil defence, as reported at page 361 of Hansard of that year, said:

... I still am strongly ol the same opinion, that efforts should be made through the industrial development bank to bring about a dispersion of industry which would carry with it a dispersion of population because people will go where they can get work.

Then on September 13, 1950, the then hon. member for Lake Centre, as reported at page 679 of Hansard for that year, said:

According to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) there is danger of atomic attack on our Industrial production. I have a report of a speech he delivered in Toronto, In which he pointed out that danger and indicated that he believed in the necessity of decentralization.

In my riding of Wellington-Huron there are several small towns and villages which could look after considerably more people, with the result that they would be able to lessen the property and business taxes necessary to maintain essential services, as well as give the workers advantages to be found in living in smaller centres where they are more contented and where there is a closer relationship between management and labour outside of working hours, something which leads to better relationships within the factories themselves. The factory worker also gets away from the congested living conditions which are to be found in the larger centres, with their tremendous traffic and parking problems.

Of course I realize there are arguments in favour of the large cities in respect of the establishment of new industries. They have

the advantage of greater numbers of floating labour and skilled artisans; they may have closer sources of raw products and materials which are necessary for the production and distribution of their manufactured products. However, against this argument we have the innumerable large and small industries which probably owe their success to the fact that they were primarily established in smaller centres.

In my own district I give you Beatty Brothers of Fergus, whose best known products are washing machines and stable equipment of all kinds; Fry and Blackhall's furniture factory at Wingham, and Lloyd's sash and door factory in the same town. In Mount Forest we have a successful overall and sportswear factory, and many others. In fact practically all these small communities support some industry, whether it be a creamery, flour mill, or poultry processing plant; and they are all quite successful in their own right.

It has been indicated from time to time that more and more foreign capital is looking for locations at which to establish new industry in our country. I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government should give some direction in this respect so that industrialists may realize the advantages to be gained from settling in our smaller communities.

In the economy of my riding the second phase I wish to speak about is that of agriculture. I realize that the remarks I make are applicable to many of the other ridings in southern Ontario. I am particularly proud *of the fact that the two counties of Wellington and Huron, parts of which I have the honour to represent, are definitely outstanding in this respect. In the production of butter Wellington county ranked fourth in the province. It was first in the production of flax, fifth in the production of potatoes, fourth in the production of hay, seventh in the number of cattle on hand, fourth for the number of swine, and third for the value of poultry.

Huron county ranked third in the production of hay, third in the production of field crops, first for the number of cattle on hand, second for swine on hand and first for the value of poultry marketed. These figures are for the year 1952 within the province of Ontario. One thing that is encouraging in my riding is the number of junior farm organizations we have, particularly in the field of 4-H clubs. These clubs do a wonderful job of promoting interest on the farms among our younger rural population.

Estimated receipts in Ontario from the sale of all farm products declined by more than $76 million during the year 1952. Economically our farmers are in much the same position as those in the western provinces. The younger and less well-established farmer is finding it extremely difficult to show a profit and is not-as is the older, well established farmer-able to endure an economic crisis of any duration.

I have some rather interesting figures with regard to the distribution of capital necessary to operate a farm successfully. The well-established farm requires that 40 per cent of the capital should be in land and buildings, 30 per cent in livestock, 20 per cent in farm machinery and 10 per cent in feed and supplies. This is considered to be a sound basis for operation, particularly for those interested in the raising of beef. But some younger farmers are finding that their machinery is representing as much as 60 per cent of their capital investment. This is a situation which is apparently not getting any better, with the continued rise in the cost of farm machinery and the uncertainty among cattlemen caused by successive price drops from the purchase of feeder cattle to the finished product.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that more definite steps should be taken to reopen and re-establish those overseas markets which for years maintained and provided perennial outlets for practically all our agricultural products so that this industry-and it is said that the economic stability of any country depends on the top six inches of the soil-may once again become economically sound.


Lomer Brisson


Mr. Lomer Brisson (Saguenay):


twenty-first parliament, Mr. Speaker, was dissolved at the dawn of the coming to the throne of our Queen Elizabeth II. Since then, on the 2nd of June last, we witnessed her coronation with deep feelings of joy and admiration. May I be permitted to offer to our gracious sovereign the sentiments of filial loyalty of all my electors. On the occasion of this great event political observers unhesitatingly predicted that the Elizabeth period would be an era of progress for the whole commonwealth. This has already been partially fulfilled in Canada, for several happy events have already taken place, the armistice in Korea, the return to power of the Liberal government in Canada, the appointment of new ministers and parliamentary assistants.

I wish to express my most sincere congratulations to all those who have been newly appointed. I assure the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) of the admiration, gratitude and confidence of my electors.

The Address-Mr. Brisson Your recent election, Mr. Speaker, as the presiding officer of this house gives me great joy. I learned to appreciate your qualities while you were Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you will maintain our parliamentary prerogatives at a high level. I extend to you my most cordial congratulations.

The speech from the throne is awaited each year with impatience by all Canadians. The first of this parliament, delivered by the Governor General, the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, on the 12th of November last, before both houses assembled in the Senate, announced excellent measures for the welfare of the Canadian people. The proposer (Mr. Hollingworth) and seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address have defended them in a masterly manner, and I congratulate them for having opened the debate on a note of serenity and distinction.


It is very unfortunate that, in a world eager for peace, we should have considerable amounts of money to devote to armaments. Indeed, there is no other alternative, in the presence of such a mortal foe, but to increase at the same time our assistance to underdeveloped countries in order to protect them against communistic influence and to open our doors to a sound immigration, in order to develop adequately our natural resources and at the same time ease the burden of overpopulation that bears heavily upon certain nations. Let us not forget that our democracy will promote peace only to the extent it achieves these ideals of justice and charity both at home and abroad.

More than any other system, free enterprise has contributed to the progress of Canada and humanity. However, economic liberalism has bred and is still breeding a lot of misery. It is the business of the legislators to temper its effect with social measures which take from the excess wealth of some to alleviate the misery of so many others. Such legislation has still greater human value when accompanied by educational standards designed to make the recipients more conscious of their place in society.

The Liberal party has long understood that law of equilibrium of economic forces, because it has established throughout Canada a vast system of social security. The government want to do still more in that field, because they mention in the speech from the throne their intention of amending

The Address-Mr. Brisson the National Housing Act and paying a pension to totally disabled persons.

In my opinion, the family can never find a better social atmosphere than in a nice home, well lighted and well ventilated, where every one of its members can develop freely and assert his personality. It seems that the government truly wish to enable each Canadian family to get a decent home because they now propose to improve the National Housing Act by lowering the down payment required from the borrower, extending the period of repayment and authorizing banks to loan money on mortgages.

These changes will obviously be well received by all Canadians, particularly in my constituency, where vital statistics vary considerably from year to year.

The invalid, to my mind, with the exception of the blind person, is in a far worse position nowadays than all those looked after by the federal government. The child has its parents to look after it; the older citizen has his children, while the unemployed's plight is generally temporary. But as often as not the invalid drags his infirmity from the cradle to the grave. Quite often too he is left alone to grapple with a problem which he is powerless to resolve. But what then must be the position of those invalids who have dependents? The Canadian government has just announced something which will be warmly welcomed by the Canadian people.

In a large part of my constituency the main industry is fishing. Unfortunately, in normal years, my fishermen friends do not manage to make ends meet. In extraordinary years, like this one, they have no market for their fish. I wish to thank the government for the steps it has taken to date in order to remedy this crisis. But I rejoice in the fact that it has announced in the speech from the throne that it strives in particular to increase the markets for the products of our fisheries and to promote the introduction of more modern methods with regard to the Atlantic coast fisheries, especially in the province of Newfoundland where methods need most to be improved. Therefore, I am confident that the Quebec part of Labrador will receive particular attention, in view of the fact that its position is much like that of Newfoundland.

On the other hand, I am glad to note that the government will introduce legislation for the welfare of the Eskimos. I have the honour to represent, at the present time, a few thousand Eskimos and I am happy to realize that the Canadian government now takes

interest in them as in any other nationality in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent in this house a district which is one of the richest in natural resources, where present developments are most fantastic.

Each year the Canadian economy gets from my county a million cords of wood and from 150,000 to 200,000 tons of titanium. Very soon it will probably also get ten million tons of iron ore a year. They are building there at the present time one of the largest hydroelectric plants in Canada, which will supply with electric power the industries of the province of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are somewhat sorry to see these raw materials leave the district, for it is their processing on the spot which gives a region, any region, a stable economy. They understand, of course, that these natural resources must be used to promote the prosperity of their province, of their country and even of the free nations, but they would like, and rightly so, to keep a greater part of these resources at home.

It is indeed strange that in the midst of all these resources only one industry has been able to settle in our district, where it has known, I must say, a remarkable development. I am talking of the Quebec North Shore plant in the tidy town of Baie Comeau, which it supports. By the way, this plant ranks among the main industrial achievements that have taken place in the first half of the twentieth century. This phenomenon may perhaps be explained by the fact that it is impossible to find in Saguenay county neither sufficient funds nor specialized labour, nor yet markets, which would allow such a process of industrialization. But it would seem to me that there might be another basic reason: the absence of those means of communication without which industry cannot normally expand. I am glad to be able to quote one of our foremost industrialists, Mr. Arthur Schmon, president and general manager of the Ontario Paper Company and president of the Quebec North Shore Paper Company. I am going to quote an excerpt from the speech he made at Baie Comeau, during a luncheon of the Baie Comeau district board of trade, held at the Manoir Comeau on May 5, 1953. This speech has been published in L'Aquilon of May 31, 1953.

The county of Saguenay stands on the threshold of a new and essential phase of its evolution, a phase which accounts for the very relationship between you: the opening up of industry in this district. Now that we have hydro-electric power in the district we should be able to attract new industries. Such an achievement will require a common effort on the part of the electric power

company, the various governments, the chamber of commerce, and of every one of us taken individually.

To justify the brilliant hopes entertained for Saguenay county, a great amelioration must take place in the field of transport and communications.

I know very well the great progress which has taken place in the past 15 years; however it is with concern that I look upon the immense amount of work which remains to be done. Since its beginning, civilization has progressed no faster than the means of transport and communication themselves.

It is evident that we need more adequate means of communication. The sending and receiving of messages and the carrying on of business must be as flexible as possible. Why could we not benefit from a direct air mail service between Montreal and various points on the north shore?

In respect to transport, we are suffering from a handicap, which can be removed only through the co-operation of all. That handicap has its source in the isolation, in every sense of the word, from which we suffer a good part of the year on account of the severity of our winters. That isolation creates a very great problem, the problem of storage. Since, during the winter, transport is limited, manufacturers must store their productions of the winter months, and they cannot ship anything before the reopening of navigation, in the spring. Moreover, people using such products must also store them so as to have a sufficient supply of food and other products during the winter months. The result of that is the freezing of sizeable funds, which can do nothing else but discourage. in the county, the establishment of industries whose products or by-products must face keen commercial competition.

Mr. Speaker, the lack of adequate means of communication in our county delays not only the establishment of industries but also any increase in our population. Moreover, it paralyses the life of our 50,000 people and of those that came to our district to contribute to its development. In a constituency like mine, it is not normal that thousands of citizens should be unable to get their mail every day. I know that the problem is not an easy one to solve on account of the distances involved, but I think that the Post Office Department should set up a daily mail service by helicopter from Baie Comeau to Blanc Sablon, similar to that provided in Newfoundland.

In a large section of my constituency there are no telephone lines and telegraph lines are practically idle. I understand that the company concerned may not be interested in improving the service but, under the circumstances, should not the Department of Transport take over the interests conceded the said company over the territory between Sept lies and Blanc Sablon?

In wintertime, the only means of water communication in Saguenay county is the boat service once every 15 days from Pointe au Pic to Sept lies. Should not the Depart-

The Address-Mr. Jones ment of Transport improve that service and send an icebreaker our way to permit navigation on the river throughout the winter? I would like to quote another excerpt from the same speech by Mr. Schmon:

There is another factor to be considered in order to do away with this winter isolation and that is the commissioning of an icebreaker capable of maintaining communication with a railway centre. This is not an impossible task. We know it because we have made a thorough study of this question. Some type of semi-icebreaker could do the job and allow the uninterrupted movement of supplies, particularly heavy goods. The icebreaker could operate in such a way as to open navigation to the sea and in this way make the Gulf of St. Lawrence navigable the year round. When we have solved that problem, and particularly that of industrial storage by opening navigation, we will have done away with one of the main obstacles to the industrial development of the north shore. The solution to this problem is a federal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken here of the North Shore Railway. Should not the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) also study the possibility of linking my constituency with the other centres in the province of Quebec?

Quoting again Mr. Schmon:

Finally there is the possibility of building a railway. The realization of this means of transport is perhaps difficult to justify at this moment, but must nonetheless be considered as an objective for the future. We see this kind of development occurring elsewhere, so why not here?

I wish to congratulate Mr. Arthur Schmon for the realistic remarks he made about the situation in the Saguenay. In my opinion, all industrialists who have the task of developing my constituency agree with him.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I took great care not to make promises to my electors, in the course of the last electoral campaign. I feel, however, that the future of the north shore depends upon the improvement of its means of communication in every way. It is therefore my utmost desire to seek a solution to this problem.

I know that the government will continue to co-operate fully with me, for it is really the future of an empire which is at stake and, therefore, of the whole Canadian community.



Owen Lewis Jones

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the others who have expressed their satisfaction upon your elevation to the chair in the house. I am sure you do great honour to that position, and those of us who occupy the back benches are proud that we have back of us your record of tolerance and kindness to be made effective during the next four years.

The Address-Mr. Jones

While I have no wish to prolong the debate this evening, there are two items of importance to my riding, and possibly to other ridings in Canada, that should be placed on the record. The first of these is of particular importance to the people I represent. I refer to the marketing of soft fruits and vegetables.

This last year we had a splendid crop of soft fruits, potatoes, onions and cabbage, but a very poor market. The good crop resulted from natural causes-a good climate, good husbandry, good soil and sufficient water. There is no need to amplify the satisfactory climate in my riding, because that subject has been aired many times in the house, and everyone knows about it.

I might point out, however, that our crops are going to be progressively greater in the future. I say that because, through the assistance of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the provisions of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, a great deal of virgin soil has been brought under irrigation. Veterans have been settled on this prolific virgin soil, and no doubt their production will add greatly to that we already have.

This is my reason for dealing with the subject tonight, because I am afraid the impact of this increased production will be more than we can bear, and that we will have a local depression. Some of these veterans are already in difficulties through lack of markets for their vegetables. As I think I mentioned a year ago, a friend of mine grew two acres of lovely cabbage, and he was not able to sell a single head owing to the unfair competition from the United States side. The situation is similar in regard to other vegetables and soft fruits particularly this year, when competition was keen owing to the overproduction in the United States. True, we have the Geneva agreements and other pacts governing the importation of these commodities, but both Canadian producers and shippers to whom I have talked agree that the essence of these agreements is being violated. I feel the government should keep a stricter check on the promises made in these pacts and agreements, to see that they are carried out and strictly adhered to.

A lack of control in the United States regarding planting resulted in tremendous fluctuations in one way or another in such crops as onions and potatoes. This year, long before the planting time, United States growers were warned by the Secretary of Agriculture that if it was their intention to plant potatoes at the rate they suggested there would be overproduction. In spite of this warning planting took place on the scale planned, and the result this year has been

complete chaos not only in the United States market for potatoes and onions but in the Canadian market as well.

If the farmers of the United States wish to ruin their own markets by not planning we cannot stop them, but we can take steps to prevent them extending those conditions to our domestic markets. During the past few days we have heard a great deal about the textile industry, of how it is suffering from unfair competition, especially from Japan, Belgium, Italy and the United Kingdom; but the hon. member who spoke the other night never mentioned the United States. I believe the competition of the United States in the textile industry is just as unfair and just as hard on the Canadian textile producer as that of those countries that were mentioned.

It is true in the soft fruit and vegetable industry that the growers of Canada suffer from unfair competition on similar grounds; that is, low-wage competition, but in this case the offenders are our good neighbours to the south. I know it is strange to say that we complain about low wages to the south as being a bar to international trade; nevertheless that is true in so far as soft fruits and vegetables are concerned. They have available to them cheap labour, and I would call it practically slave labour. They have a labour pool in the persons of wetbacks from Mexico. I should like to quote an article that appeared in the Vancouver Province in October of this year. It also appeared in the New York Herald Tribune:

El Centro, California-More than 378,000 "wetbacks"-a record number of the Mexican farm labourers-have illegally crossed the border into California and Arizona in the past eight months.

The rate of flow across the entire 1,800-mile border between the United States and Mexico is estimated to be 1 million "wetbacks" a year. A few weeks ago Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. called the influx "shocking" and said the administration would do something to stop it.

But despite increased border vigilance, the tide of workers who are willing to work longer, harder and for less pay than the American labourers shows no sign of slackening.

As a result the majority of local American agricultural workers have had to go elsewhere for employment. Hourly wages near the border have fallen far below the 70-cent minimum set by the government for farm labour legally imported into this country. In some towns the prevailing wage for field work is 20 cents an hour.

In fairness to the wetbacks I would also quote from the same article:

The typical "wetback" is a hungry man who may have walked as much as 1,000 miles to cross the border. He is usually a law-abiding citizen although he violates the law in entering the United States.

He may live in the field where he works and most likely sleep in a tattered blanket or rolled in the sack he uses when picking cotton.

This statement affects us directly in the fruit and vegetable industry. These people work for as low as 20 cents an hour in violation of the United States minimum wage act, but they dare not turn informer against their employers. They cannot say a thing; if they did they would be hounded out of the country because they are in the country illegally, and so they suffer in silence and become virtual slaves for 20 cents an hour.

Even with this cheap labour available and working, as it does, a severe handicap on our Canadian producers, the United States potato growers this year admit that potatoes are being sold for less than the cost of production. If that is so it should be construed as dumping, if they are brought into Canada at prices below their own cost of production.

My point is this. The definition of dumping should be changed. At the present time an article is considered to be dumped if it is sold at a price less than that prevailing at the point of origin. That does not mean a thing because only a short time ago, just south of the border, tomatoes were being sold at a certain price, shall we say $100 a ton, in the home market, and those brought into Canada were being dumped at $50 a ton, just exactly half the price. They offered a few cars for sale at the point of origin at that price to enable them to send tomatoes to Canada under the dumping law at that low price, but actually it was dumping.

Dumping should be redefined. It should read "sold at a price below the cost of production of a similar commodity in Canada." I say "in Canada" because our cost of production should be the guiding principle of the ruling. For one reason, it would be very difficult to prove or disprove the cost of production in a foreign country where you have no authority to investigate. Neither could you investigate the grades.

Practically the same story applies to peaches. There was overproduction in the United States and a very poor market, with the result that prices were forced down to as low as $1 a crate before ours were ready for the market. Naturally Canadian growers cannot begin to produce first-class peaches for $1 a crate, yet they had to meet a competitive market on that basis and maintain a decent standard of living at the same time. I would urge the government to give consideration to redefining the word "dumping" in the act, so that such produce could not be sold in Canada at a price lower than the cost of Canadian production. In this way we would relate the definition of dumping to our own economy and our own standards, thus affording protection in our domestic market to our own domestic producers.

The Address-Mr. Jones

The other matter I wish to deal with briefly concerns veterans of the first great war, or at least those who are now in need of assistance. As I came down here I read an article in the booklet issued by the Canadian Legion more or less defining the position of these men today as follows:

The 1914-18 war was, to a great extent, waged from trenches-always damp, mostly wet and muddy, usually cold and sometimes ley. Apart from constant enemy action, the physical strain and hardship that went with life in the trenches, especially in the winter months, was, in itself, a test of endurance.

In 1917 the wartime prime minister of Canada, after seeing some of the day to day conditions, said: "You are the men actually facing the enemy, day and night. You are suffering greatly from fatigue, overstrain and lack of rest. The marvel of it is that men can undergo such a strain without breaking; but you have never broken, and history will appreciate that in days to come."

At this late date, it is not surprising that many of the men who served in the trenches are not in the same physical condition as those who did not see such service. Some of them have now "broken"; and therein lies the problem.

First of all I should like to deal with a problem faced by these broken men which recently came to my attention. It is well known that the ratio of veterans to the total population is higher in British Columbia than in any other province of Canada. That is possibly due to the climate, nevertheless it is true. Also in the Okanagan valley I think we have a higher ratio than the province in general, again because of the climate.

Many of these veterans bought small holdings ranging from three to nine acres, planted them in orchards and supplemented their crop income with outside employment. They were thus able to maintain a fairly good standard of living while young and vigorous. But now the story is a little different. Many of these men are between 60 and 70 years of age, well past the age for outside employment. They are entirely dependent on their small orchards for their livelihood.

The sad part is that many of these orchards were damaged severely by frost four years ago, and the new trees to replace the dead ones have a long way to go before they will be in production. It is no wonder that many of these veterans applied for war veterans allowance three or four years ago, and I thank the government for coming to their assistance. Of course they had to pass the means test, but with a broken-down orchard because of frost damage that was not too difficult. But this year several of these veterans have lost all or a large part of their veterans allowance on the ground that their income was too large. Knowing the net income of some of these men I investigated,


The Address-Mr. Jones and found that the Department of Veterans Affairs had a new ruling which affected these small orchardists.

Prior to last year a veteran made a complete return of his income and expenditures, and in most cases the cost of operation exceeded the income, particularly under the conditions I have mentioned where trees had been damaged and where the veteran was so old that he had to hire most of his labour. Because of the new ruling this year these veterans are in a most difficult position. The department has ruled that 50 per cent of the gross income shall be considered as net income.

I have one typical case. This veteran has about seven acres which were badly damaged. His average gross income for the last four years has been $1,000 per year, but his cost of production which includes labour, cultivation, spraying, thinning, picking, hauling, taxes, irrigation charges and every expenditure required when a man is unable to do the work himself, amounted to $1,100. The result was a net loss of $100. This man had receipts for his labour, spraying, taxes and so on, but the department contend that his net income was $500 and on that basis they are going to deduct from his war veterans allowance.

This ruling of half the gross is a stupid ruling. It is not realistic, and on behalf of the veterans I am going to ask the department to return to its former method of computing net income, under which all legitimate charges were allowed provided the necessary receipts and vouchers were furnished. This ruling is working a real hardship on several

of these veterans, particularly those in our valley. I have no doubt the same thing is true in other parts of Canada, and perhaps other hon. members have had the same sort of complaint.

I have in mind another veteran who came to me just three months ago. He is also discriminated against under this ruling. This year he had only $26 per month total cash income to look after his wife and himself, and a small portion of that is war veterans allowance. I would ask the minister to instruct his department to investigate these cases and to be more realistic. They should be ready to accept a proper balance sheet made out by or for the veteran indicating a profit or loss, and that should be the basis for computing a veteran's need of assistance. This present method of 50 per cent of the gross is unfair and unjust and not in keeping with the wishes of the majority of the members of this house.

I urge the minister to consider the suggestion that has been made, not only by the Canadian Legion but by other veteran groups all over this dominion, that a committee of this house be set up to investigate complaints such as I have brought to your attention tonight. There are many others that I think should be investigated. The proper body to do that is a group such as we had before, composed of representatives of all parties whose interest would be the solving of the problems facing the veteran.

On motion of Mr. Masse the debate was adjourned.


December 1, 1953