February 1, 1955


Prices of Specified Commodities February 1954 <* per lb. <f per lb. UNITED KINGDOM Beef and Veal fresh from: England Montreal Australia .... 17-6 New Zealand .... 171 33 Uruguay .... 19-7 21-4 Bacon From Denmark .... 28-4 28-3 68 Netherlands 28-4 Butter From Australia 41-7 New Zealand 41-5 62-7 42-7 Cheese From 24-5 New Zealand Eggs From 24-2 32Australia Ireland doz. 52-4Denmark 49-8 These figures I believe illustrate that this problem has not arisen as a result of the marketing policies of this government, but has arisen as a result of increased competition from countries where production costs due to natural conditions are comparatively lower. I have been much more disturbed recently by certain muted murmurings which have emanated from certain sections of our farm economy, indirectly asking for sectional protection or advocating policies which only can be made effective by the provision of embargoes and restrictions on imports which I believe, certainly as a general policy, are contrary to the interests of our farming communities. The advocates of these policies may by their schemes ease a temporary difficulty, but in many cases their ultimate effect and the problems arising in the course of their administration will give birth to policies which eventually may be of tremendous consequence and of detriment to those who advocated them in the first instance. I would like to quote briefly from a statement made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in regard to tariff policy, where the position of agriculture is ably stated: Like the Canadian economy as a whole, Canadian agriculture is in the last analysis dependent upon a strong and growing export market for its products. The relatively high level of tariff protection which has over many years been afforded to Canadian manufacturing has always been a burden upon the Canadian farmer dependent as he has been for the most part on the level of world agricultural prices. While it is realized that a policy ot tariff protection creates patterns of economic activity that cannot be discarded over night, Canadian agriculture strongly supports the broad policy of gradual tariff reduction, and liberalization of trade, which the government of Canada has followed over the past number of years. I believe this statement concisely and aptly expresses the views of agriculture on the tariff problem. In my constituency, the farming community is passing through a very difficult period. We did not have the exceptional crops in the past three years which were experienced in many parts of the west. This year, owing to excessive rains, seeding was delayed and in many cases flooding and wet conditions prevented crops being sown. The crops which were sown suffered severely from rust damage and army worms, with the result that quality and yield were very low. The exceptionally wet fall defied the heroic efforts of the farmers to salvage what little crop there was, with the result that while it was gathered in some areas, in others over 50 per cent remains in the field, hammered into the mud by rainfall and wet early snows. The farmers in Springfield, while they have prospered in past years, this year are faced with a serious problem. The agricultural community was settled largely by the influx of immigration at the turn of the century, and the people who settled this area came to this country with very little wealth and settled lands which required considerable clearing, draining and works before it could be brought under production. However, they by sheer hard work have evolved one of the finest farming communities which now has largely passed to The Address-Mr. Weselak their children, the first generation of native Canadians. These people who developed our farming communities knew little of agricultural stability, knew nothing of parity or floor prices, but nevertheless banded together in marketing associations for their own benefit and protection, a movement which eventually gave rise to the establishment of the three large western grain pools and other cooperative marketing agencies, and the eventual establishment of the wheat board. At the same time, however, farming was not the mechanized operation it is today. Horses were commonly in use and, if oats were not available, a horse could do a fair amount of work on hay though he usually lost weight in so doing. The point I am trying to illustrate is that in order to farm today the farmer to operate efficiently must have cash, and if not cash then credit; otherwise he cannot operate. Every farm operation on today's mechanized farms now requires the farmer to pay out cash, and the net result is that cash revenues are today far more important than they were in the past. As a result the farmers in Springfield, apart from those who have been established and have reserves, face an immediate cash situation which is of serious proportions. I realize that the prime responsibility in this case lies with the municipal and provincial authorities and not with this government, but it is nevertheless a problem which will recur and perhaps some study should be given toward evolving some method of alleviating these temporary hardships. It is true that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act provides certain benefits where crops fail, but unfortunately in our area crop conditions vary almost from farm to farm, with the result that the qualifying patterns under the act debar farmers from receiving any benefits under the act even though their individual cases warrant aid. In addition to this the cost of operating and cultivating land in the fertile heavy soils of the constituency are substantially higher than those in many parts of the west, and correspondingly yields are generally higher than the western average yields. The net result has been that Manitoba farmers have not benefited as a whole from the scheme to any substantial extent, with the result that in the past few years considerable agitation has been evident among grain growers for some amendment or alternative which would meet Manitoba's peculiar problems. For every dollar paid into the fund, Manitoba farmers have received 30 cents, Saskatchewan farmers $2.50 and Alberta farmers $1.70. The province of Manitoba was keenly aware of this problem and

The Address-Mr. Weselak at the last session a committee was set up to study the matter and report to the government. This committee has held hearings at many points in the province and has heard several hundred briefs submitted by individuals, farm organizations and others. The magnitude of the problem has not been minimized by the provincial authorities and the multitude of schemes proposed by interested individuals and organizations indicate that there is no easy solution to the problem. The one definite fact that has emerged from the hearings is that the present inflexibility of P.F.A.A. is not satisfactory in Manitoba and that it will have to be either modified or replaced by some other measure which will operate to the advantage of the Manitoba farmer even at extra cost if necessary. In view of the fact that the report of the committee is expected this year, I do not propose to draw any conclusions or suggest any remedies at this time. I do not feel that an increase in payments, as suggested by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), while desirable and necessary, will solve the problem in Manitoba; the problem goes much further and we in Manitoba await with considerable interest the findings of the provincial committee. A great deal has been said in this debate regarding the drop in farm income and the price squeeze which is presently causing difficulty in our farm economy. I do not propose to deal with the detail as it has been put on the record by government and opposition speakers who preceded me in this debate. In the course of the past year, the wholesale price index for farm products dropped from 212-9 to 203-8 and the index of farm costs rose from 231-1 to 238-7 in August of last year; the indications are that this has risen since August. The spread last January was 18-2 points and this has now increased to over 34-8 points. I believe this illustrates a trend which has continued for the past year and which ultimately if continued even with average production will destroy the small margin between cost of production and cash returns. In my opinion the index figure, being a related price figure, is generally more significant than total income decline figures which are affected by decreases in volume of production, generally due to natural conditions over which no control can be exercised. Since the inception of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, a total of $80,163,658 has been expended by the government in the utilization of the revolving fund of $200 million provided for at that time. Of the

sum of over $80 million expended nearly $69 million was expended in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan in February of 1952, with the result that the actual cost of the program has been approximately $11 million or an average of approximately $1£ million a year over the past eight years. The result of this program has been, and it has had that effect, of stabilizing the prices of farm commodities. It has worked particularly well in the case of butter, which prior to the application of price supports suffered wide fluctuations in price, with the result that when the producer had the product to sell his returns were comparatively low. At the comparatively low cost of $1J million a year, a measure of stability to agriculture, and as a result to the Canadian economy as a whole, of inestimable value was achieved, far outstripping its relative cost. The act as passed by parliament provides, in subsection 2 of section 9, that: In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1), the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture, by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions, and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the return from agriculture and those from other occupations. Steady and continued increases in labour income can be largely attributed to the continued expansion of the national labour force; but nevertheless, we are all aware that substantial increases in return for the individual efforts of labour have occurred in past years, which is as it should be. However, the farmer has as a general rule been required to purchase the commodities he requires at a price related to Canadian production costs, while a substantial bulk of his production has been sold in Canada and abroad at prices related substantially to the world economy, with the result that a disparity has existed and is now being accentuated. The intention of parliament in 1945 was obviously to provide a fair return to the farmer. Owing to exceptional conditions in the past few years, farm production in general was well above normal, with the result that the farm economy remained fairly buoyant despite declining prices. Conditions have now changed, and immediate study will have to be given to the situation. The government has at its disposal competent economists and statisticians who are quite capable of analysing the situation, getting down to the bottom of the problem and recommending remedies to alleviate this situation. I appreciate the action on the part of the government in the past in maintaining price support on butter, providing it for hogs and eggs when prices fell substantially, and in March of 1953 under the Fisheries Prices Support Act of purchasing one and three-quarter million pounds of fish from fishermen in Manitoba for which there was no apparent market. I realize that support of prices in this country creates a problem in the disposal and sale of our products in world markets, and therefore their application cannot be indiscriminate. Nevertheless I feel that continued and more extensive use of these provisions will have to be made in accord with the intention of parliament as expressed in the statute by the government to bolster a declining farm economy. Since our agricultural problems are not of a static nature but are changing ones, I believe that the remedy lies, not in inflexible price supports but rather in flexible supports which can take into account existing factors which vary from time to time. The experience of the United States in this respect and their present attitude are stated by Mr. Ezra Taft Benson, secretary of agriculture, in the Atlantic Monthly for July 1954, at page 53. Regarding inflexible price supports he had this to say: Our problems today center in the necessity of shifting from an agricultural economy of practically unlimited wartime demands to the more moderate demands of peacetime, while providing reasonable protection for farm income. The present farm program employing emergency, wartime, rigid price supports for a few important commodities is impeding such a transition. To a marked degree it is making an orderly transition impossible. The present program has a number of flaws- It results in unbalanced production through rigid supports on some commodities for which demands are decreasing. It encourages a build-up of surpluses which in turn depress prices. It discourages sound soil conservation practices by maintaining artificial demands for some soil-depleting crops. It tends to price certain commodities out of both domestic and foreign markets and thus stimulates use of less expensive substitutes. It destroys the function of price as a brake on overproduction. It fails to provide reasonable protection for 60 per cent of our annual farm marketings which are not under price supports. It provides the greatest help to those who need it least-the low-cost, big-volume producers-the least help to small marginal producers. It creates the complex problem of what to do with land taken out of production because of severe acreage controls. It provides for such drastic production restrictions that even with high price supports income is seriously jeopardized. On top of all these disadvantages, the present program has not prevented a decline in net farm income for five out of the past six years. Under this program the government now has between 6 and 7 billion dollars invested in commodities whose prices are being supported. More than 2-5 billion of this amount is represented by commodities The Address-Mr. Weselak whose prices are being supported. More than 2-5 billion of this amount is represented by commodities actually held in government storage. The balance has been loaned on commodities a large part of which will eventually wind up in government hands. These surpluses hang over the market. They depress prices. They drain off taxpayers' dollars day in and day out. The cost of storage alone is running more than half a million dollars a day. On the other hand, regarding flexible price supports, his observations were as follows: Flexible supports provide for some price fluctuation to keep supply and demand in better balance, while at the same time placing a strong floor ranging between 75 and 90 per cent of parity under the prices of basic commodities. They produce greater stability in farming operations and in farm markets. They encourage sound farm management practices. They create better price equality in relation to other commodities. They assure abundant food supplies for consumers at reasonable prices. They stimulate expansion of market outlets at home and abroad. They hold production controls to a minimum. They give added incentive for conservation and soil improvement. They encourage efficient use of agricultural resources. Flexible price supports will promote these goals with a maximum of reliance on the co-operative and competitive efforts of free men and a minimum of dependence on government control. In conclusion, I would like to briefly discuss another aspect of the farm problem and that is the need for a scheme of long-term credit for the rehabilitation of young farmers on farms. The amount of capital required today to establish and equip an economic farm unit has been estimated from $15,000 upward. The farm unit as it exists today is generally a family farm and as a rule forms all the worldly assets of the head of the family. In the event of the death or retirement of the head, the problem arises as to who shall carry on the farming operations. In the event of death, debts have to be paid and as a rule interests of other heirs settled. In the event of retirement, sufficient moneys have to be provided for the security of the retiring head who has through many years of labour established his equity in the farm. The young farmer is faced with a serious problem; as a rule he is a competent, well-trained farmer who, in the majority of cases, through devise or devolution in the case of death, or by gift in the case of retirement, has a small equity in the farm, but the bulk of the money required to settle remaining equities must come from somewhere. The farm improvement loans do not meet the situation; the limitations applied by the Canadian farm loan board, which has not been designed for this purpose, do not permit a solution to the problem. Loan and insurance companies do not either; in fact 722 HOUSE OF The Address-Mr. R. W. Mitchell in Manitoba they have practically withdrawn from the long-term credit field in agriculture. The net result is that in many cases the farm is sold to a neighbour, or neighbours, a competent farmer is lost to agriculture and to Canada and he drifts into the labour stream in which he must re-educate and re-adapt himself as best he can. Following the last war this government embarked on a scheme which has had singular success, and I refer to the work that has been done under the Veterans Land Act. Dealing with full-time farmers alone, 25,938 were approved for settlement and the record shows that only 2 per cent paying annually or semi-annually are in arrears in excess of $200. The success of this scheme encourages me to urge the government to give consideration to the advisability of providing long-term credit loans to young deserving farmers, with proper and adequate safeguards, thereby providing a solution to a problem which is plaguing our younger farmers throughout the country.


Robert Weld Mitchell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. R. W. Mitchell (London):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate hon. members will be glad to know that I will not keep their attention for more than a few minutes. I say that for two reasons. The first is that the speech from the throne was so devoid of anything of a constructive nature that there is little to be said about it. The second reason is that I deplore repetition and any repetition which I may make of previous remarks will be purely for the purpose of emphasis.

I should like at the outset to conform with tradition by congratulating the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick) upon their addresses to the house. I feel that both expressed foresight and progress which seem to be sadly lacking once members of the machine have been in the house long enough to be suppressed and made to conform.

The speech itself was a masterpiece of double-talk. It was full of sound signifying nothing. This government has looked back into the past and has failed entirely to forecast or foresee any sound measures for dealing with the economy as we face it today. I submit that we are committed to a policy of bungling along without any plan or program and without any rhyme or reason. We are destined, for another year at least, to be governed by a self-satisfied government with neither initiative nor vision. Order in council is still senior to the will of this house. Without planning, each crisis has to be faced in a spirit of crisis, met with catch-as-catch-can remedies, and without preparing any ground for the future. Shakespeare put into

the mouth of Lear the words: "Nothing will come of nothing." I submit that that is a suitable epitaph with which to bury and forget the speech from the throne on this occasion.

The subject of unemployment was conspicuous by its absence. Much has been made of the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which, I submit, is nothing more or less than a sedative or palliative and is much the same thing as administering morphine to a person who is suffering considerable hurt. It does not go to the root of the trouble. It does not cure the ill.

We are told there is no problem. But, Mr. Speaker, I submit that examination of the figures produced by this government itself indicates that the unemployment situation in this country is not only severe but is growing worse. We are told it is seasonal and sectional. We are told that we have a greater working force than ever before. There may be and probably is some element of truth in these statements, but they are half-truths at best, and half-truths are dangerous.

The basic problem, however you clothe it, is to provide an opportunity for work for every Canadian who is able and willing to work so that he may be able to play his part in the development of this great country.

I was gratified to note that amendments will be introduced to the War Veterans Allowance Act, and to the Blind Persons Act. We have been pleading for these on this side of the house for some considerable time and it is our hope that the remedies offered will be neither too little nor too late. It is our hope that they will not be merely temporary stopgap remedies but that they will go to the root of the problem and solve the misery and the troubles which have faced these classes of persons for many years.

I was also personally gratified to note that amendments are to be introduced to the Railway Act and to the Municipal Grants Act. I say that not only because of the relief which will be offered to municipalities, but also because they point up a much broader picture which I wish to discuss. During the last session it was my privilege to speak in this house with respect to the continuing problem faced by municipalities in the raising of sufficient taxes to enable them to carry out the purposes and objects of municipal government.

I am not naive and accordingly I do not believe that these remedies, these pieces of legislation, are to be introduced as a result of what I said. There must have been many others from all sides of the house clamouring at the cabinet door to produce this sudden about-face.

We have learned to be grateful for small morsels which fall from our master's table, and these measures, if and when they are introduced, will we hope be something more than small morsels.

Referring to the Municipal Grants Act, may I point out specifically as an example that the total assessment in the city of London is some $146 million and that the assessment of federally-owned property is some $4 million. I have heard, and seen in the press and elsewhere, various suggestions as to what form the amendments are to take, but on any basis there is going to be some relief for municipalities, such as London, which have a high proportion of federally-owned property.

The Railway Act amendments will be welcomed, particularly by those hon. members who represent large cities. The government apparently has finally seen the necessity of curbing the damage and destruction which is wrought by level crossings in our cities and towns. They also apparently have finally seen the necessity of maintaining an even flow of traffic rather than creating and continuing the bottlenecks which tie up our cities many hours during the day.

May I once again be specific about London. London is fortunate in that it is served by the two major railways. It is unfortunate in that these two railroads divide the city into three almost equal parts, and in the centre of these parts is located the bulk of the industry and business life of the city. It is apparent from that that the bulk of our working force must at least twice a day cross one or the other of these railways. It is also apparent that those who wish to go to the business area or to the shopping area are in the same position.

May I say that on the C.N.R. there are only three major north-south routes on which there are overpasses, and on the C.P.R. there are none. For verification of my remarks with respect to the hold-ups with which traffic is faced I would refer hon. members to Mr. Donald Gordon, with whom it was my pleasure and privilege to sit at a major London crossing for 15 minutes last summer while he witnessed one of his trains being made up.

These temporary measures do not answer the problem. They simply perpetuate the inroads which this government has made into the tax dollar. The provinces and indeed the municipalities continue to be the victims of the tax grab and they have lost the right or the opportunity to govern or maintain themselves financially. Only so much of the dollar which is earned can be put out in taxes. The field has been exhausted and the municipalities are faced with a complete

The Address-Mr. R. W. Mitchell inability to increase their mill rate and tnere-fore must accept the charity of this government. This is a policy of self-perpetuation. The municipalities cannot bring themselves to bite the hand that feeds them, particularly when that hand controls the larder as effectively as does this government.

It is therefore my earnest hope that the government will enter into conferences in a spirit of co-operation and not of domination so that out of them may come a new tax formula as a result of which the provincial and municipal bodies will be able to enter into the field themselves.

I suggest there is no person more capable of governing his house than the master of that house. I am at times the master of my own house and I do not welcome advice or influence from outside. But I suggest that municipal councils and mayors are the persons in the best position to decide how and where municipal funds shall be spent. They are on the spot. They have the firsthand knowledge but they must have the money. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the government that as a measure of good faith instead of making grants in lieu of taxes they pay taxes to the municipalities on federal holdings. Second, I suggest that they reduce their taxes thereby enabling the municipalities to increase theirs and avoid the necessity of municipalities coming to the federal government for grants.

May I now refer for a moment or two to one of the depressed industries about which we have heard. I refer to the textile industry of which I have some little knowledge but I am satisfied that at least some of my remarks will refer to other industries in the same boat. I presume that as soon as one mentions that hateful word "tariff" one is branded as a high tariff man, and I refer to the word "tariff" as a means of protection, not of taxation. I suggest to the house and to the government that it is high time that we took a realistic view of tariffs and thereby protect our Canadian industries and our Canadian workers.

We have tariffs and we may as well accept the fact. My colleague, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), illustrated that most adequately yesterday from the cradle to the grave. These tariffs apparently are designed for two purposes. One is protection and the other is taxation. With the latter I cannot agree. A tariff for the purpose of protection, to be adequate today, must be examined in the light of today's conditions.

By way of example may I refer to tariff item 523b which deals with woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, printed, dyed, or coloured, and I will touch only the most-favoured-nation


The Address-Mr. E. W. Mitchell column which provides that these fabrics, if valued at more than 80 cents per pound, are subject to a tariff of 17J per cent and 3 cents per pound, if valued at 50 cents or more but not more than 80 cents per pound, a 22A per cent tariff, and if valued at less than 50 cents per pound, a 25 per cent tariff. I suggest that these tariffs were designed to enable our Canadian manufacturers to compete in the range of low priced cotton goods. We recognized the fact that we probably could not compete economically in the higher priced range of cotton products, and therefore certain protection was given.

But, Mr. Speaker, we must now examine these particular tariffs in the light of changed conditions. The price of cotton has risen. What was formerly 50 cent cotton, and accordingly given some measure of protection, is now in the bracket of high priced cotton and does not receive the same protection as it did. Second, let us not forget the fact that the value of the Canadian dollar compared with the value of the United States dollar has drastically changed.

Another problem of the textile industry has to do with the marking regulations passed under the National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act. Perhaps I should say that the problem has to do with enforcement and the additions which should be made to these marking regulations. That it is not a small problem may be indicated by the fact that imports of certain types of hose from and including July of 1953 until and including June of 1954 amounted to 1,169,025 dozen pairs for a value of $5,710,935. There are two particular aspects of this imported hosiery to which I wish to refer. The first is that so far as I can find there is no requirement that the country of origin be stamped on these items. Yet I have with me, Mr. Speaker, a pair of white ankle stockings which were sold over the counter of a store as being made in Canada. They are not made in Canada; they are made in the United States.

The failure to stamp the name of the country of origin in the case of the United States, Spain and Japan is enabling certain people to sell foreign products to Canadians who are conscious of the need to buy Canadian and desire to do so. We are defeating our purposes. We are trying in one breath to educate Canada and Canadians to buy Canadian, and then we permit certain of our citizens to sell products made in the United States with the statement-oh well, they are made in Canada; you prove me wrong.

The second aspect of these marking regulations requires that I refer to the hosiery marking regulations issued on the 14th January, 1953. Paragraph 5 provides in

brief, and I will not quote it, that if there is more than one item contained in a pair of hosiery they must be marked equally if the hosiery is stamped, with the largest component being named first. They also provide that where there is less than 5 per cent of the material content in the hosiery, excluding toe and heel reinforcing, they may not be marked or described in any manner whatsoever.

This particular pair of white stockings which I have in front of me has in the centre of the marking in large capital letters the words "combed cotton". Immediately beneath that in the same size lettering is the word "nylon", and if you look very carefully and have good eyes you can see below the word "nylon" the words "reinforced toe and heel". The first- reaction in looking at that is that they are "combed cotton nylon". That would be my reaction, but I am not a shopper. The second reaction would be that there is certainly nylon there, and even if you read all the words you see it is "combed cotton nylon reinforced toe and heel". To which part of the stamping does the word "nylon" refer?

These stockings have no nylon whatsoever except in the reinforcing of the toe and the heel. My plea is that we assist one of our staple industries to assist itself by enforcing and, if necessary, expanding these regulations so that Canadians who are conscious of Canada's future can be in a position to buy articles properly marked.

Lastly, I wish to say simply one word about the centennial the city of London is celebrating this year, to which reference has already been made in the house, and to extend a most cordial invitation to members of the house and to their constituents to visit us and help us in the celebration of our one hundredth anniversary.


Joseph Miville Dechene


Mr. J. M. Dechene (Athabaska):

In rising

to ask for the privilege of speaking in this assembly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to immediately assure this audience that I have a special reason for doing so, otherwise I would not inflict a speech upon them. Today, sir, I believe I am qualified by age and by experience-


Joseph Miville Dechene


Mr. Dechene:

-to speak on a matter of

very great importance to the province from which I come. During the year 1955 we shall celebrate the golden anniversary of the entry into this confederation of the great province of Alberta. I feel it is proper for me to speak because, in looking over the records, I find that of the men who took part in the development of Alberta, those who

were there from the beginning and who contributed to its success, there are only two left in public life. I refer to the Hon. Senator MacKinnon and the member for Atha-baska (Mr. Dechene).

As I looked back upon those fifty years, I felt that I had a duty to perform and an obligation to fulfil to those people who made it possible for members to come here to represent Alberta. There is some history attached to this which I believe, unfortunately, has been overlooked. During the last few weeks and months competitions have been held in the schools of Alberta. Students have been asked to write about the province, and prizes have been offered to those who write the best articles. So far as I have been able to discover, however, no one has made any reference to how this province came into being or to the men who were responsible for this great development in the west. If I mention Alberta particularly, it is because other men better qualified than I am will speak for Saskatchewan and also because the territorial government had its headquarters in Regina for many years. The people in that province were used to government, but we in Alberta were in the outlying area near the Rocky mountains.

We did not have any experience in government, but we were proud to achieve the population which warranted this House of Commons passing the Alberta Act in 1905, declaring that on September 1, 1905, Alberta would become a province. A lieutenant governor was named and appointed. He chose a temporary government which, later in the fall, had to go before the public for either support or rejection. May I mention the names of some of these men who did so well? The first premier was the Hon. A. C. Rutherford, from the town of Strathcona on the south side of the river Saskatchewan. He handled also the portfolios of education and finance. He had experience because he had sat in the assembly at Regina for a number of years. He chose as his cabinet colleagues the Hon. W. T. Finlay of Medicine Hat, minister of agriculture; the Hon. W. H. Cushing of Calgary, minister of public works; the Hon. C. W. Cross, Edmonton, attorney general; and Mr. De Veber of Lethbridge, as minister without portfolio, a very able man who later became a member of the other house and who, of course, has long since departed.

As I said, there are only a few left to bring back the memory of this great achievement, and it was an achievement. In 1892, 63 years ago next April, my father went west as a homesteader with a family

The Address-Mr. Dechene of ten. After the construction of the Canadian Pacific, the west became stagnant. Up to that time, there had been some advancement, some settlement, and then it died out. Many of us, and I was one, had to come back east to try to find employment. There was nothing in the west for a young fellow to do. We sold our oats for 15 cents a bushel. Sometimes we got 17 cents and we were very happy. We had to put the oats in sacks and carry it up to the warehouse where we emptied it into bins. There were no elevators in those days, and I did that.

Then Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into office. At that time he chose as his minister of interior and minister of immigration one of the outstanding public men in the west- although I did not always agree with him- Clifford Sifton of Brandon, later Sir Clifford Sifton. He initiated a new policy of immigration designed to bring about progress in the west. We had tried to get people from Ontario. We got some, the best, because they had the spirit of adventure of their ancestors. We got some from Quebec and from the maritimes, but only a few.

The government therefore opened the gates to settlers from other countries. These people saw the possibilities in the rich soil of the west, and they were looking for freedom and liberty. They promptly accepted the invitation to come to this land, where they could in a few years become Canadians and enjoy prosperity and freedom. I recall very well when they started to come. I went back to the west in those days because my father wrote and said there was something to do; there was a new deal in the west and prosperity was coming back. He said we were going to build more railroads, and we were going to bring in a lot of people.

How well I remember all this. If I recall these events to the house, it is only because of the historical value. Thousands of people poured in from central Europe, the British Isles, from the Scandinavian countries and from across the line. Some came from Ireland, some of the best. They took advantage of what we had to offer, our fertile soil, our freedom and our laws. They came by thousands.

In 1903 I went back to the west. My father said: "Now, there is a new deal here; come on home, son. There is work for you here." I went home on the train with immigrants because it was cheaper and it was more interesting. I recall leaving Montreal, and I believe it took us eight days to travel to Calgary. We then had to take a small branch line-I forget the name of it-which ran from Calgary to Edmonton. The train was loaded with immigrants, most of whom came

The Address-Mr. Dechene from central Europe and the Scandinavian countries. There were a couple of carloads of people from the British Isles. They were happy. I recall walking through the train watching these people and thinking how far away from home they were. They came from Galicia, a province in Austria, from Bukovina, some from Germany and from Scandinavia. They had been told by those who came in the advance guard what we had to offer in the west. It took eight days to travel to Calgary, and then I had to take this train to Edmonton. If I recite these facts, it is only because I have something on my mind. I bow to my friends from the west, who were there in those days-and they were important days for us. We landed in Strath-cona, on the south side of the river. There was no bridge at that time. Well, perhaps that is not quite correct, because there was an old river bridge. Most of the people went down by tallyho-four horses going along at about 25 miles a hour. It took a good man to ride with them; in fact most people did not dare to do it, because it looked dangerous.

Then, there was a little train, a little railway-and perhaps it was the shortest railway with the longest name that has ever been known in the world. It was the Edmonton, Alberta, Yukon, British Columbia and Pacific Railway, and travelled about five miles. It just had to go down a hill, and up again. And I say all this because I think there is something of great importance attached to it.

Instead of taking the tallyho, as we called it, which ran downhill at breakneck speed- although I was not afraid of it; I was almost a cowboy in those days-I rode the train. It consisted of four wooden cars, loaded to the roof. And as we went down that hill we could see the lights across the river on the heights of Edmonton.

On that occasion I saw a man up at the end of the car. He was a tall man, a fair man, evidently a Scandinavian, and he began to sing. Mr. Speaker, it has been my lot at times to hear some fine singers. I have listened to Caruso, on gramophone records; and yet I must say that I never heard anything finer or better than that Scandinavian-although, unfortunately, I could not understand a word he said.

It was obvious however that he was singing a song of farewell to the country he had loved, and from which he had come, and at the same time a song of welcome to the country to which he had come-a country so vast, with its limitless prairies. But this man was pleased; he felt strong-a regular Viking, coming to a new land. And he sang all the way along, until everyone was spellbound.

As I say, I did not understand a word he said; but one could understand his feelings. Here was a land of liberty, a land of plenty, a land that gave scope for his strong arm and for his will, he was singing to it. Those of us who were there never said a word, all the way along. We just listened to that magnificent song. No speech could have expressed better the meaning of his song.

And when we got to the top of the hill- and, Mr. Speaker, it took us a long time-we got off at Edmonton. My folks were there to meet me-and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I am not wearying the house, because I do not speak in this way simply to relate a personal matter but rather to illustrate the development that has taken place out there. Immediately I told my father about the man I had heard singing. It seemed, I said, as if he loved this land, and I said that I believed I loved it more since I had heard him sing. I did not realize the value of what we have, did not realize as well as this man who had come all the way across the seas, and who sang about the wonderful things we have here- the size of it, the breadth of it.

Everybody was so happy in those days. That was a time when there were no strangers: we were all brothers in the west. The old-timers from out there will remember that.

Then some years later I happened to be electioneering north of Edmonton, not for myself but for the great architect of Alberta's destiny, the late Hon. Frank Oliver. And, away beyond Edmonton, perhaps some 30 or 35 miles, I called at a nice, tidy little shack which had been placed in a clearing in the bush at a place then known as Independence. It was clean as a whistle, good buildings, well kept fences. The man came out to see me, to welcome me. I looked at him and at once recognized the same man I had heard singing on the train. But now he could speak English. That man was still singing, but singing louder and better than ever. He was singing about the possibilities of this great land. And when I speak today I do so to draw the attention of hon. members in the House of Commons and to those who come from the west to the fact that in those early days we were happy; we were proud of ourselves. We did not ask for any government favours. We would have been insulted if anyone had offered us something for nothing. And that was the feeling throughout the land.

I mention this because, as a result of a great immigration policy, the land of the west became cultivated, villages were built across the prairies, and railways were constructed. And, referring to railways, I can remember Frank Oliver repeating day after day and year after year the necessity for

railway competition, because we were then at the mercy of one line. If oats went up a cent a bushel in British Columbia, then the freight rate went up by that amount. We could sell nothing at a profit.

And then the Canadian National Railways came along, and the Grand Trunk, and there was competition, bringing hope to the land. The population increased rapidly, and two new provinces were cut out of the prairies- Saskatchewan, and the one in which I am more interested, Alberta the sunny.

Then the first war came along and created a condition over which no government, provincial or otherwise, had any control. In many areas there was dissatisfaction among the people; there was division and discord. The west was ranged against the east. Then in 1921 I believe I was the only survivor in the northern part of the province of the Liberal legislature which went to the people in the month of July of that year. I believe there were nine in the whole of the province who survived, five of whom were in Edmonton-and I recite these things, Mr. Speaker, because in the minds of some people both here and elsewhere there appears to be the idea that Alberta was born either in 1921 or 1935.

Alberta has been looked upon right in this House of Commons, sometimes through the eyes of a banker whose name I will not mention, as something quite different from what it is. I do not need to mention his name, because some of my friends over there have named him often, and have recited his opinions to the house. Of course we are talking about a province in which everything had to be done-the building of the legislative buildings, the erection of normal schools and public schools, the building of roads and bridges-all those things. The entire province had to be covered by a brand new government, and the revenue to do this had to be found. We did not listen to the banker, because if we had done so we would not have a province out there, even yet. But as public men we knew it was our duty to provide facilities for the settlers, those who had had the courage and the fortitude to go out there and carve out a little kingdom for themselves.

Perhaps I should say in passing that I am not speaking from notes, but that I am freely asking you to join us in our golden anniversary celebration in Alberta the fair, which has contributed so much to the advancement and the welfare of this country. And we have only begun, as everyone knows.

In a few months at most enough gasoline and oil will be produced in Alberta and Saskatchewan to supply the entire Canadian market.

The Address-Mr. Dechene

Millions and millions of dollars' worth of new wealth has been created by the people of our provinces of the west for themselves and for the people of Canada; but I want to pay a tribute through you, Mr. Speaker, to a class of our people in that land who in some parts of the country are referred to as immigrants. Well, there is nothing wrong with being an immigrant. We are all immigrants; we emigrated from somewhere in this country or from some other lands not so long ago.

Take that country north, east, southeast and northeast of Edmonton, all around Edmonton clear up to the Peace river. In that area you will find men and women who came from Europe, from the Ukraine, from Germany, from Poland, from the British Isles, from Scandinavia and from other countries. I hope some of you will have the privilege of visiting Alberta next summer when we celebrate our jubilee. If you do you will see miles and miles of countryside, right up to my section, a distance of 175 miles, which 50 years ago was wild but today is a garden of Eden growing everything under the sun. You will see the sod shacks and mud houses have disappeared and now there are the finest of homes to be found anywhere. You will see silos and thoroughbred cattle in the fields. I admit to you, sir, that I resent the picture that is often painted of my province of Alberta. From 1921 to 1930 we were called the I.O.U. province. They cannot call us that any more because we have paid off all our debts at a high interest rate.

I want to pay this tribute to the Ukrainians. It is not a matter of politics. Do not worry; I am not going to bother you again after this parliament, but I should like to also pay this tribute to the Poles, the Germans and the Scandinavians who are all far away from home. I should like to tell you a story about them. I should like to tell you what they have done. Today in the public life of the west you will find men of the second and third generation in important positions. You find them in the judiciary; as you know, you find them in our parliament. You find them in our legislatures, and you find them in our cabinets in the western provinces. The mayor of Edmonton, the booming and greatest city in the west, nobody can deny that, is a second generation descendant of a pioneer settler. His ancestors, whom I knew very well, came from a part of the constituency of Athabaska. I want to praise them publicly for the tremendous achievements they have made.

It was easier for us from old Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. I admit we were pioneers in the development of the west, but

The Address-Mr. Dechene it was easier for us. They were great men and women but it was easier for us because we were in our own country. We knew the rules and the languages. I am proud to say to you this afternoon, sir, there are thousands of those Ukrainians, Germans, Poles and Scandinavians in the constituency of Atha-baska. We have the greatest respect for one another. I say to you publicly in this house that these men and women have done a wonderful job in the west.

When we talk about 1903 I want to show you how the policies, politics and the vision of public men influenced the people of the country. You could find the same feeling all over the land, ambition, belief in the country, confidence in its future. Sometimes some men in public life have made it their business to try to destroy that confidence, to destroy in the souls and in the hearts of these men and women the spirit of Canada, the spirit of the pioneer. I can boast that I was one of them, and I can boast, sir, that I never had to ask any favour from any government. I am proud and pleased that God gave me life to be able to make these remarks today without any preparation. I did want to pay tribute to that valiant population.

I want to describe to you this afternoon the visit of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. When the western provinces entered confederation, Laurier did not send a messenger to Regina or Edmonton; he came himself. I do not think there was any greater public man. There may have been others with more ability but I am not going to make comparisons. Comparisons are odious. What I wish to say is that there was no greater lover of Canada, no greater advocate of its possibilities, no greater friend of the western prairies-that spirit still lives in our Minister of Agriculture-than Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Frank Oliver would wake up at two or three o'clock in the morning to go to meet a settler coming from the country to see what he wanted, and what he could do to help him out. That was the spirit we had in those days in the west.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier came to Edmonton, and I should like to remind the house of this because I think it is worth-while. Crowds came from all over the countryside. There were perhaps a dozen cars in the city of Edmonton those days; there were none in the country. People came from all over the country with the horse and buggy and the wagon; some came with oxen and some walking in order to hear Wilfrid Laurier, the champion of western Canada's advancement, progress and settlement. If I should live a thousand years I shall never forget the speech he made. It was a masterpiece not only in

eloquence but in patriotism. I well remember the welcome he gave us. He knew them all. Thousands were there and many came from other lands. I should like to repeat some of the words he used in his welcome. He said: Many of you came here from other lands, from central Europe, from the United States, from the British Isles. You know now how welcome you are in this land of the free and the brave. I want to give you some advice. I give it to you as an old man getting on in years and as prime minister of this country. We are not asking you in Canada to forget the land of your ancestors. No, do not do that. We know that every nation in the world has many things to be proud of. Nobody has a monopoly of courage and of intelligence in this world. Remember the land where your ancestors lived, struggled and died, because if you remember the land of your ancestors you will be better citizens of the land in which you are now making your home and where your children will take your place and carry on. He said: "Remember the past, remember your land, remember the old country; but I am asking you today, when this land is becoming a province, a new jewel in the crown of confederation, which is today the most brilliant with its tremendous resources, to think of the future. Remember the past, but think of the future. Think of your children. Be grateful to the people of Canada who spent money and who granted you the privilege of coming to live in a land where you can be free."

There may be lots of good lands in the Ukraine, some as good as any that can be found anywhere in the world, but there was one thing lacking, namely, freedom, liberty of expression, liberty of thought, liberty of religion. They found that, sir, in Canada. This year we are celebrating our golden jubilee in this fair land of ours.

I am not sorry that all through these years it has been my first love. I say to you Canadians through this forum of the Canadian people, through this parliament, that this celebration, which will run from June to September next, is worthy of the sons and daughters of Saskatchewan and Alberta who came into this confederation on September 1, 1905. I have argued very often in this house, not through ill will, that we should never forget what we have contributed to the wealth of this nation, although sometimes we are accused of asking for too much. Unfortunately there are speeches made to gain some local advantage, some political kudos, because of the great majority of people on the western plains, but we are not asking for any favours.

I know I will be pardoned if what I say at this stage is said without any more preparation. I do not write my speeches. I have some notes with me that have been made hastily. I do not write my speeches, first because it is a rule of this house and, second, because I believe that I know enough about this country of mine to speak about it without having to write or having somebody else write notes for me.

So on that September 1 we did see a wonderful picture up that hill. I think I have said this once before. I do not think that anywhere in Canada you will find a more magnificent setting for a celebration than those flats down the river below that big hill on which is situated the hotel Macdonald at Edmonton. The spectacle is magnificent. You have the Saskatchewan river flowing through there to lake Manitoba and lake Winnipeg. There is the magnificent site on which the city is built. The trees across the river were in their full early fall foliage. The people gathered, on what was called the Ross flats. They were settled first by an old Scottish Liberal named Ross and they still carry the name of Ross fiats. There was no city then, it was just a garden. I do not think that I ever saw a better show anywhere in the world than I saw that day.

May I say in a spirit of unity and not at all as a partisan that as a Canadian I do not ever want to hear a word about our immigration policy. I know the wealth it has produced because there were no other hands available. They could not get them anywhere else.

I want to end with this message. You will find courage and fortitude in the west. It has been said that the soil is fertile in the west, that everything will grow there. We have had some bad years, but is there any country in the world which has not had bad years? That soil will grow grain; it grows flowers to that height, and it raises the finest livestock. It even grows ideas. People think it will grow money. The only way I found to grow it was by earning it.

I say to hon. members of this house this afternoon that, from their hearts and souls, they say to their constituents throughout this country when June 1 comes around and Alberta begins its celebration of its golden anniversary of joining this great country, they have a thought for Alberta and to those who are so inclined to raise a toast to the people of the province of Alberta.


Sybil Bennett

Progressive Conservative

Miss Sybil Bennett (Halton):

Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate we have heard much about the greatness and magnitude and intrepid nature of this great land

The Address-Miss Bennett to which we belong, and not the least of these have been the words of the hon. member who has just spoken. But after all we must return to the more practical consideration of conditions as they exist in this country. Listening to the speeches that have been made over the course of days and weeks it seems to me that hon. members of this house, particularly those to your left, Mr. Speaker, have set out most clearly the conditions as they exist today in this country.

I think there is only one conclusion and one deduction that can be drawn from what has been said, that is that the speech from the throne no longer performs the function and purpose it was originally intended to perform. The speech from the throne should contain a forthright, honest, down to earth statement of conditions as they exist, these conditions as they relate economically and socially to this nation. In a like manner this government should set forth in clear and concise language how they intend to deal with conditions as we find them today.

Judging from what I have heard in this distinguished house there are four or five problems with which the people of this country and this government in particular must deal. There is the problem of unemployment. There is the problem of the loss of our markets internally and externally. There is the reduction, of national income, nationally and individually. There is the question of the development of the natural resources of this country and the reassessment of their potentialities. There is the question of overtaxation as it relates to unemployment, loss of markets and the shrinkage of national and individual income.

I say that this government should forthwith and without delay make an honest and thorough examination of the basic causes underlying unemployment in this nation as we have it today. In the same forthright manner, after this examination has been made remedies should be suggested and brought forward in order to cope with the situation.

I realize that the government has provided legislation for additional unemployment insurance benefits and we welcome it. Projects are provided for public works. In my own constituency $400,000 has been allotted for a new federal building. But these things do not go to the root of the matter. They are only palliatives. They do not deal with the situation of unemployment in this country. As has been said by other hon. members, the unemployment situation is far from being seasonal and regional in character.

The Address-Miss Bennett

In a like manner this government should consider the reason for the loss of our markets. At the same time they should consider and set forth a policy whereby we shall retain, regain and find new markets. This government should examine the whole situation with regard to our natural resources and their potentialities in order that we may be able to increase our productivity and produce more in this nation without increasing costs of production, and thus be better able to meet competition. We must reduce the cost of production and in that way compete more favourably in the markets of the world. In that regard I think there should be a complete overhauling of taxation in this country so that it will improve the lot not only of the provinces but of the individual throughout Canada. This house and this government must give the leadership so that men and women in industry and in every profession and business will know what this government intends to do and how it intends to cope with the problems facing this nation at the present time.

What we need is a national policy and that national policy should be conveyed to the people of this country so that they realize what we are trying to do. I know that in the last 10 or 15 years this nation has enjoyed great prosperity and it is easy to coast along on the tide of that prosperity. But, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the prosperity we have enjoyed has not been provided by this government nor has it been provided by any single hon. member in this house. We have enjoyed that prosperity because we have, as the last hon. member who spoke pointed out, magnificent natural resources and potentialities, added to which we have a people of genius, of great inventive resource who have worked hard to turn out the products which this nation has been selling on the markets of the world.

On the other hand, the countries which have bought from us have, for various reasons, now developed their own productive capacities so that the situation is now entirely changed and we no longer find we have ready markets throughout the world. We no longer find we have places in which to sell our products and we are now forced into the open market and indeed a highly competitive market. These countries are now selling in the open market at prices with which we cannot compete, with the result that we now face a problem of unemployment while so many of those countries are enjoying total employment and renewed prosperity.

As all other hon. members in this house, I must examine the policy, or shall I say the lack of policy, of this government in the light

of business conditions and unemployment in my own constituency. I have the honour to represent one of the finest constituencies- and perhaps I should say the finest constituency although other hon. members may not perhaps agree-in the whole of Canada. In the county of Halton we live in the very heart of the greatest industrial development to be witnessed in this nation, and what I have to say about the county of Halton and its needs directly or indirectly applies, I presume, to every other constituency across this country. In the past two or three years we have seen a tremendous and unprecedented development. We have, I believe I can safely say, hundreds of new industries, large, medium, and small, coming into our county, and following this we have had a great development in the construction of new homes. With the entry into our constituency of hundreds of families fine rolling areas of land there have been turned into great suburbs. Municipal governments all over the county have had to provide for this great new development by building roads, providing water and sewage facilities, and providing the schools and other facilities which are required to meet this new development. They have had to do this despite the lack of proper tax arrangements and only through which it would be possible to bear the brunt of the development which is taking place.

In this regard I wish to again emphasize to this government that what is required immediately is an entire new revaluation of the taxation system in this country so that at the federal, provincial and municipal levels we can have a more even distribution of taxation, and so that those municipalities which are responsible for and are really guiding the development of this nation at the present time will have sufficient means through taxation to carry the brunt of the development now taking place.

If that is not done the fact is that the small home owners-and not the large property owners-who have built their little homes in thousands all across the country will have to bear the brunt of the cost. At the present moment they are bearing the brunt of this tremendous and expensive development, but they cannot continue to do so indefinitely and a redistribution of taxation is now required so that the average home owner will receive assistance perhaps through the provision of additional income tax exemption which will compensate him for the extra taxation he is now paying. It must be remembered that through this industrial development a great deal of benefit will accrue in the ultimate analysis to the federal treasury of this country.

I would now like to say a word to hon. members from the western provinces and from farming communities throughout the country. We too are a great farming county and we are very proud of our record in that respect in the county of Halton. Indeed, we have the wheat king of the world, Mr. W. E. Breckon, living in that county, and last year Mr. Breckon who farms 300 fine, rich, rolling acres down in Burlington was adjudged at the royal fair to have grown the finest wheat in the world. I therefore say, with all due respect, but with a great deal of pride that I, as the representative of that county, can take my place with hon. members from most of the great western provinces in Canada.

In addition to that we are a great dairy industry county. We have one of the very finest milk producing herds in the whole of Canada. But for our farmers in that county, and indeed all across the country, there are many difficulties to be overcome, despite what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) may have said in this house, for they are now receiving less income today than they have received at any time during the last seven years. They cannot find markets for their cattle, hogs, sheep, cheese, or butter and one of the facts that we tend to lose sight of is that over two million people in this country are directly or indirectly dependent upon farming income.

That does not take into consideration the literally hundreds and thousands of men and women who derive their living supplying various needs and necessities to farmers. Over two million people in this country have had their incomes reduced. They are not able to buy the things they are accustomed to buying. In that connection it must be remembered that the average farm family, being almost an enterprise within itself, buys four times the amount bought by a family living in a city. We must remember that if the farmer does not have the income, if he does not have the purchasing power, then that very fact is going to be and is being reflected right across this country and is one of the reasons for the present unemployment.

Turning back to industry, may I say that we have many large electrical industries in my constituency making heavy equipment, and industries making small electrical wares. In every instance these industries are on short time. They are laying off men because they are unable to compete in the markets of the world. They are not even able to compete in the markets of their own country, because wares produced at a very much lower cost are coming into Canada and are being sold in our markets.

The Address-Miss Bennett

That is just one instance where we must decide what we can do along the lines of research, along the lines of bringing about greater productivity at lower cost in the industries of Canada and increasing our efficiency in order that we may be able to compete. Of course there are the textile industries, and they are in a most unhappy and unfortunate position. Everywhere in the county these textile industries, some making cotton goods and some woollen, have either closed down or are on short time. The same is true of the leather industries. They are not able to compete. The men and women who worked in these little industries have had to find work elsewhere. They have not been able to meet the mortgage payments on their homes or pay their municipal taxes. They have not been able to go to the storekeepers and buy what they used to buy.

In every part of the dominion we see the result of the loss of markets in the decrease in individual incomes. As all hon. members know, I am always asking questions about the Ford plant. I have been making remarks about the Ford strike, and have been talking about the 15 per cent tax on cars. The Ford plant in my constituency is the largest in all Canada under one roof, and in that plant are employed at the very least 2,700 men. As other hon. members will know, the loss of income to these men was felt very deeply. It has been estimated that during the strike each man lost $1,250. He has not had that money with which to pay his taxes and meet the interest on his mortgage.

Let me say here that I have talked to a good number of these men, and they tell me they have mortgages under the National Housing Act. They tell me they have not been able to meet their mortgage interest for two or three months, and the minister who is in charge of these matters should give consideration to their plight. There are 9,000 men affected in the automotive industry in Canada, and many more thousands in subsidiary industries. It is to be hoped that these men will be given an opportunity to catch up on their payments now that they have returned to work.

The foolish part of the whole thing is that the government should consider that the 15 per cent tax levied on cars should be imposed because motor cars are a luxury. That is unrealistic, improper and not in keeping with the business outlook cf this nation. It is not in keeping with a proper economic outlook, and does not take into consideration conditions in this country. I want to remind every hon. member that 83 per cent of the motor cars driven on any given day in Canada are

The Address-Mr. Caron driven for necessary purposes and not as a luxury. One in 15 of all men and women employed in Canada today is employed in the automotive industry. What greater opportunity could there be for leadership on the part of the government at this time, what greater example could they set, than to announce that the 15 per cent tax on motor cars will be removed? After all, the luxury tax has been removed from mink coats and many other things which are really luxuries.

If the government want to set an example, if the government want to give leadership they should announce at once, when the automotive industry is trying to get back on its feet-an industry that is so important to this nation-that this tax will be removed. That in itself would give confidence and an Impetus to the industry and would give notice to every other concern in the industrial life of the nation that the government intend to lead the way in lowering the cost of production by lowering the taxation that is being borne by industry and by individuals today. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have come to the point of too heavy taxation and diminishing returns, and throughout the country we see the results in unemployment, loss of markets, loss of national income, indeed in the very development of the natural resources and great potentialities of our nation.

I ask the government to consider this matter and take action without delay. I ask them to give leadership so that workmen, industrialists, men and women in every walk of life right across the nation will be given ambition and a sense of responsibility.



Alexis Pierre Caron


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join those who have already congratulated the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I particularly wish to refer to the mover who, with wonderful rhetoric, told the house about the special culture which we receive in the province of Quebec.


On this day I should like to recall one historical fact. On the 1st of February, 1882, there was born in the eastern townships of Quebec a man who was marked by Providence to become one of the greatest men we have known. This man today is away from our country working for the betterment of the world. He is absent from the country, but we want to tell him that not only the members on this side of the house but all members desire to wish the Prime Minister of this country a happy birthday.

On January 27, after listening to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Mac-Innis) refer once again to the question of minorities, in answer to a speech previously delivered by the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Proudfoot), I decided to place my name on the list of speakers. I have noticed that many members in certain parts of this house seem to be completely lacking in any historical knowledge of this country. The subject of minorities was injected into the debate on January 12 in a speech by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) who decided that after spending a few hours in Montreal, with his super intelligence, he had seen enough to speak for the people of Quebec.

In case anyone might think I am not speaking the truth, I shall quote the hon. member's words from Hansard for January 12, page 120:

This province-

Meaning the province of Quebec.

-seems to be the sore spot in the matter of Canadian unity.

All these remarks seemed to be made in the name of national unity. Why did the hon. member say that Quebec was the sore spot in national unity? At the end of that paragraph he went on to say:

We do not want to handle divorce cases in the parliament of Canada.

On the same page he said:

. . . "What about this question of divorce?" The people of Canada are getting sick and tired of it. There is one man who can help us out of this situation and that is the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I feel that if he does not do so, he will have failed in one of his greater responsibilities.

The hon. member believed the Prime Minister should establish divorce courts for Quebec and Newfoundland. For the people of Quebec, who are mostly French Canadians and Catholics, the question of divorce is more than a question of breach of contract. We still believe there is a moral question involved of much more importance than the material question. We still believe that we were placed on this earth not only to live happily, not only to earn money, not only to earn honours but also to obtain the goal for which we have been created, eternity.

It is for this reason that we oppose divorce. In our opinion marriage is not only a civil contract but is a sacrament, and we have no right whatever to touch a sacrament. This question is not the property of the governments of this country, it is the property of those who have responsibility for the morals of the people. I am in agreement with the hon. member when he states he believes these cases are not studied fully by the Senate or the House of Commons committees.

I am in agreement with him when he states that many of the witnesses brought before those committees are fake witnesses who have built up a case that does not represent the true facts.

I recognize those facts, but there is another aspect of the matter. These hon. members do not want to study divorce cases from the province of Quebec, so I feel the only thing for them to do is to make it impossible for divorces to be granted by parliament. Then if people from Quebec want a divorce they will have to move to some other part of this country. In that way everybody will be happy. We will not have to discuss this matter any more in parliament. The people of Quebec do not want divorce courts in that province and will never accept them. We believe that this is a matter for the religious authorities, not for the civil authorities.

This hon. member went on to speak about national unity. He said, as recorded at page 121 of Hansard for January 12, 1955:

My forecast is that when that tide turns in the province of Quebec it is going to turn mighty fast. My greatest concern is that it may turn to the communist party. I contend that there is no part of Canada that is as ripe for advances by the communist party as the province of Quebec. In the city of Montreal the communist party polled about as many votes as the C.C.F.

So far as the polling of votes is concerned, I believe that is proof that the population of Quebec is not ready for communism. If there is one party in this house that has never clearly explained its views on private property, it is the socialist party. They have never given the complete facts concerning their intentions toward private ownership, and it is for that reason that the people of Quebec are afraid of the C.C.F. party.

Furthermore, I believe that when the hon. member says Quebec is ripe for communism he completely ignores the history of that province and the principles of those living in that province. If there is one province that will stand against communism as long as there are moral values, it will be the province of Quebec. Attached as we are to our religion, which from the beginning of time has been the opponent of new doctrines that have come into the world from time to time, we will be the last to accept any ideas which even resemble communism.

This is one of the reasons the socialists are not accepted as yet in Quebec, even if they are not communists. We are afraid of their ideas. We are afraid of the way they are treating the question of national unity in this house. I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is no more danger of the people of other provinces turning to communism than there is in Quebec. There is always a minimum number of people who believe in try-

The Address-Mr. Caron ing any new thing that comes into the world, but those people do not form the majority in this country. Certainly they do, and always have, formed the minority in the province of Quebec.

What are the facts that prompt the hon. member to think in this way? It is because he believes the educational system is so poor. He said:

The people of Quebec are suffering. They are subjected to double taxation and they are not enjoying the facilities in the field of education which they would like to have, which they ought to have and which they deserve as Canadian citizens. They are not receiving adequate health services to which they are entitled.

Mr. Speaker, in the field of education we have plenty of proof that our system is not as bad as some would have you believe. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said, speaking to the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming:

May I tell the hon. member, and any other hon. member who does not know, that under our constitution in British Columbia we have a free, nonsectarian public school system.

And then again:

Not only is our school system free and non-sectarian, it Is also compulsory.

And later on:

I have never known of a parent coming to courts in order to get a school to accept his children.

First of all he speaks about non-sectarian schools. That is exactly what we do not want to accept; and in the province of Quebec we do not want the Protestant minority to be forced to accept non-sectarian schools. We believe in the Almighty, and we believe that the most important thing in life is to get ready to go to heaven when the time comes. Even the greatest of riches in the world cannot gain us that privilege, if we have not prepared for it.

That is the reason we believe that Christian education should have its beginning in the schools. It should begin in the lowest schools, and should be kept up as long as a person goes to school. We believe there should be the same privilege for the Protestant minority; and in the province of Quebec they have and they use that right to have Christian education given the children in their schools. This is the first thing the Catholic does to prepare himself for that great voyage. And that is what we want to do, not only in Quebec but wherever we have a certain number of French Canadians or Catholics.

If the hon. gentleman had stayed in the province of Quebec long enough to make a study, he would first of all have studied the history of that province, a province which in history is the backbone of the whole country. He would have come to the conclusion that in the province of Quebec the


The Address-Mr. Caron system of education is divided into two committees. There is, first, the Catholic committee which looks after all the Catholic schools in that province. This committee is composed of bishops and an equal number of Catholic laymen who are there to study the situation. They meet three or four times a year and decide what the Catholic schools require in order to function and give moral education, as well as physical and intellectual direction.

In addition to that, and completely independent of the Catholic committee, there is the Protestant committee of education. It is composed of some of their ministers and an equal number of laymen of the Protestant faith. It is they who decide upon the training they require in their schools. The Catholics do not vote whatsoever to tell them what to do.

And, even though they are divided into two committees, the provincial government gives just as much to the Protestant schools as they need-just as much as they give to the Catholic schools. In the school system of Quebec there is no double taxation whatsoever, because the money comes from the same source, and we want to use it for the children, whether they have Protestant or Catholic parents. It is not the Catholics who decide what kind of education the pupils will get in every school in Quebec. That is something the hon. member would have learned if he had stayed more than two hours in the province.

To develop the subject a little more, let me say that in the city of Hull, on the other side of the river, 6 per cent of the population was Protestant, but with the increase in population their school was a little too crowded. They needed more space. Well, the government of Quebec has given them a good Protestant school, one which could serve as a model for any province in the Dominion of Canada. The government bought the school the Protestants had and gave it to the Catholics, who are now using it for a classical course. It is known as ecole Marie-Mediatrice.

This was given so the Protestants would have a bigger school, and at the same time it gave the smaller school to the Catholics because they were smaller in number. And this has been done throughout the province of Quebec, particularly in the eastern townships, where conditions have changed. There was one place where there was a big Protestant school, much too big for the population, and a small school for the Catholics. The Catholic population was increasing, so the government gave the small school to the Protestants and paid them the difference between what they had spent on the larger school. Then the large school was given to the Catholic population.

That is the way we understand national unity in Quebec. That is why we do not like people from outside, people who have not stayed long enough to know what is going on, coming to this House of Commons or to any part of the country and making speeches in which they tell us that we are in danger of becoming communist partisans in this country of ours. Education in the province of Quebec has been given fairly to Catholics and Protestants. Lately the government in that province has given grants to universities- Laval, Montreal and McGill. And let me say that the biggest grant was given to McGill, a Protestant university, because they were in greater need than Laval or Montreal.

This is what I call fairness; this is what we call British fair play, in the true sense of the word. Is that practised throughout this country the way it is practised in Quebec? Catholics want to have their schools so they can teach the love of God from the very beginning of the school years. They do not want non-sectarian schools, in the name of national unity, and they say they give everyone the same chance. We hear of people speaking before the United Nations and in other places about the rights of man, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of all those things.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher

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

Mr. Thatcher:

Would the hon. member permit a question?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher

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

Mr. Thatcher:

I think he wants to be fair. I wonder if he realizes that it was his own party that was in power in British Columbia until a year and a half ago. While I have sympathy for the viewpoint he has expressed concerning schools, I think he should realize it was his own party that has prevented that very thing.


Alexis Pierre Caron


Mr. Caron:

I will admit that. But even if my own party is at fault, then my party is at fault and I admit it. Would my hon. friend do the same?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher

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

Mr. Thatcher:

The hon. member has asked me a question. Speaking personally, I would not.


Alexis Pierre Caron


Mr. Caron:

I am glad the hon. member realizes that sometimes we can be fair. Well, I would not accept this treatment from any party, whether it be Liberal, Conservative, C.C.F., Social Credit or anything else. It is not fair; and I claim that we need fairness everywhere; not only in the province of Quebec, but in the whole country. As they said during the French revolution, "O liberte, que d.e crimes on commet en ton nom!" And one might say here, "Oh, national unity, what crimes were committed in thy name."

The Address-Mr. Barnett

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much of the time of the house. I hold in my hand clippings from English language newspapers in which citizens have been writing in favour of the province of Quebec. One of them, Mr. Arthur G. Penny, had this to say in an article which he wrote:

Because they feel that they have too often been misrepresented unfavourably, Quebecers who have a keen self-pride, are eager to be known as they really are.

Further on he says:

Accordingly, the columns of Concord, a French language publication, have been thrown open to the present English article, the writing of which has been entrusted to a Quebecer of English origin in the person of myself.

The Quebecer is religious, imaginative, cultured and artistic.

He goes on to say:

Other obsolete but wounding disparagements had it that Quebecers were "backward" in such matters as education and public health. Today they take second place to no other part of Canada in their attention to public health: infantile

mortality has been drastically curtailed and the scourge of tuberculosis has been brought under control. The educational system was never so much inferior to as it was different from that of English Canada and the United States, being designed to serve the distinctive needs of Quebec's chosen way of life.

I should now like to refer to a social bulletin which came to my attention and which has the following heading: "French-Canadians and Confederation". The bulletin was written by Murray Ballantyne. If hon. gentlemen would read this bulletin through to the end they would learn a little more about the province of Quebec. It is a fact that once in a while we may have disagreements with our provincial government, but we have to know the background of the province of Quebec to understand them clearly. I do not agree with everything that has been done, but I have to admit that in some parts of this country the French Canadians have been treated in such a way that we have a certain reluctance to accept anything that comes from elsewhere. It may be a mistake, but we have to be clear on these questions.

I have spoken in English this afternoon because I wanted to be understood. It would be much easier for me to speak in French. I hope this will be clearly understood. In the province of Quebec we are doing everything we can to help Canadians become more friendly. I try to learn more about others. We try to listen to what they are saying and we try to understand them, but it is practically impossible for us to do so in certain parts of the country.

I do not want to accuse all members of the C.C.F. party of this, because I admit that the leader of the party seems to be a man of

great knowledge, but he is like a man trying to ride a pair of broncos. He is having a great deal of trouble. I sympathize very much with the leader of the C.C.F. I sympathize also with some other people. They tell me the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is a school teacher. Well, if he teaches school in the way he tries to teach the House of Commons I really feel sorry for his pupils.


Thomas Speakman Barnett

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

Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):

Mr. Speaker, I left the province of Alberta in 1918 with my parents. After listening to the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) this afternoon, I was almost tempted to let the Alberta blood in my veins dominate to the point of going back; until of course I recalled some of the items I have been reading in the local press of Comox-Alberni about the snowdrops that are blooming out there and the spring flowers that are now coming forth, and I must confess that in spite of the eloquence of the speaker I decided that I would remain on Vancouver island. However, I shall be quite happy, if the opportunity affords itself, to accept his invitation to see Alberta celebrate its golden jubilee next summer. I did have the privilege of seeing Alberta in its greenery last summer, and also some of the other parts of the great country which the hon. member for Athabaska so eloquently described.

Consequently I have been quite interested during the session to hear some of the speeches that have been made by hon. members from the province of Newfoundland, such as the speech made last night by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten). Had they waxed as freely and as eloquently about their province and some of its problems during last session as they have this session perhaps I would not have needed to travel four thousand miles or so to realize some of the things I learned about it, or perhaps would have had a little more background prior to my arrival.

One of the phrases used by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's in his speech last night rather intrigued me. If I caught him correctly he made some reference to what he called "itinerant victims of a midsummer night's dream." Just for a moment I thought he intended to throw some bouquets in my direction. However, I quickly realized that I was in error in that assumption, and that undoubtedly he must be intending the reference to apply to that ex-Winnipegger who now sits in this house as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill).

The Address-Mr. Barnett

The thought occurred to me, while he was speaking, that it would really be quite interesting it at some time the minister would tell hon. members the full story of what I will call the Bonavista gunpowder plot. I am informed on reliable authority that the surplus of gunpowder from that particular operation undoubtedly puts Bonavista among the major arsenals of democracy, and I am sure the citizens of that town could, if the necessity should arise, create quite sufficient noise to scare away any stray gunboats or submarines that might chance to roam into that part of the Atlantic ocean.

Speaking purely as an impartial observer I will say that the remarks of hon. members from Newfoundland come fairly close to expressing some of the needs of the people as I saw them there. I realize that they were exercising that delicate restraint which hon. members on the opposite side of the house always use when they are drawing the attention of the government to the fact that there are a few unsolved problems among the people back home.

Last year when we were discussing the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act I made reference to what I termed the patchwork policy which the present government adopts. Since that time summer suns have come and gone, rains have fallen and some of those patches and the fabric to which they were attached have become a little more bleached, a little more soil-worn in the course of the normal usage that has been given to government policy by the exigencies facing our economy.

From such indications as we have had so far I must say it would appear that the government is going to continue with a similar policy. I am quite willing to concede that the government is capable of some very fancy stitching when attaching the patches; in fact, by and large it is a most competent seamstress. In other words, at times some of their patches seem to be attached with what I would term rather fancy feather-stitching. Nevertheless this patchwork policy seems to be continuing, and I have been wondering why this is so.

Hon. gentlemen opposite appear to be sincere and at times intelligent, and I am rather puzzled why they appear to be content with this hit and miss type of policy. A possible explanation appears to be that the government has fallen victim to what I would term a defensive attitude; they seem to be always on the defensive. I think this would apply equally to their policy on national or international level. In doing so I suppose they

are only falling in line with an attitude which appears to have become all too prevalent in what we call the western world.

From time to time I meet people who say to me rather proudly that they like to call themselves liberals with a small "1". I have been reflecting on the fact that I cannot recall having met anyone who said to me in that same proud tone of voice that he called himself a conservative with a small "c". I have come to the conclusion that probably the reason is that the people who might call themselves conservatives with a small "c" are afraid that by so doing they might be labelled Liberals with a large "L". In other words the government sitting opposite is a Conservative government regardless of its label, and has adopted a Conservative defensive sort of attitude.

I listened last Friday to the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) in which he gave a summary of his visit to Europe and his inspection of some of the operations of the NATO forces on the continent. I have no quarrel with the minister for making the sort of speech he did. He reported to us, as is his responsibility as a minister of the crown holding the portfolio which he does. But to me that speech of his was typical of this defensive attitude. The brief reference he made to the fact that as a result of certain actions that were being taken we were shortly to have some German divisions to me seemed to indicate a certain smug satisfaction that everything was all fixed up and that was all there was to it; that we have these divisions and our defensive mechanisms are once again well in order.

Regardless of the merits or demerits of the facts he was mentioning, I submit that it is not sufficient if we tend to have that same feeling as a result of actions which are being taken at the present time in the western world. The other day I came across a publication put out by the Department of External Affairs entitled "Canada and the United Nations 1953-54". My eye caught some of the lines in the general survey which commences on page 1, and I should like to quote these words:

Nine years ago, when the United Nations charter was drafted at San Francisco, it was hoped that the new organization might be saved from the weakness and failure of its predecessor, the league of nations, by the frank acceptance of political realities which entrusted the principal responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security to the five great powers.

Then it goes on to say:

The realities have proved to be other than they seemed in 1945.

During the period when the United Nations charter was being drafted and signed some

of us were engaged in some rather bitter political infighting with the Canadian section of the communist party at the trade union level. The political realities of 1945 seemed very much what the political realities appear to be in 1955. I recall to mind only too vividly the feeling I had in my heart in 1945, that within ten years we would be in the sort of situation we are in today. I only hope that in 1965 our Department of External Affairs will not be turning out a general survey which says that realities have proved to be other than they seemed to be in 1955. This article goes on to say:

The unity of purpose among the designated great powers, which was a major premise of the charter, has proved to be a vain hope.

And again:

Nevertheless, though the division of the world into two major power groupings has continued and has so far defeated our expectations that the lessons of two world wars would smooth the path to the achievement of world peace . . . the United Nations has not diminished in importance. Rather, so long as its purposes remain our purposes and so long as it continues to afford the best, indeed the only near-universal, forum for multilateral discussion and negotiation, the need to retain and safeguard its position increases rather than lessens.

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that from the very outset of the establishment of the United Nations and in the policies and attitudes adopted by various political groups in this and other countries of the western world it has not been recognized that if the United Nations is to have any real and practical value in the world of today then it has to be a universal forum.

The discussions that are taking place across the water today in reference to what has been termed a grave situation in the Formosa area would, it seems to me, have been carried on in a very different context if the principle that the United Nations should be a universal forum had been recognized at the outset, so that the question of the admission or otherwise of certain peoples to that forum would not have been determined by the political complexion of the governments in existence from time to time in those countries. Had that been the case we would not now be debating whether red China should or should not be invited to participate in a discussion which everyone agrees cannot be fruitful without her participation. In addition, we would not now be debating that issue had Canada and some other nations been willing to follow the lead offered by Great Britain in regard to the recognition of communist China, and followed through with her admission to a universal forum.

This defensive attitude, Mr. Speaker, is not enough. One of the lessons I learned very 50433-47

The Address-Mr. Barnett early in my experience in fighting the influence of communists and communism is that you do not get very far simply by calling them nasty names. We have to recognize that we cannot be content simply to be on the defensive and be pushed back all the time. We have to recognize that we have to be on the offensive and have to maintain that offensive consistently. We must never lose sight of the fact that the conflict in the world today is not one of arms or even atom bombs but a conflict of ideas for the loyalty and the hearts and minds and souls of great sections of humanity. The only way in which the western democracies are going to win this battle is by influencing the great masses of the people across the world that they recognize we have something better to offer.

I believe that is just as true in the realm of international affairs, in which I certainly do not consider myself an authority, as it is in the sort of dealings one has in a large industrial trade union. Unless you can offer leadership which is positive and dynamic and which holds forth a better program designed in the interests of those concerned, then you might as well give up the battle before you start. You might as well recognize that any sort of defences which can be devised in this context are going to prove futile and unavailing. So much, Mr. Speaker, for the defensive attitude on the international level.

What about the situation on the domestic level? The leader of this party introduced an amendment to the motion which is before us in which he suggested:

. . . that Your Excellency's advisers have deliberately returned to the policy of uncontrolled and unplanned private enterprise.. .and.. .have failed to undertake the economic planning necessary to cope with the serious problems now facing the Canadian people.

Actually that is a very kind amendment as far as the government is concerned because it assumes that at one time the government did have some idea of adopting a positive program which would involve the necessary economic planning. I suppose it is based upon the assumption that the proposals set forth in the green book in 1945 and enunciated in the first flush of post-war enthusiasm were seriously in the mind of the government at that time. But the amendment points out what is only too evident, that since the first flush of post-war enthusiasm died away the government more and more seems to be returning to an acceptance of uncontrolled free enterprise; that more and more the sense of unity and cohesion in a common purpose which characterized the war efforts of this country has faded away; that more and more


Henry Alfred Hosking


Mr. H. A. Hosking (Wellington South):


taking part in the debate on the speech from the throne I should like first to welcome and congratulate the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. All hon. members will agree that they performed their task in the fine manner to which we have become accustomed, continuing the tradition to which we look with expectation at each opening of parliament.

As a member of parliament and one who is intensely proud of the British Empire, I feel I should pay my respects to that great statesman, Sir Anthony Eden, for the honour he has brought to the commonwealth. As a Canadian, and particularly as a veteran, I shared with most citizens of this country the deep concern which all of us felt at the breakdown of the European defence community arrangement. I am sure I am expressing the feelings of most Canadians when I say that Sir Anthony Eden was primarily responsible for the happy conclusion that has eventually been reached with regard to the relationships of the free nations in western Europe and the North American continent. His knighthood was a fitting tribute, and was approved by all free people regardless of national background. The new agreement which he sponsored recognizing Germany is

The Address-Mr. Hosking

possibly the most important event that has taken place since the last session of parliament.

Another important event taking place is the meeting at Geneva on the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which everyone has learned to recognize as GATT. Our representative, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), should be commended for the job he did during the opening sessions in trying to promote trade. Everyone knows that next to Great Britain, Canada has the largest export problem of any of the important trading nations. In 1953 our gross national productivity was $24-3 billion. We exported $4-1 billion or 16-9 per cent of our production. In 1954 our gross national productivity was $23 [DOT] 9 billion. We exported $3 [DOT] 9 billion or 16-3 per cent of our production. Thus we see that the decline of [DOT] 6 per cent in export trade was felt right across the nation, causing a slight decline in employment.

Let us compare our exports with those of that great self-contained nation to our south. In 1953 they exported 4-3 per cent of their gross national productivity. Thus in order for us to live and maintain our high economy, external trade is almost four times as important to us as it is to the people of the United States. It is no wonder that the minister says our welfare depends on our ability to trade, and that he is out making agreements to stimulate that trade.

The farmers of this country have always recognized the value of freer trade. A great deal of the food they produce has to be exported at prices competitive with other countries. Thus they have always approved this government's policy of allowing them to buy commodities necessary for the agricultural industry, free of tariffs. They should view with alarm anyone who does not support this policy or who is being critical of it, because it represents their very lifeblood. The labouring people of this country should stop and think about who buys the commodities which they produce. About 83 [DOT] 7 per cent of the national production of this country is used in Canada. Since the farming section uses one-third of that, they need to make every effort to see that this home market is not disturbed or unemployment might follow.

Then, too, we should remember that Canada is a growing country and trade is our lifeblood. I can remember when the United States had a population of only 65 million, at which time our population was 7-5 million. Today the population of the United States has been increased by 100 million and ours has been doubled. Everyone agrees that our natural resources are comparable to

theirs, and that today we are facing a growth similar to that which the United States experienced 40 years ago. Unless we make mistakes our people have every right to expect a long period of opportunity. We are indebted to our Minister of Trade and Commerce for the effort he is making to ensure that this will happen.

It has been suggested by the opposition that we should be processing more of our natural resources before they are exported. If this could be done it would mean more employment, and that is a policy with which I could not agree more. Let us look to the record on this matter to see what the Liberal party has done and is doing to bring this about.

In 1953, 32 per cent of everything we exported went out as raw materials. The best example of this would be wheat. Everyone knows how difficult it would be to export bread, which would be one example of a manufactured product of wheat. The transportation and handling charges would be prohibitive. Twenty-nine per cent went out in semi-manufactured form, including paper, nickel, copper and the like. In this field we can show marked improvement, if we have the capital investment to build the plants to process these materials. The largest proportion of our exports, 39 per cent, was fully manufactured. That is not a bad record for a country which has doubled its national productivity in the last seven years. No other country in the world can boast of such a record. Let us continue to make every effort to increase our trade, which is an effective means of increasing employment.

Let us take a look for just a moment, Mr. Speaker, at how this wonderful record has been built up. The Liberal government's sound fiscal policy of a balanced budget during the prosperous years since the war has attracted to this country large capital investments. The larger these investments are, the more we will process our exports before they leave this country, because this supplies the means for the processing. Everyone will agree that by balancing our budget and by showing a sound business policy to the world we have encouraged foreign and Canadian capital to be invested in Canada, which in time will help us to decrease more and more the percentage of raw materials exported. This will aid in employment and help to keep our workers busy.

In the remainder of this speech I wish to turn attention to my own riding, Mr. Speaker. I would deal for just a moment with the housing situation in Canada. Ever since I entered this parliament in 1949 I have supported and encouraged our government policy of assisting the building of homes. This has

been one of the major post-war problems we have had to face. I think it is now time, however, to take a second look at the situation before we promote the building of so many houses that they will become a glut on the market. It is possible that areas like Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa may still be short of houses. If this is the case, then we should make every effort to assist in providing our citizens with the opportunity to own their own homes in any crowded area, if they have the facilities to purchase them. There are other areas where so many houses have been built that we are close to the saturation point.

Since I have been watching this situation very closely in my riding, I was amazed to learn of the recommendations which have been made by the provincial government to the dominion government with regard to the purchase of land in my riding on which could be built some 600 houses, as a government project. I would like through you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) to give a great deal of consideration to the position into which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation might get our government. I understand it is to be one of those projects arranged between the province and the city, in which the federal government pays 75 per cent of the cost, the province 17 J per cent and the municipality 71 per cent, and managed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

We have one of these projects in Guelph now, known as Green Acres. Let us look at it for a moment. In 1951 we bought 273 lots, built houses on 70, and have offered for sale the remainder, most of which have been bought by contractors. By January 1 of this year only three houses had been built on these spare lots, though permits have been taken out to build houses on some 20 of the 200 remaining.

At that time I promoted and assisted in every way possible the completion of this project because I thought it was necessary. I think today it is time to take a second look before we embark upon another project of this kind, for two reasons. 1. Do we need 600 additional houses, most of which would be outside the city limits? 2. The people of Ontario will expect us to look carefully into any recommendations by the provincial government after their experience with road scandals. You know, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government of Ontario has had unfortunate incidents occur which would tend to undermine the public's confidence in their judgment and the honesty of their operations.

The Address-Mr. Hosking I would ask the minister to look into every recommendation by that government with the greatest of care.

I wish to thank the minister for calling to my attention the fact that the government of Ontario had recommended that we buy 165 acres of land, of which only approximately 65 acres are within the city limits of Guelph.

I should mention now that the city of Guelph found it necessary to double its size two years ago. When they made this expansion they took in hundreds of acres which are not built upon, leaving many fields within the city limits for future expansion. Now we have the provincial government recommending that we go out into the township again, which of necessity would cause the city to expropriate further land in order to service this property for a future housing development. Surely that is not necessary, with all this space available for building. I am informed by the city engineer that there are at least 2,000 vacant lots within the city limits which the city is prepared to service if and when it is necessary.

Let us look further into this deal. The province recommends to us that we jointly purchase this farm land-most of which is outside the city-at $650 an acre, or at a total price of some $107,000. I took the trouble to find in the registry office some information about this farm. It has been bought and sold several times, and the last sale price recorded in the registry office was at $17,500, in 1948.

Mr. Speaker, I would not expect the people of my riding who pay taxes ever to allow me to return to this house as their representative if without protest I permitted this type of operation to take place in that area. We happen to be blessed in my riding with the finest type of honest citizens to be found anywhere in Canada. Their principles are such that they would not condone this squandering of money in such a fashion. Certainly we want houses, but we want them built in an honest and proper way.

I would suggest to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that if this is a typical example of the methods of the provincial government in recommending housing programs to our government, we look with the greatest of care into every recommendation of theirs. I would never want it to be said that the dominion government had any part in such squandering of the taxpayers' money. I would not want it to be said that the dominion government was legally correct, but that its dealings were not ethical. Mr. Speaker, through you I would recommend to

The Address-Mr. Hosking the minister that before any agreement is made with the province, this project be held in abeyance until representatives of the city and our government, and I, can look into all the details.

I was particularly interested last year, Mr. Speaker, to hear from our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that he was considering setting up a Canada Council for the arts, letters and sciences as recommended in the Massey report. I was disappointed at the conclusion of the speech from the throne to realize that inadvertently it had been omitted and was not among the proposed legislation. I trust that this omission will soon be corrected by a suitable government bill.

When this bill is introduced I would like to recommend to this house a most suitable member for that council. Everyone knows that my riding is the home of a Canadian who has brought great honour to Canada in the cultural field. I refer to Dr. Edward Johnson, who not only has been outstanding as a singer with the Metropolitan Opera Company, but who also has had the business ability to act as general manager for that company. It should also be remembered that he holds an executive position at Toronto university, in the Royal Conservatory of Music. Thus in Dr. Johnson we have an outstanding citizen with both a cultural and executive background, and I am certain he would be willing to give further of his efforts in any position which would benefit Canada's cultural growth.

This appointment would be very well received by citizens of the royal city for two reasons: one, he is a native son; two, he is now, in conjunction with a patriotic group of citizens, promoting the establishment of a civic symphony and choral group in Guelph. Canadians need to be encouraged to take part in cultural activities, and the proposed Canada Council would give leadership in this direction.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, through you, I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Public Works the need for a new public building in Guelph. As I have said before, the city doubled its size two years ago. This was necessary because during the last few years we have been one of the fastest growing cities in Canada. Guelph literally burst at the seams, and this situation is carried over to our public buildings. We now have offices in four separate buildings in the city, which is not a very efficient way to carry out the dominion government's work.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to look into the economies which would be effected by such a new

building; and I know, now that this situation has been brought to his attention, that as soon as the money is available we will have the building in Guelph which is so badly needed.

At six o'clock the house took recess.


AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock.

February 1, 1955