Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to extend my compliments to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. La-flamme) of the motion to adopt the speech from the throne. I do so with more than the customary formality because I have had earlier occasions to listen to the mover; and so far as the seconder is concerned, I very greatly welcome the opportunity to hear a young man in politics making a speech in this house for the first time.

I was particularly interested in the remarks made by the hon. member who moved the motion because at the time when in our earlier association she visited the parliament buildings in Toronto as the reeve of Teck township it seemed to me that we saw eye to eye on a great many things. I am a little inclined to think that today also we see eye to eye on a great many things, and probably on many subjects of importance, particularly in relation to the mining areas with which she has been associated and about which she has spoken so well, though we have a few differences of opinion. Whatever our thoughts

may be in that respect, I welcome the occasion when for the first time a lady member of this house has moved the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I trust that in the years to come many opportunities will be presented to other ladies, and perhaps those now in this house, to move similar motions. Even with the assurance that hon. members opposite may have that this is a distant possibility, at any rate may I express the hope that in due course we shall see many more ladies taking their places in this house and contributing to the discussion of those special fields in which their knowledge is of such great value to all of us.

I hope also that the youth of the seconder of the motion (Mr. Laflamme) will offer encouragement to many young people to play their full part in our political affairs without waiting perhaps too long in the hope that with a greater maturity of years they may have more opportunities. As we look around this house we see many hon. members who have spent many years here. Apparently they have not suffered, but on the contrary they seem to have actually gained in health and friendship from their long association with other members in this chamber.

Today we are considering what is the government's statement of parliamentary business which was presented to us last Tuesday in the speech from the throne. My complimentary remarks end there. The speech from the throne, which is of course the speech of the government presented under our constitutional system by Her Majesty's representative, contains no single new statement which has not already been before the public except the announcement that it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation which will assure to those women employed in the government service equal pay for equal work.

Naturally we welcome this legislation and the government will be well aware why we do. We do this, not only because of the value of the legislation itself but because we have sought this legislation for several years. For three sessions the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) had similar bills on the order paper. Granted, they were presented by a member of the opposition-and I suppose for that reason they were tainted to some extent in the minds of the government. But there have been occasions when the government has accepted bills put forward by members of the opposition. I recall one measure of considerable importance put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and later adopted by the government. I recall others which have been

67509-3J

The Address-Mr. Drew adopted. Therefore it is not sufficient simply to say that this was put forward by the opposition.

Three years ago when the bill came forward it did not reach a vote. On April 6, 1954, there was a division on the motion for second reading and we had a most gratifying example of independence, which I hope will be extended and enlarged, when twelve Liberal members supported the motion. All members of the government and the overwhelming majority of Liberal members voted against the motion. The same was true on February 15 last year. On the latter occasion eleven Liberal members voted with us on the bill, and every member of the government and all the other Liberal members against it. I mention this because it is naturally a matter of gratification to us that the government has adopted a measure which has been put forward and supported by the vigorous arguments of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) and other members; and I hope that in this case members on both sides will feel it is appropriate to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West on the adoption of the measure which she has sought to have placed on the statutes.

In addition to that one positive statement -a very gratifying statement-and the repetition of information already made public, there is very little but easy reassurances and uninformative platitudes. Surely, on a careful examination, no hon. member has been able to find any earlier speech from the throne which contained less information than this does.

After a few brief references to legislation which will be introduced to implement earlier public statements, we are told at the close of the speech from the throne that we shall be asked to consider the revision of two acts and the amendment of ten others. Is that the legislative program for this session? Or perhaps I should ask: Is that as

far as the government has yet gone in deciding the legislative program for this session? If it is, then once again we shall find that it is not the form of the rules that determines the expedition of the business in the house; it is the way in which the business of the government is presented to this house.

Either the government has more information or they have come unprepared; or, on the other hand, they have information and have denied to us information which properly should have been included in the speech from the throne. It is surely appropriate that, no matter how brief the speech from the throne may be, it is intended to state the general legislative program of the government. It seems to me that, if there is

The Address-Mr. Drew further information, then it carries one stage further the disregard for this house which we have had occasion to mention at different times.

What about the Canada Council, which has been mentioned before in the speech from the throne? We have heard a good deal about that. This government has emphasized its belief in the commission report which presented that recommendation. Has the Canada Council been lost along with the Canada Medal? Certainly there is nothing to tell us what is to be done about this council, which many members have hoped might be able to implement in some measure those broad recommendations of the Massey report, in regard to which I think there is common agreement in this house.

What about a revision of our labour legislation? It will be recalled that we have been asking over and over again that effective steps be taken to review our labour legislation. It will be recalled that at a time when this house was brought together to meet a situation, with which the government dealt in a manner of which we did not approve, we emphasized then the need for a review of our labour legislation. We pointed out then and we have pointed out continually since then that as this country rapidly expands and our industrial development creates increased numbers of workers in this country a basis of harmony and of understanding and of the recognition of the rights in clearly defined terms of those who work in our many activities in Canada is an essential part of that good understanding, of that good fellowship which is a priceless part of the development of this Canadian democracy of ours.

We have had general assurances that this subject was being considered, but now when concern may be felt by many about the situation that could arise it is not too much to ask the government to take steps to carry out the recommendation that was made at that time and call together representatives of labour, of management and of the government, so that the greatly cherished rights of organized labour, the relationship of management to labour and the relationship of the public represented by the government may be explored and interpreted in satisfactory and desirable legislative terms. There is no reference to this in the speech from the throne.

Then again, what about the interesting question of the use of television? It is true reference is made to a commission that has been appointed; but, Mr. Speaker, this country must be almost unique on either side of the iron curtain. We have had television

broadcasting for several years in Canada and the Canadian people have yet to see the first political broadcast by any representative of any of the national parties. That same limitation has not been imposed upon provincial parties. In the provincial elections that have taken place the provincial parties have been given the right to use this medium of communication to convey their ideas in the ordinary use of free speech. We alone are denied that privilege. I do not know of any other country with television broadcasting today where political broadcasts are not available to representatives of the political parties.

The right to have those broadcasts has been requested. The right to have such broadcasts has been urged by the party I have the honour to lead and by the other parties on this side of the house. This is no longer something to be left in the hands of any government agency with the bland assurance that the government does not interfere with those agencies. If those agencies are not carrying out the processes of democracy, then it is the duty of the government with the support of parliament to take appropriate steps to assure that they will. The time is overdue for the same privileges that have been extended since the very first days of radio broadcasting to be carried into the field of television broadcasting. That is particularly true when we see that the C.B.C. television news finds so many occasions to report the activities of members of the government. I am not in any way challenging the wisdom of that, and I concede immediately that there are members of the opposition who have had similar opportunities. That, however, is not part of the process of the exchange of political ideas.

My understanding was that the very large sums of money that the parliament of Canada has been called upon to approve for the maintenance of these channels of communication had as their purpose, amongst other things, education. At a time when it is pointed out to us in the speech from the throne that there are other things than arms that count in preserving our democracy, I think we perhaps might suggest that one of the things that will help to preserve democracy is a knowledge of the political processes themselves. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to regard this as a subject of very real importance from the point of view of the continuance of our democratic processes and to take such appropriate steps with the concurrence of parliament as may be necessary to assure that broadcasts of this type will be available.

During the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, there will be many vigorous criticisms of things that have been done. In recent

years there has been a tendency for some sensitiveness to be displayed when criticism is directed to the government with regard to public affairs. In fact, it is carried so far that it is almost regarded as improper to direct vigorous and strong criticism of action which in the opinion of those expressing their opinions may call for the strongest terms of criticism. I am not suggesting for a moment that the members of the government or hon. members of this house are not quite prepared to take their part in the exchange of ideas, but nevertheless I do recall, as many others will, occasions on which some evidence of dissatisfaction was expressed when criticism was directed to the government.

For that reason it seemed to me that there was a very special significance in the words of Her Majesty the Queen when in her Christmas broadcast she spoke of the great traditions of our democracy. Less than three weeks ago, speaking to the whole world over the radio, Queen Elizabeth used these words:

There are certain spiritual values which inspire all of us. We try to express them in our devotion to freedom, which means respect for the individual and equality before the law. Parliamentary government is also a part of this heritage. We believe in a conception of a government and opposition and the right to criticize and defend. All these things are part of the natural life of our free commonwealth.

When, Mr. Speaker, vigorous criticism may be directed against any action of this government let us remember that we have it on the highest authority that can express it that this in fact is the proper conception of our form of free government. As we direct vigorous criticism against the government-and we shall do so-we do so not merely for the sake of criticism itself but because we have already seen in this house the positive value of criticism. We have seen that criticism, maintained and carried forward with conviction and determination, produces results. May I say at the outset that it is not my intention today to move a detailed amendment. There are too many subjects to discuss for them to be included in one amendment. Moreover, His Honour the Speaker has indicated that if a specific subject is contained in an amendment which is voted down, we cannot later introduce that subject on a motion by way of amendment when we are going into supply nor may we bring it forward in any other manner. We regard the motions on going into supply as extremely important motions and we certainly do not intend to close the door to the introduction of positive motions which will call for an expression of opinion by the members of this house in regard to several of the extremely important

The Address-Mr. Drew issues that are now before us. We hope that hon. members opposite will welcome as much as will our own members the opportunity that will then be available to them to express the opinions that they have been expressing outside this house about some of these subjects.

I make that explanation now because we intend neither to make nor to be involved in detailed amendments which would foreclose the widest measure of debate at a later stage in this session when we are presented with the opportunity that is only then afforded to the opposition to frame its own motion, and to have a decision expressed by the house, in terms that we believe place the matter before the members in a manner clearly expressing the opinion of the members.

This speech from the throne comes before us at a time when we are in the midst of tremendously important events. Yet let us see what we are told about international affairs. This is what we are told in the speech from the throne:

Since you last met there have been significant international developments. Some of them have been welcome as releasing tensions in certain parts of the world while others unfortunately have had the contrary effect.

There we have a clear, explicit and positive statement that will immediately commend itself to the opinion of hon. members. The speech from the throne continues:

My ministers remain convinced of the need to maintain the defences of the free nations as a deterrent to war.

Yes; we have expressed that belief. The speech continues:

A strong North Atlantic Treaty Organization and adequate protection for this continent are in their view fundamental to the preservation of peace and the security of Canada.

Then the speech from the throne or the government's statement, as we might properly call it, says that there are other things than arms that must be considered in maintaining security, and reference is made to the extension of friendship and the part we can play in the extension of that friendship with other nations.

Mr. Speaker, even the most commendable effort at condensation must surely have found difficulty in producing such a meaningless statement in these troubled days. We are living during a period when the history of all mankind is being shaped by events of such compelling importance that the decision of this government, its policies and the attitude we are asked to support must surely be amongst the first considerations to be placed before us. Foreign policy, under our historic tradition, undoubtedly calls for consultation and conditional decisions which must from time to time be made on the spot by the representatives, ministerial and diplomatic,

The Address-Mr. Drew of any government. But in. the end the ultimate responsibility, under our system, is with parliament. In view of the fact that we are told so little in the speech from the throne, it would be difficult for us to know to what phase of foreign policy we should direct any remarks if we were to make those remarks in this debate. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister to permit a coherent and related debate on external affairs as a separate debate at an early date on an appropriate motion. If that course is followed, we then can hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) a comprehensive review which will bring to us information gathered in an extended and, I hope, fruitful trip. We can also have an opportunity, without separation of the discussion, of discussing some of those statements of policy which have been made not merely in political statements but in fact have appeared in certain magazines and other publications and which perhaps may raise some question in the minds of people in other countries as to whether these are things decided upon by parliament itself.

Now that parliament meets I would hope that we may have a chance of discussing those things here so that not only within our own country but also within the partner nations which are associated with us in that great organization we describe as NATO it may be known what is in fact the expression of the representatives of the people of Canada on some of these subjects. With the shorter period that this debate will take, under the new rules, I hope that facilities may be afforded for such a debate. It need not take long but I am sure it is one that would be welcomed by all hon. members. In such a case it would also make it possible for many of the hon. members of this house to express, in regard to subjects of importance, certain opinions which we would hope might be helpful to the government. No matter how closely related to the speech from the throne -if that is possible-a debate of this kind might be, nevertheless it does not seem to afford the same opportunity to bring into focus the thoughts of the members with regard to these extremely important subjects. I think it would be particularly desired that such a discussion should take place before the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Secretary of State visit Ottawa in February. I need hardly say that every hon. member in this house welcomes the prospect of seeing Sir Anthony Eden here for the first time in his new capacity. I would hope that it might be helpful to the government at the time of those discussions to have had a review of foreign affairs in this house where new

subjects, which have not as yet been brought forward, might perhaps be presented for consideration.

Then, I turn to the first subject that is dealt with by the speech from the throne after the reference to external affairs and the appointment of certain commissions. Anyone not living in Canada who read this speech from the throne at some distant point would be satisfied that today we are living under conditions so perfect that government intervention is hardly necessary in any case. Let us see what we are told.

Canada has enjoyed, on the whole, a high level of prosperity. Some sectors of the economy have not fully participated in this increased well-being. In particular, although sales of wheat in the past five years have been at record levels, an unprecedented series of bumper harvests has made necessary the storage of abnormal stocks of grain both in elevators and on farms. Lack of space in elevators has limited the ability of producers to deliver grain as early as usual in the marketing year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are told about the sectors of the economy which have not fully participated in the general high level of prosperity to which reference is made. There is not a word about potatoes, not a word about apples, and not a word about many other farm products which are of immense concern to the farmers whose daily livelihood depends upon the marketing of those particular farm products. There is not a word, of course, about the problem of marketing butter. The right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) nods his head. There is no worry so far as he is concerned. One might almost think there was no butter.

But, Mr. Speaker, there are many people who seem to be concerned about these things. They have been making representations to the government. The government is well aware of these problems. It would have helped if we had known what the government proposed to do in regard to the representations that have been made and whether we are or are not going to have some legislation before us to deal with these subjects. Why, Mr. Speaker, even with one ear the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) must have heard some rumblings of discontent. No, Mr. Speaker, the government is not unaware of these representations. It would have been helpful if we had known. Of course, there is particular emphasis on that because the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) today made it clear that if we are looking for the government's policy the only place we can look is in the speech from the throne. When he was asked today about the wheat policy, his reply was that the government's policy on wheat is at present on the order paper. Therefore, you have the whole policy; this is the whole story.

This certainly brings us to a discussion of a question which is of concern not merely to the wheat growers of western Canada but to every Canadian. It is of great concern to everyone who realizes the plight of the prairie farmers at this time. This is not just a question of a particularly bountiful crop. We are told that is all that has happened; we have had a bountiful crop. If that were all that had happened, we would not need to be greatly worried. But the truth is that we have been affected by other problems as well. Surely, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will not question that there are other problems when he has found it necessary on a number of occasions to complain about what are described as the give-away policies of the United States government.

Of course, it is difficult to tell what the position of the government really is. There is a right and a left. There is a right of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and a left of the Prime Minister. The right hon. minister on the Prime Minister's right thinks that those sales are wrong, while the right hon. minister on the Prime Minister's left thinks they are right. In fact, he has told the dominion-provincial agricultural conference he is going to do even better when he gets a chance, and he has started to do it.

Mr. Gardiner:

We both agree on all of it.

Mr. Drew:

Perhaps the right hon. minister will define the part in regard to which there is some limitation in the difference of opinion between himself and the Minister of Trade and Commerce.

Mr. Gardiner:

We will do that in due course.

Mr. Drew:

Wheat sales are mentioned, and therefore in discussing the speech from the throne it is essential that we consider this whole question of wheat markets. The United States is not diminishing but is intensifying its drive to get rid of its surplus. This was re-emphasized in the clearest and most explicit terms this week by the President of the United States in his statement to congress.

Now, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has indicated that the government's whole policy is to be found in this limited statement that we have before us. What are we to be asked to do to meet the really serious situation confronting most of the prairie farmers at this time? We are to be asked to authorize the treasury to bear the cost, from August 1, 1955, of storage and interest charges on wheat held by the wheat board, over and above its normal carryover level. Just what does that mean? It is a most ambiguous statement, and I hope it will be clarified at the earliest possible moment. If it means anything worth

The Address-Mr. Drew while to tfie farmers then it should mean that the abnormal carryover and storage should be paid for by the treasury, according to this paragraph-whether the wheat was delivered to the elevator before or after August 1, 1955. Otherwise, the effect of this will be very limited indeed.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

The farmers know what it means; don't you worry about that.

Mr. Drew:

No one, Mr. Speaker, will more readily give full credit to the common sense and intelligence of our farmers than I will. But if the farmers of this country are able to understand what this speech from the throne means, then they have a great deal more ability than most members of this house, and certainly than the members of the government who themselves do not understand what it means.

It should be pointed out that we are also being asked to authorize a guarantee in regard to certain farm loans. The guarantee has already been made. The proper course would have been to call this house together and not only to have placed the legislation before the house at that time, but to have offered an opportunity for hon. members to present their arguments to the government before they became committed to an unsatisfactory course, which has not met approval by the farmers. That would have been the wise, the satisfactory and the sensible parliamentary procedure. But no; this government simply regards parliament as a place to get the stamp put on afterwards. They said what they were going to do. They then promised the guarantees and counted on the fact that they would get appropriate support. Well, they will; but Mr. Speaker, I would hope that from within the ranks of the Liberal party would come some suggestion, privately if not publicly-if that is too much to hope for-that the government can go too far in taking for granted subsequent parliamentary support for decisions that should have been made by parliament. On this occasion, after extensive commitments have been made and presented to the public, they are brought to us for approval.

It is not a question whether we approve of this or whether we do not. There was a far better method. There were many things that should have been done.

What are they?

Mr. Drew:

Mr. Speaker, one of the hon. members opposite asks: What are they? Well, we at least have the admission of one hon. member that he does not know all the answers to this question.

The government has sought to create the impression that the plight of the prairie

40 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Drew farmer is really not so very serious after all. Statistics have been employed which seek to give the impression-and probably it did give the impression in other parts of Canada- that the prairie farmer really is not having too difficult a time. The statistics do not support that statement. The real statistics show a very different situation.

In the past three years there has been a sharp decline in farm income in western Canada which, if it had been repeated in other parts of our economy, would have spelled disaster for the whole of this country. Let us see what the figures are. In 1951 the farm income in western Canada, that is in the prairie provinces, was $1,127 million; in 1952, it was $1,082 million; in 1953, it was $884 million; in 1954, it was $376 million.

It would appear, Mr. Speaker, from the figures now available, that the returns for the current year will be even less. Of course, it is true we do not need to be reminded that the year 1951 was the peak revenue year. It would not be any answer to any industrial worker, if he told you that he had seen a drop in his income to one-third of what it was in 1951, to tell him that that was not really serious because 1951 had been an alltime peak up to that time. The fact is that in this human sphere people do gear their lives to the level of income, with some adjustment to that situation if they are wise and cautious; but surely it is not to be expected that within that length of time revenue would drop as it has in this case.

These figures tell why there should be cash advances to the prairie farmers for field-stored grain, and without further delay. The government never really intended that this system of farm loans should have any broad application to the problem. I think that was made perfectly clear on November 28 by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in a speech he made in Calgary. These were his words:

It is my hope and belief that comparatively limited use will be made of the lending facilities, that most farmers are either in a position to carry on without borrowing, or are in a position to finance in the ordinary way.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that statement is not borne out by discussions with any representative groups of prairie farmers at this time. The system that has been adopted is open to many objections. These objections were pointed out right away. The banks are not in a position to carry out any system of cash payments. There was a perfectly simple method, and that was to make cash payments as advances on the quota book in the ordinary way in relation to a stated quota of the grain grown last year, and then to have the grain made deliverable upon

demand as soon as space became available in the elevators. No real difficulty presents itself in connection with that. The elevators are strategically situated to absorb the grain; the elevators have the staff to do the job. The elevators could have handled it satisfactorily under a system that would have been simple and that would have involved no serious difficulties of any kind. But in this case the minister responsible for the marketing of the grain says he believes that most farmers are in a position to finance in the ordinary way. Well, that is one reason why it is so necessary to discuss this subject. Surely that statement is adding insult to injury.

When times were good the government, with smug self-satisfaction, announced the cheques it was going to pay out. It did it with a flourish. When it was going to be a really big one, it did it as close to an election as possible. It did it with the proud boast also that this was because of its almost divine omniscience. Now, when things are tough, it washes its hands of the problem and turns it over to the banks. In turning it over to the banks it does not show the same consideration that it proposes to show to those who are interested in certain other types of activity in this country.

Another provision that we are going to be called upon to make calls for interest, I believe, of 3j per cent; but in this case the farmers must pay 5 per cent for the loans that are necessary and are guaranteed, remember, by this government. Surely, that is piling it on the farmer fairly hard. Even if there are any substantial advantages in these proposals that are made, it is just a case of giving with one hand and talking away with the other. The government cannot and must not evade its responsibilities in this situation. I hope that among hon. members of this house on both sides there will be freely expressed views which will indicate the belief that this is not merely of concern to the prairie farmer but is a matter which the members of this house, from coast to coast, recognize as a national problem.

Wheat marketing alone is not what is causing difficulty for the farmers. Deliveries of oats, barley and rye have been cut most severely by quotas, the reductions from last year's figures being 66 per cent of oats, 36 per cent of barley and 77 per cent of rye. Of our total deliverable grain about 15 per cent had been delivered by the end of November as compared with 32 per cent a year ago. Along with the figures I have given already this indicates something of the nature of the broad problem, the difficult and serious problem with which the prairie farmer is confronted at this time.

The problem is not only in regard to grain and wheat alone; nor is it only in regard to the failure of the government to market our products. One of the problems, a problem directly related to the subject under consideration, is the very large quantity of unused elevator space in western Canada at this time. The elevators are not full. That situation is related directly to any provision which is made and which assumes that they are. The figures are clear at this time that there is well over 100 million bushels of storage space empty in the elevators in western Canada, that more than 100 million bushels of elevator space could absorb very substantial quantities of the farm-stored grain, as good grain as we have grown in a great many years.

When there is storage space available for well over 100 million bushels, why is that space not being used? The government has the machinery. If that machinery is inadequate, let them present to this house whatever appropriate legislation is required and I feel sure that they will receive the support of hon. members of this house in regard to that situation.

I heard the question asked: what could be done? I have made certain proposals and I repeat them now. One: Provision should be made for immediate cash advances in the ordinary way on the quota book by the wheat board for farm-stored grain on a quota basis, making an initial payment thereon as if the wheat had been delivered to the elevator. The wheat would then be delivered on demand by the farmer as elevator space became available.

Two: Low-grade wheat now occupying elevator storage space while high-grade wheat cannot be stored should be sold for feed grain in Ontario, Quebec and abroad. This would provide elevator space for a good part of last year's high quality crop.

Three: The government should recruit topflight salesmen from Canadian business concerns who would plan an aggressive selling policy for Canadian wheat and give advice as to long-term selling policies.

Four: The government should refer the whole problem of the handling and sale of Canadian wheat and its relationship to the Canadian economy as a whole to the Gordon commission on Canada's economic prospects and ask for an early interim report as well as a more complete report later on.

Five: The government should take immediate steps to assure the full use of all elevator space.

This is not by any manner of means the first time that we have made proposals that

The Address-Mr. Drew cash should be advanced for farm-stored grain. On December 17, 1952 I had the following to say on behalf of our party:

In view of the fact that farm storage of grain is not normal in Canada under ordinary circumstances when line elevator storage is available, it does not appear desirable that legislation should be designed to encourage farm storage when satisfactory elevator storage is a practical possibility. On the other hand it now seems necessary, and urgently necessary, that something be done to make cash available to the farmers for farm-stored grain, if they are to meet their current debts and make the necessary arrangements for the next year's crop. That is the principle at issue.

That is what I had to say on the subject over three years ago. Then let me quote what is reported on page 27 of Hansard of November 24, 1952, where I had this to say:

The whole system of handling and distribution has broken down. The government, no matter what its explanation may be, has failed to take effective steps to provide for the handling of grain, in spite of the knowledge many months ago, and the warnings many months ago, that this situation was going to arise. In western Canada today there are many farmers, with huge quantities of wheat and other grains worth considerable sums of money, who are unable to get money at this time to cover their harvesting and living expenses because of their inability to deliver that grain to market.

This is a situation with which the government should deal immediately. It is urgent and calls for attention without delay.

The situation did ease off to some extent, but the basic factors were there more than three years ago when we urged immediate action to prepare to deal with this subject. But the government brushed those suggestions aside, as suggestions are being brushed aside now. I hope that hon. members on both sides of the house who come from western Canada and who are living in the middle of this situation will clearly interpret the situation to the house and to the members of the government who have not yet acted as though they recognized what the problem really was.

The situation today is urgent and it calls for attention without delay. The urgency is that much greater because of the failure of the government to act over the long period during which these requests for action have been made.

There is another aspect of the problem which should not be disregarded and I am making this statement now in the hope that we may achieve results. I am making the statement now in the hope that whether they do so publicly or privately-I would prefer publicly-hon. members opposite will indicate to the government how strongly they feel on this subject. Perhaps then we might find some bending on the part of the government. Perhaps even the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)

The Address-Mr. Drew would bow to the indicated views of hon. members as he did on an earlier occasion.

There is no hint in the speech from the throne as to what is going to be done in the future. It is not the present, it is what is going to be done in the future. We have the words of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, "If you want to find out our wheat policy look at the speech from the throne."

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

I did not say

that.

Mr. Drew:

The order paper.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

Why not say "the order paper" and then we will be together?

Mr. Drew:

I am assuming everyone is correctly interpreting what those words mean. The fact is that the only thing on the order paper that refers to this subject is the very speech to which reference has been made. Since we have that statement, this is the time not only to ask for action in regard to what has been grown but to point out the urgent need for a statement of policy by the government as to what is going to happen during the current year.

How can the farmers of western Canada plan for this year unless some statement is made? Not only is it necessary from the point of view of the future of the whole Canadian economy; it is vitally necessary for the farmers themselves so that they will not become further involved if nothing is going to be done. Anything less than a clear statement of policy covering the whole of the current year at this time is going to create frustration, confusion, hardship and even, conceivably, disaster.

The proposals now made by the government fall far short of meeting the situation. In fact, they suggest that the government intends to rely on the hope of a crop failure. What else is there, if this represents their whole policy? That is a grim prospect for our prairie farmers. The government seems to hope that a national emergency will be solved by a domestic disaster.

I am not suggesting that this is a simple problem. On the contrary, it has become an extremely difficult problem because of the failure of the government to adopt any positive and coherent policy. It has become more difficult still because of the fact that we live side by side with a great and friendly neighbour which finds it necessary in its own interests to follow a course that makes things still more difficult for us. But the facts are well known. What is needed is that the government grapple with these facts and come forward with some definite statement on what it intends to do.

Whether it agrees or does not agree with what the United States is doing, it knows what the United States is going to do. It would be desirable that we have a similarly clear statement. At least let us hope that the two ministers mainly concerned will reconcile their differences of opinion so that the government in this case may speak with one voice.

The Minister of Trade and Commerce may be the one who interprets the views of the government; the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) may be the one; but at least let us know which voice is the voice of the whole government in this case. Here is a glaring inconsistency in more than mere words. The Minister of Agriculture undoubtedly believes in something of this kind and he has acted on those beliefs. He has made arrangements for the sale of butter to communist governments at a loss of at least 25 cents a pound to the Canadian taxpayer. In doing that, he is doing the very thing the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been criticizing when it was done by the United States. As a result, the very friendly government of New Zealand has criticized this government for what it has done.

Mr. Gardiner:

No one in this government has ever criticized the United States for selling butter.

Mr. Drew:

The Minister of Agriculture wants to slide on butter alone. We were talking about policies in regard to handling farm products, and there is no difference between the way he is handling the sale of butter and some of the arrangements the United States government is making, which have been the subject of criticism by this government. When it comes to the question of farm products, there is no essential difference in principle between any of these products.

As far as this is concerned, we have another difficulty confronting us. At the time when the Minister of Agriculture tells us that we have no real surplus as soon as we dispose of 10 or 12 million pounds, we are told by the National Dairy Council of Canada, an organization which should know something about the facts, that there is a very large surplus. These are their own words:

With milk production running at an all-time high, it is estimated that the butter surplus exceeds domestic needs by some 65 million pounds.

Now, who is telling us the facts?

Mr. Gardiner:

Who is the dairy council?

Mr. Drew:

I hope the Minister of Agriculture will repeat that question to the national dairy council.

Mr. Gardiner:

I have repeated it many times.

Mr. Drew:

I hope he will, because one thing is certain, that in these conflicting statements somewhere or other a policy is emerging, whether it is there or here: "the truth if necessary, but not necessarily the truth." Which is the correct statement? Where are the facts? Surely inconsistencies can go too far. Surely there must be some limit. Of course, in the meantime the communist government of East Germany must remember words that were spoken long ago: "guns or butter". The East German government is in a better position; it has guns and butter. It gets the guns from Russia and the butter from us.

These are things in regard to which we should have clear and explicit statements and there should be a resolution of its own position by the government so that we may know what the facts are. One clear fact is that this government is drifting, is not dealing with problems, and is so self-satisfied under the impression that its large parliamentary majority, unrepresentative of the actual voting strength which supported it is a permanent thing on which it can count forever. It does not seem to be very much bothered with parliament or with the demands of those who are waiting upon it.

Granted that detailed policies may be difficult to state, surely we have a right to expect that, in regard to all these products, the policies will at least be understandable, whether it be with regard to wheat, coarse grains, butter, cheese, apples, potatoes or any other farm product, so that our farmers may not merely know what is going to happen in regard to what they have already produced but may know what plans they should make during this spring for the coming crop season.

There are, of course, difficulties in the way of meeting these demands, but before the end of the debate on the speech from the throne we might hope that the whole issue will be clarified.

The next subject of importance in the speech from the throne is the construction of the gas pipe line across northern Ontario. We are informed that legislation will be placed before us. Because of the time limit in the contract itself, it is to be hoped that that legislation will come before us very quickly after the termination of this debate. That will be the time when we shall know what the legislation is. That being so, I believe that the best time to debate this subject will be when we see the legislation and can relate our arguments to the legislative proposal 67509-4J

The Address-Mr. Drew which is actually before us. However, in the meantime I do wish to place before the Prime Minister a proposal which I hope he will approve and which I think would meet with the approval of members generally. It will be recalled that we made repeated and persistent efforts during the last session to find out what plans were under consideration. We found that impossible. Now we are told some details. We do not know yet what form the legislation will take, what features may be included in that legislation.

There is one very satisfactory way in which all bon. members could be adequately informed with regard to this vitally important subject. I ask the Prime Minister to appoint a select committee of the house representative of all parties which would begin immediately to inquire into the whole question. That committee should be given the power to call witnesses and to call for the production of documents. In that way the relevant evidence in regard to this vitally important subject could be made available in a very short time. We would then be in a position to deal with this tremendously important question with a knowledge that will not be in our possession if any other course is followed. I make this request in all earnestness hoping that the advisability of a committee of that kind under the circumstances will commend itself to the Prime Minister on this occasion.

I wish to deal now, Mr. Speaker, with a subject that is causing great concern throughout Canada and very naturally so because it relates to the whole question of the human structure of our country. There is no mention whatever in the speech from the throne of the extremely important subject of immigration. Certainly the figures of immigration in the last year were startling enough to call for some comment by the government and some indication of the course it proposes to follow. The figures of the last few years tell their story. The number of immigrants arriving annually was as follows:

Number

1951 194,391

1952 164,498

1953 168,868

1954 154,228

In contrast with that the total number arriving in the first nine months of 1955 was only 86,607. True, the government announced in the middle of December that there would be some assistance to immigrants under special conditions. Another announcement which we certainly welcome is the setting up of an appeal board which we hope will have some opportunity to deal with some of the unexplainable decisions of the officials of the department handling this very important question.

The Address-Mr. Drew

But the uncertainty of our immigration policy is part of the government uncertainty in a larger field. It relates to the whole question of development, of expected population, of the manner in which this country is going to grow. There are undoubtedly some people in Canada living in areas where growth is rapid who are unaware of the fact that there are many parts of Canada where growth has been stagnant for many years. A broad policy of development is something that we have urged in the house time and time again. We need co-operation in the development of our great power resources between the federal and provincial governments. Perhaps one hopeful thing about the announcement made in connection with the pipe line is that the federal government has now enunciated a policy which will surely prevent them at any future time from giving the answers they have to the government of New Brunswick in connection with the Beech-wood power project, to the government of Saskatchewan in connection with the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project, or in connection with some of the other projects in respect of which the provinces have sought the co-operation of the federal government. If the government is ready to join in this particular case it is difficult to see how it can withhold similar co-operation between the dominion and provincial governments in other cases where development might seem wise and advisable.

We have been urging the adoption of a development program for many years. At the same time we have urged the development of power and irrigation resources. Today we stand on the threshold of opportunities not dreamed of in the past. With the scientific devices made available under pressure of war and in the years since the war we now have made available to us in this country by discoveries within the past few years mineral and other resources beyond the dream of avarice. Today we can say without any reservation that if we employ the resources that God has placed at our disposal to the best advantage of our own people there are no people in the whole world today, no people anywhere, with greater opportunities for the future than we have here in our own country.

Decisions, however, still must be made. Reference has been made to our rapidly increasing exports. Yes, but much of that is in the form of raw materials which could be processed here. I hope no one will suggest that I have said that all our raw materials should be processed here. Everything of that kind is subject to the reasonable application of common-sense rules and legitimate selfinterest. I do believe it is in the legitimate

self-interest of the people of Canada that we should process our own raw materials here in Canada for the employment of Canadians to the greatest degree that is practical and possible.

To do that we need power. Plan the power as we encourage the development. Do not suggest there are no ways in which that encouragement can be given. One of them has been stated on different occasions, namely, to encourage our own industries in this country by proper tax provisions. At the moment there are many industrial and other developments in Canada that are at a disadvantage in relation to companies from the United States who are coming in here and doing business in competition with them. Certainly the least our people can expect is that they shall at least be dealt with equally in relation to competitors from outside our own country.

There are other devices. The first thing is to declare a policy. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the policy that produced our tremendous development in the forest industry business in this country is a policy that can be applied to our raw materials generally, and that it is then the duty of the government to take appropriate steps consistent with our democratic beliefs and our belief in free enterprise to make that development the best that it can be for the future of Canada.

There is a direct relationship between plans of that kind and immigration. That brings me to another committee. Several years ago the government set up a committee on manpower. It has not been heard of for a long time. It was a good committee. I suggest that along with plans for development and immigration this committee should be revived and that it should examine the whole question of the need of manpower for different fields of development. It can be estimated with reasonable relationship knowing that power produces industrial development, industrial development produces work and in turn industrial work produces payrolls which provide markets for the farmers so that we increase our own domestic markets by that very process. It is all one integrated problem. Let us have a revival of that committee. Let us have real plans for immigration, real plans for development and an examination of what those plans will produce in the way of new population requirements.

Mr. Speaker, we have been told that security does not depend upon arms alone. Certainly we all agree with that statement. One of the things to which it applies, I think, is the efficiency of government. Over and over again we have urged that the government take the appropriate steps to examine our

organization of government just as any big business would examine its own organization from time to time if it expected to remain solvent. The answer has been that this action would be an infringement upon the supremacy of parliament. That contention, of course, is disposed of completely by the way in which this government has been appointing commissions. It has appointed a commission to inquire into the economy of Canada. It is a very good commission and we shall look for fine things from it. But if that commission can be appointed, surely there can be no reason why a commission should not now be appointed to inquire into the organization of government.

There has not been a single report of any inquiry which has not shown some place where there could be an improvement. I therefore repeat my request to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)

and it is a request that I have made on many other occasions- that, consistent with the statement in the speech from the throne that there are other things than arms that are involved in the preservation of our security, this basic step will be taken to strengthen the efficiency of government and that he will announce that we may have a royal commission to inquire into the business organization of government and to advise on how this whole system which handles our public affairs can best be administered.

There are many reasons why this matter assumes compelling importance. Let me take one example. It has hardly been realized how fast the government's purchases of goods and services have been increasing in the past few years. When that sort of thing happens the need for examination appears in any business operation. Since 1947 the government's expenditure on goods and services has more than doubled. This fact is an indication of why we need an examination of this kind. Then let us take a look at the total taxation of all governments in Canada. In 1954 it had increased in proportion much more than had the national income. With all the burdens and sacrifices of war, in the peak year of 1944 the amount of our national income taken by all governments was 29 per cent. In 1954 it was 30 per cent. Surely that is a warning. We have often been told in the past that once total taxation collected was over 25 per cent of the national income, we had a real danger mark. The figure of 30 per cent has already been reached. This is the time for governments to examine in every way they can the possibility of economies of one kind and another.

Mr. Speaker, in this house last year we had a debate which showed that discussion and

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent exchange of ideas can produce definite results. I am not in any doubt that the satisfactory outcome of that debate represented the efforts not only of the members on this side of the house, of the press and of the people of Canada generally but of many Liberal members opposite who expressed their opinions privately to the government on that occasion. I would hope that on this occasion similar requests will be made. I repeat that I would hope they would be made publicly. But whether they are made publicly or privately, I hope they will be made. I am sure that there are many hon. members opposite who support some of the ideas which I have placed before them. Certainly I am convinced that the representatives of rural constituencies in western Canada are not fully satisfied with what the government is doing on this occasion.

Let us hope for another example oi democracy in action. I do not for a moment suggest that I expect the Liberal members ol this house to vote for the short amendment that I shall present. However, I hope that in the process of democracy they will just the same present their arguments to produce results that would give a great deal of satisfaction to many members of this house and to many people throughout the whole ol Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) that the following be added to the address:

We respectfully represent that Your Excellency's advisers, by reason of their indifference, inertic and lack of leadership in the face of serious national problems and their disregard of the rights of parliament, are not entitled to the confidence ol this house.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), I too at the outset should like to extend my warm congratulations to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am sure that both hon. members were somewhat conscious of a special responsibility when they spoke yesterday. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) was making history in being the first woman in this house to move the address and the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) was making his first speech in parliament. I am confident that all hon. members will agree that, notwithstanding those circumstances, both hon, members discharged their duty in a manner which gives assurance of further able and conscientious contributions to the conduct to the work of parliament.

Before her election to parliament in 1953 the hon. member for Timiskaming had acquired considerable experience in public life which began in 1939 on her election as

46 HOUSE OF

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent a public school trustee. That success led, three years later, to a seat in the council of the township of Teck. During two years as a councillor the hon. member served the electorate so much to their satisfaction that they made her reeve and kept her in that office for nine years. It was not really surprising that her municipal services and her energetic work with the children's aid society, the hospital board, and many other organizations should have led the electors of Timiskaming in 1953 to consider that she would be a worthy representative of their interests in the House of Commons.

Since coming to Ottawa there has been no diminution in the public-spirited endeavours for which the hon. member had become so noted. She has worked diligently on behalf of her constituency, showing, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has said, a special interest in the gold mining community of northern Ontario, of which Timiskaming is such an important part. She has applied intelligently and diligently in the house and in the committees the experience she gained in the municipal and social welfare fields.

(Translation) ;

The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) has made an auspicious debut in this house. He has demonstrated the concern which a young lawyer, born into a family of farmers, feels for the welfare of his constituents most of whom belong to the agricultural class.

In spite of his youth, the new member, who has been practising his profession for a little over three years, has taken an interest in public matters for a great many years. The fact that he now sits among us means that ihe people of Bellechasse have judged that his talents and training were such as to ensure that he would make a fine member of parliament. I do feel confident that the electors of Bellechasse who had been enjoying ;he competence and devotion of his pre-lecessor for the past 15 years, will know, from reading their new member's speech, that ;hey have chosen a worthy member to look ifter their interests.

(Text):

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition told us that there was going to be rigorous criticism directed against the gov-irnment during this session. I can assure lim that we will be prepared to meet that iriticism and that we will hope to continue o find it is intended to be constructive criti-:ism and not merely made for the purpose uggested in one of the newspapers I read 'esterday, that there should be a lot of iron n the debates of this house as well as search-

ing and vigorous inquiry. We are prepared to have as vigorous and searching inquiry as possible directed against any of our activities, because we feel that the more these things are known and publicized the better they will redound to our own credit.

The Leader of the Opposition said that there was not very much new in the speech from the throne, that most of the matters that were dealt with there had become known earlier. I believe we have all been in Ottawa long enough to realize that anything that gets serious consideration anywhere does not remain new very long. The ladies and gentlemen who occupy the press gallery have ways known to them of obtaining information which they do not hesitate to communicate to the readers of their newspapers as soon as they can get the slightest inkling about what is apt to happen. I do not consider it a very serious reproach to have been unable to have in the speech from the throne any "scoops" that had not been already scooped up by these representatives of the fourth estate.

The hon. gentleman made one exception, and that was in respect of the announcement on behalf of the government of the introduction of a bill requiring that equal pay be accorded to women in all industries under federal control if the work were equal to that for which the men were receiving a given pay. He suggested that this had been a subject of discussion in the house for the last three years, and that is quite true. But these matters all progress, and I think that the recognition that is continuously being given to the place women now occupy in the professional, and even industrial life of our community, has been reasonably rapid and rather satisfactory. Now, this is a matter upon which opinions have gradually come to take a shape to which we were able to give expression in the speech from the throne. I would expect my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) would not have very much difficulty with the principle of his bill when it comes before the house for consideration.

The hon. gentleman has said that the speech is very uninformative about the legislation that is being planned by the government. I can assure the hon. gentleman we have included in that speech all the matters that have been decided upon for presentation to parliament at this time. Of course, we cannot give any assurance that there will not be developments in the course of the session that will require other legislation. I feel it is not realistic to say that we are merely proposing the revision of two acts and the amendment of ten other acts. There is a long list of important legislation described in the speech from the throne before one comes to those two paragraphs which group

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent

together the acts to be revised and the acts to be amended.

The hon. gentleman has specifically referred to some of them. One of the most important is, as is always the case in every session of parliament, the provision of the services required to carry on the business of the country and a careful examination of the manner in which the moneys that have been appropriated are disposed of in the fulfilment of the obligations that Canadians put on their elected representatives in this House of Commons.

The hon. gentleman does not find it very illuminating to say there have been some developments in the international field that lessened the tensions in some parts of the world, and that they were warmly welcomed, but that there have been others that have had a contrary effect and which still make it necessary for this nation to do its part with its associates in further extending and maintaining the strength of the free nations as a deterrent to war.

I am not going to dwell upon the almost unimaginable situation that war would now create with those tremendously destructive engines of war that we now know are available and capable of producing perhaps irreparable chaos if used in warfare on this terrestrial globe. I do not think they will be used. I have confidence in the future, and I do not believe that humanity could be so insensible as to resort to the use of those terrible engines of warfare. Nevertheless we have to continue to do our part to maintain that balance which creates a situation where no one could expect that by aggression he would initiate something that would not be as disastrous for himself as for those against whom it was directed.

This means that a very substantial portion of the appropriations made by parliament for the whole of the public services of the Canadian people still has to be devoted to the building up and maintenance of that armed strength. That does put limits upon the part of the income that can be taken by taxation from the Canadian people and that can be devoted to other much more agreeable objectives than to the maintenance of armaments.

The hon. gentleman has noted that there is no reference to the Canada Council in the speech from the throne. The matter was again given careful consideration when the speech from the throne was being prepared, and we came to the conclusion that this was not the opportune time to bring that legislation before parliament. Unless the situation changes somewhat materially between now and the end of the session I do not expect to bring that kind of measure before parliament at this session.

The hon. gentleman has referred to the fact that there is not, in his view, wide enough use being made of television in this country to enlighten the Canadian public upon matters of public policy. Well, personally I am older than the Leader of the Opposition. I am probably more old-fashioned than is the Leader of the Opposition, but I must confess that I have never been too favourably impressed by some of the so-called political television broadcasts that have come from countries where it is used to a very considerable degree. I think it has a place, as have all of these modern inventions, in the dissemination of information; but one of the matters that has to be constantly considered is whether or not it is being used in a manner that is really conducive to a proper and dignified conduct of partisan propaganda.

I think the televising of the opening of parliament has been done without any impairment of the solemnity and dignity of the ceremony, and that it is something that is of interest, and should be of interest, to a very large number of Canadian people who would not have the opportunity of getting the same impression from newspaper reports as they can get from seeing it televised. I can assure the hon. gentleman that there is not going to be any obstacle to the use of television for any legitimate purposes. There may be some question as to how much time provided at public expense should be made available to political parties for those purposes. That is something that will have to be balanced against what its real, educational and informative value can be to the Canadian public.

The matter with which the hon. gentleman dealt at considerable length was the wheat situation as it now exists in this country. The hon. gentleman knows it is part of a situation which is pretty widespread throughout the world. For the last several years there has been more wheat produced and available for export from the four large exporting countries than the importing countries will absorb, and there have been methods adopted in countries which are or were importing countries to foster and promote, at even greater cost, the production of wheat on their own lands. That is a situation that has to be faced as a fact.

The hon. gentleman has said that there is available space in the elevators for 100 million bushels. There is some space available in the elevators at the lakehead; there is some space available in the elevators on the Pacific coast, because there has been serious difficulty in getting box cars to move the grain from point to point. I asked my

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) about the hon. gentleman's estimate of the available capacity. His opinion is that it is not half the figure mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. But even if it is not, that is too much, and there has been pressure put upon the railways to make available all the facilities possible for moving grain into the elevators and moving it from the elevators to the shipping points, and there will continue to be those continuous efforts.

There are some people who believe, as does the hon. gentleman, that it would have been proper for the wheat board to make cash advances against grain on the farm. That proposal was considered and the conclusion we arrived at was that it would not be practicable to ask the wheat board, which had not been created for that purpose, to undertake that additional duty.

The hon. gentleman referred to the proposal for storage charges on the excess over the normal carryover. A resolution dealing with this matter has been placed on the order paper and the matter will be gone into quite fully when the bill is before the house. He has perhaps noticed that it is to be the carrying costs of the reserves owned by the Canadian wheat board in respect of board stocks of wheat in excess of 178 million bushels at the commencement of a crop year. That is the time when the calculation will be made as to the quantity to which the recommendation for payment out of treasury funds would apply.

The hon. gentleman spoke of the advisability of recruiting a staff of top-flight salesmen to promote the disposal of the Canadian crop. There are top-flight salesmen connected with the wheat board, and they have been visiting all the traditional wheat importing countries. It is well known that, with the exception of the United Kingdom, importations are not made by the trade but are made under and through government agencies. In all the countries where there was any possibility of finding markets for Canadian wheat there are trade commissioners who have been playing a very active role.

I am told that since the end of November the sales that have been made are greatly in excess of those made in the previous year. That does not apply to deliveries made within that period, because deliveries have been conditioned upon the transportation facilities, which have been used to the extent of their availability.

The hon. gentleman spoke about the development of power and the use of natural resources. Of course all power resources as well as raw materials that can be taken

from soil which is still public property are the property of the provinces. The question as to whether or not there should be joint undertakings by the federal government and the provincial governments for the development of resources within the provinces is a matter which also is conditioned upon the availability of funds that can be devoted to such purposes.

The past year was an active one in the development of our relations with the provincial governments. We had several major conferences with the leaders of the provincial governments, and have made considerable progress in developing new patterns of cooperation. Hon. members will be familiar with the preliminary conference which we held in April last to consider the scope and the agenda for our main conference in October. At this preliminary conference the federal government placed before the provincial representatives certain suggestions for action in providing assistance to unemployed persons in need. It was agreed that we should have a special conference on that during the summer. Following detailed discussions between the officials on the facts and figures, we had that special conference on unemployment assistance in June, and I reported to the house immediately on the results of this meeting.

In October we had another full conference on the subjects decided upon at the April meeting. It consisted of an opening plenary session at which the head of each government made a prepared statement, followed by a series of committee meetings in camera at which detailed discussion took place upon the various subjects. A statement was then issued at the end of the meetings describing what had been done in committee.

The conference established a committee of ministers to consider in more detail the subject of health insurance, to which preliminary consideration had been given by the conference itself. This committee met during that week and determined the general nature of the approach it would make to the subject. It will be meeting again later this month under the chairmanship of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).

The conference decided also to establish a continuing committee of federal and provincial officials which is to meet from time to time to exchange information and examine technical problems in the field of federal-provincial fiscal and economic relations. The deputy minister of finance was designated to represent the federal government on this committee, and the provincial premiers have all designated senior officials of their services to be their members. The committee will not

take collective action, but each of its members will report to his own government on the subjects discussed.

It was agreed also at the conference that a meeting of the ministers concerned with highway matters would be held to consider the steps which should be taken to continue the work of the trans-Canada highway. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) convened this meeting in November, and the government will be introducing legislation to accelerate the completion of essential links in this highway and to continue general work on it elsewhere up to the agreed standards.

In addition to these conferences we have had several discussions between individual federal and provincial ministers from time to time, and between officials of our various governments. There has also been some correspondence on the matters which have been discussed at our meetings. These have all contributed to the working out of the matters that were of such concern to us all.

Before speaking of these individual matters I should like to indicate my colleagues' and my own appreciation for the friendly and co-operative spirit in which the provincial governments participated in all these discussions this year. Naturally there have been differences of opinion, and indeed differences of philosophy and approach to the various problems, but such differences are only to be expected. What is important is that there was evidently a genuine desire to make our complicated federal system of government work as effectively as possible and to respect the responsibilities of the other governments in our confederation for carrying on with their part of our various Canadian problems.

I think much was gained in understanding both between the federal and provincial governments and among the various provincial governments themselves, in addition to what we gained in the progress made on the substance of our discussions. My colleagues and I fully recognize the magnitude and the importance of the problems which the growth and development of this country have created for the provincial governments, and we bear this in mind in making our recommendations about our relations with those governments. On the other hand I believe that they now have a better appreciation of the magnitude of the social security obligations which the federal government has undertaken, as well as an appreciation of the continuing burdens of defence.

There were four main subjects of discussion with the provinces over this period. The question of fiscal relations is, of course, the key problem upon the solution of which depends the approaches that may be made to many of

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent the others. There were also the problems of unemployment insurance, health insurance, public investment and natural resource development.

Speaking on behalf of the federal government I outlined a number of the programs it has followed in the field of public investment since the end of the war. They were tempered, of course, by the overriding needs of defence, by the need for restraint because of the dangers of inflation, and by our desire to postpone what could reasonably be postponed so that it would not compete with the high level of private investment.

I also outlined many of the programs we have undertaken, jointly or in co-operation with the provinces, in various fields, and I shall not endeavour to recapitulate them here, as they may be found in outline in the printed proceedings of the conferences held in October and in April last. However, I think I should report to parliament what I said about our approach to the problems.

I said we felt that parliament should not provide for sharing in the cost of provincial projects except in special circumstances and as a part of a policy which we could justify on national grounds. In general, we did not see any need to share in the normal costs of growth of provinces and municipalities. The financing of this growth presented problems, but they did not seem to us to require a federal solution.

In the vitally important field of fiscal arrangements, we have developed during the past year a new approach. We think this approach can become the basis of durable arrangements appropriate to a period of peacetime growth, as distinct from the wartime period and the immediate post-war period in which our present agreements were developed.

Our central fiscal problem in this period of great development arises fundamentally from the fact that the public now expects both levels of government to do things which require substantial expenditures. As I told the provincial representatives in October:

The people expect and demand-and are willinf In the last analysis to pay lor-some basic minimurr of public services in all parts of Canada. With this added to the cost of war, both levels of government have been forced into more and mor< intensive occupation of the various fields of taxation. We have both had to use the field of direc' taxation, which the fathers of confederatior thought would be so unpopular that we could botl be trusted in it with little risk of friction. W< have also occupied jointly what used to be con sidered parts of the field of indirect taxes, whicl the provinces have learned to cultivate with somi legal and administrative ingenuity. We have no protested this, and indeed indicated in 1950 ou

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent

willingness to concur in a constitutional amendment that would regularize-if it needs regularization-and facilitate provincial sales taxes that do not offend against the sensible purpose which the fathers of confederation had in mind.

I went on to say:

Our present problem is twofold; to achieve some method of sharing the revenue available from the direct tax field, and some reasonable degree of equity and stability in the revenue of the various provinces. The latter involves some recognition of the fiscal need of those provinces whose tax potential is less than others, some payment of subsidies in one form or another. There is nothing repugnant to the spirit or the letter of our constitution in this; the original British North America Act provided what were then substantial subsidies and recognized fiscal need. Throughout our history the forces of economics and geography have been tempered by some measure of national consciousness and solidarity. But this process requires judgment and discretion and due regard to the interest of the nation as a whole.

We discussed the tax rental agreements and, for our part, asserted that they had accomplished most of their objectives with a considerable measure of success. By means of them we have achieved a good deal of elimination of duplication of direct taxes and simplification of our tax laws. There is no doubt that the agreements have provided more stability to provincial budgets than they otherwise would have had. They have given an assurance of growth in revenues in proportion to populations and the gross national product. While the need to use these direct taxes as a means of stabilizing employment levels has been less than was thought might be the case, we have had to use them to temper inflation and to meet the urgent needs for funds required for the emergency of Korea and for the NATO defence programs.

I mention these things because they are a part of the legislative program that will have to be considered by this house, and because I tabled in the house yesterday the proposal that has been submitted to the provincial governments.

The payments under the tax rental agreements have included fairly large elements of subsidy to provinces whose tax capacity was not high, and these have enabled such provinces to establish and maintain standards of public services more nearly approaching those of the wealthier provinces than would otherwise have been possible.

Of course it is an understatement to say that the agreements have not found enthusiastic support everywhere, even among all those who signed them. One provincial government felt that they were inconsistent in principle with the spirit of our constitution, and was therefore unwilling to share in whatever benefits they might provide. The premier of another of the largest provinces, in signing the agreement, stated that it was

at best a stopgap and should be replaced by a more satisfactory distribution of revenue sources. Others thought there should be a more explicit recognition of fiscal need.

As has been stated many times in this house, the government has never contended that these agreements were a final or perfect answer to the problems in our fiscal relationships. We have been prepared to see them modified, improved, or superseded by something better, if it could be found. We think we have found a means of modifying and supplementing the agreements in such a manner as to enable them to accomplish our essential objectives more effectively and avoid some of the dangers and difficulties that were inherent in the plan underlying the existing agreements, supplemented as they are by the abatements provided in our tax laws for taxes in provinces without agreements. It was the essential principles of this new plan which we discussed with the provinces last fall and which are embodied in the proposal made to them at the end of last week in letters, copies of which I tabled in the house yesterday.

We feel that the time has now come when the equalization aspect that was sought in our tax rental agreements can be secured separately and clearly. I am taking some little time to explain the probable effect of this new plan. It provides for an equalization of revenues derived from the three direct tax fields that were involved in the tax rental agreements.

The first fact we have to recognize is that the various provincial governments have at their disposal very different degrees and types of tax potentials. The second fact is that while the costs of providing required provincial services are not the same in every province, these costs do not vary as greatly as the tax potentials. The third fact is that the development of large-scale enterprises operating on a nation-wide basis has meant that the distribution of the higher income brackets and the larger volumes of corporate profits is not even as between provinces but shows a heavy concentration in those provinces containing our large metropolitan centres. This has meant that large amounts of income and profits which are in a sense partly earned in several provinces throughout the country can be effectively taxed only in one province.

Most federal countries are faced with this problem, and a number of systems have been devised to meet it. In examining the question of fiscal need it has seemed to us that a system applying a kind of provincial means test such as is used in some federal countries

would not be acceptable or workable in a country with our history and traditions. We want something more objective than a provincial means test.

After examining many possible plans we came to the conclusion that the most generally acceptable means of bridging this gap in Canada between the costs of essential provincial services and the wide variations in the tax potentials available to the provincial governments would be to develop a pattern of tax equalization payments from the federal to the provincial governments.

What we have proposed is a series of unconditional annual payments to the provincial governments which would supplement the yield of certain standard rates of tax applied to the incomes, profits and inheritances or successions in a province so as to bring this yield up to the yield of such rates in the wealthier provinces.

This matter was discussed and illustrated at our October meeting. We received representations following that meeting and gave them very careful consideration, and we have recently forwarded to all the provincial premiers a definite proposal. We will expect to receive their views with respect to this proposal, and we expect that there will have to be legislation to provide for this plan being implemented.

There will also be legislation dealing with most of the matters referred to by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech. With respect to his suggestion as to the pipe line, for instance, the appropriate time to explain the government's policy in that regard and the reasons for that policy will be when the legislation is brought before the house. The same will be true with respect to the proposed legislation to deal with the wheat situation in the prairie provinces.

I may say that, as set forth in the communique that was issued after the October conference, we stated that we would give careful consideration to any special project for the development of resources that any provincial government might wish to have us consider. The hon. gentleman has suggested that some day there will have to be some general policy of co-operative development of natural resources between the federal and the provincial governments. That is probably inevitable, but there are provinces that are very jealous of their responsibility and right to control in their own way the development of their own resources. The federal government, deriving its funds from taxation of the whole population of the country, has to be careful that any recommendation it brings to parliament for the application of those

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent funds raised from general taxation throughout the country is equitable to all the provinces.

There is one thing, I think, that has been developing as rapidly as has our industrial expansion. That is the spirit of national unity in this country. We are becoming a Canadian nation, and we have to be very cautious that we do not attempt to move too rapidly and that all the moves that are made are conducive to the growth and development of that national consciousness and that spirit of solidarity between our people from one ocean to the other. It is against that background that all our proposals that can have any bearing or effect upon the growth of that national consciousness are developed and implemented.

The hon. gentleman referred to other matters that he has suggested at previous times, and that will probably be debated again at other times. 1 know that for many years he has been suggesting that if Mr. Hoover would only come over here and preside over a commission to investigate the effectiveness of our forms of government administration it might be very helpful to the Canadian people.