January 16, 1956


Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

Mr. Speaker, if I may comment on this, I came in the house about 15 minutes before this hon. member started and another hon. member was reading his speech at that time, and I suggest that if the hon. member has been in the house as long as I have he has seen other speeches read. It is quite obvious that my hon. friend is not reading his speech; he is consulting his notes from time to time.


Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. Knowles:

I am quite prepared that the point I raised should be raised against me or any member of this group if any of us were to read his speech. But I think it is pretty obvious what the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick) is doing right now, and I ask for a ruling.


Edward Turney Applewhaite (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):

am glad the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested when he first rose that I should comment rather than give a ruling. We have commented from this chair a great many times on the question of reading speeches, and what I am going to say now will be by way of comment and not, unless I have to, by way of a ruling.

I think officially or unofficially it has always been the habit in this house to allow far more latitude in the debate on the address than in debates on specific bills, items in the estimates and so on which are before the house or the committee. I remember being placed in the embarrassing position last session of being requested to make a ruling upon this subject, and I stated then what I am going to state now.

There is perhaps no better known or more often quoted rule of this house than the rule

against the reading of speeches; neither is there any rule that I know of that is broken more consistently or that is more difficult for the Speaker of the moment to enforce. Perhaps it is not letting any cat out of the bag when I say that I understand that serious consideration is being given at the present time in certain quarters to the possibility of more strictly enforcing the rule against the reading of speeches. If that enforcement comes, I think it will come first in connection with specific matters and not in connection with debates of this kind.

May I say of the hon. member who has the floor that I do not know whether he was reading his speech. I think it is obvious to everyone that a speech as full of figures as the one the hon. member has been delivering would compel the speaker who is delivering it to keep his eyes closely fixed on the paper before him. Unless actually challenged on this point I must assume that the hon. member is giving the house the benefit of his own views. I do not think it is being seriously suggested that he is giving to the house views which someone else has handed him in order that he might publicize them here.

So if we comment on the point which was quite properly raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and which I am sure will be raised again, I can only say-this is a confession of weakness from the Chair at the moment-that I know of no way in which I can tell an hon. member he is reading his speech if he tells the house that he is following his notes fairly closely. May I say entirely by way of obiter dictum that sometimes I almost wish we had the right to say to a member, "In my opinion you are reading your speech." At the moment I understand that the usage of the house is to accept what is being said as the member's views.

I think perhaps the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has now been made sufficiently to permit the hon. member for Trinity to carry on the rest of his discourse without reading word for word things which perhaps he may have committed in paragraph form to paper. I am certainly not going to stop the hon. member delivering a speech of that nature if he happens to be following facts and figures quite closely. The time taken during this discourse will not be deducted from the time allowed to the hon. member for Trinity, because I have taken up most of it myself.


Donald D. Carrick


Mr. Carrick:

Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure hon. members of this house that if I have trespassed technically against a rule I have not trespassed against the spirit of that rule. The speech which I have presented to

the house was prepared only by myself and no one else. It is my own ideas that have gone into it. I worked on the subject a great deal, and probably I gave the hon. member who objected the impression that I was reading it. I was following my notes quite carefully. I knew the subject so well that it may have been that I gave that impression.

The Trans-Canada project has been criticized in the press on the ground that it is an American-sponsored project and the Canadian public will not be given the opportunity to obtain control of it. Figures have been bandied about to show that it is impossible for the Canadian public to acquire control on the basis of the issued common stock. I am told that these figures are no indication of the ultimate distribution of the common stock to be issued and of the ultimate control of the company.

The sponsors of the project have assured the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that the Canadian public will be given the opportunity of buying a controlling interest in the project, and the minister has on a number of occasions communicated that assurance to the public.

I am also advised that in the contract between Trans-Canada and the Tennessee company there is a provision requiring a majority of the common stock of Trans-Canada to be offered to the Canadian public. The same arrangement had been made with Canadian Delhi Petroleum Limited, which is controlled in the United States.

It should perhaps be mentioned that there is no assurance the Canadian public will seize the opportunity to obtain control of Trans-Canada. If it does not desire to put its money into this project it is not the responsibility of the federal government. As long as the Canadian public is given the opportunity to acquire control, that is all that can be asked of the federal government and of the promoters of the project.

Mr. Speaker, it must be apparent that the federal government has been grappling with a difficult problem. Its aim is to have the Trans-Canada pipe line constructed and in operation at the earliest possible date. It has done everything it can to achieve this objective, and it deserves the commendation of the Canadian people.

(Translation) :

Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I would like to say a few words in French in order to show my affection and respect for my French-Canadian colleagues in this house as well as to pay tribute to the French-Canadian people as a whole.

I wish to thank all my French-Canadian friends for the encouragement which they

The Address-Mr. G. K. Fraser extend to us English-speaking members in our efforts to learn French. I have always admired their great ability in speaking both French and English. Over the past few years I have had the privilege to make the acquaintance of a large number of French-Canadians who have made me understand the generosity and kindly friendliness which characterize the French-Canadian people. There are no difficulties between the various races in Canada which cannot be solved by working together, by mutual understanding and good will. By working together we shall make of our beloved Canada a country which offers the world a fine example of brotherhood and co-operation between all Canadians.

(Text) :


Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):

Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was pleased to note that at this time a lady was given the honour of moving the address. I am not going to make any apology for taking up the time of the house today, because as you know I am generally a man of few words and I try to get those words over.

First of all I should like to suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that he consider, and consider carefully and most sympathetically, the request of the Canadian Council of the Blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind for an improvement in the legislation concerning our blind folk. This is something I believe is certainly needed.

These two organizations that are sponsoring this improved legislation are both working for one end, and that is to help the blind people of Canada. The Canadian Council of the Blind is an organization composed entirely of blind people. The Canadian National Institute for the Blind is a different organization, and is the one that publishes the braille books and talking books, and organizes many other aids for the blind, including the school at Brantford.

Now I am going to read from a little pamphlet, just to give you the meat of what these people want. I believe that every member of parliament, including the Prime Minister and every member of the cabinet, has received one of these pamphlets. This is a one-point program; they are not asking for a number of things as they have in the past, but just one specific thing that they feel is definitely needed for the blind people. This is what they are asking for:

A specific allowance free from the means test by the government of Canada for all blind adults, to cover the costs of guiding and other essential expenses peculiar to blindness.


The Address-Mr. G. K. Fraser

Because the handicap of blindness by its very nature imposes additional expenses, such as guidance and other essentials, the Canadian Council of the Blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind believe that the government of Canada should provide an allowance. It will defray at least a part of these expenses and encourage sightless citizens to lead an active normal life socially, recreationally, and, wherever possible, vocationally.

The legislative improvements may be made effective through amendments to the Blind Persons Act of Canada-1951.

I feel that I am closer to the blind person and the needs of the blind than perhaps any other member in the house, owing to the fact that I have in my own home a person who is blind as the result of an accident some 12 or more years ago, a person who is not receiving the blind allowance and has never asked for it. I know almost everything that blind persons can do, how many things they cannot do, what they can do for themselves and cannot do for themselves, and the many cases in which they need a sighted person to help them. I know the great need for companions who can help these people in everyday life.

These blind people, when they first become blind, think the world has caved in on them and that there is absolutely no hope. But after a few years they become normal citizens if given half a chance. Through the Canadian National Institute for the Blind these chances have been given to them in the form of education and help at home through their home teachers, and at the blind school in Brantford. Every one of these blind people-and we have a great number of them in Canada-is dependent, as I have said, on a sighted person. They have to have somebody who will read to them, somebody who will take them to the dentist, to the doctor, to public meetings and so on, because they want to know as well as you or I what is going on.

I have found that if these people are given guidance they are able to do as well as, if not in many cases better than, a sighted person. I know one person who can answer the telephone, take 15 or even 20 telephone numbers, and five or six hours later repeat those numbers with comments on them to the person for whom they are intended. They can type, knit, make leather work, work in factories and do machine work. But these people, in order to have a better outlook on life, need someone to guide them to different places, to ride with them when they travel in a car, bus or train, tell them what is going on outside and explain to them what might be of scenic interest, the roads, trees or mountains they are passing and so on; and these people will remember.

A few short weeks ago I had the pleasure of sitting next to Mrs. Sadie Bending, president of the Canadian Council of the Blind, when she made a speech which I would say would be hard to beat. All she had were braille notes, which she followed with her left hand, and she talked as fast as I am talking now, or even faster. She was so interesting that the people who heard her- many sighted people as well as blind-have asked that she come back to speak again. She is a very clever woman and has travelled all over Canada, the United States and Europe, and can describe the countries through which she has travelled as well as you or I who have our eyes. This is because her husband was with her and acted as her companion. As they went along the highways and byways he explained and described everything. Being blind and having nothing else to interfere with her thoughts, she remembered everything and was able to repeat the descriptions to the people at that meeting.

As I have said before, I hope consideration will be given to this request from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian Council of the Blind. It will cost a few dollars, not very much. I feel that if even one department of the government would cut out some of its waste and extravagance-every department has some, as the ministers well know-what would be saved in that one department alone would be more than sufficient to cover the expense of this improved legislation for which the blind are asking at the present time.

I see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is in the house. He knows that we give millions and millions of dollars to foreign countries to help them to improve the health of their people and for other purposes. I think it is requesting very little to ask that the government use a few dollars to try to improve the health of our blind people here at home, because I feel quite sure that if the legislation they request were put into effect it would give them a better outlook on life and by so doing would certainly help improve their health and assist them in many other ways. At the present time the only way they can see is through their fingers, by reading braille, through the use of talking books or through the eyes of a person who is fortunate enough to have sight.

I do not think I would be a very good member, Mr. Speaker, if I did not stand on my feet at this time and protest against something that is proposed for the post office in Peterborough. From what we have read and have been told it is proposed by the Post Office Department to put television cameras in the Peterborough post office in order to spy on

the postal employees. There are many reasons why I and, I feel, every Canadian citizen, should protest against the use of this kind of device. These cameras or viewers or whatever you want to call them are nothing but another step by the government to try to take away the rights of Canadian workers. It is an attempt to take away their privacy.

The men in the postal department will have no privacy at all. They will not even be able to blow their noses without someone watching them. I would judge that a dictatorship country might use this kind of device. In fact it might be used in Russia, and I suppose if a man over there were caught doing something he was not supposed to do he would be shot at sunrise. Thank the Lord that does not happen here. Surely in Canada, which is supposed to be a free country, this kind of method is not needed to keep our citizens honest. I believe I am right in saying that instead of making the postal employees more honest it may very well have the opposite effect. I know if I were working in a post office and knew that one of these cameras was watching me I would resent it every minute of the day, and I do not think I would be able to do the work as well as I could if the machine were not there.

I know personally most of the postal employees in Peterborough. They are an honest, hard working group of men and have done an excellent job. At Christmastime the men in the Peterborough post office, with the space they have available, were able to handle millions and millions of pieces of mail. I do not think they would have been able to do so if they had had these machines spying on them at that time. I wonder why they were picked to be spied on. I suppose after the cameras are installed in that post office they will be installed in the post offices in Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and other places throughout the country.

I wonder why the Post Office Department was picked and not the customs department or the taxation department. Why not include members of parliament? Why not put a camera on us all the time?


Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)


Mr. Pearson:

We have no money.


Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. FraseT (Peterborough):

I think we would be the first to object.


Ralph Osborne Campney (Minister of National Defence)


Mr. Campney:

We have no money.


Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):

No money?


Ralph Osborne Campney (Minister of National Defence)


Mr. Campney:

Members of parliament have no money.


Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):

Most members of parliament are like goldfish in a goldfish bowl. They never have any privacy, but it would be just that much worse with television

The Address-Mr. G. K. Fraser cameras on them all the time. I wonder how the Postmaster General (Mr. Lapointe) would feel if he had a television camera on him at his desk in his office, at his desk here in the House of Commons, when he is combing his curly locks or when he goes to wash. I do not think he would like it.

This peekaboo idea of the Post Office Department is not needed in' Canada and, as I said before, only a dictatorship government would think of such a thing. I ask the Postmaster General if he would like to have a camera focused on him all the time. How would he like to have a camera on him when he went to the washroom, especially if it was a washroom like they have in the post office in Peterborough where there are no doors at all? One will not be able to go to the washroom to clean up without a television camera on him. The next thing they do will be to add a loudspeaker to these television cameras so that they can say, "Peekaboo, I spy you." Yes, one will not even be able to go to the toilet without having a television camera spying on him. To put such machines into a building where our workers are supposed to have rights is something that only a country like Russia would think of.

I understand that some 16 of these television cameras are to be installed in the Peterborough post office. Some of them will be dummies. In the past the men have never objected very much to the use of peepholes in post offices through which inspectors can watch and check on a man whom they suspect of not being honest, but they certainly do object to television cameras.

Personally I think it is a waste of the taxpayers' money. It is going to cost over $50,000 to instal them, and will cause a great deal of hard feeling. The sooner the idea is thrown out by the Post Office Department the better for this country. This is certainly the last straw. I hope all the postal unions across the country will object and send their protests not only to the Postmaster General but to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself. I hope the citizens of Canada generally will do likewise. I have had hundreds of letters and telephone calls about this matter. I have not been able to walk more than a block in the city of Peterborough without two or three people stopping me and talking to me about it.

I mentioned a few minutes ago that if the waste and extravagance of even one department of the government were done away with there would be enough money saved to provide the new legislation that the blind are requesting. Let me give a couple of examples of extravagance. An article appeared

The Address-Mr. G. K. Fraser in the press a couple of weeks ago headed, "Queer Work for Queen's Printer", which reads in part as follows:

. . . the Queen's Printer at Ottawa has issued a special illustrated folder with order blank, covering a selected list of 26 publications. Prices range from 15 cents for a simple pamphlet to $8 for a much more elaborate work.

Doubtless some of this material properly comes from government printing presses but much of it, one would imagine, could well be left to private publishing which costs the taxpayer nothing.

Why, for example, should it be necessary for the Queen's Printer to put out expensive books dealing with "Radio Fundamentals" or the "Climate of Montreal" or "Logging in Canada"? Even more inexplicable is the publication of three handbooks on how to play and coach hockey.

I know that most of the members are interested in sports, but why should the government go in for handbooks of this kind? Why not allow the printing houses throughout Canada to do that work? These printing houses are paying back to this government 50 per cent or more of their income in taxes. They are helping to pay the cost of government and everything we have here. Now their business is being stifled by these books the government is getting out, because it is work that is being taken from these publishing houses.

One asks, where is this government going to stop? Surely there is a limit to this extravagant spending. I just wonder how long the taxpayers will stand it.

I have another example of waste. When I returned to Ottawa for the opening of parliament I discovered, as most of the members did, that our offices had been equipped with new fluorescent lighting. I walked into my office and turned the switch. Then I thought one of these post office T.V. cameras, along with kleig lights, had been turned on. I was almost blinded by the light. I looked at the ceiling and saw that the old light which had been in my office had been removed. It was in very good condition last year. The fluorescent lighting installed consisted of eight 40-watt fluorescent tubes. I believe that if any electrical engineer had been installing these lights he would have said that four tubes would have been plenty, perhaps even two. I feel sure that many thousands of dollars could have been saved on this lighting installation, and that the money saved would have helped to pay for this proposed new blind legislation.

On more than one occasion I have said that this government is a wait and see government. They never seem to make a move unless it is right before an election or unless they think it is about time they moved into the particular field concerned to get a vote. I was not very much surprised, therefore, to learn through the speech from the throne

that the government intended to bring forward legislation to provide equal pay for women in those industries under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This matter has been brought up before. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) has introduced similar legislation, only on a broader basis, for over three years. Of course it generally takes this government about three years to wake up. I believe they are now waking up to the fact that if they do not act soon they are going to lose a lot of the ladies' votes in this country. It seems that all this government thinks of is where they can get another vote.

There is a strong feeling in this country, and I have found it not only in my own city but in many other places I have visited, that the Criminal Code is not strict enough in regard to the purchase and use of firearms. It has been brought to my attention that during the past year there have been a number of cases before the courts in which people only in this country a few months or a year at the most have used firearms for criminal purposes. I feel, and I know many others feel, that more teeth should be put in our Criminal Code to cover the sale and use of these firearms.

I have in my hand here, Mr. Speaker, a family allowance cheque in the amount of $33. It is dated October, 1953. The cheque was cashed in a grocery store in Peterborough on that date. As hon. members know, hundreds of these family allowance cheques are cashed every month in stores across Canada. On November 11, 1955, when this grocer went to the bank to pick up his cancelled cheques, he found a slip debiting his account with the $33 for the cheque and the word "forgery" opposite it.

My purpose in bringing this matter forward is to protest against the government taking so long to draw the forgery to the attention of the storekeeper. Evidently the forgery was in regard to the endorsation on the back of the cheque. The finance department has taken over two years to bring it to the attention of the storekeeper. In industry a cheque such as that would have been found within a couple of months at the most. This is a case where a government cheque bounced, but like this Liberal government it was rather slow in bouncing. It is said that the mills of the gods grind slowly, but surely the finance department ought to grind a little faster than that. These cheques are made out on a machine, and certainly when they were run through the trouble could have been found. Surely the person who did not get the cheque must have notified the welfare department long before the two years were up.

The Address-Mr. Studer

I do not believe it is fair in such a case to make the storekeeper the goat. The storekeepers across this country are acting as bankers to the government when they cash these cheques. Many of these women cannot get around to the banks because their husbands are working and the banks are closed on Saturday.

If events such as these were reported within two months the storekeepers and the other fellows would have a chance to check and perhaps get the persons who cashed the cheques. When it takes two years he has absolutely no chance. I do hope that the government will reimburse this particular storekeeper and other storekeepers who, after two years, have been notified that a forged cheque has been cashed by them.


Irvin William Studer


Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swifl Current-Maple Creek):

Mr. Speaker, the ten days that

are allotted to the throne speech debate are ten of the most valuable days to our country. During that period of time the members of parliament who are assembled here review the past, and as a result of their deliberations they anticipate the future. Therefore that period of time is of inestimable value to the people of Canada, because without them how can our country contribute to the stability, to the strength and prosperity and security of its people? If we do not know the conditions throughout the more than 5,000 miles that stretch from Newfoundland to Victoria, how can we formulate solutions that will be in the interests of this country of ours?

I think members of parliament are accepting their duty when they participate in this throne speech debate. Everyone throughout the Dominion of Canada appreciates their efforts. We have the greatest country in the world. There is no question of that whatsoever. However, we and the government are certainly not satisfied with the best. Nothing short of perfection plus will prevent us from using the utmost effort within our party to strengthen our country and provide policies that will be in the interests of all of our people.

We are not a mediocre people in Canada. We do not tolerate mediocre governments in Canada. During the last 20 years we have had a government, as everyone will agree, that has built this country up to be the best country in the whole world. If anyone doubts that let him name some other country in which he would rather live. If this is the best country in the world, how did it get that way? It got that way through the efforts of this government and through the efforts of the people who assisted the government and through the efforts of all the members of

parliament, even the opposition. In spite of themselves they make a contribution to the welfare of Canada.

As I say, we have the interests of all the people at heart, regardless of how they are represented, whether they are represented by members of the government or by members of the opposition. We are extraordinary people in Canada, and we are going to be extraordinary-plus people. We are a young and virile country with the same type of government, young and virile; therefore we cannot help but be greater and still greater in the future.

Some mention was made of congratulations to the mover and the seconder, and suggestions were made that perhaps we could dispense with them. We cannot dispense with them on such an historic occasion as this when, for the first time in the history of Canada, we had a woman move the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is an historic occasion. It is just indicative of what is going to transpire in this Elizabethan age. Throughout all the eras, every country that has had the privilege of having a queen has prospered and gone forward, but not at the expense of some other country, and in its forward movement has taken along with it other countries that were willing to take the same step of having progressive queens. Therefore we are proud of our lady member. We think it is a prelude to some greater honours for her in the future. I am sure those occasions will arise.

We also have the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme), who represents one of the great races of Canada. Many of them live in my constituency at Lafleche, Gravelbourg, Meyronne, Ponteix, Val Marie; Dollard, Lac Pelletier, and at numerous other places in western Canada. The ancestors of many of them came from Bellechasse, Dorchester, Beauce, and other French counties in Quebec. They are proud of the hon. member for Bellechasse, because he has a great future before him.

We are meeting here today in a body to discuss the future of Canada. I am pleased to present the situation in my own constituency, if it can be presented within the period of time allotted to me, which we all know is impossible. If I could describe what is in evidence in that constituency in a few short words, I would tell you that we have had our usual, normal crop. We have had our usual exhibitors. Again a lady from my constituency-in fact, almost a neighbour because anyone living within 30 miles of you out west is your neighbour-won the national honey championship, and I have some of her honey with me. If you are nice to me I will let you

The Address-Mr. Studer taste some of Mrs. J. W. Kent's honey. Again at the Chicago international hay and grain show in Chicago my constituents won honours in grain, and at the national show in Toronto Mr. Robins of Shaunavon won prizes this year as he has other years.

We have all the other good things. I told the house last year about many of our products. Unfortunately not enough people are taking advantage of the good things to eat that this country produces. If more of them did so perhaps some of our surpluses would, if not disappear, at least diminish. I am going to try to encourage you today to consume some of the abundance that this country produces.

We are not living in an age of scarcity; we are living in an age of Liberal abundance, and it should be available to all of the people of the world. It is our ambition to make that abundance available to all the people so there will be no underfed or undernourished people anywhere in the world. Certainly we also have difficulties. If there is one hope that any hon. member might have it would be that he could say in this House of Commons, "All is well in my constituency; all is well in Canada; all is well in all the world."

I think that is the ambition of every member of parliament, but we have not attained that yet. Why? Canada is more dependent upon conditions of world trade than any other nation. Four out of every five bushels of grain that are produced in Canada have to be exported; whereas the United States consumes four out of every five bushels that it produces.

We have our difficulties. We have control over our own economy, but we cannot control the economies of other countries of the world. Some of our socialist opposition friends think we can, but they have never been able to do it. No matter how good things are in this country, the Liberal government always makes them better. No matter how bad things are, the opposition can always make them worse. We in Canada are determined to make them better. We have no control over floods and hurricanes and surpluses, but at least the surpluses are gifts. Therefore we should avail ourselves of the good things that we have.

In spite of anything that has been said in this House of Commons regarding surpluses,

I do not know of anything that is nicer to come home to in southwestern Saskatchewan than a nice wife and nice granary full of wheat and a stable full of cattle and all the things that can be produced on the farm. There is nothing nicer to come home to, and

IMr. Studer.]

there is nothing sadder to come home to than an empty house, empty barns and empty granaries, and we have had many of them in southwestern Saskatchewan.

We have wheat problems, certainly; we have an abundance of them. One of them is the problem of the surplus that has been mentioned. If we are to have a problem I want a problem of abundance, because we had the problem of scarcity for many years during the 1930's in too many areas. What position are we in today that so many complain about? We are in the position of having one crop ahead. Who can complain about that?

I have been farming since 1916, working on a farm in southwestern Saskatchewan for 40 years. During the years of crop failure in southwestern Saskatchewan, when we used the P.F.A.A., my ambition was to get in the position where I would have one year's crop ahead. That was my ambition. Now we have one year's crop ahead, but unfortunately we have not one year's financing ahead. That is the problem we are going to try to solve, to provide one year's financing ahead. If any socialist is making any comment I do not think he should make it, because if we had a socialist system he would have no problem at all; he would not be here. We would have problems with reference to scarcities because the socialist system is a system of scarcity, a system of control throughout the world, a system of rationing throughout the world. There is no socialist who will deny it, so let us take the situation as we have it and provide surpluses and not scarcities. We do not want scarcity and hunger in the midst of plenty, nor poverty in the midst of scarcity.

What is the difference? In other words, we can supply a solution if we have abundance but the solution to scarcity has never been found. That has been the problem in every socialist country in the world. We are taking measures to alleviate the situation on the farms. Farmers are provided with bank loans, not available to all the farmers but available to many of them.

This is not, however, only a national problem; it is partly a provincial problem. There is no government I know of that is more subject to it or more vitally interested in it than the government of Saskatchewan. Now we have banks which have charters from the federal government. Almost every town has a credit union, and they receive their charters from the provincial governments. If the socialist provincial government does not like this situation in regard to banks, why do they not get off their seats? They are the best sitters in the world. The only exercise they

The Address-Mr. Studer

take is mental exercise in jumping to conclusions. If they got off their seats and did something about such situations, they would see what they could do to provide guarantees to the credit unions. Let the Saskatchewan government do something about it themselves in that province and provide the guarantee to the credit unions, interest free.

That is what they advocate; and why should it not be interest free, interest on our own money? We do not have to go to the Bank of Canada. My credit is not as good as a socialist's credit. I have not been able to get a loan from the credit unions at less than 6 per cent. If there is any money that is interest free, it should come from them. There is hope for the people of Saskatchewan. I understand the socialists are going to pool all their wealth, including the socialist members of this House of Commons, and form a socialist co-operative and lend money to the farmers of Saskatchewan, interest free. Good luck to them.

What has caused the present situation? We have had five crops in three years, and normally we have three crops in five years. We have had the competition of other countries, including the United States. We were not aware of this fact until some five socialists went to Washington, I believe some time last February. When the United States government saw the gullibility of the socialist members who went to Washington on their own they said, "This is it, boys; we will get rid of our wheat; no one will say a word." That is when the competition became heavy.

If the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is wondering how much was lost to the farmers of Canada in the last three years by the speeches of the socialists in this country, I would estimate the amount at $1 million a speech; not that they are that valuable. Take the farm income for the year 1953 and figure it out in proportion to the number of speeches. It is as simple as two and two are four. The socialists in Saskatchewan say to send socialists to Ottawa. Between 1949 and 1953 we had the best conditions in Canada we have ever had. The socialists went out in the 1953 election campaign and said "Send the socialists to Ottawa; send fighters to Ottawa who will fight for you".

Well, the socialists had better start fighting. You do not fight with words only; you fight with facts. It seems there are too many people in this House of Commons among the socialists who have no alternative to offer except words. We have the same situation out in Saskatchewan. We have a tax and talk party and a talk and tax government. They are the pseudo-socialists living on the

capitalists. They are wine, dine and dance socialists, and their slogan is to eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow the capitalist will die.

What are we trying to do in Canada? What are the farmers asking for? They are asking that we hold the price line. That is the first demand of the farmer in western Canada. That is what the wheat board is there for. You could get rid of the wheat at 80 cents a bushel, but I would rather get rid of one bushel at $1.40 and have one left in my granary. The farmer says to hold the price line. That is what the government are trying to do. They are providing some assistance-it would be hopeless to ask the provincial government to do that-so the wheat board will not become involved. They are trying to provide some assistance that will operate apart from the wheat board so that if something should happen like what happened in 1929 with the pools, the wheat board will not be lost.

There are not enough votes in western Canada to hold the wheat board if the rest of the people of Canada decide that we should have it no longer. So we have provided the means through the banks, which is insufficient; I know it does not cover everyone. The provincial governments can come to the rescue. If they do not wish to do that, they can step right out and buy 50 million bushels from the wheat board tomorrow. If the wheat board act does not provide for this we will pass the necessary legislation. It is like the government of British Columbia making a barter deal with the British government. Three years ago they made a deal with Britain for their salmon. If one provincial government can do it, another provincial government can do it, because they buy over $50 million worth of power corporation equipment, much of it from Britain. They buy their electrical equipment and Britain has it, and they buy many other things. What is to stop them from doing it in other provinces of western Canada. Get busy socialists; wake up; smarten up. Why sit idly by and talk and hope thereby you will be able to win yourselves another election? I do not know how long it is going to last, but the socialists had only one solution left that they thought would stand up and

hold water, and that was to barter.


You cannot accept sterling for your wheat. Mr. Gordon Bowen, British trade commissioner, came out and told the farmers this fall that acceptance of sterling would not sell an additional bushel of wheat, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce told you this morning. That is something the Liberals

The Address-Mr. Studer have been saying for a long time. It is wise to accept advice from the Liberals.

We had another meeting out in western Canada, as Charles Woodsworth has reported in the Western Producer of December 8, 1955. He told them exactly what the Liberals have been telling them for the last few years, that the wheat problem is a combination of economics and he did not believe price cutting was the answer. We do not believe it either. He did not believe in a policy or deals involving the acceptance of soft currencies between countries, as was pointed out this morning. He also pointed out that barter deals were just as dangerous. He said that Japan would take more Canadian wheat if she could send us textiles, and that would hurt the textile industry here.

We have a whole economy to take care of, not an individual one, so we are endeavouring to help the farmer to the extent the government can within its capacity, so the socialists have no argument whatever left. They have not a leg to stand on; but as I understand it that does not bother the socialists very much, as long as they have a seat to sit on.

However, they do have one argument left, and that is to feed all the hungry people of the world. That is what we all want to do, feed the hungry people of the world. They tell us to give it to India, give it to China, give it to Africa, give it to anyone who will take it.

I am ready to feed everybody, as there is nothing that hurts me more than to know that some people are hungry. But do you know that there are over 50 million monkeys in India, and that each one of them eats as much in a day as does a human being. In many cases they are considered to be sacred. I certainly have no intention of feeding the monkeys of India. All the monkeys are not in India; there are some monkeys in Saskatchewan. If there are no monkeys there, certainly there is some monkey business going on. If there is no monkey business out there certainly there is Tommy-foolery, and at last tommyrot is now setting in there. They will have to make more exertions out there if they are going to keep themselves in power.

We are making a big mistake here in Canada in not providing better storage facilities for our wheat. We should be making preparation in the good years for the bad years when we may have a shortage of wheat. We should provide permanent storage space as Joseph did in biblical days, when he prepared for the seven lean years during the seven fat years. The hon. member for

Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) said something about the Bible, the good book, this morning, and everything in it is just as true today as it was in those days. We should be providing permanent storage facilities for 5 million bushels for the lean years, and they could be provided right there at Swift Current or Maple Creek. That would be the safest insurance in which the government could invest.

We should provide every facility that would better the welfare of the farmers. We should do everything we can to guarantee the future of our farmers. We should have permanent policies, not something that is here today but will pass out of the picture tomorrow, as is advocated by many members of the opposition. The Liberals are famous for their policies. When they establish a policy it is permanent for the interest and welfare of the farmers of the country.

Who has a better right to these things? One thing I do not like is to hear people here in parliament or elsewhere say that the farmers are receiving too much consideration, that if you give them more they will be off to California. There is not one-half of one-half of one-half of one-half of 1 per cent of the farmers who go to California. I have been living in southwestern Saskatchewan for 40 years, and the only connection I have had with California is to eat a little lettuce or celery or drink some orange juice that may have been imported from there. If there are any people who should go to California, who have a greater right than the farmers who spend most of their lives producing food in the interests of the people, so they may have cheap food?

Who is it works so hard and who claims no benefits over and above what he should have for his own interest? Fourteen hours a day means nothing to a farmer, 100 hours a week means nothing to a farmer because he is willing to contribute that in the interests of the nation. He is producing in the national interest, for the benefit of all people, and what he produces is for the benefit of other industries. Those who work in other vocations can go to California, but the minute the farmer does he is blamed for doing it. I for one am sick and tired of hearing about that.

Another thing I want to mention is this. When the farmers receive $20 or $30 million in payments from the wheat board, which is their own organization, we see headlines in all the papers. Why should those headlines appear when it is the farmers' own money? On that same day over $40 million will be paid out to labour in this country-I wish it were $80 million-but we see no headlines in the paper when $40 million has been paid

to labour that day. But when-perhaps once or twice a year the farmers' own organization does make payments of $20 million or $30 million we see headlines all across the country. That leaves the impression that Canada is contributing that money.

Whatever may be contributed to the farmers in the future will come back to you tenfold with the blessings of the farmers of western Canada. They do not keep anything; they spend it all, and it comes back to you to keep the wheels going around in the industry of Canada. Do not begrudge any assistance that is given, because we will not call for assistance unless there is a deficiency in farm income and the figures show it. Have you ever seen a westerner stand up in this House of Commons and not vote to assist you even if it is a subsidy to the gold mines?

I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Timiskaming refer to gold, because they use the gold subsidy for political purposes out in wester Canada. Our socialist friends keep telling the people that the federal government is paying to have the gold taken out of one spot to be buried in another down at Fort Knox, Kentucky, instead of the facts relating to gold subsidies. Don't think for one moment that that does not hurt us in western Canada.

Farming should be brought up to equality with other industries. We should not want it otherwise. Perhaps the same could be said for our fishermen. We are all one great co-operative organization here in Canada, and we should be ready to help carry one another's burdens. All we wish to know is what the burden is and to what extent help is required. All governments should be co-operating one with the other in an effort to bring the people of Canada to the highest levels that any people could visualize. Everyone should be contributing to the welfare of Canada, because you cannot have one part of the economic body sick and hope to have a well body.

There is another thing I should like to mention at this time. People should be encouraged to eat our food. If there is one thing which I think is detrimental to Canada it is these food faddists, these people who go around telling us that we should not eat butter, we should not eat meat, we should not eat wheat or we will get too fat. They tell us if we do these things we will have a bulging waistline when we get to be 50 years of age. They tell us not to eat these things that have been acceptable since the beginning of time and have helped to build all nations. They tell us not to eat bread and meat and butter and all the other things we produce, to eat some synthetic food instead.

The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. (Brown) referred to the deterioration in the

The Address-Mr. Studer health of our youth, and I contend that you cannot raise a generation by having them get up in the morning and eat a piece of lettuce and then tear off to school. We should not be eating all these things we import from other countries when we have the food right here in Canada. Many people get up and take a sip of orange juice in the morning, a leaf of lettuce at lunch and some celery at dinner time. As I say, you cannot raise a generation of people on that sort of food.

My grandparents on both sides all lived to be over 90 years of age, and they did not live on rabbit food. They ate pork, potatoes, beef and pancakes all at the same meal, even for breakfast. They were not afraid that they were going to get fat because they had a good meal; they were not afraid they were going to die tomorrow. There are more thin people dying in Canada these days than fat people, if I read the statistics right. I like fat people, as they are the happiest. If a fat person laughs he does not laugh just in one place; he laughs all over. You never hear of divorces in fat families; they are too busy providing the things to eat to think of divorce. A man comes home and meets his fat-I should not say that-his pleasingly plump wife, and he has no time for a divorce. He puts his arms around her, or tries to, and everything is fine.

But what happens to these emaciated families when the husband comes home from work? He wants to know what is cooking for supper. She says, "You are getting too fat. I have a little lettuce here for supper". When that happens, that is the beginning of divorce.

I suggest that we put out of business all those factories producing synthetic foods, and that we stop buying in Canada imported products that are described as containing vitamins A, B, C and all the way to Z. If they have to have vitamins added to make them consumable, there must be something wrong with the initial products. We should eat the things we grow here in Canada. If that does not take up the surplus, it will at least take up part of it, and it will ensure that we have a nation of healthy and strong people to which all other nations of the world will look with admiration and envy. We want you to eat bread, beef, butter, potatoes and fish- especially fish, because we need brain food, as an hon. member intimated this morning. We can use much of that brain food in Canada.

What are the remedies? Sell the wheat. Hold the price line and sell the wheat. We have the best men in Canada selling that wheat; or, if we have not, we had better get them. We have men in Canada who have been selling wheat for 35 years. We took

The Address-Mr. Studer them over from the wheat pools, people with experience dedicating their lives to the selling of wheat. But that is not good enough for the socialist government of Saskatchewan. They say, "Eliminate those experienced men who are no good; let us sell the wheat on theory." If the leader of the socialists or the premier of Saskatchewan or the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) or anybody else thinks he can sell wheat, let us get rid of the wheat board and put them in. If we did that, we would find that tomorrow every farm in western Canada would be for sale. We shall have to develop new policies for wheat, but what the farmer wants is to sell the wheat. He wants the money from the sale of the wheat.

Some socialist members say they have been demanding advances on wheat sales since 1942. Would any farmer be one cent better off if they had been doing that since 1942? No. Let us look at it as it really is. You cannot spend the money twice. I do not want a lien on the future purchases of the farmers of Canada. I want the provincial and federal governments to provide assistance to the western farmer, so that he is not only one crop ahead but one year's financing ahead. That is what the governments as a whole should do, particularly the socialist government of Saskatchewan.

When a socialist provincial government is incapable of acting itself, the only thing left for it to do is to appeal to the federal government. When a school board becomes incompetent, it is replaced by an administrator. In Saskatchewan when a municipal council is considered incompetent and the government has to supply the revenue, it provides an administrator. Nobody in Canada likes administrators, but if there were a socialist government in the Dominion of Canada and a province like Saskatchewan was concentrating all its efforts on making appeals to the federal government for its financing, I can tell you that the socialist administration would place an administrator in the province of Saskatchewan instead of a government.

So I would advise the government out there to get busy and substantiate itself in the eyes of the people. There is only a certain period of time in which, you can make your living by talking; there comes a time when you must act. So we should provide suitable new policies, develop new uses for wheat and pay for its storage. All this would be in the interests of the whole economy in Canada.

Some farmers are asking for retroactive storage payments, and I think they are right in doing so. To indicate to you what a farmer receives for No. 4 wheat, I receive S1.07J in my elevator. We farmers have been

in a price squeeze. In Saskatchewan, over and above that, we have the tax squeeze. That is the position in which we find ourselves.

The following is a report on the farmer's share of money paid by consumers for food:

Out of every dollar spent for bread, the wheat producer gets 15 cents.

Out of every dollar spent for beef, the producer gets 62-8 cents.

Out of every dollar spent for eggs, the producer gets 76-8 cents.

Out of every dollar spent for fluid milk, the producer gets 51 '7 cents.

Out of every dollar spent for creamery butter, the producer gets 72-3 cents.

Out of every dollar spent for cheese, the producer gets 34-5 cents.

Out of every dollar spent for canned tomatoes, the producer gets 16-9 cents.

Out of every dollar spent for potatoes, the producer gets 51-7 cents.

This leaves us in the position that out of every dollar spent for bread, the producer gets less than half of the amount received by the next closest producer. That is one of the reasons for the situation in Saskatchewan. Another is that the percentage of farm cash income from all livestock and poultry products in 1954 in Saskatchewan was 26-1 per cent. All the other provinces were higher: 67-7, 70-8, 58-8, 77-1, 73-3, 48-1, 53-0, 66-1. This shows that our economy is based on wheat. If we adopt something else we are in competition with the rest of the farmers of Canada.

As I have only nine minutes left I shall try to draw to a close. Here we have a situation in which all the governments should try to co-operate with one another in endeavouring to alleviate the situation in Saskatchewan and throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. If there are more capable men in Canada, certainly we want them. The government is looking for them and hoping they will offer themselves, even at a personal sacrifice, in the interests of the people of Canada, so that we may all prosper together and so there will not be the feeling in any one section of Canada that one particular industry is profiting at the expense of another.

We have had the greatest government for formulating unity that Canada has ever had, but we still have a great advancement to make. We have to overcome the untruths that are told to the people in western Canada in order to gain political advantage, untruths that are told in the interests of some individual who hopes he might possibly be elected on what he tells the people. What we need is some honesty in politics and men who have the interests of the Canadian people at

heart, so we can progress as a country should progress. There should be such a thing as honour, even in politics.

Sometimes we find that is not the case. If any member of the opposition, including the socialists, or Karl Marx junior-the hon. member for Assiniboia-has any solution other than what we have heard so far, we shall be glad to hear it. They would be making a contribution to the welfare of Canada, and we should be glad to listen to them. I think at the bottom of their hearts even the socialists know that they would have to adopt an entirely different attitude from the one they have adopted in order to make this Canada prosperous and the great country it is destined to be.

There is only one danger facing this country. It is not that it has had a Liberal government for the past 20 years, because it has proven that it can take the people of Canada to the greatest heights of any country in the world. The only danger is that the people of Canada may listen to what the opposition say. I am sure that, as time progresses, even we Liberals who may be outnumbered at the moment in Saskatchewan will bring the truth to all the people of that province.

We have a great country, the greatest in the world, a country that one might say has set the pace for other countries. All is not lost in Canada. As long as we have stability in the government and a government that has the interests of the people at heart, we shall have a great future before us. There is no room in this country for socialist agnostics, or agnostics of any kind, but there is room for men who have faith-faith in the people and faith in a government that can carry the people to new heights. No prediction of the socialists has ever come true, much to their dismay and discomfiture. It has been in the interests of all the people of Canada that none of their predictions have ever come true.

All the people of the world, including Canadians, are proud of Canada. I am proud to be a Canadian and, although I do not like to take words from any other source, I have here a little United States schoolgirl's description of her country which I have applied to Canada. What this little schoolgirl wrote about her country appeared in an editorial in "Model Publications" of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, and I have transposed and rearranged it to meet Canadian conditions. This is what she said, paraphrased:

I am a Canadian. Listen to my words, socialist, fascist, communist. Listen well, for my country is a strong country and my message is a strong message. I am a Canadian and I speak for democracy. My ancestors and relatives have left


The Address-Mr. W. M. Johnson

their blood on the cliffs at Louisbourg and the plains of Abraham. On the highway between Chambly and Longueuil and in the valley of the Richelieu, on the waters of the river Marne and in the shadows of the Argonne forest, on the beachheads of Dunkirk, Dieppe, Salerno and Normandy.

A hundred thousand and more of my countrymen have died for freedom. My country is their eternal monument. They live on in the laughter of a small boy as he watches a circus clown's antics. They live on in the sweet, delicious coldness of the first bite of peppermint ice cream on the first of July. They live on in the tenseness of a baseball crowd as the umpire calls "batter up", and in the referee's signal on the football field and hockey arena. They live on in the high school band's rendition of O Canada on Remembrance day and in the inspiring music from the peace tower.

They live on in the clear, sharp ring of a school bell on a fall morning. They live on in the triumph of a six year old as he reads aloud for the first time. They live on in the eyes of an Ontario farmer surveying his acres of corn and potatoes and pasture. They live on in the brilliant gold of hundreds of acres of wheat stretching across the plains of Saskatchewan. They live on in the milling cattle in the stockyards of St. Boniface and Toronto.


Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)


Mr. Speaker:

Order. The hon. member will not have enough time to conclude his quotation. This is a debate on which a time limit has been placed. The hon. member for Kindersley.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson

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

Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):

Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of any amendment introduced on the floor of the house that has had more unanimous support from the farmers of western Canada than the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F. party. I am particularly pleased to take part in the debate at this time after hearing the official government pronouncement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the pronouncements we have just been subjected to from that quarter of the house which I am convinced is quite accurately known as the rump.

I am pleased to take part in the debate because I represent a constituency which is perhaps the most seriously affected by the congestion in wheat. It is seriously affected because we had a good crop in 1952, a good crop in 1953, and in many parts of the constituency an average crop in 1954, followed by a good crop this year of good quality grain. This means, therefore, that many farmers in the constituency of Kindersley still have wheat stored on their farms grown in the 1952 crop year. This emphasizes the problem and is some indication of the amount of grain in store upon some Saskatchewan farms.

I think what I must do in outlining an argument on the subject of wheat, and marshalling support for the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for

The Address-Mr. W. M. Johnson Rosetown-Biggar, is first to explain to members from other parts of Canada the problems confronting us in western Canada and, second, to explain to members of the government the problems confronting us. I think the problem can be summed up by saying that the farmers are caught in a price cost squeeze. If we were to analyse the cost of production and the returns over the past few years I think it would indicate that this more than anything else is the problem that we are desirous of solving at the moment.

Operating costs are very high and, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue), the cost of production index for farmers stands at 241 on the basis of the period from 1935 to 1939 being 100. This gives us an indication that it is costing us over two and one-third times as much now as it did in the base period of 1935 to 1939, taking that period as 100. We find that since the war there have been increases in the prices of everything the farmer has to buy. We have been subjected to increases in the prices of farm machinery, fertilizer, gas, oil and grease, repairs, labour. Indeed, I cannot think of one item used on a farm which has decreased in cost since the war.

Tied in with that is the technological advance which has overtaken agriculture and which of necessity has increased the farmer's /cost of production, because included in the Technological advance is the use of such things ;as chemical sprays, chemical wire worm control, chemical insecticides which will increase productivity but also increase cost. It is a most inefficient farmer who will hesitate to use these things to obtain the maximum amount of production.

At six o'clock the house took recess.


AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson

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

Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):

At the supper recess, Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out how the technological advances in agriculture had caused farm costs to be higher than they were in previous years. I was pointing out how the use of 2-4-D for weed control and Mergamma-C for wire worm control and the judicious use of fertilizers have also increased production. I do not think we can for one moment assume that the average production of wheat is as we term it today. We like to think in my area that the average yield for wheat is 16 bushels to the acre. I am quite convinced that with these technological advances the average yield in my area in a dry year would be closer to 18 or perhaps 20 bushels to the acre.

The Address-Mr. W. M. Johnson

While I am on this point I should like to indicate to members from other parts of Canada, who are not familiar with wheat growing, that the producer does not receive $1.40 a bushel. I have heard that statement used many times by people who do not know that the farmer pays the freight to ship his grain to the lakehead or to the coast terminals. In the case of a 19-cent freight rate, it would mean that the farmer would recover $1.21 a bushel for No. 1 northern. On the other hand, if he happened to have an inferior quality of grain which graded down to No. 1 feed, he would receive 79 cents a bushel. You can imagine the financial plight of a farmer who can only deliver 8 bushels per specified acre and receive 79 cents a bushel. The results of this are manifest in other aspects of the economy. It is not just a local problem; it is not just a situation out in Saskatchewan that we can blindly overlook.

Last year one of our major sources of unemployment was the farm implement industry. We find that in Canada in 1953 the wholesale sales of farm implements were $238 million. They were down 4-9 per cent from 1952. In 1954 the wholesale sales of farm machinery were $146-7 million, or a reduction of 38-4 per cent from 1953. In the three prairie provinces, where this situation is even more critical, it will be noted that in 1853 the sales amounted to $159,667,000 but in 1954 they dropped to $80,928,000, which is a decline of almost 50 per cent. Therefore it is only a matter of time until the dilemma and the quandary facing the western farmer are reflected in the other portions of our economy.

We have to make a thorough assessment of the problem. That assessment cannot be based on the terms used by the Prime Minister, because in a telegram to Premier T. C. Douglas of Saskatchewan on October 24, 1955, he had this to say:

On studying this problem carefully and having in mind our experience with the 1951 crop, it was apparent to us that only a relatively small number of farmers would in fact require assistance.

The statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce today certainly did not give any illumination to the situation, when he indicated that there was a slight shortage of cash.

In order to accurately assess conditions in the Kindersely constituency, which is representative of Saskatchewan, I invited the opinions of rural municipal councils throughout that area. I invited them to express their opinions to me, through resolutions, on the financial position of the farmer, on the suitability of bank loans as a temporary solution, and any other solutions which they would have to offer. The replies were most illuminating. They did not coincide in any way,

of the Saskatchewan wheat pool has termed it, a price of $2.30 a bushel. An increase of 20 cents a oushel would only mean an increase of one-third of a cent on a loaf of bread. We have already admitted the desirability of this two-price system, because the farmers who grow Durum and sell it on the domestic market receive $2.04 a bushel, but when it is sold in the export market the price is $2.74 a bushel.

We must turn then to a long-term proposal as a final and definite solution of this problem. Other solutions have been advocated by my colleagues from time to time and will be advocated in the future. We must turn to the long-term solution. The first point I have outlined is the necessity for stimulating trade. The Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated that our actual exports were only declining gradually. He pointed out that the 1954-55 sales were 251-8 million bushels, and he was applauded by all government members of the house. But what the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not tell the house was that in an expanding world market, Canada's share was declining. He did not tell the house that the sales by Argentina in the same year were up 24 million bushels; that the sales by Australia were up 31 million bushels; that United States sales were up 65 million bushels, while Canada's sales, one of the major wheat exporters under the international wheat agreement, suffered a decline of 3 million bushels.

The minister stated that he was in favour of give-aways, when replying to the hon. member for Assiniboia; yet he said this morning that you cannot have barters and you cannot deal with certain types of currency because those would be give-aways. What I say is that if that will help us move some of our wheat, the mechanical arrangements can be worked out to the mutual benefit of all countries.

The final point which I should like to deal with in connection with the long-term program is the necessity for Canada to give some leadership in international affairs. Too often we have paid lip service to the two-thirds of the people of the world who are starving, and I think it is necessary that Canada show some initiative and follow the recommendations made by Dr. L. E. Kirk, retired chief of the plant production branch, food and agriculture organization, who in setting out several programs stated:

These would include: a persistent effort to reduce tariffs in order to facilitate world trade; encouraging the production of alternative crops in order to reduce those products in surplus supply; lowering costs of production by greater efficiency as a means of lowering prices; making grants in aid of

surplus products to needy countries either as outright gifts, or preferably, conditional on the importing country matching such grants with counterpart funds for use in their own economic development.

I think we have passed the stage in civilization when we can allow thousands, yes millions, of bushels of wheat to lie in the fields of western Canada to be blown asunder by storms as happened last December. Farmers lost as much as 1,500 bushels, which were just blown away. This should not be allowed to happen when people in other areas of the world are starving.

If we are to be realistic in considering the whole matter of defence, the matter of winning friends in the world, I think we should be able to squeeze enough water out of the $2,000 million of defence expenditures to provide $500 million a year for tn:s international organization in order that it may buy up surplus food from the surplus-producing areas and distribute it through the proper means to those areas which need it, those areas where men are starving. In the near future we will be needing the men in these areas as our brothers and friends.

This is a policy which we should launch ourselves so we will be ready for what may come in the future. I have pointed out the necessity for correcting the cruel price-cost squeeze which is facing western farmers. I have pointed out the inadequacy of some of the legislation which has been proposed, and I have referred to the legislation which western farmers and businessmen desire in order to remedy this situation. In conclusion I have pointed out what long-term solutions are necessary to solve this problem of grave national concern.


Frank A. Enfield


Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):

Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. While this may be somewhat repetitious, my congratulations are sincere. I have always considered the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) a most capable speechmaker, and I am sure we are all proud to have this lady Liberal member on our side of the house.

The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) showed a wide interest in Canadian affairs generally. I envy him his fluency and ease of expression, which most of the French-speaking members in the house seem to attain.

Some hon. members have complained of errors of omission in the speech from the throne. It has been said that it omits to mention a number of the problems which are besetting Canada that should have been mentioned. I think an error of omission was committed in that it did not say enough about 07509-12

The Address-Mr. Enfield the good things that have occurred in our country during the last year. It does contain a few cryptic comments about the country's prosperity and the growth we achieved, in 1955, and I think we can look back on that year as one of continuous expansion and terrific growth. During the past year Canadians spent more money, earned more money, produced more goods, bought more goods, sold more goods, exported more and imported more than ever before in the history of the country. We have a larger labour force working today than at any time in the country's history.

It is significant that as we meet this year our problems are concerned mainly with the growth in the economy and the inflationary aspects of what is occurring, rather than with unemployment and the deflationary trend about which we were worried when we met in January of 1955. My own particular constituency has been no stranger to this almost frantic growth which has occurred in Canada during the past year.

Reliable sources of information to which I have had access, namely the chairman of the metropolitan commission in Toronto-we call him the super mayor, Fred Gardiner-tells me that metropolitan Toronto is the third fastest-growing community on the North American continent, being surpassed only by Los Angeles, California and Houston, Texas. Upon examining the construction figures under the National Housing Act I find that more starts and finishes occurred in the metropolitan area than anywhere in Canada during 1955. I am pleased also to note that of the building activity under the National Housing Act in metropolitan Toronto, 43 per cent occurred right in the riding of York-Scarborough. So according to my calculations that would make York-Scarborough the fastest growing centre in Canada.

I think I am safe in saying that my problems are concerned chiefly with this growth, and I suppose hon. members will say that I am lucky to have problems of this nature rather than problems of other types. However, there is one situation I want to mention. It is a local matter, but as I go on I think it will be seen that this encompasses considerations which are of national concern.

As hon. members know, the planning for transportation facilities constitutes a terrific headache in our rapidly expanding centres of population in Canada. Railroads such as the Canadian National Railways are called upon to provide increases in their plant and equipment, in their trackage, in their assembly and marshalling yards, in their repair and storage buildings as well as in their rolling stock and other equipment. It is not always easy

The Address-Mr. Enfield to locate these railroad developments in areas where surrounding property values will not be affected adversely.

It was with some dismay that about 10,000 of my constituents and myself were faced with the decision of Canadian National Railways to establish a huge assembly and marshalling yard smack in the centre of a fine residential area in south Scarborough.

We commenced to make representations opposing this development in the fall of 1952, previous to the last general election, and the battle has gone on until just recently. During that time, delegations of citizens attended here in Ottawa before both the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and Hon. Lionel Chevrier, the previous minister of transport. Representations were made to Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the Canadian National Railways, in Montreal; briefs were presented to the railway officials in Toronto, and our case was laid before the board of transport commissioners in a hearing they held on the subject.

All during this period the railways were adamant in their stand in so far as the development was concerned. They needed the space. Their argument was that having purchased this land for this purpose in 1926, they felt they were on very strong ground in their desire to go ahead with the particular type of development, that is a marshalling yard, they had in mind.

To make a long story short, finally in December of this year I introduced another delegation of citizens, with the reeve of the muncipality, Mr. A. Harris, to the Minister of Transport in Ottawa. After our presentation the minister made arrangements to attend at Toronto and inspect the site personally. In the middle of December we were glad to show him the actual site of the problem. After viewing the area he mentioned that he would ask Mr. Donald Gordon and his advisers to take one more look at the situation and give it further consideration.

Accordingly, late in the same month of December we were called in by the Canadian National Railways officials in Toronto and, to our delight, we were presented by the railways with a new concept in planning for a metropolitan Toronto. Instead of a huge assemby yard, they had pared down their plans to a small storage yard and were able to release 100 acres of fine industrial land that could be sold for private purposes. This was the balance of their holding in that particular area. In addition, they are installing a service road along the boundary of this industrial land and a green belt some 200 feet in width which will protect the residential housing in the immediate vicinity.

The municipal officers of the township of Scarborough were, of course, very much elated over the prospect of this new inflow of industry and a consequently increased municipal assessment. We were all very happy that the residents were to be protected in so far as their property values were concerned.

Here was a situation where, to all intents and purposes, the die had been cast. A large corporation had made up its mind to carry out a development that dated back to 1926. Yet even at this stage the Minister of Transport saw fit to ask them to reconsider, which they did, and the matter has been solved to the lasting benefit of the people. I think it was a question of weighing what was most in the national interest; whether this development should continue as planned or whether the interest of the people in the area, who stood to lose some millions of dollars in property values through this development, was paramount. I am happy to say that in this case the people's side of the argument won out.

To my mind this is the finest example of democracy in action, and I must express my heartfelt thanks to the minister for his assistance and to the railway management for keeping an open mind even at this very late stage in the development. Most of all, I take off my hat to the civil action committee of the citizens. They did a tremendous amount of work in maintaining the enthusiasm of the people and in the presentation of their arguments; and, of course, the victory is theirs.

There is one thing that bothers me about the whole problem. The railway purchased a site some 29 or 30 years ago for a certain purpose. They stated the purpose at the time of the purchase, and they felt that this gave them an inalienable right to hold that land as long as they wished and develop it for that purpose at any time. Compare this with a private individual who buys a piece of land in a booming, growing metropolitan area. He holds it for many years and then, at some future time, he applies to the municipality for permits to construct the particular type of development he had in mind in the beginning. He is faced with zoning bylaws and regulations which say that the area has changed and that there is no particular reason why his plans should not change with it. This is called planning; and, of course, it is the only intelligent way to carry on development in growing metropolitan areas.

To avoid a repetition of this very large problem-and I must stress the fact that this was an acute problem for the some

10,000 people concerned in Scarborough-I would suggest to the C.N.R. that when they

purchase land for large developments of this nature they plan their activity in concert with the municipality concerned. If this were done, a plan of subdivision could be registered against the title of that land. A permanent record would be made of the intentions of the railway, the surrounding land could be zoned at the same time for industrial purposes, and the whole problem would disappear.

The C.N.R., as it is presently constituted, has the power to develop whatever property it owns in the way it wishes without reference to municipal or provincial planning bodies or councils. No doubt in the past the C.N.R. has had to have this power, but in the future, as our metropolitan areas grow and our centres of urban population grow, our railways will have to be more conscious of the planning of such areas so that problems such as the one I have just seen solved may be obviated.

It is with great respect that I make this suggestion. Having solved my particular problem and having learned something, I must take this opportunity to try to pass on what I have learned to those who are responsible for the administration of the railway.

There is another matter in which the people of my constituency and, I think, many people in Canada are most interested. This is the question of a national health insurance scheme. I should like to say a few words in that regard. It is my considered personal opinion that a majority of the people in metropolitan Toronto, at any rate, are sold on health insurance. The only question that remains is whether a health insurance scheme taken out of private hands and placed on a governmental basis can provide cheaper, more adequate and wider coverage than the presently constituted private schemes such as the Blue Cross and P.S.I., which are now in operation. I feel personally that that will be the case. I feel that on a universal basis, cheaper, better and wider coverage can be offered to the public, and I think Canadians are ready and eager to accept such a plan, provided they will still have a free choice of doctor or hospital.

However, a perusal of the recent proceedings of the federal-provincial conference leaves it far from clear, to say the least, what we may expect in this connection. The government, through the Prime Minister, indicated its willingness to proceed with a plan of national health insurance if participation by a substantial majority of the provinces representing a substantial majority of the people were assured.

Reading these proceedings it is rather difficult to determine from the comment or 67509-12J

The Address-Mr. Enfield lack of comment by the provincial spokesmen whether such participation will be forthcoming. The provinces naturally are concerned with the fiscal problem, the question of whether under a hard-pressed financial structure they are going to be able to afford to participate in a national health insurance scheme. I was encouraged, therefore, when I learned of the recent proposal of the Prime Minister regarding fiscal arrangements with the provinces. I calculate that under that proposal there will be, in total, additional payments of some $67J million to the various provinces over and above the present tax rental schemes.

The proposed new dominion-provincial fiscal arrangements may strengthen the provinces' financial position to the point where they may strengthen their resolve with regard to health insurance. I think what the provinces need is to have some concrete plan placed before them in the way of a national health insurance scheme with definite ideas as to its cost and, of course, indications of how the money is going to be raised to pay for the scheme. From our point of view, as the Prime Minister pointed out in the conference, the prerequisite to the institution of such a scheme is that it be proven or indicated that the scheme will be in the national interest and will affect the majority of the people of Canada. Only on such a basis will we have the constitutional power to go ahead.

In the meantime the federal government is continuing to consider the matter, in that a committee has been set up composed of representatives of the federal government and of the provinces who I understand are to hold their first meeting to discuss the matter on January 23 next. I would suggest to our federal representatives that they adopt an aggressive, positive and optimistic approach to the question of national health insurance, because I think the provinces will need that approach if they are to be encouraged to enter the scheme.

Even if such a scheme were limited to hospital insurance alone it would be a great boon to the Canadian people. Hospital costs are the biggest single item when it comes to sickness. You can put off your own family doctor for a few months so far as his bill is concerned, but I understand you cannot even vacate your room in a hospital unless you have first made arrangements to pay your bill.

In the meantime we are of course continuing our activity under our national health plan. The philosophy underlying the national health plan of course is that you cannot have national health insurance until you have the necessary hospital space and other medical

The Address-Mr. Enfield facilities to look after the people when the plan is operating. We are fortunate in Scarborough in having a newly constructed Scarborough hospital which is on the brink of its grand opening. We received a grant of $197,500 under the national health plan system of grants to assist in its construction, and a further $40,000 was received by the hospital from the Atkinson foundation in Ontario. The Atkinson foundation is an organization established by the late Joseph E. Atkinson to carry out charitable activities in the province of Ontario. In the field of health alone this foundation has paid out since its inception in 1942 nearly $2 million in health grants, and has authorized the future payment of nearly $1 million more.

There is no overestimating the importance of such charitable organizations, and with the terrifically increased demand for medical and hospital facilities that would accompany the institution of a national health insurance project the work of foundations of this kind will become increasingly more important and necessary in the field of health grants.

Our social welfare measures of course have to be paid for, and Canada's ability to pay depends on our resource development. Over the past few years our tax policies and political stability have encouraged the heavy inflow of large blocks of foreign risk capital, vestment in our resource industries. I was surprised to note the grave concern of the particularly United States capital, for investment in our resource industries. I was surprised to note the grave concern of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well) in his speech on January 12 last about the extent of United States capital investment in this country. I say, thank heaven for it. Without large and substantial amounts of risk capital we would not be enjoying the high level of business activity, the sharp and steady rise in our standard of living and the attainment of the style of living to which we would all like to become accustomed.

Natural resources are no good to anyone if they are left in the ground. If they are left there long enough they are no longer natural resources. The other night the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) gave us a very interesting and graphic picture of what technological advance and change can do. He pointed out that we may soon be able to fly to the moon, using the new sources of energy that we are producing. I suspect that when he spoke of the third province that was to fall to the Social Credit party he might have been thinking about the moon. I think it is important to recognize that substitution through technological advance may outmode products, materials and sources

IMr. Enfield. 1

of energy so that they are no longer resources, and we must make hay while the sun shines.

The resources we have to develop can only be developed with foreign capital in the present stage of the growth of this country unless, of course-and I doubt that this would occur-a socialist government were able to take every aspect of the whole economy and organize it completely.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson

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

Mr. Nicholson:

A Liberal government did it during the war.


Frank A. Enfield


Mr. Enfield:

A very interesting point has been raised, and no doubt the hon. member who interjected it will have ample opportunity to follow it up on future occasions. In any event, as far as I can see the problem of heavy United States investment is confined generally to the field of labour-management relations, not fully but chiefly. A large United States corporation, for example, may look upon the Canadian branch of its operations as expendable in the face of very heavy trade union pressure. The least they might do is to use the Canadian situation as a ground for experiment. Perhaps it was this to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was referring.

In this connection I am most happy to see in a recent speech by Mr. 'VV'alter Gordon, chairman of the royal commission studying Canada's future economic prospects, that the problem of heavy foreign capital investment in Canada is one of the most important matters that the commission will be studying, r look forward to the results of that study. I think they will be very illuminating. I might take this opportunity to commend Mr. Walter Gordon and his commission on the aggressive, vigorous, and energetic attack they are making on the matters arising from their undertaking.

Well, a booming economy always seems to leave a certain amount of labour unrest, a certain amount of conflict between labour and management, in its wake. Unfortunately my riding has been no stranger to this during the last year. The Canada Wire and Cable Company has been shut down for some time by a strike. This plant is located in the section of my constituency known as Leaside. We have two very large Frigidaire plants, both of which are idle at the present time as a result of the strike in the General Motors organization. One cannot help but feel very grave concern over the privation and suffering that the families of the workers at these factories must be undergoing because of the long period of idleness. I can only express my hope that the parties concerned, in the unions and in management, will be able to

meet in the immediate future and find a common ground on which their differences can be settled.

In conclusion may I say that while 1955 has been a big year for Canada, I expect an even bigger year in 1956. We have our difficulties in certain well-defined areas of our economy. I think it would be too bad, however, if we allowed our good judgment to be blurred by such difficulties in our approach to the over-all picture. Domestically we are very strong indeed. In the international sphere Canada has never enjoyed greater stature, resulting from the unflagging efforts of our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). We hope we will hear much from him later on his extensive coverage of world affairs and his extensive travelling since the last session. Our prestige has never been higher at the United Nations. This results from the work of our delegation headed by our very capable Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I for one, therefore, Mr. Speaker, look to the future with very great optimism indeed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner

Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resligouche-Madawaska):

It is an honour for me, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the motion moving the acceptance of the speech from the throne. It is also an honour to be here and to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the house of my willingness and desire to co-operate with them in every way possible. I am indeed pleased to see again the four or five ministers and the numerous members of the opposition across the floor who campaigned so vigorously against me during the last election in Restigouehe-Madawaska. It was indeed unfortunate that the election took place right between our famous salmon fishing season and our hunting season, because these hon. gentlemen could have avoided wasting their time.

It is a pleasure for me to congratulate the new members. I regret that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. St. Laurent), who represents the riding located next to mine, does not intend to speak. I thought possibly he could help me convince his father that the government should do something for the maritime provinces. We do have power, and we could sell him the power he needs to build the industries he promised in Temiscouata riding. May I say this. I very much appreciate the co-operation and assistance I received from thousands of former supporters of the Liberal party who voted Conservative, many for the first time.

The Address-Mr. Van Horne


January 16, 1956