Mr. Lennard:

Take half an hour. Take all the time you like.

Mr. Garson:

Thank you. I was endeavouring, in the first instance when I interrupted the hon. member for Greenwood, endeavouring to correct what, if I may bring myself within the terms of the citation I have just read, was a quite unintentional misunderstanding by him of what I had said previously and what he has now been misquoting. May I put it this way, the question of probation comes under provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Fulton:

Has the minister concluded his point of order?

No, not yet.

It will take him all

afternoon.

Mr. Garson:

I had concluded my point of order.

Mr. Fulton:

I think the minister has placed himself beyond the terms of the citation he read because that refers to misapprehension with respect to a speech made during the course of the debate. I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand he has not spoken in this debate and therefore there could be no misapprehension as to what he has said.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):

The

citation which I had in mind is the one referred to by the Minister of Justice. In the interests of this debate and of hon. members on both sides of the house I suggest that the Minister of Justice be permitted to state his question of privilege or personal explanation as covered by citation 235. It will then be my responsibility to decide 67509-27}

The Address-Mr. Mang before he has gone very far whether or not it is a question of privilege, but I cannot make that decision until I hear him.

Mr. Garson:

As I was saying, the matter of probation comes entirely under provincial jurisdiction, while the question of remission and parole comes clearly under federal jurisdiction. We could not with propriety issue a royal commission or set up an advisory committee in relation to a matter which comes under provincial jurisdiction, namely the question of probation. But it is entirely proper, as I tried to point out on previous occasions on which my hon. friend and I exchanged views in this connection, for the federal government to set up an advisory committee upon remission and parole. In that connection it is also quite proper for us to make it clear to those who are advising us that there is no limitation whatever imposed upon their reference in the hope, which I feel confident will be realized, that in the course of their inquiries our advisers will find it possible in their examination of remission and parole to examine also all questions of probation which are related to these federal questions of remission and parole.

If, for example, as I understand was the case, our advisers go to study these questions in Great Britain where there are no jurisdictional problems of a federal state but they have a unitary government, these three subject matters are all under the control of that unitary government; and it would be manifestly absurd if our advisers examined remission and parole in Great Britain without reference to the related question of probation.

What is the point of order?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):

Order. At this stage I trust the Minister of Justice will permit me to say that I listened to the speech by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and the reference referred to. In his opening sentences I think the Minister of Justice dealt with the question which had been raised, that is remission versus probation. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that he has made the distinction clear and I think any further elaboration of the subject could be regarded only as debating its merits and not the interpretation put upon it by the hon. member for Greenwood.

Mr. H. P. Mang (Qu'Appelle):

Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) on the address, and in doing so I should like to emphasize my congratulations by saying that I am sure everyone will agree that they did credit to themselves, to the people who

The Address-Mr. Mang elected them and to the party which they represent. It is to the credit of the government that they are recognizing the position of the women of this nation in this very public way.

Perhaps hon. members will recall that last year for the first time in history certain duties were performed by a lady senator. This year a fine gesture has been made to the women of Canada in the choice of the hon. member for Timiskaming as the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Perhaps in that connection some hon. members may have noted certain press items a week or two ago concerning some ardent women's organizations in Toronto, or at least in Ontario. They brought to the attention of the public generally the fact that there were too many people in the House of Commons with hairdos of which they did not approve, and that most of them should be eliminated.

I am just wondering whether this recognition on the part of the government of the women of Canada will encourage them toward further efforts of organization in an effort to see that people with more splendid hairdos than some of the unfortunate people in this house have to put up with are sent to this house. Perhaps this will draw a lengthening shadow over the prospects of some hon. members here.

I am saying this more or less facetiously, but the fact is that if the women of Canada should really organize, with the strength they have there is no doubt that we would have many more of that sex as members of this House of Commons. Perhaps it would be a good thing, because they tell me that the ladies arrive at decisions, and more often right decisions, by intuition rather than by lengthy processes of reasoning. That might prove to be a great time-saver in this House of Commons. With the encouragement to women to enter politics, as this government has encouraged them, perhaps the time will come when the complexion of this house will be radically changed, when it will be more colourful than it is today.

I think I would be remiss in my duty as representing the constituency of Qu'Appelle and as a Saskatchewan member if I did not mention the visit this past year of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to Saskatchewan. I represent the constituency which we like to call the pioneer constituency of Saskatchewan. Many of the pioneers were at that gathering in front of the legislative buildings in Regina, and some of them expressed to me how wonderful it was to be able to attend a meeting at which the Prime Minister spoke

so well. On behalf of Qu'Appelle constituency, and I am sure I can include the rest of Saskatchewan, we were most happy to have the Prime Minister with us in the celebration of our jubilee.

There is one other matter I should like to mention before I deal with the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I refer to the laying of a wreath on November 11 on the cenotaph here in Ottawa. On behalf of Qu'Appelle constituency, and on behalf of the lady from Qu'Appelle who took part in that ceremony, I should like to express my appreciation. I refer to Mrs. John Leboldus, who was chosen by the Canadian Legion and government to represent the mothers of Canada in the laying of a wreath at that time. Although not in the best of health, Mrs. Leboldus nevertheless agreed to perform that ceremony. Mr. and Mrs. Leboldus have been in Qu'Appelle constituency ever since they emigrated from Europe at the turn of the century. They have made a very fine record for themselves as pioneers, and have raised a very large family.

The gesture on the part of the Canadian Legion and the government in having Mrs. Leboldus perform this function at the cenotaph was appreciated very much for another reason. Western Canada, as you know, has a great many immigrants, and here is a mother who only at the turn of the century came to Canada. She and her husband both became Canadians, homesteaded and built up a wonderful home and a wonderful family. When the supreme test came they sacrificed three sons in the second world war. One can imagine the anxiety of that mother when it is realized that, besides these three, there were other members of the family in the services during the war.

On behalf of the people of Qu'Appelle and Mr. and Mrs. John Leboldus, I wish to thank the Canadian Legion and the government for having invited her here to perform that function. It was a splendid gesture to those people who came from central Europe to pioneer in this country.

I should now like to turn to the speech from the throne. In doing so, before coming to what I consider the most important part of that speech as far as western Canada is concerned, I should like to draw attention to a few of the paragraphs preceding it. There has been much comment with respect to this speech, praise and otherwise, both in the press and from hon. members in this house. As far as we in this house are concerned, I quite realize that it all depends on what benches one occupies. Naturally the opposition cannot praise the speech; if they

did the political repercussions might not be too happy. So, being in opposition, they must perforce play down, shall I say, the importance of the speech from the throne.

However, the more one reads and studies that speech, the more one realizes that it covers a very wide field of national and international endeavours by the government. First of all this paragraph struck me:

The government ... Is continuing its constant efforts through diplomacy and negotiation and through the United Nations and other international agencies, to bring about better understanding between nations.

That statement that we are continuing our efforts along the lines indicated is very important. The securing and maintaining of peace and bringing about an end of the cold war is of paramount importance to our economic life, from every direction you may care to view it.

Last year, as you will remember, the hot spot in international affairs was the area off the coast of China. This year the scene has shifted and the hot spot is in the Middle East but during the year the Canadian government, with its usual vigilance, has paid attention to international affairs. I might mention particularly the performance of our Minister of National Health and Welfare at the United Nations, where he did such wonderful work on behalf of this nation toward the maintenance of peace in the world. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, on his world tour, made those personal contacts which are so important to the maintenance of proper human relationships on which all peace is built. The Minister of Fisheries, in spite of his accident, has done wonderful work and no doubt we shall reap results from that visit in a very definite way as the result of better understanding among the nations of the world.

What strikes me as very significant is that this government is vigilant as regards this particular matter mentioned in the speech from the throne, to a degree that all too many people fail to realize. In the world of today, arms alone do not guarantee security; they are but a bargaining force, shall I say, which can be used if necessary if everything else fails in trying to establish good human relationships. But the importance of the work of these men I have mentioned in establishing and maintaining peace, and the direction along which this government is travelling in that regard, cannot be overemphasized.

I was glad to notice in the next paragraph of the speech that the Prime Minister has accepted the invitation to attend the meeting of commonwealth prime ministers to be held in London. Here is a matter that should be

The Address-Mr. Mang given wider publicity as a matter of national pride. When one thinks of Canada, a nation of some 16 million people, meeting at this commonwealth conference with representatives of perhaps 450 million people, and then assesses the strength and influence which our Prime Minister as a Canadian wields among those representatives of close to half a billion people, it almost borders on the fantastic. It emphasizes the virility of this nation of ours, and it also emphasizes the calibre of the men whom we are able to send from these shores to these international gatherings. You can be represented at a conference but, unless you have a personality who can establish the proper human relationships, and can conduct himself in such a way that he will be respected and his opinions will count, your influence will be greatly minimized.

Canadians should be made aware and should have emphasized to them that the powerful influence Canada is wielding in the world today is altogether out of proportion to our population. This means that while our population is small, the calibre of people who are doing the job of world public relations is extremely high indeed.

There is just one more thing I wish to mention before I come to the paragraph which I said I consider to be the most important for western Canada, namely the paragraph which states that the royal commission to examine and report upon our economic prospects is proceeding with its inquiry. I attended the meeting of this commission in the legislative buildings at Regina last summer and heard the submissions that were made. They covered a fairly wide range of subjects, all the way from the South Saskatchewan dam to the suggestion that there be worked out a national wheat policy which would be of benefit not only to western Canada but to the nation as a whole.

As to that submission, I notice that the government has already beaten the commission to the draw in this sense. Part of what has been submitted has already been in the mind of the government and is coming on to the satute books shortly. That will be another step in framing a national policy with regard to western wheat. I refer to the recognition of the storage difficulties we have out west and the fact that the government is already doing something in that regard. This royal commission will be a great benefit to the people of Canada in this particular sense, as far as I am concerned.

When these various national issues are discussed among the people, to me it has always been a saddening thought that we are

*

422 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Mang obliged to discuss them on the basis of politics. In doing so, naturally every part is obliged to emphasize its particular angles and sometimes that emphasis is placed disproportionately having regard to the facts. I do not know of any other sphere of public discussion in which the facts take such a beating as they take on a political platform. I have always tried to keep the facts more or less in line.

Mr. Argue:

More or less.

Mr. Mang:

I am afraid it is less from over there on the other side. The facts take a beating.

Mr. Ellis:

Especially at Liberal meetings.

Mr. Mang:

When you have a commission of this kind making a factual survey and study of the issues that are involved in making this a prosperous and happy nation, we should have a high respect, shall I say, for the facts involved in any particular part of any discussion of our economy. Therein, to my mind, lies the real value of that commission. The submissions are impartial. The commissioners are impartial. We are apt to get facts that we can present to the public and then, upon that presentation, we can have an assessment as to what our proper course of action should be.

Just in order to keep the record straight, I should perhaps deal with two or three references, all of them kindly, that have been made to me. One was made by my good friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) who honoured me by describing me as a dirt farmer. I might say that for most of my life I have been engaged in farming in the pioneer constituency of Saskatchewan, namely Qu'Appelle. During that time I have had varied experiences. The ups and downs of farming have hit me as much as they have hit anyone else. I am pleased that he referred to me as a dirt farmer. Of course that is an expression we have out west. It does not necessarily mean that you work without gloves or anything like that. It means that your visible means of support is the acres you cultivate.

I make reference to what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said for another reason. He stated that last year in the budget debate I indicated that the western farmer was not bankrupt. I still hold to that view, because to be bankrupt is to have your assets completely wiped out. There is a difference between being bankrupt and being short of cash. Many big businesses are short of cash although they are far from being bankrupt.

I would add that I wish he had quoted me

at greater length because, as reported at page 3105 of Hansard of April 22 last year, what I said was this:

We are far from bankrupt In western Canada. Indeed, our wealth is quite substantial . . . but at the moment we are short of cash.

That was last April. I felt that I was stating the facts, and I felt it my duty to draw to the attention of this house the fact that we were short of cash. Then I gave reasons, and so forth. I wish the hon. member had quoted that part. I wish he had gone on and quoted the other problems with which we are confronted and with which I dealt with at that time. I said that in this economic adjustment we were called upon to make in the international markets of the world, the farmer was taking the lead. I quoted from the wheat board report to show that we had dropped our price by 32-J cents on the basis of No. 1 Northern, and that the prices of the goods we had to buy-because of higher profits and higher wages-had increased by an average of say 9 per cent; that this widening gap could not continue; that if it did, there would be only one answer.

Of course we farmers in this country are not alone in that kind of situation. You have it in practically every agricultural country in the world. With all the touting of the agricultural policies across the line, you have it in the United States. You have the farm problem as the No. 1 problem in that country. In spite of all the measures which are being used and which we are asked to copy in this country, nevertheless the farm problem is the same. In similar way I can quote from reports with regard to India. In India you have the same trend.

All of this means that we must work out and adopt some national policy with respect to agriculture, or must improve the national policy with respect to agriculture as these difficulties arise. This government is taking steps to do so-

Mr. Nicholson:

Too little and too late.

Mr. Mang:

-and will continue to do so. There was a statement made by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) with which I could not quite agree. He stated that the western farmer today- since the hon. member referred to me I am taking the liberty of referring to him-is in the worst cash position in which he has ever been.

Don't you agree with it?

Mr. Mang:

No. That is not the case, because I farmed during those hungry thirties when not only did we have no cash-