1944-02-03

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That the report of the civil service commission respecting the appointment of Mr. John Laundy, as Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, laid on the table of the house on Thursday, January 27, 1944, be now approved.
Motion agreed to.

["Mr. Speaker, I had not intended making this statement to-day-it was my intention, rather, to make it to-morrow; nor had I any knowledge of the hon. member's intention to ask the question. Since it has been asked, however, I believe I can make a statement now.\nThe Canadian wheat board regulations are being amended to permit the delivery of eigh-\nIMr. Bruce.]\nteen bushels of wheat per authorized acre during the present crop year. This will represent an increase of four bushels over the fourteen bushel limit in effect to date, but will not become effective until established in the regular way by Canadian wheat board instruction.\nThe raising of quotas at country points already at the fourteen bushel limit will be deferred until the wheat board has been able to raise all country points to at least a ten-bushel quota, and steps have been taken to supply cars to the points which have been 'below that level. Before the end of the crop year it is intended to raise all stations to the eighteen-bushel quota, as a result of the heavier export movement than was envisaged a year ago when the 1943-44 delivery policy was first announced."]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the recommendation of the Honourable the Speaker with respect to the resignation of Hector Benoit, Esquire, Parliamentary Reporter, French, House of Commons, laid on the table of the house on Monday, January 31, 1944, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. LACOMBE
On the orders of the day:
['That the recommendation of the Honourable the Speaker with respect to the resignation of Hector Benoit, Esquire, Parliamentary Reporter, French, House of Commons, laid on the table of the house on Monday, January 31, 1944, be concurred in.']
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two-Mountains):: (Translation) Mr. Speaker, I
rise to a question of privilege. L'Action Catholique, of Quebec, in its issue of February 2, 1944, makes the following statement:
Mr. Lacombe's Surprising Remarks
The member of parliament complained of the fact that the liquor commissions cheat the public by selling watered liquor.
That newspaper's correspondent does not select from Hansard even one sentence of the speech I made in the house on February 1. In short he distorts my words. By using such a procedure, which is disloyal, to put it mildly, he also distorts the meaning of my remarks. Therefore, I ask that the correspondent publish a textual report of my speech and of this sentence in particular, which is found in the House of Commons debates, on page 91:
It was not worth while imposing rationing when one knows that families which did not purchase ten ounces of alcohol a year have obtained their ration books, and now buy all the quantity authorized by the regulations. Can this be called healthy social legislation?



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Press reports would' appear to indicate that Mr. Norman Robertson, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, has recently been in Washington discussing current matters with

Wheat-Delivery Quotas

United States authorities. Will the Prime Minister indicate to the house the nature and extent of these discussions, and also whether or not similar discussions are taking place between Canada and the United Kingdom and other parts of the British commonwealth?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would say to my hon. friend that officials of the government of Canada and the government of the United States frequently exchange visits and discuss matters of general interest, among them some of the questions which will come up in relation to post-war policy. A few months ago I tabled in the house an exchange of notes between the United States and Canada with regard to an agreed point of view which the two countries entertain as to the trend of developments in the post-war period. There have been informal discussions between officials from time to time in relation to these matters.
I might say in answer to the second part of my hon. friend's question that similar exploratory discussions or talks have taken place between officials of the Canadian government and of the British government. They are part of a general plan of seeking to ascertain in advance of the moment when it comes to settle them, how far different governments may be in agreement on some of the allimportant matters connected with post-war settlement.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on a report appearing in the Winnipeg Tribune of recent date, to the effect that the wheat delivery quota, which at present stands at fourteen bushels to the acre, is likely to be increased to a maximum of twenty bushels in that section of western Canada. This would be a great help to the farm storage situation. Will the minister tell the house if that procedure is likely to take place?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended making this statement to-day-it was my intention, rather, to make it to-morrow; nor had I any knowledge of the hon. member's intention to ask the question. Since it has been asked, however, I believe I can make a statement now.
The Canadian wheat board regulations are being amended to permit the delivery of eigh-
IMr. Bruce.]
teen bushels of wheat per authorized acre during the present crop year. This will represent an increase of four bushels over the fourteen bushel limit in effect to date, but will not become effective until established in the regular way by Canadian wheat board instruction.
The raising of quotas at country points already at the fourteen bushel limit will be deferred until the wheat board has been able to raise all country points to at least a ten-bushel quota, and steps have been taken to supply cars to the points which have been 'below that level. Before the end of the crop year it is intended to raise all stations to the eighteen-bushel quota, as a result of the heavier export movement than was envisaged a year ago when the 1943-44 delivery policy was first announced.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. In view of an announcement made by him a few weeks ago that direct aeroplane service had been established to carry mail to our troops serving in the Mediterranean area will the minister say whether let-_ers bearing surface mail stamps are carried both ways by this service?


Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General) :: Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of
the hon. member's question, in which he intimates that I made a statement a few weeks ago, I may say that he is in error; I did not make a statement. In fact I gave instructions to the officials of the department not to make any statement, or to hand any statement to the press, because I did not wish one made by the Post Office Department until such time as a regularly established service was in operation.
In regard to the second part of the hon. member's question, my reply would be that when the service is in full effect, and established, airgraph and armed forces air letters will be carried first; secondly, surface mail on which are affixed air stamps and, thirdly-if there is additional space-we will carry as large an amount as possible of the surface mail.
In regard to mail coming from our troops I would point out there is no Charge on such mail, if posted in an army post office. I believe I have covered all the points about which the hon, member asked.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I ask the Postmaster General a supplementary question? Is there any possibility of improving the mail service from overseas in the near future? From

The Address-Mr. Bryce
my own experience I know that letters bearing air mail stamps sometimes require a month for delivery, and arrive at the same time as letters posted at the same points with ordinary surface mail stamps on them.


William Pate Mulock: My reply to the hon. member would be that of course it is a matter of securing the necessary space in aircraft coming in this direction. The situation is improving. Naturally the Post Office Department has to rely on such aeroplane service as it can arrange for. For instance, there is an arrangement with Trans-Canada Air Lines, and the facilities are being increased. That of course is a matter for the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). Then, additional arrangements are being made with the Royal Canadian Air Force, which of course comes under the supervision of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). I can assure the hon. member, however, that the Post Office Department through its officials is doing everything possible to obtain all the space it can get. As the hon. member will understand, there is difficulty in obtaining aircraft of the size and cruising range necessary for the carrying of mail across the Atlantic.


Major James William Coldwell: The point is that the men overseas are paying sixpence for the sending of air mail which apparently is coming by ordinary surface mail service. .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



QUESTION OP SUPPLY TO BRITAIN THROUGH EXPORT FROM CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['(Translation): Mr. Speaker, this fifth session, like the preceding sessions, will deal with the war. Victory being apparently certain and nearer, the government announces, in the speech from the throne, measures which they feel adequate to maintain the country\'s equilibrium during the period of readjustment, and to insure the people in the future against the * hazards of life, as well as to provide social. safeguards appropriate to modem times.\nCanada will emerge out of the war crushed under a burden of debt and weakened by the loss of thousands of her sons; she will have to rebuild her commerce and her industry, as well as to straighten her general economy which has become out of balance, to say the least. Will it be possible to make this post-war readjustment without running counter to the traditions, without breaking old covenants, and the conventions which ensure autonomy to the central authority and to the provinces in certain spheres. Some claim that we should forget about traditions and even that we should ran ahead of evolution. Is it possible to break away from the past of a nation? Others advocate the most arbitrary measures, but that view is to be condemned just as the doctrines of those who would sabotage the present structure of the nation and replace it by the fragile columns of an exaggerated socialism. Would Canada be at peace if on [Mr. Durocher.)\nthe morrow of the hostilities, she were tom by internal dissensions, and tossed about by doctrines foreign to her national soul.\nHere as elsewhere, the most fantastic theories made their way. In peacetime they ceaselessly ran against repeated failures but war gave them strength and boldness. They are now coming out, undisguised and self-confident. Born from discontent, they thrive by it; every cause of complaint means to them an easy opportunity to achieve new triumphs and to strengthen their hold.\nFor discontent exists. What is it attributable to? Less to democracy itself than to abuses to which it gave rise. Less to wealth than to bad uses to which it was put. Less to the existing laws than to their enforcement, often ill-advised. War, an easy pretext for abuse, has added to existing evils, the abuse of laws. The nation, owing to the necessities of war, proudly accepted most of them; unfortunately, a multitude of orders and decrees which look too much like brilliant discoveries or outstanding inventions, hence their unpopularity, have been grafted to these laws. These hundreds of orders and decrees have been, I believe, the cause of discontent, the effects of which our [DOT] democratic system has started to feel. The pyramiding of petty causes inevitably leads to great consequences. Small facts, harmless by themselves, one day or the other will tend to the same end. Consciously or unconsciously, they give rise to movements of opinion, unimportant at first, but which grow in magnitude and become irresistible. Such movements are in existence at the present time in Canadian life. Shall we wait until the dam bursts?\nEvery Canadian is willing to do his share to win the war. But how many times has national spirit been cooled down or even upset by an uninterrupted series of disappointments; how deeply, at times, has the Canadian nation, so gladly performing its duties, felt that war was a pretext for repeated injustices in the army, and particularly in the price boards, in the intricate machinery of national selective service, as well as a pretext for so many steps taken by a bureaucracy whose policies were bordering on autocracy, or even dictatorship.\nIt may be said that these are but details in the vastness of a huge organization. Are not rivers made up of drops of water? I agree that they are mere details, but they have enough power when added together, to rout the most powerful organization, to shake the very foundations of a regime and to offer to any party, be it socialist or even communist, easy chances of success. It is said that socialism and communism are dispensers of happiness. I know it; and it is the reason why I fear them. Can we\n\nThe Address-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)\nblame the people, panic-stricken by the abuse of laws, the restrictions of all sorts, the excesses of capitalism, to believe in. happiness, when happiness is the fond) delusion of every human being. In these four \'\'ears of war, the world conflict has imposed on every citizen of this country a crushing burden of sacrifices; why then have these hundreds of petty measures, too often drafted on the spur of the moment by controllers not responsible to the people, been added to the burden which weighs already so heavily on our shoulders.\nProblems which get more difficult each day and which were in the past reserved to a group prepared to weigh them in all their details are confronting the masses rendered uneasy and even impatient by the course of events. The spirit of emancipation has made its way nearly everywhere. Too often maybe it has confused excessive privileges with necessary inequali-ites, power with right. But this spirit of emancipation springs^ only from compulsion. It was caused by the innumerable details which ceaselessly have offended human liberty, violated the most elementary sense of justice, affected even the brotherhood which belongs to democracy. What will come from all that? The people are looking towards new horizons.\nI am against communism; it is the worst of all systems and I do not need to comment on it. If I am against socialism, I am for the measures of real social solidarity. The two terms are vastly different. Can socialism, which wants to do away with natural inequalities and establish equal status for all, attain its objective without abolishing private riches which are the most direct incentive to work and private property which is the outcome of work and without entrusting to the state the management of all private enterprises? That means: the state takes over private property, the, state manages and controls everything; that is state socialism. State socialism involves a host of officials, feudal coalitions, little states [DOT]within the state. The least important civil servant, under the banal pretext that he is part of the state, has then the opportunity of [DOT]believing himself a little dictator and of treating the people as if he were one. Such is the picture.\nI am against socialism because first of all it runs counter to the principles of the faith to which I belong, the Catholic religion, because it is meaningless and utopian. History-the best book of human experiments-is there to prove it. The Greeks lost their independence when they adopted socialism; the Romans saw their republic collapse when they embraced it. \'The French revolution accepted it at the start, ibut soon deserted it and proclaimed that\nprivate property was sacred. Socialism, where-ever it was tried, has caused disappointment when it was not the prelude to the decline of the state. .For\' socialism hates all forms of superiority, -whether it comes from talent, fortune, intelligence, initiative or work. That explains its obscure programme set forth in vague words to hide its real aims and made to fit opportunities as they change from day to day. Now as then, it is characterized by the same soothing words that seem to make realities out of illusions, the same prejudices hidden under the bright flowers that are its promises of happiness, the same fanaticism hypocritically toned down if need be by tears shed on the misery of the people, or increased if necessary by terrible provocations against capital. Examine the system and you will find that its leaders own nothing; they have no business, no industry. What have they got to lose? Most of them were not even born here. Could they have a true love for the country they live in? What are their ambitions? They want to rule. They must get into power first so as to enforce measures that have nothing in common with the laws of human liberty.\nI am in favour of private enterprise. I contend that a government may at times resort to certain measures of expropriation in order to settle a matter of national scope or to defend the rights of the people against the unrestrained ambition of finance. I believe, however, that private enterprise can, in a sort of magical way, obtain from labour the most powerful and productive energies, provided it is backed by sound capital, enterprising patrons and the indispensable cooperation of the working class. Private enterprise that abuses its power becomes a monopoly or a financial octopus whose tentacles draw from their victims the people, fabulous fortunes, swiftly made. If capitalism is vitiated, let us apply the branding-iron. If it has secrets, let us unmask it. If it commits abuses, let us check it and subject it to strict and impartial laws capable of preventing further exploitation of the public. Let us regulate it so that the worker will be the master rather than the slave of machinery. To abolish private industry would reduce its workers to poverty. At this important turning-point of our history, private enterprise shows signs of unrest and discouragement. It dreads socialism. Are not the champions of socialism guilty? A French economist, whose country was ruined by the guilty negligence of the bad governments it had chosen- addressed these pregnant words to the socialists:\n182\tCOMMONS\nThe Address-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)\nYou hope that before long there will be no more rich people. When there are no more rich people, everybody will be poor. The poor will be poorer still, and poverty will be general.\nSocial solidarity is a different thing. It is the duty of governments to grant to the poor the advantages of material and moral progress: insurance against the hazards of life, hygiene, education, rural credit, housing, public health measures, family allowances, et cetera. That is nothing but a social duty. Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Divini Redemptoris, calls for and recommends as a measure of social justice "a system of public insurance for the workers against old age, sickness and unemployment". We can never do too much to alleviate poverty in all its aspects. It could even be extirpated, because poverty is a disease of the social body. If billions and billions could be found for the prosecution of war, there is no reason why money could not also be found for the abolition of poverty, and the elevation of work to a nobler plane. Why could funds not be found to establish within the whole nation a great system of social insurance, so as to eliminate forever the dole which demoralizes, to enact legislation designed to hearten the social outcasts, the old men and women, as well as the orphans, to comfort those who suffer, to extend to destitute children the boon of education, to put within the reach of labouring classes social, welfare and health services, and enable them to own their own homes, in a word to enact legislation based on the great Christian principles of justice and charity. I am in favour of measures of that kind, but if such legislation is to fulfil its ultimate object, it must take into account a multitude of details relating to provincial jurisdiction, to large families and to individuals, according as those families or individuals live in well developed centres or in remote settlements. Those various social measures-and I shall deal only with them for the time being-will be judged on their merits when they are introduced. I must state quite frankly, however, that social solidarity is essential a.t a time when war saddens all hearts, and I believe, on the other hand, that socialism would be a sore affecting not unlike a tumor the still healthy body of the nation.\nThe people in other provinces are no doubt wondering about the views of Quebec on socialism. Without any fear of being mistaken, I can assert that Quebec may, in an election, vote for the liberal, the conservative, the independent, or the Bloc Populaire or the Parti Canadien standard-bearers but that it will never vote for socialists. The French Canadians cannot be counted among those who give blind support to subversive doc-\n(Mr. Lionel Bertrand.]\ntrines, to theories which aim at disruption. They have for three centuries clung to the Canadian soil, where are to be found, even beyond the Rocky mountains, the imprints left by their first missionaries and settlers When they were ceded to England, my forbears clung to the native land, not like parasites but like true citizens in the knowledge that it was their home and that they had rights to claim and that they were entitled to keep those which they had won. Inspired by the love of freedom, they fought for responsible government. Anxious as they were to preserve their freedom, they refused to become assimilated, and any attempt at assimilation would remain unsuccessful whether it was based on force or persecution. Confederation must have the support of Quebec. It cannot do without it. My province was blamed for having answered "No" in the plebiscite. Quebec has never asserted more emphatically than it did on that occasion its undying love for the native land, and the sincerity of its essentially and primarily Canadian patriotism. Therefore, if a socialist government ever comes into power in Ottawa, it will not be Quebec\'s fault. My province is urged to save the country from the socialist menace. Quebec is ready, but let the other provinces cease to criticize and blame her about everything imaginable, let them cease to treat her as the waif of the family, since for many reasons she should have been pampered and complimented. Let the other provinces have the kindness and condescension-if they do not want to do it out of mere justice-to give her a fair share in the administration of this country. Let them be broad-minded enough to refrain from raising against her stupid prejudices often resulting from fanaticism and also from the ignorance of facts as well as from a lack of understanding of her characteristic spirit. Quebec is just as loyal as any other Canadian province. Quebec has more than any other province identified herself with our Canadian land. Imperialism is rejected in the province of Quebec; the only imperialism she knows or accepts is the appeal of the Canadian soil to which she is attached by her history. Quebec likes order and harmony; her tolerance is traditional. Deeply steeped in our religious and national principles, we do not want the disruption of our heritage. Transitions that are too sudden cannot but lead to cruel deceptions. We are in favour of evolution, but in the economic or in the spiritual field, we are against revolution. We enjoy certain rights under the constitution, and we are anxious to preserve them. We have no fear for the future, for the very\n\nSocial Security\nreason that we find our inspiration in the courage of those who were the builders of the nation.\nThe future belongs to nobody. The trend of events is ini the hands of God, while passions nest in the \'heart of men. Governments must not forget that spiritual values are highly essential; they must not forget either that no one can be a good citizen without a certain degree of comfort. If socialism is a paradise of dreams and illusion, social solidarity may become a blessing for the whole nation when controlled and ably directed by the state and proudly upheld by capitalists imbued with a deep sense of humanity. The misfortunes of war must not be followed by the misfortunes of peace. In a well-balanced readjustment the people should have a clear and definite understanding that social well-being is within their reach and that they are not excluded from happiness. They must be treated with fairness and equity by governments and employers. They must be protected against abuse from the powerful; that is essential. And I repeat with Victor Hugo: "Humble folk must be sacred to the great, and it is the rights of the weak that go to make the duty of the strong."\nOn motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.\nOn motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.\nFriday, February 4, 1944']
Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Speaker, in view of Britain's anxiety to maintain and perhaps increase her small ration of two ounces of butter per week, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he has received any request from Britain to increase our exports of butter. If so, will he state what steps he has taken to bring this about?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Very early in the war Great Britain placed a ration of two ounces per week upon butter. About the time that was being done she entered into an arrangement with different countries to supply different dairy products. The intimation to us was that we should put forth every effort to supply all possible quantities of cheese. We have been doing that since the beginning of the war, and our supplying any butter has been only a matter of accident. It has not happened intentionally on our part.
100- 10i
Last year we shipped the first butter which had been shipped from this country to Great Britain since the beginning of the war. In that year we shipped about 7,000,000 pounds. But the shipment was not made as a result of any intention on our part, or any desire expressed previously by the British government. Our present position is that Great Britain desires all the cheese she can get from Canada, and has expressed no desire that we should take any milk from cheese production in order to produce a supply of butter for her. Our present intention is to follow her wishes in that regard, and to produce as much cheese as possible.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed frpm Wednesday, February 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. L. D. Tremblay for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr..Coldwell.
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, rising to speak for the first time in the house I should like to take this opportunity of extending my thanks to hon. members on each side of the house who have been so courteous, and have shown me so many kindnesses.
I come from the constituency of Selkirk, one of the largest in Canada, and represent the many classes of people there. In that constituency, adjacent to Winnipeg, we find industrial workers, office workers, and people in the professional classes. Then, going a little farther north, we have market gardeners and dairy farmers; and still farther north we come to those great inland lakes, with their fishermen. In the inter-lake country a large number of men are engaged in mixed farming, and also there are extensive Indian reserves. Our industrial workers are dissatisfied with labour conditions. They hope that in the near future the government will establish a code that will be satisfactory to the working classes.
For a moment I should like to deal with our market gardeners and. dairy farmers. Prior to the war these farmers were forced to exploit their own families to the greatest extent; their wives and sons and daughters were forced to work for nothing in order to produce the necessities of life. Some of these boys have volunteered, and some have been called up. I appeal to the government to make every possible arrangement at seeding time so that these boys may be allowed to come back to carry on the necessary farm work. No doubt
The Address-Mr. Bryce

national selective service has done what it can, but ten men of the type that national selective service will send to these dairy farmers and market gardeners will not take the place of one man who is skilled in these occupations.
When prices are being discussed I should like the government to take into consideration the livelihood of our fishermen who fish from a boat in the summer and through the ice in the winter time. They face all kinds of hardship, and they represent another class, along with our farmers, w'hich has been victimized to the utmost through low prices.
I should like to touch upon some of the injustices which our mixed farmers have been up against. Take wool, for instance. In 1942 the dominion government called a conference at which all nine provinces were represented, and explained what they were up against in connection with wool. They stated that they needed another 8,000,000 pounds of wool. To get that amount of wool would mean clipping another million sheep. With representatives of different farm organizations I went through my province and pleaded with the farmers to produce the increased supply of wool necessary to provide our boys with uniforms. It was most unfortunate that the federal Department of Agriculture made an agreement with the provincial governments and then left it to the discretion of the provinces whether or not they would live up to that agreement. I appeal to the government to make right that wrong.
A bonus on wool has been paid in Ontario and in Saskatchewan, our sister provinces, but Manitoba sheep men have not received any bonus because that province does not think she should subsidize the production of wool or anything else. This decision reacted not only on the production of wool but also on the production of lambs. We kept back lambs which we could have sold for twelve to fifteen cents a pound. When they were yearlings and we had a clip of wool we could get only five cents a pound for them on the Winnipeg market. To make the best of a bad bargain we disposed of the ewes and kept the yearlings, and we had to take seventy cents a sheep on the Winnipeg market. Mutton sold under the same ceiling as it did when the packing companies were paying four or five cents a pound for ewes. That is one injustice the farmer of Manitoba has had to suffer, and I should like the government to correct it.	.
A floor under prices is mentioned in the speech from the throne. I view with suspicion the establishment of a floor unless it is based on the cost of production. A floor has been placed under the price of butter; that product

requires a subsidy of ten cents in order to make it profitable for the fanner to produce. We have a floor and a ceiling in connection with beef, but there is no ceiling on live cattle. The farmer does not sell beef; he sells live cattle, and that is where the ceiling and the floor should be.
To-day on the Winnipeg market 11J cent steers go into 19J cent beef. If you send in a carload of two-way cattle, Which are not only fit to go into the feed lots-something that the Ontario feeder wants-but are fit to kill, what happens? If the Ontario feeder wants to feed those cattle he bids 91 cents, because he requires a spread. The processor or packer comes along and bids 10 cents, and the highest bidder gets them. The result is that the farmer loses from $25 to $27 on each one of those animals. You would expect 10 cent cattle to go into 17J cent beef, but they do not. Those cattle go into commercial grades; they become 191 cent beef and, as I say, the farmer loses from $25 to $27 on each animal in the carload. The packer benefits and is able to earn excess profits. These things will have to be stopped.
Next I should like to refer to hogs. I have always been against the compulsory rail grading of hogs. When the government gave us compulsory rail grading, the same system that they had in Denmark, it looked good, but we got only half the system. We were not given the benefits of the cooperative abattoirs whereby the deductions and cuts, et cetera, would come back to the man who produced the bacon. I am against the compulsory rail grading of hogs unless the farmer is able to control the sales of his bacon. He might be better off if the government set the price of the grades, but now the packer does this.
The dominion government has brought in new rail grading regulations. They are not yet in operation at Winnipeg, but they will be in a few days. It is the 186-pound hog that is causing so much dissatisfaction among the farmers. That weight of hog is just between the select and heavy grades, being just over 185 pounds, and this difference represents a loss of $3.50. The farmer is apt to lose $3.50 over one pound of bacon. If the farmer had had the good fortune to have his hog weighed the next day it would have shrunk a pound, because there is that much difference between hot weight and cold weight. When one is standing on the floor of a room and wishes to reach a higher point he asks for a step-ladder, and by this means he can get up and down, step by step. That is what the farmer is asking for to-day, a step-ladder, a graduated scale. It is not fair that the farmer should lose $3.50 because his hog is one pound over

The Address-Mr. Reid
the weight. I know that there has to be a jumping off point somewhere, but why make the farmer jump over a precipice? Let us do the thing more gradually.
The grading of these hogs is not satisfactory. The hog is graded on its way from the producer to the packing company. That is the grade set by the government. Then the hog is graded from the processor to the bacon board, and again from the bacon board to the British food ministry. There are eight grades under the new regulations, and five of them are for the bacon hog from which you get export bacon. Between the processor and the bacon board there are twelve grades; there are four sizes and there are grades A-l, A-2, and A-3 in each of those sizes. From the bacon board to the British food ministry there are two grades, A and B. The thing seems screwy to me. Why does not the first grading carry right through? I think that is what should be done; if the grading is good enough for the farmer, that grade should apply right through. Look up and see how many select A's the farmer gets. In October, ninety-two per cent of A's went to Britain. I hope that the government will do something this session to rectify the situation for the benefit of the farmer who is producing a heavy hog, because in every litter there is a heavy hog.
Some hon. members may ask me, how are you going to rectify the present situation? I would rectify it by establishing a board of live stock commissioners, with producer representation-and by producer I do not mean the man who spends his holidays on a farm; I mean the man who is a bona fide live stock producer, and he should be chosen by the people who produce the goods.
I know that the next objection raised will be, where is 'the money coming from? I am going to tell you where the money can come from, too. In 1906 the packing industry in this country was granted power to collect half of one per cent as T.B. condemnation insurance on every animal they bought. Since that time the government has been very active in establishing TJ3. free areas all over this country. Our cooperative organizations which carry their own T.B. condemnation insurance to-day are carrying it for less than one-quarter of one per cent. If you allow the packers to retain one-quarter of one per cent, with the other quarter of one per cent you could establish a board of live stock commissioners to administer this board.
I wish to draw the attention of the government to the deplorable conditions among the destitute Indians in the northern part of my constituency. I visited that district some time ago, and I found terrible conditions in the
hospital at Norway House. It is a sixteen-bed hospital, and I found there f-ortydhree patients, in the corridors and everywhere else. The Indian band there comprises approximately one thousand people. There will be many fewer now because they were dying like flies from tuberculosis while I was there. Nine had died in the seven weeks previous to my visit, and they were between two and sixteen years of age. Those destitute Indians receive every fifteen days ten pounds of flour, two pounds of bacon of the sow belly type, two ounces of tea and one bar of soap. I found one man who was totally blind receiving that allowance. This is a deplorable state of affairs, and I urge the government to correct it.
These, Mr. Speaker, are a few of the conditions which mark the failure of our economy. There must be a planned agriculture in a planned cooperative economy. Then the fruits of the labours of all the farmers will be returned to the farmers, and not to a few industrialists as excessive profits.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne delivered a few days ago contained some of the most pronounced advances in social legislation measures that have been proposed by any government in Canada. It was interesting to hear the different reactions from -the various opposition groups, after they had recovered their breath. Some chided the government for stealing its measures from their platform of rights. Others stated that the government's proposed social legislation was due to the activities of their own particular group. On the other hand, these measures have been referred to as -the beginning of a new era. In this connection I wish to quote from a speech from our own Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in London, England, on September 4, 1941, in which he said:
Much is being said about a new world order to take the place of the old world' order when the war is at an end. If that new order is not already on its way before the -war is over, we may look for it in vain.
That was said, Mr. Speaker, in 1941, before some of the parties in this house got the idea that perhaps they -might next be called upon to assume the reins of government.
As was to be expected, the speech from the throne dealt first of all with the war effort and the favourable position in which the allies find themselves to-day. The timely warning that -the war is not yet at an end was justified, and I believe was made at the proper time. We have this sobering fact before us, that this year will be the last year on earth for many of Canada's splendid citizens; -it is a sobering thought indeed.
The Address-Mr. Reid

The government's foreign policy, that its first objective is to continue with the principle announced in 1939, namely, the winning of the war, will be commended by all citizens of Canada.
Regarding the recent speech which was made by Lord Halifax, and which has excited considerable comment and criticism, the reply of the Prime Minister has been very well received, and, what is more significant, it has been well received in Great Britain. To my mind the remarks were premature. It is premature, especially, when one views the state of affairs in the world, for us to make any definite commitments regarding our foreign policy. One remark I would make, however, in passing, is that it is high time that the people of Great Britain knew as much of Canada and of the Canadian people as we know about the people of Great Britain. It might help to a better understanding if Canada's position and its people were more generally understood in that country. We must face facts to-day; we are not dealing with idealism. True it is that in holy writ it is prophesied that there will come a time when the nations shall beat their war weapons into agricultural implements; but as I look upon the world I recognize that I for one shall not live long enough to see that day; to my mind it is still a long way off. Therefore we must look at the world as it is to-day and so face the actual realities, Nations are not considered strong simply because they have great numbers of people within their borders; they are considered strong through the strength of their military equipment. As an illustration I cite the great country of China. In 1935 the nations of the world were pitying poor China because she had been attacked and ravaged by Japan, although China has between four and five hundred million people. To-day she is regarded as one of the great powers which will help to decide the peace following the conclusion of hostilities.
I think we are all agreed now that Russia will have quite a say in settling the affairs of Europe. I take some exception to the suggestion made the other day by Lord Robert Cecil that British judges should sit upon tribunals to prevent injustices to the Germans. My own opinion in that regard is that such a suggestion is both premature and mischievous-premature, because the winning of the war should be our first consideration; mischievous, because one could interpret it as being aimed directly at some of the powers in Europe that might want justice following the conclusion of hostilities. No wonder that Lord Vansittart, who by the way had quite a lengthy

experience as Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in his book "The Promise", makes the statement that there is little doubt that the English have been idiots in their handling of foreigners. Whilst I would not care to go as far as that, Mr. Speaker, I would say this, however, that the handling of foreigners by -the British people and by the people of this country has often been interpreted by many foreigners in this land and in Great Britain as a sign of weakness on our part, and by certain groups has not been appreciated; certainly we have not been given credit for it.
Coming for a moment or two to Russia, I wish briefly to outline to the house a little of the history of that nation. I have one particular reason in mind, namely there is an opinion prevailing throughout this country that the great sacrifices and the great fighting qualities of the Russians have come suddenly upon the Russian people, especially since the new regime under communism, or since the inception of the Stalin administration. Such is not the case. Russia has had seven centuries of fighting. As far back as the year 1380 they were the first to beat the invincible Tartars, the first to throw off the Tartar yoke. Coming to 1702, the scorched-earth policy was first put into effect at the time when Peter the Great defeated Charles XII of Sweden; and then in the war with Prussia, 1756-63, when Great Britain was on the side of Prussia. I wonder how many hon. members realize that in the year 1760 Russian troops marched into the city of Berlin. Again in the year 1779 Russian troops entered Rome, and the line of General Suvorov's march across the Alps is still marked on the Swiss maps. In 1805 Russia, in alliance with Austria and Britain, fought against France; and she fought her again in 1812, when Napoleon invaded Russia-because he felt, as Hitler did afterward, that he should first of all put Russia under his heel. The great fighting qualities of Russians have come down through all the ages, and they have one characteristic which to my mind we could well take to heart in this country, and that is their love of their land.
There must be a better understanding with Russia, based on good will, if we really desire a lasting peace following the end of the war.
There are some matters I wish to discuss before dealing with the proposed social legislation. The first one I have in mind emanates from a remark I interjected when the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) was speaking yesterday, when he was dealing with a statement made by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation advocating the taking over of certain shares owned

The Address-Mr. Reid
by the Canadian Pacific Railway company. I disagree with part of the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury, my interjection being that the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation might well be playing into the hands of certain Canadian Pacific interests. Those large interests are not concerned entirely with the railroad; their ramifications to-day are many; and whilst we see a great freight and passenger traffic to-day, there was a time not so long ago when the railroads might have been taken over for a mere song, so to speak. But I agree with the hon. member for York-Sunbury in his statement that taking over those shares can have but one end, and that is the amalgamation of the two railroads, and I think there should be no mistaking that fact. The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has soft-pedalled a little, as he does at times. He first makes a statement about taking over certain railway shares, and then when criticism arises he tries to tell the public, "Oh, but if we take that road over as a government-owned concern, the two railroads will be made to compete one with the other." Did anyone ever hear a more absurd or impractical suggestion than that? I have not. We might as well call a spade a spade and be dome with it. I take exception to that-


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Give him rope enough and he will hang himself.


Thomas Reid: And I will probably take more exceptions to the remarks of the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation later on in the session. In my opinion, and I am reaffirming it, it will mean the amalgamation of the two roads. Make no mistake about it.
Some members have already commented on P.C. 9384, and while I have no doubt full opportunity will be given the house to discuss this, I want to place myself on record now as being absolutely opposed to that order and the ramifications contained therein. I speak not only as a member of the house but as one who has held practically all his life and still holds a very honourable union card. I am not going to go into the various ramifications of the act, but I am at a loss to understand why at this late date such an order should have been passed, and I would advise the Minister of Labour and the government to reconsider this order before it becomes effective. We have been giving labour just praise for the splendid things they have done since the war began. If we mean this, then why this order, and one I would term iniquitous, after we have been four years at war? However, I expect to have more to say when the matter itself comes before the house.
I have one or two words to say to hon members, through you, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the proposed changes in the rules of the House of Commons. No doubt the rules of the house have to be changed as time goes on in order to meet changing conditions, but I hope I am making myself clear when I say that I for one am going to protest against the curtailment of, or any attempt to curtail, free speech within this House of Commons.
I fear if it starts here the process of curtailment may well be carried on outside this house. There was a time in the House of Commons when a member could speak as long as he liked, and the same arguments were used then against the length of speeches. Oh, it was said, too much time is taken up with speeches. And so a limitation was set at forty minutes. Now again we have reached the stage where it is said that there is too great a waste of time. Well, there may seem to be a waste of time, there may seem to be a repetition of speeches, but after all we must be careful in this matter. Let us take thought where we are going, because this is the only place where the people's voice can be heard.
Do members of this house realize how complex our life has become these days with a multiplicity of boards? The men at the heads of these boards in many instances care not for the public, and they care much less for the people's representatives. Since the war began, my complaint has been, not that there has been too much speaking but that there has not been enough speaking on the part of many members on the government side against some of the injustices which have been growing up. I therefore want to place myself on record in this matter, even though I know there may be endless repetition of speeches. My fear is that the move to curtail free speech here, if encouraged in this house, will lead some time in the future to the curtailment of speeches outside the house.
With regard to the proposed social legislation, I would say first of all a word touching the announcement made the other day by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) concerning certain beneficial changes dealing with war veterans and their allowances. I believe the proposed changes will be well received, and I want to pay my meed of commendation and praise for what the minister has done. I would say this with regard to the Minister of Pensions and National Health, and I say it fearlessly. When I look over the proposed social legislation I think I can see some of his handiwork, and I know something of the fight he has had to carry on in order to bring about some of the proposed changes.
The Address-Mr. Reid

My first comment cn the proposed social legislation is with reference to family allowances. I was surprised to see, the moment that announcement was made, the different points of view that were expressed in various parts of the country. For instance, there was the view advanced by a veiy reliable paper in the province of Quebec, UAction Catholique- I hope I am pronouncing it correctly. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that my French is not as good as yours, much as I would like it to be. I have had enough trouble speaking the English language without learning another. However, this paper attacks the allowance plan as "pagan", and it goes on to say that it may well result in curtailing families in the province of Quebec. This to me is a novel idea. It is the first time I have heard the view advanced that the granting of money to families would have any effect on large families in the province of Quebec. I have heard the opposite advocated in other provinces, that the lack of money has resulted in curtailing families. As I say, this is something new. No decision has been made by the government, however, as to the limitation in the number of the family; therefore the attack is perhaps somewhat premature.
It may interest the house to know that more than thirty countries in the world have already established family allowances. Included in this number are Australia and New Zealand. In 1942 Mr. Curtin, the head of the Australian labour government, stated that the reaffirmation of that legislation in Australia had been universally applauded because it was a real and permanent benefit to children.
In some respects labour has taken exception to family allowances. I differ entirely from those among the ranks of labour who say that it may keep down wages. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that it would be a great help to the farming community, and I draw these figures to the attention of farmer members. The farming community in the country have one-half of the nation's children; yet they receive only one-tenth of the national income. That is 'very significant. I bring that seriously to the attention of every hon. member.
I was very much pleased, as must have been all members representing farming communities, to hear the announcement that a floor would be placed under agricultural prices. I am glad that this matter will be handled by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), for whom I have had a great deal of sympathy since the war started, because I am one of those who have said that agriculture was in some respects bedeviled by having three

ministers of agriculture in the cabinet. I have said fearlessly, and I will keep on saying, that agriculture might have been a great deal better off had agricultural policy and prices been left entirely to the present Minister of Agriculture, who has been one of the most outstanding ministers holding that portfolio that Canada has ever had.
The war record of the government has been an excellent one, and so far we have heard little adverse comment either in this house or anywhere throughout the country on the great effort the nation has put forth under the present administration. However, I trust that as soon as possible, following the end of hostilities all regimentation will be removed.
I mentioned something a short while ago with regard to the multiplicity of boards that had been set up, and this is what I find in my travels around the country. I find that the multiplicity of boards, each acting independently, have sent many people almost crazy. I am going to mention one or two instances, just to show what I mean by that. In the city-of Vancouver one firm which handles the renting of apartments had a complaint sent in by one of the tenants, a woman who kept all the windows of the apartment open day and night but who complained to the rental control authorities that the apartment was not properly heated. An officer was sent down and, failing to notice the open windows, he saw that the temperature was low and reported accordingly, so those renting the apartment were told they would have to put on more heat. They did so, and then what do you think happened? Someone in the building complained to the coal controller that the building was kept too warm, and two days later he sent down a man, who ordered part of the coal supply of that building cut off. The manager said to me, "Mr. Keid, it is these rulings that are just driving us frantic."
I am very sorry the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is not in his place, because I have one or two complaints to make in regard to matters which come under his department and as to which he should be kept posted. Various comments have been made with regard to selective service, and you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that last year I pointed out that practical men should be in charge of the selective service offices instead of men who had simply done office work, but the salaries offered are not sufficient to attract highly qualified men to these jobs. Among others there was one complaint which was very unusual. Men were required for the Oakalla prison, and you know that in order to look after prisoners you must be able-bodied. Selective service sent up, not at the same time but on- following days,

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
two men, each of whom had only one arm. Then before coming east, as part of my duties I visited the penitentiary where I found being introduced a system which on examination seems most ridiculous and which has greatly upset the personnel of that institution. It appears that there is what is known as a labour relations bureau being built up under the Department of Labour, and many heads of departments are being asked to take a course in this particular instruction. The entire course I believe lasts ten hours, after which a certificate of competency is granted. In Vancouver a man by the name of Jones-I do not know whether or not he had a certificate or whether he had ever been inside a penitentiary-came to the penitentiary one day with some authority and told the warden, deputy warden and guards that they would have to parade before him because he was going to give them a lecture on how to handle convicts. The warden said to me, "I have been handling convicts successfully for thirty years. Do you think we are going to parade out there and have him tell us in a half hour lecture how to handle these men?" I do not know what experience Mr. Jones had; for all I know he should have been in there with the men.
I want these criticisms to be taken seriously by the minister, because it is this sort of thing that is just driving our people crazy. AVe have enough to do in connection with the war effort without having these other things inflicted upon us. Then again, while no doubt it was a splendid move when we took steps to keep down inflationary prices, in my opinion prices have been raised by many manufacturers as a result of the system now in effect of offering for sale at the ceiling price goods which are of very inferior quality. I believe that whatever department is responsible for this sort of thing ought to carry on some further investigation with regard to the distribution of goods, because certainly the shelves of many stores in Vancouver and New AVestminster are bare of certain articles though we find that many of those things are easily obtainable in stores in Ottawa, ^.Montreal and Toronto. I make that statement seriously. All we ask is our fair share. AVe are quite willing to make sacrifices, but it causes a great deal of unrest among our people when it becomes known that articles which are not procurable in the province of British Columbia are easily obtainable in the other provinces. As one man said to me, British Columbia is looked upon in the east as away in Timbuktu, and not as part of the Dominion of Canada.
I see that my time has almost expired. I conclude my remarks by saying 'that later
in the session I shall deal more fully with many of the matters I have touched upon to-day, unless of course in the meantime the rules are amended so that no hon. member may speak more than once.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne divides itself into two principal parts. The first has to do, and very rightly, with advising this house that it is our immediate duty to prosecute the war as vigorously as possible. I am one hundred per cent behind that, but at this moment I am not going to discuss the war or its prosecution; I prefer to wait until I have heard the several ministers of defence tell the house what is being done to' prosecute the war to a successful conclusion. I am going to deal with the second part of the speech from the throne, which calls for vigorous preparation for post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation. I am heartily in favour of vigorous preparation for the period of reconstruction and rehabilitation which will follow the war, and I am glad to see from the order paper of to-day that a rehabilitation committee is once more to be set up. In that connection may I express the hope that the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon), who was chairman last year, who was an indefatigable worker and always on the job, may be reappointed as chairman this year.
For quite a few years now, with other hon. members of this house, I have listened to western members tell us of their difficulties. I am sorry to have to confess that several years ago I did not give the attention to either the origin or solution of those difficulties that I have given during the last four years. I always felt that there must be a cause, but since no major remedy was brought forward I did not see at the time what could be done. Some few years ago I began to inquire into the matter personally, to see if I could find any major cause of the difficulties and, if so, whether I might discover a remedy. I was greatly depressed a few years ago when I made a trip from Regina to Estevan; in that particular year everything was dried out. I said to myself, there should be some way to overcome dried-out areas in the west. There have been droughts throughout the history of the world, and I began to examine into the causes of those droughts in other countries, and to see how the difficulties were remedied.
I learned that prior to the advent of the "golden hordes" of Genghis Khan into the Turkestanian plains in the fourteenth century, those plains were a smiling area of prosperity, with marvellous crops. But when those hordes went through and destroyed the reservoirs of the two great rivers on the plains, namely the
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

Amu and the Syr, for the following five hundred years much of those plains was barren. Only within the life of modern man have the Turkestanian plains come back to full fertility. The Russians have done what Canada has not done, and they have done it in a major fashion by building vast reservoirs on those rivers. To-day there is no part of Asia more prolific of crops than are the Turkestanian plains, which otherwise would have been barren. The improvement is brought about by irrigation, in the same fashion as it was done by their ancestors five hundred years ago.
The same applies to a large portion of the Punjab. Before the hordes of Akbar marched through that part of India, it, too, was an area of prolific crops. Now that dear old Britain has erected and recently opened a huge dam across the Indus, that country will all come back.
And who is there who does not know that before the British went into Egypt great famines were frequently experienced, until the population of that country was reduced by millions? But the British have restored the productivity of Egypt by building vast dams. I have in mind particularly the one at the first cataract. The Assuan dam is 132 feet high, and approximately a mile wide. It backs that great river up for 140 miles, and provides irrigation facilities for 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 acres, depending on the season. The result is that never in its history has Egypt had such productivity as it has to-day.
The same applies to North Africa. Before the hordes of Mohammed marched across Libya, Cyrenaica and Tripolitania, all the northern fringe of those states was thoroughly settled by millions of people. Crops were grown by means of irrigation from the small rivers flowing down to the Mediterranean sea from the hills of North Africa. But after the troops of Mohammed marched through, from that day until recently those plains have been a barren desert. Our soldiers have fought in that country, and they know something about it. It is true that the Italians had begun, in recent years, to restore productivity through irrigation. But these are examples of what can be derived from irrigation, and the condition which follows when there is no water to accelerate growth.
Our cousins to the south of us have shown us the way, here in America, where they have made millions upon millions of acres of dry land fit for the growth of good crops. Let us consider Arizona-a state which derives its name from the word "arid". To-day Arizona is one of the finest states in the American union, because they have harnessed their rivers from the mountains and diverted the

waters of those rivers to the plains of Arizona. Let us consider what they have done recently at Grand Coulee and Boulder dams. When Boulder dam is in full operation, 2,000,000 acres of arid land adjacent thereto, either in Arizona, California or Nevada, will come into productivity. That, Mr. Speaker, is an example of what Canada should do. The same applies to Grand Coulee where shortly another million and a quarter acres will be in productivity in the state of Washington.
Canada must do more in her western country, and I am going to advocate this both in the house and out of it until I see something done in a major way to restore the west. I say that because I am convinced if it is not restored and if farms from which thousands upon thousands of good honest farmers in Saskatchewan, southwestern Manitoba and southern Alberta have been forced to flee, because of a lack of water, are not restored, we shall have reason to regret not taking action.
The failure of those farmers has meant the ruination of much business in Canada, and I shall continue to advocate development of the west until it has received a square deal. We hear some talk about what it would cost. Well, it may cost up to 8100,000,000 but what does that matter? That is no more than it cost to build Shipshaw-it is even less. Two or three of the programmes I shall present would not cost more than $20,000,000 each. That is not much more than the cost of the Montreal bridge-and I should like it to be understood that I am in favour of both the building of the Montreal bridge and the Shipshaw development.
It is up to the members from the east to rally to the support of the west. This is the industrial part of Canada. Having been in big business myself for many years, during which time I watched a plant grow from a small to a very large business concern, I believe I know my subject. That plant grew most- when the west started to grow. It receded in the past few yearn, because the west receded. We have got to restore it.
This is only one of the things I am going to talk about to-day. I shall confine my remarks to irrigation. Last summer I travelled some 8,000 miles by boat, motor, horse and otherwise, making a survey of this problem. I am convinced that the west has not had a square deal, and as an eastern member it is my duty to raise my voice in an attempt to see that it does get a square deal.
What is the situation to-day? A few nights ago I read the tenth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, "And a river went out

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
of Eden to water the garden." That is a verse upon which I can base my remarks, because the foothills of the Rocky mountains and the eastern slopes of those glorious mountains make me think of what Eden might have been-a beautiful, beautiful land. We have many such beautiful pictures in Canada.
I think particularly of standing at Cardston and looking to the Rocky mountains in the west. One of the most beautiful pictures I have ever seen was in that part of Alberta wrest of Cardston. Stand at Morleyville, west of Calgary, and look at the Rocky mountains. We Canadians have not been fair to that country, and 1 refer to eastern Canadians especially. I, too, have not taken the interest in the west I should have taken. I charge myself perhaps more than others because from travelling and reading I believe I should have considered the matter earlier.
The country roundabout is wonderful country. The soil has all the chemical ingredients required for complete production. I discussed the matter with professors. Many of those men took me out on the prairies; but one in particular said, "Mr. MacNicol, this bald-headed prairie, covered with sage, wild grass and wild rose, will grow prolific crops, if it obtains water in season." But the water has to be harnessed. We have been asleep at the switch so far as harnessing the water of western Canada is concerned, the water which will give life to those prairies. We must divert water on to the land, as our cousins to the south of us have done, and as has been done in other places throughout the world.
There are four rivers which flow from Montana into Alberta. One of them, the Milk river, I shall not discuss. But there are three others west of the Milk river, known as the Waterton, Belly and St. Mary rivers. They flow with beautiful clear water, having their source in the Montana Rocky mountains. Their water is full of all the chemicals, in solution, which are required for the growing of crops. What are we doing with it? In 1921 we entered into a treaty with the United States by which each country was given per-, mission to erect reservoirs. Why? The state of Montana was the first to use the waters, and they could have taken all these waters and developed their country to an even greater extent than it is developed to-day. Mr. Charles Magrath, I believe at that time the chairman for Canada of the International Joint Commission, protested and as a result a treaty was entered into by which Canada was given a fair share of the waters from these three rivers.
The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) perhaps has a better knowledge of
these matters. The treaty stated that each country should build reservoirs to conserve the portion of the water allowed it, and implied that if either country did not attempt to conserve the waters, then the other could have the waters. Our American cousins have built magnificent reservoirs south of the international boundary, but we have not built any on our side. Hon. members will find in their boxes copies of a sheet I have been using in talking about this subject. I hope those who are interested in trying to do something for Canada will read it, in conjunction with Hansard.
I am talking for all of Canada, not merely for the west. I am convinced that Canada cannot progress if the east alone progresses or if the west alone progresses. We must progress together. If we have a depression in the west, we are bound to have it in the east. As I say, we have not built reservoirs on our side of the line. I examined the sites where reservoirs could be built. We could obtain water from the St. Mary river, alone, had we reservoir capacity, capable of covering
362.000	acres one foot deep. An acre contains 43,560 square feet, so that if you multiply
362.000	by 43,560, you have a volume of water which could be conserved from the St. Mary river alone amounting to about 35 billion cubic feet.
On our side of the line this surplus water is running away. We have not equipped ourselves in southern Alberta to use this surplus water. Our American cousins have, but we have not. If we do not do this, we may lose this water. This should be one of the first programmes for post-war rehabilitation. It was presented by Mr. George Spence when he appeared before the reconstruction committee. We should build these reservoirs so that Canada can conserve this surplus water for more irrigation.
South of the general line of the South Saskatchewan river-I am referring to the Oldman river and other tributaries which form the South Saskatchewan-we are now irrigating something like 200,000 acres, and we are irrigating approximately another 200,000 acres immediately north of that general line. I believe the total acreage now actually taking water in this area is something between 350,000 and 400,000. But we could irrigate much more than this. With the present equipment we could irrigate 500,000 acres if we only had the water, and with adequate reservoirs and canals we could irrigate 600,000 more. We have not the reservoirs and we should have them.
What have been the results of irrigation in Alberta? They have been incredible. I have never seen anything like it. On one side of
14S
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

the road-I am speaking figuratively-you have the bald prairie, while on the other side you have the cultivation of sugar beets and all sorts of crops. There are 27,000 acres in southern Alberta in sugar beets, producing an average crop of twelve tons to the acre, with a top production of eighteen tons per acre. There are two sugar beet factories, one at Raymond and the other at Picture Butte. Those are fine factories, but there should be at least five sugar beet factories in Alberta to provide employment after the war. Employment should be provided for the fine boys from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba when they come back from overseas by and by. Those two sugar beet factories in 1942 produced 900,000 bags of sugar. I do not know just how many pounds are in a bag, but that is a lot of sugar. But the production should be four or five times that amount, and that would be possible if these reservoirs were built and the water were made available to the farmers for greater irrigation.
The first picture on the front of this sheet shows the St. Mary river with the first irrigation dam across it. This is a small dam, and an irrigation canal flows off to the right. The second picture shows the water dropping down from the first to the second level. The day I photographed it the flow was 445 cubic feet per second, but in the growing season they require at least 1,000 cubic feet. That amount would be available all through the growing season if these reservoirs were built.
Why should not southern Alberta be given a chance to shine in the sun? In reality it is always shining in the sun, but it should be given this opportunity economically just the same as eastern Canada is able to shine in the sun. The third picture shows the first artery leading off from the general canal. That flows out to the farms, and then small capillary canals run off that artery into the different farms.
In addition to growing sugar beets, vast quantities of marvellous corn are grown. I visited two canning factories, one at Taber and the other at Lethbridge. They are able to produce 750,000 cases of corn of 24 cans each, and perhaps as much peas. I understand that each acre produces 150 cases of com, or about 300 cases of peas. There is much non-irrigated prairie land capable of similar production; why should it not be put into production? Other vegetables are produced in comparable quantity. No relief has been neoessary in that part of Alberta. If they could not sell what they produced, they would have plenty to eat. There are some wonderful towns in that part of the province, like Raymond, Cardston, Magrath, and so on. Lethbridge was the most 
prosperous city I saw during my travels last summer. These irrigation canals should be extended to the limit. I notice the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) is in the chamber. He represents a fine city; I spent more than a day there last summer. There are great irrigation possibilities north and south of the Saskatchewan river, west of Medicine Hat. On the north side of the river an unfinished, unwatered irrigation canal now extends towards Medicine Hat, and if completed they could have irrigation right up to the city. From the end of the canal I could see the chimneys of Medicine Hat, or perhaps it was the chimneys of Redcliff, a suburb. There was not a drop of water in that canal for seventy miles because they had not the money to finish it. That is not fair to Medicine Hat or to the people on those plains where you see abandoned farms in every direction. People who had settled there with their families had to get out because they could not produce on dried-out land. I am going to advocate as strongly as I can that that irrigation canal, with the necessary reservoirs on the north side of the Saskatchewan river, be completed up to the suburbs of Medicine Hat; and the same on the south side of the river, east from Taber. There would be plenty of water available, if conserved, which could be used for irrigation purposes, and it belongs to us. All we have to do is to build the reservoirs and irrigation canals to make this fertile land produce. It would not in the end cost this country a single dollar, because the project would be self-liquidating. Why it has not already been done I do not know. If I had had charge of any department with control of irrigation, that work would have been done long ago, even if it had been necessary for me to tour the country and ask the people to subscribe $100,000,000 to complete the project.
I have spoken to many boards of trade in the east on this subject and they were one hundred per cent behind putting that part of Canada in a position where it can live, and it is not in that position now. Farmers on irrigated land go into mixed farming. They raise many cattle, horses, hogs and sheep. Only the other day I read about the vast number of cattle shipped out of Alberta last year.
. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is not in his seat, but I hope he will come forward with an irrigation project as part of an after-the-war rehabilitation and reconstruction programme. It would do several things. It would provide a lot of employment locally, it would give the farmers a better opportunity to produce, and it would help our eastern [DOT]manufacturers to provide jobs. Of course, I have to say a word for my own workers.

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
There are other areas in Saskatchewan and Alberta where thousands of acres could be put into production. West of Saskatoon and directly north of Cabri and on to Tramping lake, there are 2,000,000 acres which could be put under irrigation. I believe that the engineers who have been searching for a safe site have now found one near Saskatchewan Landing, where they can build a dam 150 feet high and back the river up for 100 miles. Talk about foundations on the Saskatchewan river! Last summer I went east twenty-six miles from the fine city of Prince Albert, where in 1913 the people of Prince Albert commenced to build a dam across the Saskatchewan river at La Colle rapids, the first one on the Saskatchewan. The city of Prince Albert itself undertook the project, I think, although I am not quite sure about that. But it matters not who undertook it. They built the dam half way across the river, and then for very good reasons went no further. I believe they had made no provision for the reservoirs whjch would be necessary up the river. That dam which was built in 1913 is of the Ambur-sen type, which is a very good type, I believe, with a broad base and of reinforced concrete. That dam has been standing for thirty years and has withstood all the buffeting of floods and ice and is still in very good shape. I am going to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that that dam be finished, as a start on a North Saskatchewan river rehabilitation project, which would include the building of other dams, including one at Fort a la Corne and elsewhere. The government would be justified in taking over that dam and completing it and returning to Prince Albert a million dollars or more which the people of that city sank into it thirty years ago.
There are two million more acres which could be irrigated in the area to which I have referred, directly north of Cabri and on up to Tramping lake and west of Saskatoon. I also examined the area east of the river, between Regina, Moose Jaw and the river, carefully with engineers. I took someone with me who knows engineering and he stated that at least another 500,000 acres in Saskatchewan could be irrigated in that area. We passed by many abandoned farms. People had settled there years ago. I took a picture of one of these farms. It is shown on the last page of this circular near the bottom, picture No. 6. It was unfair to allow these fine settlers of early days to go in and settle there, whether they came from the old country, from the maritimes or from grand old Ontario-unfair just to let them settle there and say to them; root, hog, or die. I do not say that any government took that attitude, because I do not want to mention politics in discussing a problem of this kind. This irrigation plan is a gargantuan programme, a nation-building programme which, if carried into operation and completed, would bring wonderful returns all across Canada.
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland); How about reclaiming the marsh lands in the bay of Fundy?


John Ritchie MacNicol: As I said at the beginning, I am confining my remarks to one programme. I shall be glad to make a speech on behalf of the east at another time.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: You are not against that?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No; I am for it, and in due course I will give a speech on behalf of the maritimes. Just now I am speaking of an area in the west covering altogether three million acres which can be irrigated. What would that mean for the west? It would mean thirty thousand more farmers producing, with an average of 100 acres to a farm. It would also mean another thirty thousand people working in the cities to take care of the farmers' wants. It would mean employment for many thousands of people. For instance, when I was out west, on many occasions I saw products made by the Amherst boiler company, in my hon. friend's riding. I saw shoes that had been made in Quebec city, brushes made in Saint John, fine large equipment made in Sherbrooke, sewing machines that had been made in St. Hyacinthe, paper from Cornwall, vast equipment made in Montreal, builders' hardware from Belleville, refrigerators from Renfrew, filing cabinets from. Pembroke, motor cars from Oshawa, and a great deal of equipment from that fine old city of Peterborough, one of our very finest cities in the east, and of course a great quantity of material made in Toronto, much of it made in the riding I represent, such as boilers, radiators, tools, electric equipment and many other articles. I also saw products from London, Windsor, Stratford, Winnipeg and many other cities. Just fancy what the opening up of another thirty thousand farms would mean to the east as well as to the west! It would mean a lot to the west directly, of course, and I hope it would also mean the introduction of many industries in the west; for there is no reason why they should not manufacture in the west many of the things they require. There is no reason why they should not have manufacturing in the west, but they first have to have power. They have it in Alberta. They have little in Saskatchewan. With the project I advocate there will be a provision at Fort a la Corne
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

of approximately 125,000 horsepower; a dam at Riverhurst would supply 86,000 horsepower, and one near Saskatchewan Landing, about
75.000	horsepower. At Riverhurst the average flow every day of the year is 11,500 cubic feet per second. It goes lower and it goes much higher. At the La Colie site located east of Prince Albert the average flow is 9,500 cubic feet per second every day in the year. Of course sometimes it is higher and sometimes lower.
That river has never been used to help this country as it should be. God made it for a purpose-to save the prairies. These prairies have a purpose. We have not been fair to the west. We have done a good deal in the east; I am in favour of that, and more; but we have not sufficiently looked to the west. As an eastern member I am going to do what I can to help the west; not, of course, forgetting, in my remarks on the west, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) and his part of the countiy.
What would 30,000 new irrigated farms mean to the west? They would mean a vast increase in the population. Years ago I hoped for the day when Saskatchewan would have, not twenty-one members, but fifty members of parliament, and Alberta, not seventeen, but fifty. Why should these provinces not have that representation? Why should not these great smiling prairies grow in population? Another thirty thousand honest-to-goodness sure-return farms like they have in the riding of the hon. member for Lethbridge, where there are no failures for lack of water, would mean business for the east.
That is a programme, Mr. Speaker. It is an after-the-war programme. It is far too big for one province or even for the three provinces; it is not too large for Canada in association with the three provinces. I am told that the Alberta programme to put
600.000	acres under irrigation works would cost approximately $20,000,000. Every irrigated acre provides, I am told, an average profit return of fifty dollars a year, once it is in operation and paid for.
It is not fair to ask those two fine cities, Regina and Moose Jaw, to suffer under their present adverse water conditions. Regina derives her supply from wells. In Moose Jaw they draw it through sand points in sand fields west of the city. They can have any amount of water if the South Saskatchewan river is dammed near Riverhurst and I would dam it, no matter what it cost. We have got to do it, or that whole area may be like a desert. That cannot be allowed; it would be ruinous not only to western Canada but

to eastern Canada as well. The time has come when this whole country should look at the country as a whole, and should in particular consider the present condition of the west, with its dried-out areas, and do what can be done to provide water for those dried-out areas and for the fine cities I have mentioned. The dam will operate itself. That is like what is going on in Egypt, where north from the Assuan dam the water flows in irrigation canals, but where they can pump it out and deliver it south if required. Pumps at a Saskatchewan river dam could pump the water over the height of land.
As regards the picture on the last page of this circular which you will receive, I will not say anything about it more than that it demonstrates that, once the water is pumped over the river bank at or near Riverhurst, where the bank is over 320 feet high, it then can flow down to Moose Jaw and Regina. In the case of the two cities I would follow an engineering plan which I have looked into, of building a pressure stave or steel conduit of sufficient capacity to conduct ample water, safely and without being exposed to loss by evaporation or sinking into the sands, as far as Moose Jaw and Regina, and to also irrigate on the way.
There is a rehabilitation programme, and there is not any reason why this country should not undertake it. It would rebuild the country west of Regina. I cannot speak of the district around Swift Current, because I have not examined that area, but I am told they are doing something there in a small way. There is no reason why that area should not be put under irrigation too.
There, then, is a nation-building programme. I hope I have said enough about it to impress the house, and if they will do me the honour to-morrow of examining this sheet in conjunction with what I have said to-day, I believe they will support that programme.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia) :: leading up to international wars. Instead of trying to blame tariffs for our troubles, we should first of all remove the cause of tariffs. In other words, we should endeavour to raise the purchasing power of the people up to the level where they would be able to buy the total production of the nation or the production of other nations for which their own can be exchanged.
To sum up briefly, if we want to sell abroad we must be prepared to buy from abroad, and if we want to buy from abroad we must be prepared to place money in the hands of the people so that they may be in a position to buy the goods that are brought into the country; otherwise, naturally, the importers will stop bringing in goods. For that reason I deplore the attitude of certain officials in this country in issuing a pamphlet called "International Exchange Union". If these proposals were put into operation the result would be that a great deal of our production would be exchanged for foreign securities instead of for goods. It might not be so in the immediate period after the war; but after a few months, as soon as certain foreign nations have exhausted their quota of international currency, they will be placed in the position of having to pay us in gold or exchange foreign securities for the goods we ship to them. And of course that situation is bound to be resented by all the nations that do not produce gold, and is bound to cause international friction.
I want to touch briefly upon a number of proposals in the speech from the throne which apparently are aimed at raising the purchasing power of the people. First of all, take the question of housing. This statement appears in the speech:
_ A measure to amend and supplement existing housing legislation will be introduced.
It is often suggested that the reason why we have been able to have the type of war effort we have had is that we have had an incentive, the incentive to win the war. In my opinion, after the war a Very good incentive to encourage the people to work for an all-out peace effort would be the objective of a decent home for every family in the country, especially having regard to the returned man. Such a programme would provide a great deal of employment, and the money paid out in the building of houses would help to stimulate the demand for consumer goods.
In the past the type of housing legislation we have had has helped people only in what might be called the middle income brackets. In the future we must have legislation that 
will make it possible for those in the low income brackets to acquire houses. That has not been possible heretofore. If we had legislation of that kind it would mean that money would have to be made available at an extremely low rate of interest. These loans will have to extend over a long period of time and be repaid at a rate not faster than the depreciation of the houses which those people have bought. National housing should be made a national scheme, financed by national money, at a rate of interest at cost of handling accounts, which might be one or two per cent. To talk of a housing scheme for people in the low income brackets and then to charge 5 or 6^ per cent interest is idle; it means that the scheme cannot be carried out effectively.
I welcome the proposal for a floor under agricultural prices, but whether or not that measure will be effective depends entirely upon the level at which the floor is placed. It should be placed closely under what we might call parity prices for agriculture; and when I say parity prices I do not mean the prices based on levels of 1914, or the prices of 1926 or 1929. I mean the level that will assure to farmers their fair share of the national income. And what is that level? According to figures placed before the reconstruction committee by Mr. D. G. MacKenzie, we find that from 1915 to 1919 farmers representing one-third of the population received one-third of the national income. Undoubtedly that was a time when the farmers were receiving parity prices. From 1926 to 1929, however, the farmers received only one-sixth of the national income and from 1930 to 1940 only one-tenth. So, when we advocate parity prices, I think we should have in mind prices which will guarantee the farmers their fair share of the national income; and the only period when that has ever happened was the period from 1915 to 1919.
I am not impressed with the reference to a national scheme of contributory old age pensions on a more generous basis than that at present in operation. What we need to-day is more generous provision for non-contributory pensioners. The people who are in a position to contribute to an old age pension plan are, generally speaking, in a position to buy government annuities. What we want is to take care of those aged individuals who are not in the fortunate position of being able to contribute to any scheme. Certainly there can be no justification for the old age pensioners of to-day or of the future having to accept the very low income that they receive at the present time. We have been told, of course, that if we tried to increase the amount of the old age pension there would be difficulty with some

The Address-Mr. Quelch
of the provinces. That difficulty will exist only as long as we make the provinces contribute to the cost of old age pensions. I should like to see old age pensions paid purely on a national basis, financed by the national government. I do not think any province would object to the old age pension being increased provided the federal government paid the total cost, and in that case there would be no reason why the old age pension could not be increased to $40 per person or $80 for a man and wife, which would give them an income of approximately $1,000 a year.
I very much welcome the government's proposal to pay family allowances. This is a step in the direction we have been advocating for a number of years. We first began to advocate something of this kind in this house in 1936; and I think most hon. members will recall how the suggestion that money should be paid directly to individuals outside the industrial system was scoffed at in this house. We were continually told that we were advocating something for nothing. However, apparently the government now see the light and are proposing to issue money directly to consumers instead of having it paid out through industry.
Since the declaration of war the government have had to travel quite a long way in the direction we have been advocating here since 1936. For instance, in the years when we had many unemployed we urged upon the government the necessity of expanding the amount of money in circulation in order to provide employment. Hon. members who were here at that time will remember how the Minister of Finance of that day would become almost hysterical every time that suggestion was made, and would accuse us of advocating inflation. Well, what has happened since the war? When it became necessary to expand production in this country we did not hesitate to increase the amount of money in circulation, so that to-day we find there is over a billion and a quarter dollars more in circulation than was the case at the beginning of the war, in currency and deposits. Another proposal we made back in 1935 was that a discount should be paid on prices, subsidized by the federal government, to make it possible for industry to sell at less than the cost of production, thereby increasing the purchasing power of the people without any danger of inflation. In those days the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) did not hesitate to ridicule that suggestion. I remember how he claimed that this would cause inflation; yet what have we to-day? We are paying millions of dollars in subsidies to industry to make it possible for
them to sell at less than the cost of production, thereby maintaining the price ceiling; and the minister himself in this house called it a form of insurance against inflation. Back in 1937 it was called inflation; to-day it is insurance against inflation.
Those are a few of the measures we advocated back in 1936 that the government have bad to adopt, though at the time we were ridiculed for having suggested them. Unfortunately, however, the most essential step which must be taken, and which has not been taken up to the present time, is the issue of national money so that national projects can be financed without increasing the interestbearing debt of this country. Until such time as this measure has been taken the government will always be in the difficult position of having either to curtail its expenditures or steadily to expand the national debt.
I should like to make a few brief observations with regard to the amendments now before the house. The amendment offered by the Conservatives contains nothing at which one could take offence, that is anyone sitting on this side of the house. It just refers to the fact that the government has failed to do this and that, and I think we all agree that the government has failed to do these things. Therefore we will support the amendment. .The amendment offered by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation reads:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that in the opinion of this house Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose the fundamental social changes and economic planning which alone can hasten the winning of the war and make possible the establishment of a post-war Canada capable of providing full employment and complete social security.
I think most people, if they are frank, will admit the truth of that statement. If I had been drafting that motion I would have added the words, "with the greatest possible degree of individual freedom", because none of us likes to have regimentation of the individual, and if those words were added it would be made clear that this is not intended by the motion. In drawing up plans for the future we should do everything in our power to avoid bureaucratic controls and regimentation of the people. During this war planning has been absolutely essential; we never could have had a total war effort without planning, and I am satisfied that we shall never have a total peace effort without planning, particularly in the transition period between war and peace and especially in regard to finance. Therefore our group will also support the amendment offered by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.
The Address-Mr. Quelch

I wish now to deal with one of our major responsibilities of to-day; that is, the question of rehabilitating the men of the armed forces. I recall the promises which were made during the last war; I think all hon. members who served in the armed- forces at that time will recall that the men were promised that after they were demobilized they would be guaranteed jobs and their dependents would be looked after. I think most hon. members will agree that we failed miserably to fulfil these promises, and I think we also agree that this must never be allowed to happen again. I was very much interested in an article which appeared in the February issue of the American -magazine entitled "Canada Cares for its Heroes" written by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). The hon. member for Rosthern referred to this article, which is an exceedingly glowing account not only of what Canada is doing but of wrhat Canada will do for her soldiers in the future. This, however, is what puzzles me. If that is a correct statement, why should there be such widespread discontent throughout the country among the returned men and the various returned men's organizations? I think when the minister wrote that article he painted a picture of what he would like to see rather .than a picture of what actually exists, though I am not for one moment suggesting that the minister was not sincere when -he wrote the article. I do not believe there is an hon. member more anxious to see the returned men get a square deal than is the Minister of Pensions and National Health, but of course he has great obstacles to overcome and his word does not necessarily prevail in the cabinet or wherever these things are finally decided.
I shall deal with some of the main causes for the discontent which exists to-day. Just before coming to Ottawa I stayed in Edmonton for a few days and had communication with the Edmonton branch of the Canadian Legion. I found there a tremendous amount of indignation owing to the fact that the men being returned from overseas in a wounded condition were being discharged while still in hospital receiving treatment. One of the cases which received a great deal of publicity was that of Captain Gilchrist. He was seriously wounded overseas and was returned to Canada, but while still in hospital with his leg in a cast he was discharged from the army. His pay was reduced from that of a captain to $44 a month. There was a deduction of $30 a month for hospitalization, so that he received a net income of $14 a month. This man was contributing to the keep of his mother and father, and his case received a great amount of publi-

city. It made returned men in that city simply wild to realize that that is the way men who had been wounded overseas are being treated.
I was pleased when the order in council was brought down in the house to correct this situation, and I trust its operation- will be made retroactive. But I cannot understand why a situation like that was permitted to exist for such a long time. The fact is that it existed for many months, and caused a tremendous amount of indignation in the ranks of the armed forces. Even though we have now changed the situation, that resentment will continue, because the men will have lost confidence in the department and the government and, I think, rightly so.
There appears to be a great deal of carelessness in the way in which men are handled after they are discharged from hospital. While I was in Edmonton I was asked to go out with members of the legion to inspect a certain case. This man had been discharged from the hospital about five days before I made my visit. He was living with his mother at the edge of the city, in one room. There was no furniture in that room, with the exception of a bed. He had not received any clothing allowance or any demobilization pay. The Red Cross later provided him with some clothes. This man had seen service in Sicily and had been severely wounded. He had lost his speech, to the point where he could only say, "Yah". He was not able to use the fingers of his right hand. His right arm and leg w.ere partly paralyzed. In short, he just did not know what it was all about.
The legion had approached certain officials with the idea of having the man- transferred to a convalescent home or a reconditioning centre. They were informed there was no such establishment in Edmonton. But this is what angered the legion representatives: It is a fact that the provincial government of Alberta had offered to the federal government the use of Government House as a convalescent home for soldiers. In the past the provincial government had been receiving from the United States authorities $2,000 a month for the use of that building. The time arrived when the United States tenants stopped using the building, and when that time arrived the use of it was offered to the federal government free of charge, as a convalescent home for the duration of the war and for six months thereafter. That offer was turned down.
But when these men are discharged and the legion asks that they be put into a convalescent home they are told that no such accommodation is available. I understand, however, that reconditioning centres are being

The Address-Mr. Quelch
built for future use at certain points in the Dominion. Action is now being taken, I understand, to send the man in question to Christie street hospital, Toronto, for treatment. But the mere fact that that situation was allowed to exist, a condition which permitted the sending of a man to a house in such poverty-stricken circumstances, arouses the ire of our people. I believe if the man in question had been left there for any length of time he would have become a mental case.
In his article in the American magazine the Minister of Pensions and National Health states, in effect, that the officials of his department will lean over backwards to do justice to the returned men. I believe that is true of the minister, and I do not doubt it is true of the deputy minister. Unfortunately, however, there are many officials across Canada who are either careless or callous, and I think disciplinary action should be taken where the men in charge allow conditions such as I have described to exist. We must assure ourselves that such things will not occur again.
Then, ever since the beginning of the war there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction over the fact that soldiers boarded A1 upon enlistment are refused pension on the ground that their disabilities are of pre-enlistment origin. We have been told in the house that upon enlistment recruits are given a very thorough medical examination. It seems to me therefore that when these men are discharged on account of a disability they should be awarded a pension until their disability is cured, and pension should not be denied them upon the ground of pre-enlistment origin.
Further, I do not like the manner in which some of the men are treated when the medical authorities are trying to find out whether or not the disability was of pre-enlistment origin. It amounts almost to a third degree, and is no credit to the department which allows that kind of thing to take place. I shall not take the time of the house to describe the procedure by which some of these admissions are obtained. I know, however, that very often a medical officer will get into conversation with a soldier, the soldier having no idea that his evidence is being taken down. Then, probably some time later, he may be confronted with the statement he is supposed to have made, in which he has admitted that at some time or another he suffered some slight accident, and that therefore his pension must be refused on the grounds of a disability of preenlistment origin.
The other day I discussed this general situation with a naval officer. He said to me, "The
government is like a lawyer with a bad case, because it tries to settle for the smallest possible amount." That certainly does seem to me to be the general impression throughout Canada. There are -many cases where the applicants would appear to be eligible for certain payments, and yet because of some technical point such payments are refused.
In 1940 I sat on a subcommittee of the pensions committee, dealing with mental cases. That committee recommended that the section debarring a soldier from pension, when disability was of congenital origin, should be deleted. It was my understanding that the clause had been deleted, but I am not now certain whether that is so. Judging from the actions of various medical boards throughout the country one would think that the section is still operative.
Another injustice-and in my opinion a glaring one-is that men who have served overseas for a number of years and who are then returned. to Canada and allowed a discharge on compassionate grounds, are refused any rehabilitation grants. Only this morning I received a letter from the Canadian Legion at Edmonton referring to several such cases. Two of the men to which reference was made in the letter had been enlisted, one for three years and the other for four. Upon returning to Canada they had little or nothing to do, so they asked for their discharge. They were refused any rehabilitation grant, including that of clothing and one month's pay. This is what the legion has to say in the matter:
I think this is one of 'the grievances that certainly should be rectified, as men who have been overseas and are returned to this country certainly get fed up hanging around not doing anything, and they naturally, after a time, make application for discharge which is inevitably granted.
In my opinion any man who has served overseas, no matter for how short a time, and is discharged on compassionate grounds, should be eligible for rehabilitation grants. In so far as those men who have served only in Canada are concerned, it is my opinion that each case would have to be dealt with on its merits. But a man who has had long service, even though he has not been outside Canada, should be eligible for grants On the other hand, if his service has been short, or if he has been in some building rvhere he expects to sit for the duration, such as the Jackson building, it might be a different state of affairs.
I might add that the postscript to the letter is in these words:
I am very pleased to let you know that I have been successful in having Jossul's rehabilitation granted so maybe the others will come through.
I am glad to hear that because that may mean that a new policy has been put into effect
The Address-Mr. Quelch

with regard to t'he granting of rehabilitation rights to these men who get discharged on compassionate grounds.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thought that was always the policy.


Victor Quelch: If it is, how is it that there are so many cases where they have not been getting it? Many of these cases have been placed before the department and grants have been refused, cases where men were discharged on compassionate grounds.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which ones?


Victor Quelch: One is Corporal Wallace
number R-93837, and I quote:
The above named N.C.O. joined the air force on the 25th of April, 1940. He whs then 45 years of age. He has now made application for discharge so that he can go back on his farm but has been informed that if he accepts his discharge on these grounds he will not be entitled to his rehabilitation grant, i.e., his month's pay and also his dependents would not get the month's allowance.
He then goes on to deal with Private Jossul who had four years overseas.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The month's pay is not a pension; that would come under national defence.


Victor Quelch: I am not blaming the minister of pensions by any means for all these injustices. As I have pointed out already, I do not believe that there is any man in this house who is more sincere in his desire to see that these men get a square deal. However, the minister does not have the final say in these matters; he can only recommend, and apparently in the past his recommendations have not received the kind of treatment they should have received.
Another matter which has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction is the fact that men receive only one month's pay and allowance upon discharge. I notice from the speech from the throne that gratuities are to be given. We cannot criticize or commend this proposal until (ve know at just what level these gratuities are to be set. In my opinion when a man returns from overseas he should immediately be given one month's leave with full pay. During that time he could get into touch with his relatives and make plans for the future. Then, when he is discharged he should receive a substantial gratuity based upon his length of service. The Edmonton Legion passed a resolution asking that a man coming back from overseas receive one day's pay for each day's service. I do not think that is asking too much.

The clothing allowance which was given in the past was totally inadequate. This has been increased to $65, but I wonder how many members of parliament would like to buy a complete outfit of clothing for $65. By the time you bought a suit and overcoat you would have exhausted your funds, and you would still need a hat, boots, underwear, et cetera.


An hon. MEMBER:: And braces.


Victor Quelch: Somebody says "braces". They probably would before they got a job. Many soldiers' dependents are suffering injustices. I know this does not come under the minister of pensions, but I have taken up a number of these cases with the dependents' allowance board. I am frank to admit that I have not had much success. There is a practice of stopping a dependents' allowance when a man is absent without leave for a certain length of time. He may be absent without leave for twenty-one days before the dependents' allowance is stopped'-if he is overseas the time limit is three months-but after that time the government jumps to the conclusion that the man is a deserter. We know there are many cases where such men have been blown to pieces in air raids, and instead of the wife continuing to get compensation, she is told that her husband is a deserter and her allowance is cut off. I do not think the dependents' allowance should be cut off until there is positive proof that a man has deserted. Just as long as there is any possibility that he may have been killed, the dependents' allowance should be paid in full.
When a man is finally apprehended and sentenced, we will say, to two years in the army prison his dependents' allowance is paid for six-months, after which time it is stopped. I contend that as long as the army has the man's body they should continue to pay an allowance to his wife and dependents. Why should they take it out of the dependents? We have in this country many wives and children on relief because soldiers are serving sentences in army prison camps. Just as long as the army has the bodies of those men under control they can get a certain amount of work out of them and the dependents' allowances should be paid. They could be charged up against the man who would work it out. I think most people will agree with the justice of this claim. Why should the wife and children be penalized just because a man, perhaps as a result of war service, has developed some kind of mental quirk and refuses to assume his responsibilities. The man cannot always be blamed. Sometimes desertion is a result of mental trouble resulting from the strain of service.

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough West)
Another grievance is that deductions from dependents' allowances are made when the dependent receives hospitalization. There are a number of wives of soldiers in Alberta who are obtaining treatment in the sanitarium for tuberculosis. This treatment is absolutely free in Alberta. Anyone in the province may obtain, free treatment. Yet the dependents' allowance board deducts $20 a month from the allowance of these women and then pays it to the provincial institution as a maintenance cost-. Since this treatment is free in Alberta the province does not want to charge for the maintenance of these women, the provincial government has offered to pay this money over to the dependents, but the dependents' allowance board has ruled that if the provincial government pays this S20 to the dependents, the board will have to make a further deduction. I have taken this matter up with the dependents' allowance board and they tell me that they cannot do anything because they are governed by the departmental regulations. Those regulations are man-made and there is nothing to prevent their being changed. It is high time they were changed. Here we have a most undesirable situation where a civilian can obtain free hospitalization and yet the dependent of a soldier is charged.
In closing, I should like to make a recommendation to the minister. He knows, as we all do, that there is a great deal of criticism of certain of the measures which come under his department and under the dependents' allowance board. I urge that a committee be set up to deal with soldiers' affairs and that the terms of reference should be sufficiently wide to permit it to deal with pensions, dependents' allowances and the reestablishment of the returned soldier.


Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Queloh) for referring to the wives and families of soldiers who may be A.W.O.L. overseas. I know of a number of cases where wives and children have suffered all kinds of distress because the government just like the cut of a knife has taken away their living. The children's aid society have had to take over in many cases.
I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for referring to old age pensions. He has suggested that the old age pension should be $40 a month. If you look in Hansard for 1940 I believe you will find that I suggested, not only that it be $40 but that the age limit be reduced to sixty years. The old age pension should be given to those people who are in need, not as a charity but as their rightful due.
The speech from the throne this year was a speech that left the people of Canada speechless. When the people read that speech and found out what wras promised-I say promised -by this government they said, I have had them say to me, why, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has promised everything except the kitchen sink. I believe that is right; he has promised everything. I know that the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker), in seconding the motion for the address, certainly hit the nail on the head when he said, as reported at page 16 of Hansard of January 28:
In his book, "Industry and Humanity", written twenty-five years ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) set out certain ideals which we shall seek to attain in regard to better social security. It is not often that a young man who dreams of a programme for the betterment of his country is given a chance twenty-five years later, as prime minister of his country, to begin to carry out in such large measure as is proposed in the speech from the throne that programme.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: He is still dreaming.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think every person in Canada will agree with me that the Prime Minister is still dreaming, as the hon. member has just said. Why should the Prime Minister have waited twenty-five years to do these things? He has been in and out of office for practically that length of time-


An hon. MEMBER:: And he is coming back.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He is still dreaming and that is what the people believe. The Prime Minister said that we would not have an election this year, but the speech from the throne certainly looks as though the Prime Minister were preparing for an election very soon. It looks as though he had been holding this dream in reserve for twenty-five years, so that he would have something up his sleeve, an ace in the hole, as it is often called, to save him at some future time, because it is only by a miracle that the present government can be saved from defeat at the polls at the next election.
I do not believe that the present government could possibly carry out the programme set forth in the speech from the throne, because a programme of that kind needs to be carried out on sound business principles in order to make it stay with us-not for a year or two, because if we are to have social security of the kind that is set forth in the speech from the throne we do not want it for just a short time but until such a time as a better programme can be found. That is
158	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough West)
why I say that the present government cannot give us the utopia that is set forth in the speech from the throne.
I have often urged in this house and on platforms throughout the country that we should have a better social security set-up in regard to health, particularly, in Canada. But so far as I can see, the speech from the throne does not mention hospitalization at all, and hospitalization is one of the greatest needs, if not the greatest need of the country to-day. Not only the working man and the farmer but you and I, Mr. Speaker, are in fear of having to go to the hospital or have some member of our families requiring hospitalization, and we all know that hospitalization drains one's resources almost to the limit. In the case of the working man and the farmer it would certainly do that. But we have another fear, namely that if by chance we or some member of our family had to go to hospital there would not be a room in any hospital to accommodate the patient. That is the case to-day. Hospitalization should have been one of the subjects dealt with in the speech from the throne. I believe that in any post-war programme hospitalization should have priority. I believe that this government should at once announce to the different municipalities throughout the country what it proposes to do to help them build new hospitals or remodel their old hospitals. We know that there is not a proper place to-day even for our returned soldiers, those who have fought in the armed forces, in the army, the navy or the air force and have returned to Canada to receive hospitalization and be taken care of, and we know that very little is being done to remedy the situation. Hospitalization and education are two of the things that should be on the priority list in our post-war reconstruction. I include education because we need new schools in many sections. Many of our schools are out-dated. We should also have up-to-date laboratories where our boys and girls can carry on research work.
In regard to hospitalization I should like to mention a case that was brought to my attention, in which the Department of Mines and Resources refused to. pay one municipality the prevailing hospital rate in that city. The prevailing rate in that city was S3 a day. The Indian Affairs branch, which comes under the Department of Mines and Resources, would pay only $2.50 a day to that hospital, which is in the red all the time since the cost is over $3 a day.
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) mentioned the harnessing of power in the west, and I was pleased to hear him mention the city Df Peterborough in that

connection because our industries in Peterborough, Ontario, can supply whatever power machinery and equipment are required. We have also in the city of Peterborough an industry which wakes up every morning the workers not only in Canada but throughout the empire, for the alarm clocks made in Peterborough wake up the whole British empire.
In the speech from the throne mention is made of the fact that three new departments are being created. I would suggest that another minister be added to the cabinet, a minister of education. I believe that the people of Canada to-day would welcome a dominion educational set-up. At the present time each province has its own educational system, under which a teacher in Ontario cannot teach in Manitoba or British Columbia or a teacher in any of the other provinces teach in a different province on account of the qualifications prescribed. I would not want to see the dominion encroach upon provincial rights, but I should like to see the dominion government cooperate with the provinces in order to bring about a better educational set-up for the people of Canada as a whole. We shall never have unity in Canada unless we have proper education.
Health insurance is mentioned in the speech from the throne. Health insurance really means the minimizing of the hazards that cause sickness. When the item for industrial hygiene was brought up last year and in 1942 I suggested that every worker be examined annually, or if possible twice a year, checked for tuberculosis, and X-rayed; and I feel that if that were done we would1 have happier workers in our plants. Prevention of disease is essential also to any workable social security or health insurance set-up. We have to start at the bottom. At the present time tuberculosis is on the increase, and if that state of .affairs is allowed to develop nobody knows what will happen in a few years. In Canada the problem of sickness is not only physical but mental. Unless preventive measures are taken, in a few decades this country, instead of being the home of sound, physically fit people, will be a country of degenerates. The remedy is to start with health insurance at once, to start checking up without any more delay. I notice in the press that the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) has at last got off his hush-hush horse with regard to venereal disease. I am very glad that at last the government has come out in the open with regard to that.
I should like to know what the government is doing toward checking tuberculosis among the children of this country. I include those

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough West)
of pre-sohool age. These pre-school age children should be thoroughly checked, not once or twice but a dozen times a year, in order to prevent the child from developing, when it grows a little older, rheumatic fever, which has been the cause of so many men and boys being found unfit for service in the Canadian army.
I noticed in the Ottawa Journal of January 31 an editorial which certainly is a dandy. With the permission of the house I am going to read it:
The C.C.F., with all the courage in the world, makes no bones about v-hat are its aims. Young Mr. Jolliffe, Ontario leader of the party, is quoted in an official document as saying: "What the C.C.F. is aiming at is a system of socialized medicine as a part of a general scheme of socialization." With no worry about provincial rights, Mr. Jolliffe says: "When a C.C.F. government comes into power in the dominion (reformed health services) will be transformed with the least possible confusion and delay into a thoroughly socialized medical system which is a natural part of a socialized1 society." All the doctors young and old under the C.C.F. scheme are to be regimented and salaries and areas of work fixed, and Mr. Jolliffe says frankly that if there are any doctors who don't like it they can be left to stew in their own juice or starve.
About the C.C.F. proposals there is to be said that they are open and above board and not camouflaged by "approval in principle". Mr. Jolliffe said to a meeting of doctors in London: "The public will have to stop demanding 24-hour service; that is all there is to it." One of the doctors present asked: "Can your party arrange for all babies to be delivered between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.?" Mr. Jolliffe didn't answer that one.
Does that mean that Mr. Jolliffe spoke for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party of Canada? If so, I say there is not one of them that is 'human. And the doctors of Canada, who have done everything in the world to look after humanity here, working night and day, twenty-four hours a day, covering miles and miles and miles of rough roads, winter and summer, are invited to stew in their own juice if they do not like what the C.C.F. do! Just imagine if some hon. member happened to have an accident in his family, and when he phoned the doctor and said, "Doctor, my wife has fallen downstairs, broken her arm and, I believe, cut an artery in her head," the doctor answered "Well, I am very sorry but it is two minutes to five; I will call on you to-morrow morning after eight o'clock or after I have made out my reports in the morning."


Mr. GILLIS:: Why not put them back on
relief?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am
making the speech. And suppose the doctor went on to advise the hon. member to give his wife some sleeping tablets and maybe stick
his finger in the cut to stop the artery from bleeding! That is a lovely kind of doctrine or platform for any party to have; and God help Canada and the people of Canada if people of that kind ever get control here. But I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada to-day are awake and "wise to" these sayings of the C.C.F. party, the persons who will say something in London, Ontario, and contradict it in Vancouver; who say something in Vancouver and it is contradicted in Nova Scotia. God help the country if it should be controlled by people of that kind.
As regards health insurance, in a little booklet issued by the Canadian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' association, entitled "Health Insurance," page 24, paragraphs 67 and 68, it has this to say:
One of the root causes of much of our ordinary sickness is bad housing, with its poor ventilation, its inadequate protection against winter cold, and its lack of sanitary conveniences. Bad housing occurs in its worst form in our city slums, -where overcrowding adds one more to the factors that breed and spread disease. Should not better housing be recognized as the joint responsibility of federal, provincial and municipal governments, and be adequately provided for in any plan of national health insurance?
That is what I said before, Mr. Speaker. We have to start at the bottom in order to build a sound basis of health insurance. We must start right in the sub-basement, so to speak, if we are to have a healthy nation.
The booklet goes on:
An important cause contributing to physical unfitness _ and the frequent spells of sickness from which many people suffer, is the made-quate income on which they have to live.
That is perfectly true. There are many people in Canada who are not receiving a proper income, and there are others who receive an adequate income but are not educated in the proper spending of that income so as to ensure good health for themselves and their families.
Poverty can be one of the worst of all disease-breeders. Its attendant evils of undernourishment and malnutrition are not only sicknesses in themselves, but they predispose their victims to every kind of infection to which they happen to be exposed. To people in that class, medical care with hospitalization can at best provide only a temporary escape from sickness, for when they are forced to go back to the old way of living, the improvement they made under medical care is quickly lost.
That again is absolutely true. I know of a young child who was taken out of a very poor home because her mother was expecting another baby. The child was taken to a certain home and looked after and given proper clothing and care, and what happened?
160	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough West)
She put on extra weight and at the end of a month was a really strong and healthy child. Then the mother wanted her back and the child returned to her old surroundings. At the end of the next month the mother came to this lady and said, "Mrs. N."-I will not mention her name-"will you please take my daughter back? She has been unwell during the past week. She has failed in health". The whole trouble was that the child did not have the proper surroundings. To continue:
The form of social security such people need most and given which they would soon have much less need for sickness insurance, is the security obtainable through steady employment at good -wages. The responsibility for providing that kind of security, based as it would have to be on national fiscal and economic policies, lies squarely at the door of the dominion government.
That does not apply merely to the workers of Canada; it applies to the farmers as well.
Now I am going to say something and I say it absolutely on my own and not for the party to which I belong. Throughout Canada during the last four or five months organizations have been issuing circulars, booklets and what-have-you, and speaking on the radio-I do not blame them for doing it-asking the people of Canada to take in all the refugees possible from Europe and to bring them to Canada. I have no objection to refugees coming to Canada, but I do say, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me, that not one refugee should come in until every man and woman, and child too-because there are some children of only fourteen or fifteen in our army-now serving in the forces are returned to civilian life and have secured jobs. I do not think these people should come in now and be given the advantage of jobs over our men who are overseas fighting for you and me, and I will fight to the last ditch the entrance of these people into Canada. I say also that immigration should be stopped until our boys and girls return from overseas and until the workers at present in our factories and war-time work return to jobs in. normal civilian life. Not until then should these refugees and immigrants be allowed into the country. I shall be criticized throughout Canada for saying this, but it is my belief, and I know there are thousands of others who feel exactly as I do. I suggest further that not one immigrant and not one refugee should be allowed in until they have had the strictest and most rigid medical examination including X-ray. And they should be examined not by one doctor but at least two, and at different examining points. We do not want these people to come into the country unless they are healthy. I would 
go further and say that those who come in should be morally and mentally well. We do not want little Hitlers in the country; we do not want screwballs-pardon the language.
In the period 1939-43, 11,510 children from babyhood to the age of seventeen were admitted to Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the dinner recess I had only a few more words to say, and I believe I shall take only about five minutes to conclude my remarks. The speech from the throne contains -these words:
A broad programme has already been developed for the reestablishment of veterans of the present war, and for the care of disabled veterans and the dependents of our fighting men and merchant seamen.
I know that a great many returned men, reading that statement in the newspapers, would say it was absolutely wrong, because they feel that nothing has been done in many instances. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) also mentioned this matter this afternoon. There have been a great many men discharged from the army. In many instances they have been given a few dollars, or perhaps a small pension, but they do not want just a hand-out. These men are anxious bo be given something to do, some kind of job at which they can earn a living. They do not want to be handed a pension and told to go sit down on the curbstone and watch the parade go by. They want to be part of that parade themselves; they want to be part of this Canada; they want to help make it a great nation. The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) has been very kind to me in most of the matters I have brought before him, but I feel that he should survey all the cases he has on his files, to see that these men are given not just pensions but real jobs, no matter how small. Show these men what to do, how they can make a living and become useful citizens once more. They fought for us; surely they deserve every possible consideration. I have some of these men in my own riding, and I think they are entitled to jobs after having fought for their country.
There is another matter I should like to discuss for a moment; that is, the matter of underwear for -children. At the present time many men and women are being discharged

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough West)
from our munition plants, and very little is being done to place these people in other work which will give them a decent living wage. I believe many of these men and women could be placed in the textile industry, where they might help make underwear for our children and adults. There is an absolute shortage of underwear of all kinds in this country to-day; and if God had not been very kind last fall and this winter in giving us springlike weather instead of the sub-zero weather we had last year, I feel quite sure that many children and adults would have perished from the cold. This springlike weather has also been a Godsend in that it has allowed the men in the woods to cut cordwood for next year. To return, however, to the matter of children's underwear, I know of one hospital auxiliary that has had to take sizes six, seven and eight and cut them down for babies only a year old. They have also taken worn underwear and tried to make it over for babies and young children.
I do not think the government really appreciates the need for proper underwear in this country. The men and women who work in our factories find it necessary to change their clothing very often. In Britain the women who work in the munitions plants handling explosives and powder are compelled to change their underwear at least every other day; and to make sure they do change it the government has compelled them to wear one colour on Monday and Tuesday, another colour on Wednesday and Thursday and a different colour on Friday and Saturday. I suppose what they wear on Sunday is their own business, but the government in Britain has seen that there is enough underwear to go round, and I think it is up to this government to do the same. I believe the workers who are being let out of our munitions plants should be permitted to go into the textile industry, which I think is classed as Bl.
Of course another reason for the shortage is the definite increase in the birthrate. The number of births from 1939 to 1942 was 1,001-0S2, of whom there are 936,590 now living To this number must be added the immigrant children allowed into Canada, totalling 11,510. In a letter to me under date of January 29 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) stated that in 1943-44 there would be 886,000 dozen garments made, as compared with 749,475 dozen in 1942-43; but many of those garments have not been made as yet, and even if they were available the increase would only give the additional children one and a half garments each.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the amendment, which states that the government has failed to lessen bureaucratic controls. The Toronto Globe and Mail of October 8, 1943, carried the following dispatch:
People who have been salvaging foodstuffs destined for destruction at the city incinerator had their knuckles rapped by the prices board here to-night.
In a statement issued on authority of the regional prices and supply representative, Stanley Lee, the board pointed out that acquisition of rationed food without surrendering valid ration coupons was illegal. A general warning was issued that unless all such articles of food were surrendered to the board, the holders would be liable to prosecution for contravening prices board regulations.
Large quantities of food, including sugar in sealed containers, tinned bacon, evaporated milk, canned fruits and jams, have been dumped at the incinerator for disposal, and some had been salvaged by nearby residents.
Well, Mr. Speaker, none of those people has died as yet, so that the food must have been good. But why should the prices board demand coupons for food that was to be destroyed? It seems to me that is carrying things a little too far. If people need the food I say, give it to them.
A short time ago I asked the Minister of Finance a question with regard to the slaughtering of cattle and other animals, and he has confirmed my understanding that the farmers of Quebec are allowed to do so, while the farmers of the other provinces are not. He went on to state that if the scheme proved successful in Quebec the other provinces would be allowed the same privilege. I feel that if the wartime prices and trade board is to function properly every province must be treated exactly the same. If it extends a privilege to Ontario then Quebec and the other provinces should have it also. If the prices board gives a privilege to British Columbia then Quebec, Ontario and all the other provinces should enjoy it also. I know of one man who has slaughtered animals for over thirty years in Ontario. He is a law-abiding citizen; yet they took away his licence and would not give it back to him, while other people are allowed to slaughter without licences. There is something wrong with the wartime prices and trade board when they play favourites like that. I believe there should be a great deal of lessening of the controls.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I have used my full time.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in the debate because I believe it is very necessary that the reactions of our people toward the

The Address-Mrs. Nielsen

speech from the throne should be made known in the house, so far as any hon. member is able to do so. I wish to join with other hon. members in congratulating the mover (Mr. Tremblay) and the seconder (Mr. Tucker) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Before I proceed further there is one matter I should like to touch upon briefly. I am sorry the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) is not in his seat because I think he should know that I consider the very thinly veiled insult which he offered in his speech yesterday to the new member from Cartier, Montreal (Mr. Rose), coming as it did from an older member of the house-or shall we say a senior member-to say the least of it was unbecoming. What did he say? Oh, he was alarmed! He was dismayed! He was horrified, in fact, that the people of Montreal, the constituency of Cartier, should have sent this new member to the house!
It seems to me that these remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury, meant as an insult, will be more of a boomerang. I was not at all sorry he made them, because I think members of the house and the public generally will realize what a thin coating this "progressive" is on the Conservative party. WThen he said definitely that he was horrified at the election of this new member, what did he really intimate? What did he give out to the country at large? . His own real feelings, that he was against democracy in action, when it elected as a representative to the House of Commons a member whose views he did not happen to share. He hated to see democracy in practice. It revealed, in fact, the very core of reaction which lies within the Conservative party. In fact, he made me think he stood ' there like a very ineffective old King Canute trying to hold back the waves of progress-


An hon. MEMBER:: There he comes.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: -standing there, hating to see the expression of new thought that springs up from within the heart of the people. And he will be just as ineffective. We do not have to worry about him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And I am not worrying about you.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: The people of Montreal elected their member to the House of Commons because he was an honest man, because he was a man of the people, and they believe that he will represent them truly. Many of them possibly were not socialists, but they elected him for his honesty, and because they felt they could trust him. For my own part may I say this, Mr. Speaker, that I feel very 
happy to think that we shall have in this house a member who will help to do something to relieve the somewhat stuffy atmosphere of this chamber, and I am very happy to have with us a little red Rose.
After its long recess, parliament has met again in momentous times. We know that to-day the whole world stage is set for the last great act of what we hope will be the annihilation of fascism in the world, at least its heart. People the world over are ready in their places for the final conflict. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that everything which can be done by the government to add to the determination of the people, to give them courage so that they may go forward and hasten the day of unconditional surrender of the enemy, must be undertaken.
I find myself to-night more pleased to take part in this debate on. the address in reply to the speech from the throne than has been the case in previous sessions. In the speech at this session, and in the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), without doubt it is easy to see the government does have a desire to participate with the other great democratic forces in the world, first, by winning the war, through a close military collaboration with the other great powers, and second, by working in the international field for sane collective measures afterwards, to try to ensure peace at least for some generations. There is the further fact that the speech from the throne did bring up, in some measure, the fact that we in Canada intend to do this in our own name; in other words, that we have achieved a degree of nationhood, something which is welcomed, I believe, both by French-and English-speaking peoples in this country.
In the months which have intervened since the house last sat vast plans have been laid for the collaboration of the democratic forces. These were made at the three important conferences of Cairo, Moscow and Teheran. The plans outlined at those conferences have given to humanity a new outlook, a new perspective, which previously we did not have. Of course we have known all along that the forces of reaction, those which have feared the progress of democracy in the world, have done everything in the past to try to divide democratic forces, both internationally and here at home. But the declarations which were made by the leaders of the three great nations at Teheran, were definitely a triumph for the democratic forces, and I believe to some degree have caused dismay among the forces of reaction. The agreements and the plans made at Teheran, while not going into intricate details which, at that time, were of course impossible, did offer a very broad scope for collaboration

The Address-Mrs. Nielsen
among the nations of the world who believe in and mean to maintain democracy. They do offer to very wide sections of the Canadian people the hope of achieving not only victory over the enemy but a peace which will give the world an opportunity deliberately to plan its future without the necessity for further war. The fact that the one great socialist nation of the world, and the leaders of the two great capitalist nations were in agreement upon these matters, gives cause for satisfaction to all of us, and does not give any of us reason to disbelieve the sincerity of those who do not happen to think just exactly the same way we do upon economic problems. I would say that, to whichever group we may belong, whether we be socialist in our thinking, or whether we still believe in the power of capitalism, very definitely we can give our support to the plans made at Teheran. The only other alternative for us at a time like this is that when the war is over we shall find, particularly in Europe, civil wars and further devastation. We shall find confusion, lack of opportunity for world trade upon which the security of our own Canadian people depends.
Therefore it seems natural and right that we should favour and do everything in our power to make concrete and to substantiate these plans, so that they may become a reality. If by any chance the plans made at Teheran cannot be carried into effect, with the world itself reverting to chaos, there is no doubt whatsoever but that the most predatory and the fiercest of the reactionary forces of the world will take the opportunity to plunge the people back into an age of servitude, another dark age, comparable with that of mediaeval-ism.
Although some of us do hope and believe that socialism will be the ultimate solution to give the fullest democracy, to give the finest well-being to our people, yet to fail to see the great step which is outlined for the whole world in these historic conferences, and not to support it would be to fail to give leadership to the people in their struggles for freedom and security and the gaining of the reforms which are definitely one step forward in the progress of humanity.
Speaking on behalf of the people in my own particular part of Saskatchewan irrespective of their party affiliations, I think I can say to you, sir, that they regard this speech from the throne as definitely an advance. The suggestion embodied in the speech that the winning of the war is our first task undoubtedly will have their support. They would urge also -and this I say to you most emphatically- that this government accept its responsibility, as one of the most important if perhaps not
loo-iii
the most important of the smaller nations of the world, in making its own definite and independent contribution to the peace plans and in establishing its own trade relationships on the basis of its own contribution in materials and men to the war effort.
Personally and on behalf of my people at home I think I can say definitely that we regret the reduction of twenty-five per cent which is contemplated in our mutual aid.
I feel that we should increase rather than decrease this contribution of money and goods.
If the long needed reforms which are promised, perhaps not very definitely, in the speech from the throne are fully implemented they will be most welcome to my people. In order to be able to make their full contribution to the winning of the war, the farmers and small town people of northwest Saskatchewan need definite assurances from this government. As the work of the house progresses I hope that legislation will be placed before us which will give satisfaction and certainty to them.
The great majority of those living in that part of Saskatchewan which I represent in this house are concerned with agriculture. Therefore their main and primary consideration is that agriculture in Canada shall rest upon a sure foundation. I think most hon. members who represent agricultural ridings will agree with me when I say that the security of agriculture depends upon the degree of world trade we are able to develop and secure for ourselves. I think rather than decreasing credits at the present time, we should be increasing them. Such action would help greatly to establish among the nations of the world which need foodstuffs a feeling of friendship which would make them willing to accept our products at a later date. I noticed the other day that one of the representatives-in the United States said this:
It is impossible for us to continue to be an island of prosperity in an ocean of adversity. We cannot be a healthy nation surrounded by a sick world.
Those words apply equally well to Canada. Upon the degree of international cooperation and trade that exist depends the security of the world in general and ourselves also. I feel that we should do more than we are' doing to advertise the products we are giving to other nations on long term credits. We should definitely develop our own policies for mutual aid to Europe and Asia to a greater extent. There was a time when we had considerable exports of grain, wheat and flour to China. In 1929 our exports of wheat and flour to China and Hong Kong amounted to
m
The Address-Mrs. Nielsen

$21,565,000. That was a considerable export, but unfortunately after 1933 it dwindled down until in 1939 we were exporting only $698,000 worth of grain and flour products to that country. There is no reason in the world why we could not regain these markets by rendering more help to China during a time of extreme need, which is right now.
I think we are in a position to tell the *people of the world that we are the producers of the finest foodstuffs to be found anywhere. We should let them know that after the war we can. supply them with agricultural machinery and all kinds of raw materials and minerals. We should advertise these things in order to make our position for export later on known to the countries of the world which are likely to take advantage of it. The well-being of agriculture in Canada depends upon our export market, but, of course, it will never be secure without the guaranteeing by parliament of a definite parity price, with guarantees to extend for a period of at least two years. That would give our farmers an opportunity to plan and regulate their production.
We welcome the suggestion of placing a floor under agricultural products, but when the actual legislation comes before the house I reserve the right to criticize it, if necessary. I hope it will not be necessary, for I definitely hope that these floors will not be basements. We do not want basements; we want the same treatment for agriculture that industry has demanded, that is cost-plus. For too long our ^farmers have been producing at less than cost and the time has come when this situation should be changed. The farming people of Canada need protection. They need a stabilization of prices by the elimination of grain gambling, and the elimination of the excess profits of those monopolies which are so closely connected with agriculture, such as the milling industry and packing plants.
I am pleased bo see that the government intends to set up an industrial development bank, but in this connection I have a suggestion to make. I would propose that in the legislation to be brought down during this session provision should be made not only for an industrial bank but for a bank for agricultural development. I appreciate that small business interests need such a bank, but I insist that even to a greater extent the smaller farmers, particularly those in the west, need a similar bank. First of all, they need a scaling down of their present debts. They need access to funds on long terms and at low rates of interest. They need the opportunity to establish themselves after the many years of drought and depression through which they have per-
(Mrs. Nielsen.]
severed and tried to keep their farms in operation. I hope the government will do what is possible to see that such a bank is instituted.
During the last recess I talked with many farming people in my province and I found that they considered it a disgrace that the province-undoubtedly because of pressure exerted by this government-is insisting upon the collection of old seed, feed and relief debts. During 1937 and 1938 there was a drought, and many of our farmers were forced to take the seed and feed which was given to them through the relief agencies maintained by this government and operated through the provinces and the municipalities. Why does this government feel that those farmers should pay back that relief? It may be said that the farmers got the relief. Certainly they got seed and feed, but when they got it they were actually producing wheat at less than cost. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture will contradict me.


James Garfield Gardiner: Since the hon. member has referred to me, I will contradict her. The feed and relief which were given by this government at the period of time referred to by my hon. friend were given as a free gift.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I am very glad to hear the minister say that. But when I was speaking to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in August he assured me that he had to see to the collection of the seed, feed and relief debts still outstanding in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be noted that I did not include seed. I said that feed and relief were given practically as a gift.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: It is particularly the relief that was given in the matter of seed that I would mention. I ask hon. gentlemen, did not that relief benefit, not so much the farmers of Saskatchewan when they were producing wheat at low prices, as the railways, the grain exchange, and the small businessmen who benefited from the fact that the farmers were able to put in a crop? That relief helped to keep alive the whole economy of western Canada, and therefore I say that in justice to the farmers it should not be only the farmers who should be asked to pay back that relief but rather the country at large. Let the country at large accept the responsibility for the relief which the farmers were,,forced to accept.


James Garfield Gardiner: f repeat, the farmers were not asked to pay back the relief that was given by this government.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: It is charged against their farms.

The Address-Mrs. Nielsen


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They have been notified by the municipalities to that effect.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not as regards the relief given by this government. That was given as a free gift and not charged against the farmers. The provincial government did borrow and give relief, but that was not relief given by this government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The relief was given by the country, not by the government.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: At some later time I shall be glad to bring before the minister definite statements from my people to substantiate what I have said.
We are very happy to think that the government will consider setting up research laboratories in western Canada, and if we have an industrial bank which will help to finance small industry, we hope that we may have set up in Saskatchewan certain industries which will improve the economy of our province and benefit our people.
No doubt many members will be speaking on the question of housing, particularly with regard to cities. But I want to assure the House that housing is not a matter of concern only to city people. Overcrowding in slum areas in the cities is a ghastly thing, but in the rural areas we also have slum conditions. There, however, it is not overcrowding but the terrible isolation which makes conditions so bad for the settlers who have to endure them. In one of the publications of the Department of Agriculture, the Economic Annalist for November, 1943, there is an article about housing conditions in Saskatchewan. It says in part:
It is readily agreed that improvements in the condition of farm homes in Saskatchewan are badly needed, and that some thought should be given towards rural housing in a broad reconstruction programme.
It goes on:
Farm houses in the pioneer fringe region are generally in poor condition. The majority of settlers' houses in this region are built of logs and are of rough construction. This situation is in direct contrast with that in the prairie and park regions where the usual house is of frame construction with a small proportion of brick and stone construction. The poorest condition of houses for the pioneer region was shown by the Goodsoil-Pierceland area.
That happens to be in the northwest comer of my riding, and in that particular area the
percentage of homes definitely acknowledged to be in poor condition was 70-2; the percentage of homes acknowledged to be in fair condition was 27-4, and those homes acknowledged to be in good condition were only 2-4 per cent of the total. So that" in our part of the country, especially if we have a development bank set-up to grant agricultural credits, we hope to see a definite and constructive programme of rural housing undertaken by the government. Not only should the government do that, but I feel that there should be some supervision over the material and equipment used and over the construction companies which undertake such a housing scheme. Unless the government exercises some supervision there will be great variations in quality and price. We need to have prices minimized and standards of material and equipment set, before a housing project of this kind can really be efficient.
We would also suggest that plans for the electrification of Saskatchewan be made at the earliest opportunity. Some of our areas on the eastern side of Saskatchewan might be linked up with the electrification which is being undertaken by the province of Manitoba. We should also do something in the development of our northern water powers. In the northern areas of my riding there are some people who live thirty miles away from the nearest telephone, and in any programme of reconstruction and rehabilitation better telephone communication should be provided for these areas. In times of sickness or accident, with people as far away from a telephone as thirty miles, it will be seen how difficult communication is, particularly at certain times of the year when the roads are impassable.
With regard to health measures, there is unanimous agreement that these are not only necessary but extremely urgent. We need these things. As far as I can gather, the great majority of Saskatchewan people are supporting the Saskatchewan state medical league. They feel that to create conditions of positive health it would not be wise or prudent to take from the incomes of those who are farming in a small way or from the low salaried workers contributions toward a national health insurance scheme. They want the best of health insurance, not a makeshift policy.
We welcome all these things, but I want it definitely known that these measures will not be an alternative to providing for the basic needs of agriculture, which are world trade and guaranteed prices. These other social security measures will just add to the security and well-being of our farming people.
The Address-Mrs. Nielsen

In the far north there are regions in my constituency where in isolated settlements only Indians and half-breeds live. I would suggest that in the period of rehabilitation, in order to give these people a little better opportunity, we might see what can be done in the matter of flooding certain areas, to give these people who live by hunting and trapping a better opportunity of catching muskrats and of selling furs. We might also consider the development of handicrafts in certain districts because that is work which Indians can very well do.
I mentioned this before but it is worth mentioning again. We would like to see an extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to include the northern areas of Saskatehe wan. In some submarginal areas people have been settled on land whioh will never be able to provide them with a decent standard of living. Some of these families might be moved, under the act, to land more suitable which would give them a better return for their labour, and the lands which they vacate could be reforested and used as game and forest reserves.
My constituency is of tremendous size, and up in the extreme northerly corner of settled territory there is an area of roughly 6,000 square miles without a railway. It is a country which is well settled. There was the beginning of a railway built there ten or twelve years ago. It was a spur line sent in from Alberta to link up with Meadow Lake and St. Walburg. That line was not completed. The roadbed ends in the wilderness. If it were completed it would give the people in that district a chance to ship their cream, eggs and other farm products. I think the building of that railway should be undertaken immediately on the cessation of the war.
I do not think the small farmers, even if we have the measures which I have advocated, will feel that they are quite secure. Therefore, on behalf of those farmers who are farming on a small scale, I think that definitely this government must guarantee to them that they have security of tenure of their land, that we make evictions and foreclosures of these small farmers impossible, because how else are these people to try to develop their farms with any degree of hope for the future? Not only that, but we should prohibit the seizure of farm machinery. Government-owned machine stations should be established, so that these people are not left to antiquated methods of old farm machinery when they can have the chance of something new and better at low rentals. Furthermore, I believe that in these areas of pioneer and homesteading the government should definitely [Mrs. Nielsen.J
decide to do something to improve the nutritional standards of the people, and by that I mean not after the war, but now. I suggest that something along the lines of the United States stamp plan should be inaugurated to enable these people whose nutrition is low and whose income is poor to have some of the grains, fruits and other surplus foods which will from time to time be available. I think the provision of school lunches for children in these pioneer areas should also be undertaken.
These are things which should not be left until after the war, but should be organized to-day, to aid and increase the ability of our farm people to put their hearts and souls into the winning of the war and to look forward with hope toward the future.
I would again recall the statement made by one of the representatives in the United States house, that it was impossible for us to continue to be an island of prosperity in an ocean of adversity. On behalf of my own people in northern Saskatchewan may I express the hope and the belief that we should never again have islands of adversity, as the northwestern corner of Saskatchewan has been in the past- islands of adversity in an otherwise prosperous world.
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):	Mr. Speaker, I had not intended
to participate in this debate, but in view of the controversy raised by the address which Lord Halifax, British ambassador to the United States, delivered before the Toronto board of trade, on which occasion Mr. John Bracken, leader of the Progressive Conservative party of Canada was in attendance, I deem it my duty to submit to this house a few considerations which I regard as necessary.
As a matter of fact, what was stated by Lord Halifax is that, since the imperial federation exists in fact, he could not see why it could not also exist by right. I am convinced that the ambassador himself was the first to derive some amusement out of the rumpus which some people have, for electioneering purposes, raised about his address.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, from the time of the Transvaal affair to this day, have not the successive governments taken an active share in bringing about, in point of fact, the imperial federation referred to by Lord Halifax?
The Canadian government stepped in first through participation in a war whose object was to deprive of its freedom a small defenceless country which only wanted to live, Transvaal. In 1914 at the request of the British government, they once again sided with England in what was then called a "struggle for the salvation of democracy." Now, dictator-

The Address-Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix
ships have never been so numerous in Europe and everywhere else than after that war of 1914: there have been dictatorships in Germany, in Italy, in Spain, in Russia, et cetera. All of them resulted from the Versailles treaty in the drafting of which the former prime minister of Britain Lloyd George, took an outstanding part. Finally, in 1939, we declared war to guarantee the Polish boundaries, which latter, if I may say so in passing, will shrink noticeably as a result of the present conflict. Besides, here is what Lord Halifax stated on that point in the course of his address:
We can imagine the bewilderment of an intelligent visitor from another planet on being confronted with its manifest contradictions. . . . The visitor, baffled by this extraordinary confusion of functions, would suffer a further shock if he went on' to study what actually happened in September. 1939. He would find that on September 3 Great Britain declared war on Germany; that Australia and New Zealand declared war on the same day, and that South Africa and Canada followed a few days later.
He might well wonder why. He would naturally be puzzled to determine what possible interest the Polish corridor could have for a Canadian, or Danzig for an Australian, or the western frontier of Poland for a South African.
The dominions had not been parties to the Treaty of Guarantee to Poland which was the immediate cause of Great Britain's action. . . . They had influenced, but had not been responsible for, the foreign policy of Great Britain.
Lord Halifax was justified in saying, from his own standpoint: "Since you are members de facto of an imperial commonwealth, why would you not be members de jure?"
Speaking with the authority which he derived from his threefold title of Minister of Justice, right-hand man of Mr. Mackenzie King and dean of the House of Commons, when he maintained that Canada was compelled to take part in the war, Mr. Lapointe, on September 9, 1939, and February 22, 1940, uttered these words: "Neutrality is impossible." On September 9, 1939, he quoted neutrality as defined by Oppenheim "a recognized authority in international law": "Neutrality may be defined as the attitude of impartiality adopted by a third state towards belligerents and recognized by belligerents, such attitude creating rights and duties between the impartial state and the belligerents." On the strength of this rigid definition, the former minister of justice painted a dark picture of Canada remaining neutral in a war which involved Great Britain. Not only did he claim that neutrality was impossible, but he went so far as to assert that there was no such thing as mitigated, partial or sympathetic neutrality. To those who were advocating a policy of mitigated or sympathetic neutrality towards Great Britain,
Mr. Ernest Lapointe replied, on September 9, 1939, I quote:
Well, Mr. Speaker, as a constitutional student *-as I think I am

as a public man and a Minister of Justice of Canada I state, with all my responsibility, that there is no such thing as mitigated or partial neutrality.
In his recent address, Lord Halifax stated:
As opposed to that policy, which Ireland showed could be followed, the world had watched the amazing spectacle of free nations flying into common action as a result of policies in which they had had little share, but in defence of common ideals.
Ireland adds her testimony to that of Lord Halifax. On January 26, 1943, the Canadian Press released from Ottawa the following dispatch-I quote:
Mr. John D. Kearney, High Commissioner of Canada to Dublin, stated that the official attitude of the government of Eire in the present war, as defined by Prime Minister de Valera, is an attitude of benevolent and friendly neutrality. All that Ireland can do in the circumstances is to show goodwill and friendship toward the united nations. Mr. Kearney made this statement to the newspapermen to-day, on the occasion of his first visit to Ottawa, since he has assumed his post in Ireland, two years ago.
In a report on this subject, a daily French paper of Montreal stated: "Ireland's neutrality in this war is a benevolent neutrality."
Mr. Speaker, after all these gestures worthy of colonials, made by the governments which have successively held power since the Transvaal war and which the King administration has amplified during the present conflict, Lord Halifax has considered that it was only logical for him benevolently to stoop down towards Canada and charitably offer our country a seat in the imperial council that will be called, after the war, to pass on matters pertaining to the foreign policy of England.
Was it not a former prime minister of Canada, Mr. R. B. Bennett, who made the following statement, as reported by radio station CFCF, a few days ago:
I do not believe the British empire is an accident. I believe that the miracles of this war are indeed miracles, and that we have survived and will continue to do so because we have a divine mission to rule the world.
More than that, Mr. Speaker, did not the parliamentary secretary to the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, who is supposed to express the latter's views, state and define, in the course of an address recently delivered in the United States, the future policy of the Canadian government in the following terms:
Cooperation with the United States in the protection of the North American continent and
168	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix
of Great Britain, a country which must be considered, in these times of fast transportation, as the outpost and bastion of our continent.
Therefore, if Mr. Claxton wishes Canada, in cooperation with the United States, to contribute to the defence of Great Britain, it is because the latter is considered to be a bastion and outpost of our continent.
In a few words, Mr. Speaker, our whole war policy leans towards the views held by Lord Halifax. Is not Canada the only British commonwealth dominion without a national flag, and where the union jack is still the emblem unfurled over all public buildings? Is not our country, with its small population of some eleven million, the nation that has done most to hold that bastion, England, by a per capita war effort greater than that of any other country in the world?
Our total income, as compared with our total expenditures, have diminished from 82 per cent in 1939 to the pitifully low figure of 46 per cent in 1943. The total deficit in our budget increased from $119,000,000 in 1939 to the fantastic sum of $3,018,000,000 in 1943. The financial help granted the United Kingdom, which was not anticipated in the budget, climbed from $104,000,000 in 1939 to $1,053,000,000 in 1941, and since then, it has sky-rocketed to tremendous heights.
At the conference which took place in Toronto, Mr. John Bracken, by his presence and applause, gave full support to the words spoken by Lord Halifax. Moreover, all those who heard the speech made by the temporary leader of the Progressive-Conservative party in the house noticed that he considered the proposal of Lord Halifax, simply as a matter of controversy, when both he and Mr. Bracken should have protested and insisted that Lord Halifax leave the country never to set foot here again; for no other country in the world would have tolerated for one moment that foreign ambassador, even though a lord, ask that country to sacrifice its independence in order to please a caste of tories and imperialists who have but one thought in mind, that being to go on milking Canada indefinitely.
In the face of the unspeakable claim suggesting that we be associated to an empire with which we have nothing in common from the geographical and economic standpoints, our present-day Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) felt a sudden throb of Canadianism; this reawakening was evidenced by protests against this proposal, protests which I heartily endorse; the proposal, however, is but the corollary to an imperialistic policy for the shaping of which he must assume a large share of responsibility. We
	. IWEI
must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the audacity of the British government which, in spite of what might be said, inspired Lord Halifax, is but the natural consequence of our own weakness. Lord Halifax thought, quite simply: "If they have set the stage for this request, why should I not take advantage of it?" That is one of the reasons why, in September, 1939, I voted against Canada's participation in the war.
As far as I am concerned, I protest vigorously against the proposal of Lord Halifax, just as I have always protested, ever since I have held a seat in the house, against any tightening of the bonds which unite us to England.	.
I would much rathe'r have my country take a course leading to complete independence than follow blindly in the winding wake of England's foreign policy, a policy which will fatally lead us again into war every twenty or twenty-five years. The sooner we realize that, the better.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to state that if I disapprove of the mad effort which we are putting forth in our participation and which is out of proportion with our financial possibilities, I nevertheless wish to congratulate the government for having announced, in the speech from the throne that they intend to introduce legislation designed to afford farmers the necessary economic stability in the postwar period, through the establishment of minimum prices on the chief farm products. That is a measure which I have advocated every year since I have been a member. I am glad to note that the government has at last adopted it.
Moreover, I wish to congratulate the government for having recognized the principle of family allowances. I hope that the bill which will be introduced in this house will include no restriction as regards the number of children to whom the measure may apply. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, out of 2,486,920 families in Canada, 617,990 or 24.84 per cent live in the province of Quebec. If there are grounds for the rumour that no allowance would be granted to the seventh and subsequent children, this would deprive the province of Quebec from an advantage to which she is rightfully entitled, for it is in our province that the primary notion of patriotism which consists in giving children to the Canadian nation is best understood. Out of 84,920 Canadian families with seven, eight or nine children, Quebec accounts for 43,170, and out of the 20,890 Canadian families with ten or more children, Quebec has 13,220.
The other day I heard certain persons say that- this measure would help extend French

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
influence in Canada. May I, Mr. Speaker, reply to this argument as follows: This legislation will tend rather to give recognition to the unsung heroism of the Canadian mother who daily in her home ignores the urge of selfishness, denies herself in order to do her humble share for a greater and finer Canada where life is worth living. In regard to the development which this legislation may give to the French tongue and influence, I assert that Canada can but benefit from two cultures developing along parallel lines without, however merging entirely. To those who out of racial fanaticism oppose the principle laid down by this legislation may I say also that no matter what may be done in regard to the use of the French language, I state positively that it will endure for, as the poet said:
Trying to stop its impetus is just like trying to prevent rosebuds from bursting into full blossom. Trying to annihilate its charm and power is like dreaming to dim the radiance of dawn.
No matter what campaigns are launched to suppress the traditions which we inherited from our ancestors, the French pioneers who settled the country, those traditions will remain alive always, for Providence willed, and rightly so, that we should stand guard faithfully, on the shores of the St. Lawrence, in this north American continent, over the genius of French thought.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the words in the speech from the throne in regard to our armed1 forces; I think they have done a magnificent job. The air force lived up to the best traditions of Canada when it took part in the battle of Britain and helped to defend that citadel of freedom in the dark days of 1940. The men of the navy have been responsible to no small degree for the winning of the battle of the Atlantic and for holding open the life-line to Great Britain and other countries. The men of the army had a tedious wait for several years, and it was remarkable that their morale held up as well as it did. However, they were ambassadors of good will in Great Britain and helped to further the splendid relationship that exists between Canada and the motherland. The women of the armed forces have done very well also. Our men are now conducting themselves wonderfully in Italy, I think far better than the general public really know. They are going through a terrible time over there, and I sometimes think the exploits of our men are taken too much for granted by the people of Canada. I believe it would be better if we knew a little more about the grim conditions under which our forces have to carry on.
That being so, let us see that when the men and women of the armed forces return to Canada they are not disillusioned by the treatment they receive. Every effort must be put forth to see that the ideals for which they fight are realized. Perhaps the majority of the workers-and I include everyone-on the home front have some realization and appreciation of the efforts put forth by our armed forces, but the more closely the hardships and sufferings of our men are brought home to the people in Canada, the more they realize the difficulties that are being encountered, the greater will be their understanding of what must be done in future for those men and women who have saved the world from nazi terrorism and brutality.
After our successes in North Africa we heard it said in many quarters that the war would probably be over by June. I never held that view, which to my mind was greatly to be deplored. Even the speech from the throne, I thought, gave that impression in the 'first few paragraphs; perhaps that impression was given because what was actually said was so overshadowed by window-dressing. Certainly it looked like a pre-election speech, and I think has been so taken by a great many people. Therefore I thought it was very timely that in his address on January 31, after reviewing the favourable position that the allies are in to-day and the position of the axis powers, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should say, as reported at page 33 of Hansard:
But I do say at once to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada that I am far from believing there is going to he an early conclusion to this war.
Something along the same line was said to the British House of Commons by Mr. Churchill. Perhaps people were beginning to think too much about the post-war period and too little about the winning of the war itself. The Prime Minister also disillusioned those who thought there would be an early general election, when he said, as reported at the same page of Hansard:
The people of Canada do not want a general election at this time of war. Our men fighting overseas do not want an election, if it can be avoided, until after victory is achieved, and we are in a position to *welcome them and all our armed forces home as a victorious army.
However, the Prime Minister left the door open pretty wide, so that I think it is obvious that in the speech from the throne he was dressing his windows and showing his wares to the people of Canada in preparation for a general election, and I imagine that if the right time should present itself the windowdressing will not count for much, though there



The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
will have to be some issue on which he will go to the country. I for one think a general election at this time would be deplorable. Look at what lies ahead of our fighting men. Perhaps we may gain some idea of the difficulties they will encounter if we look at the illustration which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star not long ago showing some of tne fortifications which will have to be overcome on the western front. Think of the terrible blood-bath that will have to be endured; think of the loss of life, the loss of property that must take place before victory is won. When we consider the care with which the campaign in Italy is being conducted it seems obvious that it will be some time before the war is over; and the war will be over only when we are in complete control of the nazi countries. Another point is that as far as I can see there is no need for a general election just now, because the government have an overwhelming majority and can do anything they like.
I have one or two suggestions to offer in connection with the reform of the procedure of the House of Commons, though perhaps some hon. members who come from a distance will not agree with them. Reform is very badly needed because of the tremendous growth of the business which must be done and the multiplicity of subjects which must be debated. I think everyone in the country deprecates the fact that to a large extent the nation is being run by order in council. I believe most of these measures should be debated on the floor of the house. For instance, order in council P.C. 9384, the wartime wages control order, was passed on December 9 only a short time before the house met. Perhaps the decision in that connection had to be made promptly; I do not know. But it seems to me that a measure of that kind might well have waited until the house was in session. Had that been the situation, some of the unrest among working men -might have been eliminated. However, so far as that measure is concerned, I know several hon. members have spoken with respect to it, and I do not wish to repeat what has been said. I simply raise my voice in vigorous protest against the measure as being un-British and undemocratic. I say it should be repealed, and we should have discussion on the floor of the house with respect to it.
It seems to me that when the committee is considering amendments to the rules of procedure some thought might be given to the length of session. We come to Ottawa in the early part of the year, remain here five or six months, and then return to our homes for the remainder of the year. Of necessity, orders in council have to be passed while we are not

here, and without debate. Why could the session not be divided into three parts, the members coming here for two or three months, and then returning home? In the first part of the session we might discuss the speech from the throne, vote moneys, pass the necessary appropriation measures, and the required supply. Then we could go away for a couple of months, and return for a further two or three months of discussion, or whatever may be necessary. We might then go away again and, if necessary, come back a little later on.
So far as I know, all orders in council of major importance dealt with by the British government are placed before parliament, and opportunity is given for their discussion when the house is in session. Under our present system I believe the government have taken advantage of the powers given under the War Measures Act to govern by orders in council to too great an extent. Also, they are unnecessarily infringing upon provincial rights. They have taken powers to which they are not entitled. As I have said before in other sessions, a great deal of discussion and many long speeches might be obviated by the introduction of a question hour. Question hours might be allowed two or three times a week during which questions could be asked, replies given and supplementary questions asked. If that were permitted I am sure much of the lengthy discussion and debate would be obviated. There is no doubt of the success of that principle in the British House of Commons.
I am. in agreement with much of the proposed legislation in the speech from the throne, but I urge that the government introduce its legislation and bring it down on the floor of the house. The people of Canada do not want window-dressing to-day. Rather, they want something concrete; promises are not enough. They want legislation.
There is a further matter I should like, on account of its urgency, to bring to the attention of the house, rather than wait until a later date. I refer to a revision of the remuneration paid to letter carriers in Toronto, a revision which is long overdue. When one compares the wages or salaries paid to other public servants, such as policemen, firemen, motormen and the like, he realizes at once that the remuneration of postmen or letter carriers which, at present, ranges from $1,020 to $1,500 a year, is inadequate. To these sums, of course, must be added the cost of living bonus.
The intelligence required to perform the arduous duties of these men is often overlooked. I have not now the time to make a comparison with other services, in figures,

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
but the importance of letter carriers, as far as the performance of their duties is concerned, has been underestimated. The letter carrier is the last link in the system of communications. He corrects all mistakes previously made, he manipulates mail, and attends to incorrect or insufficient addressing by the public. He offers the only means of effecting delivery. He records businesses and householders, and also keeps a record of guests, home-owners, and those people who are in hospitals and hotels. All information in connection with these men is set out in a circular forwarded by the letter carriers branch No. 1-F.A.L.C. committee, which circular I have no doubt has been put into the hands of Toronto and district members. This is an urgent matter and one which should receive immediate attention. That is my reason for bringing it up at the present time.
I was pleased to see in the speech from the throne that at last the government has decided to do something in connection w-ith low-cost housing. I have discussed this matter on many occasions, and I have always been told it was one within the control of the provincial government, the cities or the municipalities directly concerned, and that it was not a matter of federal responsibility. Last year, when it was so difficult to get housing accommodation for workers in Toronto I described some of the conditions under which people were living in my own riding. In some instances I have found families with as many as five or six children living in one or two rooms. Often the house was old, in bad condition and infested with vermin, a condition which was bad for the health of the children. However, city officials did not enforce the by-laws because those people, if ejected, had no place to go. It is about time some consideration were given to conditions of that kind.
I do not wish to discuss the questions arising from the speech delivered by Lord Halifax, or from that of General Smuts. These are matters requiring careful thought ,and I do not believe we should have preliminary discussions on the floor of the House of Commons. The proper place for such discussion by the Prime Minister of Canada would be in round-table conference with the other prime ministers of other dominions. There are many intricate and complex problems involved. The Prime Minister has spoken to us about the means of communication at his hand, with which he may communicate with various members of the commonwealth, or premiers of the provinces. However, all hon. members who are in business know that in their own 100-12J
daily lives, despite the advanced methods of communication, nothing will take the place of a round-table conference. Good and all as communications are, I think we might conclude that the Prime Minister is not going to communicate by telephone with the premiers of the different provinces. I understand that they are to come to Ottawa for a conference in the near future.
It is my hope that the Prime Minister will attend the round-table conference of which mention has been made recently. I hope it will be called at as early a date as possible. Above all, I hope the Prime Minister will go over there with an open mind.
This brings me to another matter which I should like to discuss a little more fully, the question of radio. When we first set up radio in Canada an effort was made to make it a government monopoly, but times and conditions have changed. In Canada we have both free enterprise and public ownership working in cooperation with each other and the state. We have free enterprise under government control and we have public ownership under government control, both surrounded by safeguards to prevent abuse of their powers.
For instance, we have the Bell Telephone company, a free enterprise, operating in conjunction with rural telephone systems, many of which are publicly owned. We have the Canadian Pacific Railway operating in conjunction with the Canadian National Railways. We have privately owned power companies operating in conjunction with publicly owned systems; although in- different territories. All these different enterprises compete one against the other. That is a good' thing because they act as checks. But they are all operating under the control of the state. We have publicly owned water systems and some privately owned systems. At times privately owned systems have been changed to public ownership and it has been found that they did not work as successfully. We have both publicly owned and privately owned transportation systems in our cities, but they are all under control.
It is important that we should have this dual system because our whole economy has been built up on that principle. Our whole system was evolved on that principle. People talk about our democracy as being a government of the people, for the people, by the people, and let it go at that. But it is more than that. Our system of democracy is built up on one important principle, the diversification of powers of influence. Government of the people means our parliament. For the people means for all classes. By the people means that the people elect parliament. Parlia-

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
ment is not elected by one class; it is elected by all classes. Perhaps this is done differently in other countries, but that is how it is done here. Parliament is the servant of all, of the power of capital, of labour, of the civil service, of science and so forth, and last but not least, of the power of the freedom of the individual.
Our system has been built up having in view the danger of absolute power. We have always been trying to safeguard against uncontrolled monopolistic power. This is especially bad when such power is controlled by the government or by the state. I see this as an approaching danger in connection with radio in Canada. A British statesman said, "Give me the complete use of the radio and I will elect any party to power." I think he was about :right when he said that. The absolutism of the radio corporation in Canada is becoming more intolerable all the time and is becoming more [DOT]dangerous to the country. I see great danger in the future if it is allowed to continue.
Radio in Canada is nominally controlled by the board of governors, but in fact it is not controlled by the board of governors, it is controlled by the government. At the present time it is controlled by the Liberal party. The board of governors sits every once in a while, but there are at present two vacancies on the board. In addition, there is no general manager, only an acting general manager, and there is no assistant general manager. The bylaws call for certain duties to be performed by the assistant general manager, and I do not know who is performing those duties However, enough of that. The government -runs it; so that is that. With all the excuses in the world, with all the camouflage that can be offered that it is an absolutely independent enterprise, the fact is that it just is not so.
For some time we have had the acting [DOT]general manager of the radio corporation acting as a referee as to who shall or shall not speak [DOT]over the radio, whether an address is or is not controversial, or whether it is or is not political. He decides what prominent citizens are to be given the right to speak. If the subject matter of the speech is considered to be political, then the speaker is not allowed on the radio. There have been some slight adjustments in these rules because certain parties are now allowed some time on the air.
On the other hand we hear forum discussions of the most controversial subjects and at times the discussions are inaccurate and misleading. These forums last for half an hour, and they take up subjects which could be debated for at least two or three hours before a proper conclusion could be arrived at. The inaccurate results of these things are left in the minds
IMr. Douglas G. Ross.]
of the public. Just the other day I listened to a radio broadcast over the new network coming from Philadelphia. This was a speech by a gentleman in the United States whose name l have forgotten. He was referring to Mr. Nehru of India and his persecution by the British government. I do not know anything about that, nor do I know much about Mr. Gandhi or the political significance of all this. But I do know that at the meeting of the empire parliamentary committee held here in the House of Commons the facts were given to us by members of the British government. We listened to a most instructive talk on the matter. I am not defending Gandhi or Nehru; I am simply referring to the discussion about them as an example of the controversial matters that are heard over the radio. If such things are allowed over the radio, is there any reason why other speakers should not be allowed to speak? I only make that comparsion.
Mr. Bracken was refused the use of the Radio Broadcasting Corporation facilities and there was a great deal of controversy over that decision. His speech was rejected by the referee for the corporation on the ground that it was political and that something must first be deleted from it. Who was the judge? Was it the acting general manager of the corporation? Was it the board of governors? Was it some other body that decided that Mr. Bracken should not be allowed to speak because he was too popular? But Mr. Bracken is a prominent citizen of this country and his speech was broadcast over a private radio station and also received wide publicity in the press. I defy anybody within sound of my voice to tell me that that speech was political or controversial. It was a good speech, made by a sane man on conditions in Canada and giving the speaker's suggestions as to what ought to be done. It was not a political speech in any sense, and I might add that it was very well received by the public of Canada.
Last year the committee of this house on radio broadcasting made this recommendation, at page 260 of this report:
Outstanding speakers of national importance should continue to express their views.
In view of that recommendation of a committee of this house, why was Mr. Bracken not allowed to use the national hook-up to express his views, simply because he was the leader of the Progressive Conservative party? This is not the first time that a speaker of national importance has been refused the air simply because he was the leader of a political party. But all the ministers of the cabinet can use the air all they like and their speeches are not censored.

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: All right. I think it is quite proper that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should give a message to this country. But it is a different matter entirely to have political broadcasts by ministers of the crown, as has happened in the past.


Mr. HOMUTH:: They were not very effectual though.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: If ministers of the crown are to be allowed to make political broadcasts, then prominent citizens, no matter what their political stripe, should also be allowed to give their views over the air because the public want to hear them.
The committee on radio broadcasting last year reaffirmed the principle of 1932, namely:
The paramount importance of a single national authority to control all broadcasting in the public interest.
In view of the situation as we find it and the evolution which has taken place in broadcasting, it becomes a matter of public importance that there must be set up some independent body, such as the board of transport commissioners, free entirely from the control of government, publicly owned enterprise and privately owned enterprise, which will have the authority to control radio and act impartially. This body would formulate the general principles upon which broadcasting shall be carried on in Canada so that both private and public enterprise will carry on their business according to their own policies, subject only to the control of the board. The position today is that decisions are given by an official who is under control and his decisions therefore cannot possibly be impartial. He has to make decisions, for instance, with respect to private stations and decide how much power they shall have. Imagine all that being decided by a man who is running a radio system in competition with the private stations!
A commission or board such as I have described would also coordinate all broadcasting in Canada. Another necessity for this is shown in the contradiction which appears in the recommendation of the 1943 committee on radio broadcasting. It reaffirmed the principle of the 1932 report, as follows:
The public ownership of all high-powered stations under a national system of broadcasting, with low-power stations individually operated or coordinated in relation to the dominant system.
In other words, the publicly-owned stations were to be the high-powered stations, and the privately-owned stations were to be allowed only low power.
Yet the 1943 committee recommended:
. . . that the independent stations be encouraged to improve their facilities and that they be permitted to increase their power and to arrange for multiple station hook-ups, and generally do anything that makes for better broadcasting in the public interest.
It is true that a new network has been set up utilizing the private stations, but it is under the iron fist of government control. The 1943 committee also stated:
Evidence was presented to the effect that there may be danger of losing full use of the channels now assigned to Canada by the Havana agreement.
That is so. Yesterday in the house we heard an answer given to a question put by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) in respect to aviation, which is a public monopoly in this country at the present time, pointing out the strangling of civil aviation. We do not want to have our radio channels lost to us in, this country because of government radio monopoly here, but it is becoming abundantly clear that the monopoly control by the broadcasting corporation and the obstructions placed in the way of private stations has placed Canada in, a very serious position with respect to channels. We cannot be a dog in the manger. The Havana agreement definitely states that unless these channels are taken up by a certain date by Canada they may be lost to us. We have to the south of us a country of 140,000,000 people, who want to be served by radio. We already have encroachment upon our channels by the United States, and unless we do something about it we shall not be left with the channels we now have and be subject to the control of radio by the United States. There is plenty of room for competing radio chains in this country, and. for the reasons which I have stated we must not allow in Canada one all-powerful radio system.
The recommendations of the radio committee have been followed to a certain extent. Another network has been established. I do not know what the full implications of that are, but I imagine I shall find out later on.
Consider for a moment the implications in regard to other media of advertising. It is well known that paper rationing in regard toi newspapers is in effect. There are other wartime restrictions on the publishing industry which of necessity have curtailed advertising in newspapers and magazines. Direct mail and similar forms of advertising have been seriously reduced by war-time restrictions, that is by the wartime prices and trade board. These restrictions have been imposed by the government for reasons known to these industries. One of the main reasons, of course, is to curtail the demand for consumer goods and
The Address-Mr. d'Anjou

thus set up another barrier to inflation. Yet we have the spectacle of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation going into the advertising business to an increasing extent, setting up new facilities for advertising, and thereby stimulating, in this most unfair way, the demand for consumer goods, notwithstanding the edict *of the wartime prices and trade board.
Here is a statement made by the chairman of the board of governors in 1938:
Beyond the figure of $500,000 per year of commercial revenue from network and local stations, it is not desirable nor the intention of the corporation to go, and that only until we are self-supporting from other sources.
The then Minister of Transport confirmed that idea.
The latest statements of the broadcasting in 1943, given to the committee, showed that the commercial revenue was SI ,204,600. Also, the write-off from real estate, buildings, equipment, et cetera, was $411,000 on fixed assets of $800,000, or fifty per cent. Also there was a total surplus of $230,000.
Surely under present conditions there should be some reduction of the licence fee, or else the corporation does not need this commercial advertising, and it ought to be able to devote its whole time to giving good service to the public.
It is very necessary to-day, in view of the absolute powers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that another commission be appointed.
Mr. EMMANUEL d'ANJOU (Rimouski): (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne is interesting not so much for what it contains as to what it hints at. We are engaged in a total war and the government, in the speech from the throne, state that they intend increasing our effort if possible. However, it is the same government who told the Canadian people in the election campaign of March 1940 that our participation in the present conflict would be moderate. They have repudiated this promise together with all the others connected with our share in the bloody conflict now in progress. To ruin the country, shamelessly to sacrifice our man-power and capital, are their foremost and sole concern. All that we have is offered to the god of war, leaving nothing but ruin and bankruptcy for the Canadian people. The speech from the throne again hints at the government's intention. to authorize, in the course of the present session, the payment of another tribute of a billion dollars to Great Britain. I state right now, Mr. Speaker, that I shall oppose this measure with all my strength, as I have done on two previous occasions.
IMr. Douglas G. Ross.]
Instead of paying an annual tribute to England, the government would be far better inspired in endeavouring to relieve the distress which is to be met all over the country.
The adoption of refugees is now to the fore, as well as immigration. Ever since it has been my privilege to sit in this house I have most strenuously opposed immigration to this country. I strongly condemned the admission to Canada of immigrants picked up on the docks of London and Liverpool, and I have not changed my mind. This means, Mr. Speaker, that I am a relentless opponent of immigration of whatever kind it may be and from whichever country it may come. Let the government encourage rather than discourage large families, thus, our population will increase normally and the immigration problem will no longer exist. As regards the admission of refugees to Canada, I appose it just as strongly as I have condemned mass immigration. We did not want war and we have done nothing to foment it. Let those countries which have a share of responsibility in this war take care of the refugees whom it is proposed to pour into Canada. Let us first take care of our Canadian people, and above all let us mind our own business before meddling with the problems of others.
Mr. Speaker, I have received a large number of petitions from municipal councils in my constituency, protesting against immigration and, if one may say so, the adoption of refugees. I shall read one of these resolutions to this house:
Resolution in "opposition" to the proposed immigration of European refugees to Canada in violation of the laws of the country.
Whereas according to the Montreal Gazette, page one, the Dominion Minister of Immigration, Mr. Crerar, made the following declaration on November 3, 1943:
"Canada offers a home to refugees. An immigration agent is being sent to Europe, and the dominion.government will consider sympathetically the immigration to Canada of an unspecified number of refugees."
Whereas it is a well-known fact that the United Jewish Refugees & War Relief Agencies, with head office at 1121 St. Catherine St. West, Montreal, has circulated among the public a petition asking that Canada open her doors to all the refugees from the European continent, and that it is endeavouring, under the patronage of Senator Cairine R. Wilson, to obtain in Canada 500,000 signatures for this purpose.
Whereas in so far as such immigration will take place mostly in the province of Quebec, there is cause for alarm.
Whereas on January 7, 1944, the Canadian Press released a news item bearing the following heading:
"Canada has agreed to accept a limited number of immigrants. Refugees who come to Canada from the Spanish peninsula, according to a decision reached recently, will be given refuge for the duration of the war."

The Address-Mr. Choquette
Whereas the fact of thus allowing refugees to enter the country is not only a further encroachment upon the prerogatives of the people, but will be the cause of social disturbances now and after the war.
Whereas this question has not been submitted to the House of Commons and members of parliament should have the opportunity of voicing their views on this matter before such a policy becomes effective. It is unanimously resolved by the council of the municipality of St. Valerien of Rimouski county,
1.	That the above-mentioned municipal council is opposed to the suggested immigration plan and to any immigration on a different plan than that which has prevailed in recent years.
2.	That in any case, no amendment to existing laws and regulations governing immigration should be made unless parliament has had an opportunity of discussing the matter at the next session.
3.	That this resolution be given publicity.
4.	That copy thereof be forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada, to the Premier of Quebec, to the Quebec provincial leader of the opposition and to the dominion and provincial members of the constituency.
Dated January 24, 1944.
(signed) Zenon St. Pierre.
mayor,
Henri Cimon,
secretary.
Seal of the municipality.
Municipality of St. Valerien.
per H. C. . . . Sec.-Treas.
Municipality of St. Valerien, Rimouski county.
I give my strongest support to resolutions passed by municipalities of my constituency opposing the admittance of refugees and immigration in general.
The speech from the throne contains the announcement concerning the adoption of family allowances by the government. I hope that this is not simply an election campaign promise but that, on the contrary, a bill will be brought down in this connection, in the course of this session. Allowances should not be granted exclusively to families of five or six children, but should apply to all families irrespective of their size.
Families of ten or twelve children are not a scarcity in the province of Quebec. Some are even larger. Personally, I am one of fifteen children, twelve boys and three girls, and I am convinced other families just as large can still be found in the constituency of Rimouski. The government, who had always refused to help large families has now an unique occasion to do so through family allowances. This is not the first time I take the opportunity of pleading this cause in the House and I shall continue to do so until the government decides to be fair to large families,
For us French Canadians, large families are our means of survival, and, as long as, in the province of Quebec, large numbers of children are brought into the world, we shall
not need refugees or immigrants from whatever country they might come; that is the way to bring happiness and prosperity to the province of Quebec and to Canada. It is all very well to say that our territory could support 200 million inhabitants, but the numeric strength of our population is less important than its quality. Even if, in ten or fifteen years from now, Canada should support only 20,000,000 inhabitants, this number of Canadian-born citizens would be preferable to 50,000,000 people drawn from every European country or, as I said before, picked up on the wharves of London or Liverpool. Personally,
I am for a Canadian population composed of our offspring, especially in the province of Quebec, of real Canadian citizens rather than of people brought from overseas and with whom attempts would be made, after the war, to merge the rest of the population of the province of Quebec. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I gladly support the petitions sent by the great majority of the municipalities of my constituency and I hope that, at least, the government will understand that helping large families-the best guarantee of prosperity for the country-is promoting their own interests.
Mr. JOSEPH-ARMAND CHOQUETTE (Stanstead) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I may say that I do not intend to trespass on the time of the house. Looking over the speech from the throne I notice that the government intends to introduce several measures of general interest. I do know, however, that if those measures were promised by a government still enjoying the confidence of the Canadian people, by a party that had shown more sympathy toward the people of this country during the last depression, I should be more hopeful of seeing those measures implemented.
That the people no longer trust the government is evidenced by the fact that in the four by-elections held in August 1943, the government candidates were defeated. The government supporters in this house were loud in their applauding the right honourable the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he spoke on January 31. They had been much less enthusiastic during the introduction of new members on January 26, the day on which parliament was prorogued, because each and every one of the new members were in the opposition.
The government now wish to redeem themselves in the public esteem, by including in the speech from the throne measures taken from the political programmes of rival parties. In September, 1943, in a speech delivered before the National Liberal Federation, a short time after the elections, the Prime Minister stated that the Bloc Populaire Cana-
The Address-Mr. Choquette

dien had but a destructive policy which raised the province of Quebec against the remainder of the country. Yet the Bloc Populaire's programme included family allowances, but the government have nevertheless discovered that the family and the home constitute the foundations of national life. They had to be reminded of that by the Bloc Populaire. With the family allowances that our political movement will ensure us, we shall have the true Christian ideal, based on fraternity and charity. Needless to say, the family is going to derive much benefit from such allowances. We all know that from 1929 to 1939 large families were those which suffered most and had to make the greater sacrifices at that time, and the governments of the time had no thought for family allowances.
Even to-day, on account of the present salary structure, the worker who has a large family, can hardly supply his children with the bare necessaries. The members of the family lack food, clothing and decent housing. The consumption of milk in the working class families is much lower than it should be, and it is the same with meat, vegetables and fruits. Too many workers live in slums. The salaries now being paid do not allow the heads of large families to give their children the bare necessaries.
In the case of the farmer, the situation is different. A farmer who has many children is unable to provide for their education and establishment. In the cities educational facilities are numerous and varied. In rural areas, when children grow up and become old enough to work, they scatter here and there. It is humanly impossible for a farmer who has many children to provide for their establishment, and frequently he must resign himself to letting them take their chance as soon as they are able to earn their living.
Such are, in brief, the difficulties which our families must face. That is why we, the supporters of the Bloc Populaire, have included family allowances in our programme. But let there be no infringement on the rights of the provinces because we hold autonomy as a sacred right. We are against centralization.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne refers to war. We are told that the German army is still quite powerful, that future operations will entail desperate fighting and heavy casualties. But are not those who plunged us into this disastrous conflict the very people who for twenty-five years have been advocating a pacifist policy? On May 24, 1938, in a remarkable speech filled with Canadian inspiration, the right honourable the present Prime Minister stated:

Our foreign and external policy is a policy of peace and friendliness, a policy of trying to look after our own interests and to understand the position of other governments with which we have dealings. It is a policy which takes account of our political connections and traditions, our geographical position, the limited members and the racial composition of our people, our stage in economic development, our own internal preoccupations and necessities-in short, a policy based on the Canadian situation.
And he added:
We have neither the power nor the will to attack any other land for our own ends. Nor are we inclined to organize or join in crusades in other continents. We have neither the power nor the knowledge to settle the destinies of countries thousands of miles away. We are no more likely of our own motion to intervene in Europe than Sweden or Bulgaria or Switzerland is to intervene in America.
Mr. Speaker, these are the very words uttered in this house barely sixteen months before our country was thrown into this war. And what have we done with this moderate, voluntary effort which had been promised? It will suffice to glance through a small pamphlet entitled Canada at War, of December 1943, to realize what the pledges of our public men are worth. Present strength of our armed forces, over 725,000 men; women in the armed forces, 37,800; in the navy, present strength 70,000 men; in the army, present strength, over 470,000 men; at present overseas, approximately a quarter of a million men; in the air force, over 200,000 men and women; maximum number of persons identified directly or indirectly with the war effort, over 1,100,000 men.
And what has this war cost us? The estimate up to March, 1944 is $10,824,000,000. And the Liberal party, and its most prominent leaders, have for the last twenty-five years promised to the Canadian people that Canada would never take part in foreign wars. The mistake made by the Conservatives has been conclusively shown, for they are responsible for the fact that 60,000 Canadians have died on foreign battlefields. And what has the first world war cost us? For the six fiscal years beginning in April, 1914 and ending in March, 1920, $1,670,406,213, including the cost of demobilization. Are we better off with the Liberals than with the Conservatives? No,, it is the same policy. For that matter, since the outbreak of the war the Conservatives in this house have supported all the important measures introduced by the government. We are sometimes told: "We must help the empire because the empire protects us." What help have we received from the empire? And we derive very little encouragement from the statement which appears on page 24 of the same pamphlet:

The Address-Mr. Choquelte
Canada at War
In 1918, after four years of war, Canada had suffered heavy losses on battlefields. So far the present conflict has not cost so many lives, hut it must be borne in mind that Mr. Churchill has declared that the 1944 campaign in Europe will be harder and more costly in human lives than all the operations carried out to date by the western powers.
And these are the consequences of an imperialistic policy, of a policy which is contrary to our interests. We are quite justified in raising a cry of alarm and in attempting a National Awakening, in order to promote the interests of Canada instead of visiting ruination upon her and jeopardizing her future. The policy of the Bloc Populaire Canadien is opposed to any effort so out of proportion to our means, and the victory in Stanstead and the success in Montreal-Cartier have shown to what extent our party meets the aspirations of the province of Quebec; however, they have given the representatives of the old parties a salutary fear.
Mr. Speaker, there is no reference in the speech from the throne to a question which cannot leave us unperturbed, the question of immigration. I have received numerous resolutions passed by the municipal councils of Stanstead county, opposing any immigration and asking
That in any case, no amendment _ to existing laws and regulations governing immigration should be made unless parliament has had an opportunity of discussing the matter at the next session.
We are opposed to any immigration until the war is over, until our armies have been demobilized and reestablished in civil life; we shall oppose any immigration until all our workers have a job enabling them to support their families decently; we shall oppose any immigration until all our workers have a healthy home; we shall oppose any immigration until our farmers are in a position to give their sons a start in life. The Government have found billions to give to England for the prosecution of the war; they will have to find money also to overcome the numerous difficulties with which we shall be faced after the war.
Mr. Speaker, has the economic crisis ended?
What legislative measures this house has passed to settle that question, I should like to know. Is it not true that the present artificial prosperity is brought about by the war and that soon, poverty will be widespread in the country, perhaps to a greater extent than even in 1939, because we are poorer and saddled with a greater debt than at that time? That is what we are attempting to avoid, Mr. Speaker.
The speech from the throne has little to say about agriculture and, at any rate, nothing very precise. It is true that for the last five years the main concern of the government has been the prosecution of the war, but has not a British minister of agriculture said that "the first line of defence of a country is agriculture"? In this country farming is the foundation, the cornerstone of the whole economic setup. What has the government done to induce farmers to produce more? Among other things, the greater part of the farm labourers have been taken for the army or sent to munition plants and the farmers are left without help after having made such tremendous sacrifices to stick to the land during the ten hard pre-war years. They are in urgent need of farm machinery, but the government request them to produce more while it is impossible for them to buy the implements and even the spare parts necessary for the operations of their farms. They have to wait long months before their orders are filled and, in spite of all that, they are requested to increase their production.
A permit is required to butcher hogs on the farm and very few farmers hold such permits. They are therefore forced to ship their hogs on the hoof on the Montreal market or others to powerful concerns who shall not be impoverished on account of the war. At these points, the hogs are kept for a number of days and their,keep is charged to the producers, because the abattoirs are short of help. Last fall, the price of pork had fallen, when the price of feed was rising. In spite of all that they are told: "You farmers are used to that kind of thing, maintain your production at the present level anyway."
This brings me to say a few words about the assistance given by the government to cooperative societies. A cooperative butter factory was refused a permit to collect the cream produced by its shareholders under the pretext that gasoline and tires were rationed. The fanners have to attend themselves to the delivery of their dairy products, which is a waste of time when the help is scarce. It is ridiculous. My hon. friend from Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), on the other hand, has pointed out the schemes worked against the Quebec United Fishermen in order to promote the interests of two large fish-dealing firms, one from Montreal and the other from Toronto. Well may we wonder whether these schemes were not intended to put the small industries, the private trader and the cooperative societies out of business.
In the economic field, the Bloc Populaire Canadien will first of all promote the maintenance and, in some cases, the reestablishment
The Address-Mr. Choquette

of private enterprise. Take good note of this: to-day anything may be done under the easy pretext that we are at war. However, even in peace time, economic .dictatorship tended to eliminate private businesses. Large trusts, powerful organizations, were crowding out the small or medium operators as well as the small and medium-sized industries and endeavouring to centralize all economic activities in the large cities. That is what we wish to avoid, Mr. Speaker. We are in favour of a new political economy to promote progress in agriculture.
Here is another article of our programme: the diversification of markets. The political value of this proposition is not so pronounced in war time; however, we expound it nevertheless as an essential element of national sovereignty. For many years past, eighty per cent of Canada's actual trade was done with two countries, Great Britain and the United States. It is easy to realize how far such a dangerous policy binds our destinies to those of the great imperialistic nations. If we ask that new markets be investigated it is not that we are opposed to those we already have, but simply that we are determined to insure that Canada will more effectively attain full autonomy.
Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the honourable member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) suggested to the government that the representatives of the province of Quebec who are opposed to the government should be appointed to the committees charged with studying important national matters, to which the honourable member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) replied-I quote from Hansard:
The position taken by the hon. member for Gaspe illustrates what is taking place in this house with a multiplicity of parties. We do not need to tell members of this house what difficult situations arise as a result, but such is democracy and we have to meet it. At the same time a situation of this kind, which has to do with the internal economy of the house, makes it impossible to give representation, to every political party that springs up ephemerally, and temporarily I hope, in this House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for this situation? Why have the people lost confidence in the Conservative party? Why has that party failed to name candidates in the counties of Stanstead and Cartier in August, 1943? Why is the leader of the honourable member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) outside this house? Why has the honourable member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy), who was elected as a Conservative in 1940, abandoned that party sometime later, declaring that there was no room for French-Canadians in the ranks of the Conservative party? The Can-

adian people, and especially the electors from Quebec have lost confidence in the old parties who too frequently have misled or betrayed them; their policies are no longer popular, and the policy of the Bloc Populaire alone is essentially Canadian.
If I have risen in this house to take part in the debate, it was to defend the rights of the electors of my constituency who have entrusted me with a very definite mandate last summer, to demand justice for the French-Canadians of my province and to urge the adoption of a real Canadian policy. I am not here to look after the interests of Russia or England or any other country, but of Canada, my only mother country. What does it matter if mud is flung at me; for my part, I feel that my country is worth fighting for and I am quite prepared to put up with such slight inconveniences.


Mr. EUGENE DUROCHER (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to make a lengthy speech, but merely to pass a few remarks. At the very outset I should like to join with the other hon. members in offering congratulations to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay) and the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker) upon the magnificent way in which they moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the contents of which I am sure must have been acceptable to the great majority in this house. Never in the history of this parliament has such an elaborate programme been presented to the House of Commons for its appreciation and acceptance.
In addition to the assurance of a continued war effort, the government presents a series of social reforms which should satisfy even the most exacting, under present conditions. .First, we find a plan for social security and human welfare; second, a plan for the housing and the health of the whole population; third, social insurance against unemployment, accident, death of the breadwinner from ill health or from old age; fourth, a measure to amend and supplement housing legislation; fifth, family allowances, and sixth, a revision of the Bank Act.
These are the main points which are being brought to our attention. It is gratifying for us to note that such reforms are the work of a Liberal administration. It would be premature to try to discuss these various items at length at the present time, because the details are not known to any of us, and they will not be known until such time as the bills are placed before the house.
For that reason I shall touch upon only one point now, namely that of family allowances.

The Address-Mr. Durocher
This measure is surely worthy of our highest praise, and comes at a time when it is most needed by the Canadian people. It will help families balance their budgets, and bring up their children in a more satisfactory and appropriate manner, and at the same time it will to a certain extent relieve the wage problem in Canada. In spite of the criticism which has already appeared in some newspapers, and the remarks of hon. members, among whom were the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose), the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou) and the newly elected member for Stanstead (Mr. Choquette), I feel certain the government will see to it that this measure for family allowances covers not only so many children in a family, but all the children under a specified age. Our critics, who do not know all the facts, should wait and see what the government has to offer in this direction. We all want an increased population in this vast dominion of ours. Before we allow foreign immigration we should attempt to encourage large families and help them the best we can.
This government, I feel certain, does not wish to tell parents that if they have so many children the state will help only so many, for this would mean the establishment of a new policy of birth control in Canada, but I suggest that that has never entered the mind of any minister of the crown in the present cabinet. Birth control would be the worst thing that could happen to our society at the moment. We need more and more good Canadians. It is better to encourage large Canadian families and provide assistance from the state than to bring in foreign immigration. The latter does not always prove profitable either from the standpoint of the nation or from the assimilation with true Canadians. I have before me a clipping from La Patrie of Montreal concerning a family of seventeen children. That is the kind of family we want in Quebec. Ten of these children are below the age of fourteen. If we had more families like that our immigration problem would be solved and we would not have to touch it.
It is sometimes hard to get reforms, but a reform is needed in connection with old age pensions. Last year the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman) took up this matter and drew the attention of the government to the need of raising the allowance. We were all pleased when during the last days of the session the government announced that the allowance would be raised from $20 to $25 a month. We feel that at this session the government should make an effort to increase this allowance to $30 a month and reduce the
age limit from seventy to sixty-five years. When a man or woman has reached the age of sixty-five-this applies to men more than to women-it is hard to find a new position should he or she be out of a job. No employer wants to take on anyone that old because he considers they cannot turn out the production. We should be more generous to these people. I feel certain that the government is going to look into this matter and that before the end of the session we shall have the assurance that the old age pension will be raised to $30 and the age limit lowered to sixty-five years.
I should like to refer now to the housing problem. I know there is a housing problem in every large centre in Canada, but I am better acquainted with the problem in my own city which I suppose is the same as that facing Toronto. Along with some of my colleagues this matter was taken up with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) last May, and we received the assurance that a survey would be made in Montreal and some other Canadian cities and a report submitted at the earliest possible date. Mr. Fripp of the housing administration was delegated to Montreal. I met him and went over the whole question. He spent some time in the city and then went somewhere else, and in the late fall he presented a report to the Minister of Finance. Nothing definite has come out of that, but just a few days ago I received a letter from the minister stating that the matter was receiving his earnest attention and that he hoped something definite would come out of it within the next few days. I appreciate that he has taken such an interest in this matter.
But the first of May will soon be here and, if something is not done, many people in Montreal, and I suppose also in Toronto, will be out on the street. We are looking after the older people, and we should be ready to do something for those tenants who will be without homes on the first of May. I am told that this is more a municipal problem. That may have been true before the war, but since the government can do anything under the War Measures Act I think it has now become a federal problem. Huge plants have been established in some of our cities and, while much of the population that has come in might be considered as floating population, large numbers of these people will remain. We are now faced with a position that will not improve after the war. If this is a federal problem, let us get after it without further delay. I suggested to the minister that loans bearing an interest rate of one and a half to two per cent should be made to the muni-

The Address-Mr. Durocher

cipalities. Whoever builds a home to-day must spend more money than it is really worth and, if it is built for the benefit of the state, the state should see that the man who invests his capital in a building should not be the loser in the end. There are other matters I should like to take up, but I shall wait until the appropriations are before the house. I reserve the right to discuss them at that time.
Before I close I should like to say a word about our soldiers overseas. Like many others, I have been receiving letters not only from my own but from friends and from boys of my friends. I am glad to say that each and every letter I have received seems to show that our boys are being well treated in England. They are satisfied and hope to see action at the earliest possible moment. That is the spirit we want to see in our boys. But when they come back they will expect something of us and we must have the goods to deliver. We have many social problems in hand and I realize that they represent a lot of hard work. We may not be able to do everything at once, but let us not forget that bricks and mortar are not enough to build new homes in the world of to-morrow.


Mr. LIONEL BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: (Translation): Mr. Speaker, this fifth session, like the preceding sessions, will deal with the war. Victory being apparently certain and nearer, the government announces, in the speech from the throne, measures which they feel adequate to maintain the country's equilibrium during the period of readjustment, and to insure the people in the future against the * hazards of life, as well as to provide social. safeguards appropriate to modem times.
Canada will emerge out of the war crushed under a burden of debt and weakened by the loss of thousands of her sons; she will have to rebuild her commerce and her industry, as well as to straighten her general economy which has become out of balance, to say the least. Will it be possible to make this post-war readjustment without running counter to the traditions, without breaking old covenants, and the conventions which ensure autonomy to the central authority and to the provinces in certain spheres. Some claim that we should forget about traditions and even that we should ran ahead of evolution. Is it possible to break away from the past of a nation? Others advocate the most arbitrary measures, but that view is to be condemned just as the doctrines of those who would sabotage the present structure of the nation and replace it by the fragile columns of an exaggerated socialism. Would Canada be at peace if on [Mr. Durocher.)
the morrow of the hostilities, she were tom by internal dissensions, and tossed about by doctrines foreign to her national soul.
Here as elsewhere, the most fantastic theories made their way. In peacetime they ceaselessly ran against repeated failures but war gave them strength and boldness. They are now coming out, undisguised and self-confident. Born from discontent, they thrive by it; every cause of complaint means to them an easy opportunity to achieve new triumphs and to strengthen their hold.
For discontent exists. What is it attributable to? Less to democracy itself than to abuses to which it gave rise. Less to wealth than to bad uses to which it was put. Less to the existing laws than to their enforcement, often ill-advised. War, an easy pretext for abuse, has added to existing evils, the abuse of laws. The nation, owing to the necessities of war, proudly accepted most of them; unfortunately, a multitude of orders and decrees which look too much like brilliant discoveries or outstanding inventions, hence their unpopularity, have been grafted to these laws. These hundreds of orders and decrees have been, I believe, the cause of discontent, the effects of which our [DOT] democratic system has started to feel. The pyramiding of petty causes inevitably leads to great consequences. Small facts, harmless by themselves, one day or the other will tend to the same end. Consciously or unconsciously, they give rise to movements of opinion, unimportant at first, but which grow in magnitude and become irresistible. Such movements are in existence at the present time in Canadian life. Shall we wait until the dam bursts?
Every Canadian is willing to do his share to win the war. But how many times has national spirit been cooled down or even upset by an uninterrupted series of disappointments; how deeply, at times, has the Canadian nation, so gladly performing its duties, felt that war was a pretext for repeated injustices in the army, and particularly in the price boards, in the intricate machinery of national selective service, as well as a pretext for so many steps taken by a bureaucracy whose policies were bordering on autocracy, or even dictatorship.
It may be said that these are but details in the vastness of a huge organization. Are not rivers made up of drops of water? I agree that they are mere details, but they have enough power when added together, to rout the most powerful organization, to shake the very foundations of a regime and to offer to any party, be it socialist or even communist, easy chances of success. It is said that socialism and communism are dispensers of happiness. I know it; and it is the reason why I fear them. Can we

The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
blame the people, panic-stricken by the abuse of laws, the restrictions of all sorts, the excesses of capitalism, to believe in. happiness, when happiness is the fond) delusion of every human being. In these four ''ears of war, the world conflict has imposed on every citizen of this country a crushing burden of sacrifices; why then have these hundreds of petty measures, too often drafted on the spur of the moment by controllers not responsible to the people, been added to the burden which weighs already so heavily on our shoulders.
Problems which get more difficult each day and which were in the past reserved to a group prepared to weigh them in all their details are confronting the masses rendered uneasy and even impatient by the course of events. The spirit of emancipation has made its way nearly everywhere. Too often maybe it has confused excessive privileges with necessary inequali-ites, power with right. But this spirit of emancipation springs^ only from compulsion. It was caused by the innumerable details which ceaselessly have offended human liberty, violated the most elementary sense of justice, affected even the brotherhood which belongs to democracy. What will come from all that? The people are looking towards new horizons.
I am against communism; it is the worst of all systems and I do not need to comment on it. If I am against socialism, I am for the measures of real social solidarity. The two terms are vastly different. Can socialism, which wants to do away with natural inequalities and establish equal status for all, attain its objective without abolishing private riches which are the most direct incentive to work and private property which is the outcome of work and without entrusting to the state the management of all private enterprises? That means: the state takes over private property, the, state manages and controls everything; that is state socialism. State socialism involves a host of officials, feudal coalitions, little states [DOT]within the state. The least important civil servant, under the banal pretext that he is part of the state, has then the opportunity of [DOT]believing himself a little dictator and of treating the people as if he were one. Such is the picture.
I am against socialism because first of all it runs counter to the principles of the faith to which I belong, the Catholic religion, because it is meaningless and utopian. History-the best book of human experiments-is there to prove it. The Greeks lost their independence when they adopted socialism; the Romans saw their republic collapse when they embraced it. 'The French revolution accepted it at the start, ibut soon deserted it and proclaimed that
private property was sacred. Socialism, where-ever it was tried, has caused disappointment when it was not the prelude to the decline of the state. .For' socialism hates all forms of superiority, -whether it comes from talent, fortune, intelligence, initiative or work. That explains its obscure programme set forth in vague words to hide its real aims and made to fit opportunities as they change from day to day. Now as then, it is characterized by the same soothing words that seem to make realities out of illusions, the same prejudices hidden under the bright flowers that are its promises of happiness, the same fanaticism hypocritically toned down if need be by tears shed on the misery of the people, or increased if necessary by terrible provocations against capital. Examine the system and you will find that its leaders own nothing; they have no business, no industry. What have they got to lose? Most of them were not even born here. Could they have a true love for the country they live in? What are their ambitions? They want to rule. They must get into power first so as to enforce measures that have nothing in common with the laws of human liberty.
I am in favour of private enterprise. I contend that a government may at times resort to certain measures of expropriation in order to settle a matter of national scope or to defend the rights of the people against the unrestrained ambition of finance. I believe, however, that private enterprise can, in a sort of magical way, obtain from labour the most powerful and productive energies, provided it is backed by sound capital, enterprising patrons and the indispensable cooperation of the working class. Private enterprise that abuses its power becomes a monopoly or a financial octopus whose tentacles draw from their victims the people, fabulous fortunes, swiftly made. If capitalism is vitiated, let us apply the branding-iron. If it has secrets, let us unmask it. If it commits abuses, let us check it and subject it to strict and impartial laws capable of preventing further exploitation of the public. Let us regulate it so that the worker will be the master rather than the slave of machinery. To abolish private industry would reduce its workers to poverty. At this important turning-point of our history, private enterprise shows signs of unrest and discouragement. It dreads socialism. Are not the champions of socialism guilty? A French economist, whose country was ruined by the guilty negligence of the bad governments it had chosen- addressed these pregnant words to the socialists:
182	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
You hope that before long there will be no more rich people. When there are no more rich people, everybody will be poor. The poor will be poorer still, and poverty will be general.
Social solidarity is a different thing. It is the duty of governments to grant to the poor the advantages of material and moral progress: insurance against the hazards of life, hygiene, education, rural credit, housing, public health measures, family allowances, et cetera. That is nothing but a social duty. Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Divini Redemptoris, calls for and recommends as a measure of social justice "a system of public insurance for the workers against old age, sickness and unemployment". We can never do too much to alleviate poverty in all its aspects. It could even be extirpated, because poverty is a disease of the social body. If billions and billions could be found for the prosecution of war, there is no reason why money could not also be found for the abolition of poverty, and the elevation of work to a nobler plane. Why could funds not be found to establish within the whole nation a great system of social insurance, so as to eliminate forever the dole which demoralizes, to enact legislation designed to hearten the social outcasts, the old men and women, as well as the orphans, to comfort those who suffer, to extend to destitute children the boon of education, to put within the reach of labouring classes social, welfare and health services, and enable them to own their own homes, in a word to enact legislation based on the great Christian principles of justice and charity. I am in favour of measures of that kind, but if such legislation is to fulfil its ultimate object, it must take into account a multitude of details relating to provincial jurisdiction, to large families and to individuals, according as those families or individuals live in well developed centres or in remote settlements. Those various social measures-and I shall deal only with them for the time being-will be judged on their merits when they are introduced. I must state quite frankly, however, that social solidarity is essential a.t a time when war saddens all hearts, and I believe, on the other hand, that socialism would be a sore affecting not unlike a tumor the still healthy body of the nation.
The people in other provinces are no doubt wondering about the views of Quebec on socialism. Without any fear of being mistaken, I can assert that Quebec may, in an election, vote for the liberal, the conservative, the independent, or the Bloc Populaire or the Parti Canadien standard-bearers but that it will never vote for socialists. The French Canadians cannot be counted among those who give blind support to subversive doc-
(Mr. Lionel Bertrand.]
trines, to theories which aim at disruption. They have for three centuries clung to the Canadian soil, where are to be found, even beyond the Rocky mountains, the imprints left by their first missionaries and settlers When they were ceded to England, my forbears clung to the native land, not like parasites but like true citizens in the knowledge that it was their home and that they had rights to claim and that they were entitled to keep those which they had won. Inspired by the love of freedom, they fought for responsible government. Anxious as they were to preserve their freedom, they refused to become assimilated, and any attempt at assimilation would remain unsuccessful whether it was based on force or persecution. Confederation must have the support of Quebec. It cannot do without it. My province was blamed for having answered "No" in the plebiscite. Quebec has never asserted more emphatically than it did on that occasion its undying love for the native land, and the sincerity of its essentially and primarily Canadian patriotism. Therefore, if a socialist government ever comes into power in Ottawa, it will not be Quebec's fault. My province is urged to save the country from the socialist menace. Quebec is ready, but let the other provinces cease to criticize and blame her about everything imaginable, let them cease to treat her as the waif of the family, since for many reasons she should have been pampered and complimented. Let the other provinces have the kindness and condescension-if they do not want to do it out of mere justice-to give her a fair share in the administration of this country. Let them be broad-minded enough to refrain from raising against her stupid prejudices often resulting from fanaticism and also from the ignorance of facts as well as from a lack of understanding of her characteristic spirit. Quebec is just as loyal as any other Canadian province. Quebec has more than any other province identified herself with our Canadian land. Imperialism is rejected in the province of Quebec; the only imperialism she knows or accepts is the appeal of the Canadian soil to which she is attached by her history. Quebec likes order and harmony; her tolerance is traditional. Deeply steeped in our religious and national principles, we do not want the disruption of our heritage. Transitions that are too sudden cannot but lead to cruel deceptions. We are in favour of evolution, but in the economic or in the spiritual field, we are against revolution. We enjoy certain rights under the constitution, and we are anxious to preserve them. We have no fear for the future, for the very

Social Security
reason that we find our inspiration in the courage of those who were the builders of the nation.
The future belongs to nobody. The trend of events is ini the hands of God, while passions nest in the 'heart of men. Governments must not forget that spiritual values are highly essential; they must not forget either that no one can be a good citizen without a certain degree of comfort. If socialism is a paradise of dreams and illusion, social solidarity may become a blessing for the whole nation when controlled and ably directed by the state and proudly upheld by capitalists imbued with a deep sense of humanity. The misfortunes of war must not be followed by the misfortunes of peace. In a well-balanced readjustment the people should have a clear and definite understanding that social well-being is within their reach and that they are not excluded from happiness. They must be treated with fairness and equity by governments and employers. They must be protected against abuse from the powerful; that is essential. And I repeat with Victor Hugo: "Humble folk must be sacred to the great, and it is the rights of the weak that go to make the duty of the strong."
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, February 4, 1944