1946-03-26

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern) presented the first report of the special committee on veterans affairs and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. JEAN -FRAN QOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Before the report is concurred in, sir, may I have just a word? I wish to say that the mover of this report is most helpful to his colleagues, and I - wish to thank him on behalf of all the veterans he has assisted when their cases were referred to him.	[DOT]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, last week I stated to the house that within a few days a report would be made both in this house and in the House of Commons in Great Britain with regard to the agreements reached for the supplying of food from Canada to Great Britain. That statement is being made in the British house to-day, and I am therefore making it here.
Supplies of food from Canada to the United Kingdom. Joint announcement of understandings reached in discussions between representatives of the United Kingdom and of Canada at the Ministry of Food, London, January, 1946.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce and I, with officials of our departments, visited the United Kingdom in January and had discussions with Sir Ben Smith, the United Kingdom Minister of Food, and officials of the ministry of food regarding British requirements and Canadian supplies of the major foodstuffs. The discussions took account of the recent announcement of the United Kingdom government policy in regard to home agricultural production and ,of the long-term prospects regarding supplies of the different foodstuffs.
2.	This exchange of views has resulted in understandings being reached between ^he British Ministry of Food and the meat and dairy boards of the dominion Department of Agriculture on matters which are set out below and are now being put into the form of agreements to be signed on behalf of both governments.
3.	Bacon and ham. The United Kingdom is prepared to purchase the maximum supplies which Canada can provide in 1946, 1947 and 1948. Canada has agreed to do its utmost to maintain these supplies at the highest possible level.
4.	It was agreed that the present contract for the calendar year 1946 should be extended to cover the import of a minimum of 350 million pounds into the United Kingdom in
1947	and 400 million pounds in 1948. The contract price for the balance of 1946 and for 1947 will be raised to $25 per 100 pounds f.o.b. seaboard for grade A Wiltshires. For
1948	the price will be not less than the current contract price of $22.50, same basis, and will be subject to later review.
5.	It was agreed to have further discussions before January, 1947, to consider the possibility of assessing the prospective requirements of the United Kingdom for 1949 and of negotiating a contract for that year. The new price for bacon means an increase of approximately $3 per hog in price. The order in council of 1944 established a premium of $3 on A's and $2 on B's per hog until six months after the war. The premium is to be decreased by $1 to $2 on A's and $1 on B's per hog. This will provide for a net increase of $2 per hog in price and premium combined.
6.	Cheese. The present contract for the supply of 125 million pounds of cheese to the United Kingdom each year expires on 31st March, 1947. It was agreed that this should be extended to 31st March, 1948, at the same prices. The contract should cover 125 million pounds.
7.	An extension of the contract to cover the season ending 31st March, 1949, has also been agreed with prices to be fixed at a later date, and to this end the United Kingdom and Canadian representatives will review the arrangements before January, 1947.
8.	Evapcftated milk. It was agreed that a contract at current basic prices should be concluded to cover a minimum of 600,000 cases per annum for the two seasons ending 31st March, 1947 and 1948.
9.	Roller dried skim milk powder. It' was agreed that the United Kingdom should purchase 3,000 tons from the 1946 production of roller dried skim milk powder.
10.	Eggs. The United Kingdom desires to obtain increased quantities of Canadian shell eggs during the months from October to April inclusive, and more especially during the months from October to December inclusive. Owing to difficulties in handling supplies in the United Kingdom during the summer months Canada was requested to cease ship-

National Flag
ments of shell eggs by 1st May each year diverting the summer surplus to the production of frozen melange and/or sugar dried eggs.
11.	It was agreed that the current contract which expires on December 31, 1946, should be extended to cover the supply to the United Kingdom of 1,750,000 cases of shell eggs and
5,000	tons of dried eggs in 194/7 at the current basic prices for the shell eggs.
12.	The United Kingdom has agreed to furnish to Canada by the autumn of 1946 (preferably by October) an indication of the requirements of eggs in shell and dried or frozen form during 1948.
13.	Meat. In order to maintain the wartime carcass meat ration, the United Kingdom will require all the beef and mutton which Canada can spare in 1946 and, so far as can be foreseen at present, in 1947 and probably in 1948. It was agreed to continue discussions of the extension of the current contract to cover supplies for 1947.
14.	The United Kingdom will be ready to purchase all the hog casings which Canada can provide up to 1948. Offals and tongues will also be required and these will be the subject of further discussions.
15.	The United Kingdom requested an increase in the export in carcass form of meat suitable for sausage manufacture.



SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO ASSIST MR. SPEAKER IN REVISION OF STANDING ORDERS

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That a special committee consisting of Messrs. Adamson, Gladstone, Glen, Golding, Hansell, McGarry, Jean, Maelnnis, Pouldot, Smith (Calgary West) and Stirling be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in revising the standing orders of the house with a view to simplify, accelerate and expedite its business, and to report .to the house during the present session.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the close of the last session, on December 17, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) asked whether it was intended to set up at' this session the committee on the orders and rules of the house. My hon. friend the Minister of Veterans Affairs, (Mr. Mackenzie), who was leading the house at the time, repliedt-Hansard, page 3716
It is the intention to set up that committee as soon as possible after the new session is convened.
The motion which is before the house at the moment is for the purpose of setting up that committee as soon as possible. I would not bring forward this motion at this time if it were likely to be debated. I understand,

however, it is the wish of the house to have this committee established as soon as possible, and that the motion will meet with general acceptance. The personnel of the committee is, I understand!, the same as that of the committee last year, with one exchange, by agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag and that a joint committee of the Senate .and the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag;
That Messrs. Beaudoin, Blanchette, Castleden, Emmerson, Gingues, Gladstone, Hackett, Han-eedl, Harris (Grey-Bruce), Herr-idge, LaCroix, Lafontaine, Maedonnell (Muskoka-Ontario), MacNicol, Martin, Matthews (Brandon)', McCulloch (Pictou), Mclvor, Reid, Smith (Calgary West), Stanfield, Stirling, Thatcher, Warren, Zaplitny, be members of such committee on the part of this house;
That standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records to add in the discharge of its functions; and
T-hat a message be sent .to the iSenate to inform their honours that the House of Commons has appointed this committee and to re-, quest their honours .to appoint members of the Senate to act thereon with the members of the House of Commons as ,a joint committee of both houses.
He said; In the speech from the throne at the close of the last session, the following paragraph appeared-Hansard, page 3755:
My ministers were gratified at the approval given to the proposal that Canada should .possess a distinctive national flag. At the next session, they will propose that the select committee of both houses be reconstituted in order to com-.plete .the task of considering a suitable design for ia Canadian flag.
The motion I am now presenting is to implement that undertaking as given in the speech from the throne. The same remarks I made on the previous motion apply in presenting this motion. I understand that the house is likely to approve it unanimously and will not desire any debate upon it at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
United Nations


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. KIDD (Kingston City):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Army) ? It has to do with the Royal Military College at Kingston. Will the minister kindly inform the house when the Royal Military College at Kingston will be opened? How many cadets will be permitted to register in the first class? When will instructions be available as to the academic qualifications required?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: This is asked in view of the fact that so many parents and ex-cadets across Canada are most anxious to make plans for their sons who will this year reach the age when a decision is necessary.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The question
should be put on the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Is the Minister of Reconstruction in a position to indicate when we may expect a report from the royal commission which is inquiring into the coal industry in Canada?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: I received notice of the question and communicated with Mr. Justice Carroll, chairman of the commission, whose reply is as follows:
With reference to the inquiry from a member of the house, the commission is not in a position at this time to say just when its report will be completed.
As you know, we are making a comprehensive study of all the facts pertaining to the coal industry, both in respect to the production of coal, its distribution and its utilization. Studies are being conducted by a number of experts on a variety of subjects and some of these reports have not yet been received.
May I assure you that the commission and its staff are doing everything possible to expedite the early submission of the report.



WAR ASSETS CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the.day:
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction, having to do with a change of policy by War Assets Corporation with respect to sales of equipment to veterans. Will the 63260-17
minister be so good as to tell the house what considerations prompted this change? Is he prepared to reconsider the question with a view to reversing the policy to its former status?
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction)1: That is too complicated a question for one to answer at this time without some preparation. I have promised the chairman of the committee on veterans affairs to attend a meeting of the committee with an officer of the War Assets Corporation and discuss the policy with the committee. Perhaps that will meet the situation.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. I note that the newspaper reports to-day convey the information that the first two rows of audience seats at the meeting of the united nations security council in New York yesterday were occupied by observers and companions from fifty-one united nations. I should like to ask whether, in Canada's behalf, there was an official or an unofficial observer there looking after the interests of this country and, if so, who that observer was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I' shall have to answer
the question a little later. Had the hon. member given me notice of his question I should have been in a position to tell him who the observer is.


Gordon Graydon: Does the Prime Minister mean to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will give the answer to-day, yes, a little later, if the hon. member so desires.


Mr. POULIOT:: Do you believe in it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer a question that the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Gray don) asked at an earlier stage of the sitting. He asked who was the observer for Canada at the meeting of the security council in New York. At the time I was not sure whether Mr. Pearson, our ambassador, would be present. He hopes to be present at some of the meetings. I find, however, that he was not present yesterday, but Mr. Charles Ritchie, who is counsellor of the External Affairs Department, was present as an observer for Canada.
Rirism RDITION
The Address-Mr. Dorion



CIVIL AVIATION


[Stage Direction]
,	MANITOBA
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RONALD MOORE (Churchill):: In view of the fact that the Canadian government has taken over the large United States air base at Clearwater lake, Manitoba, would the Minister of Transport reconsider the announced intention to abandon this air base, since its use for commercial flying will be of vital importance to northern development?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe the hon. member intended to address his question to me. I received notice of it and have the following reply:
The Pas airport is not being abandoned but will be put on a reduced basis. Sufficient funds have been included in the air services estimates for lfM6-47 to provide for such work as is necessary to prevent runways and buildings from deteriorating and at the same time keep the runways in reasonably' good condition and fit for the anticipated civil traffic.
Meteorological services wil continue to be available. The radio range will be off the air, but equipment left intact and kept in such condition that it may be recommissioned within a short time after the necessary staff has been sent in.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday,, March 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fernand Viau 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. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
understand that, according to a well established custom which, as it were, has become a rule of this house, the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne affords to every member an opportunity to state his views on the various problems.
(Text):


James Horace King: Order. I must point out to hon. members that, owing to the noise in the chamber, it is impossible to hear the hon. member who is speaking.


Frédéric Dorion: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suppose it was because I was speaking in French that my colleagues started to leave the chamber. I submit that it is not only my right but my duty as well, for the first time this session, to address the chair in my own language.

(Translation): It should nevertheless be remembered that on the conclusion of this debate we shall all have to vote.	We
now have before us three motions.	The
first one on which we shall have to vote is the One moved by the honourable member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), leader of the C.C.F. party. I feel that I am not mistaken in saying that, for the first time since I have the honour to sit in this house, we have in that motion a definite and clear statement of the whole doctrine on which is based the policy of that party. The first part of the motion reads as follows:
We respectfully submit, however, that in the opinion of this house, Your Excellency's advisers in their reliance on private enterprise have failed to propose the comprehensive -national planning which the present emergency demands;
That is a blame, a condemnation not about the conduct or the policy of the government, but about the confidence which the government holds toward private enterprise. It is, as I said a few moments ago, a clear and definite statement of the whole doctrine on which that party's policy is based.
I have already had occasion, since I have become a member of this house, to support by my vote and my words many of the reforms advocated by the C.C.F. party, but when it comes to voting on. such a clear-cut statement of principles, I have no hesitation in opposing such a motion, because I still have confidence in the economic system under which we are living, notwithstanding its flaws.
I realize that such a system sometimes gives rise to abuses; however, an administration which is vigilant and conscious of its responsibilities can stamp out such abuses and there is no call to eliminate or overthrow our economic system under the pretext that is not perfect. It would be equivalent to killing a man while trying to cure him. This is why I feel it to be my duty to oppose this amendment by my vote.
Then we will be called upon to vote on the motion of the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken), leader of the Progressive Conservative party. The amendment, considered independently of everything else, contains a condemnation, or rather a censure of the present government, with which I probably could agree because I think most of its grounds are well taken. For instance, in the first paragraph, the administration is blamed for having:
Failed to -meet the needs of veter ans and workers by -planning -reconversion so as to avoid unemployment and dislocation;
When I think that unemployment has already become extensive; when I realize that in Quebec, for example, thousands of persons

The Address-Mr. Dorian
are unable to find jobs, I am inclined to agree with this condemnation of the government's policy.
The fourth assertion of 'this motion is the following:
Failed to relieve the tax burden particularly on low income groups.
As in the case of any motion, it is imperative that not only the wording itself be taken into account, but also the preamble on which the motion has been based. In the speech of the leader of the oppostiion, introducing his motion, I find that he wishes to remove the effects of the evil he mentions, while stating that he approves of the causes of this same evil. Here is a statement I quote from his speech in the house, when he was sipeaking about the loan we are going to grant Great Britain:
These figures total an annual payment exceeding ?50 million for each of -the next few years.
If we intend to reduce taxation and give work to our people, it is impossible, at the same time, to increase the tax burden by the important amount mentioned by the leader of the opposition. In view of the arguments brought out in support of the amendment of which I have just spoken, I do not believe I could logically and fairly vote for that motion.
Indeed, I am not afraid to state, at this moment, that this amendment is nothing but a motion of want of confidence; but I. have no reasons to vote against the present administration, knowing, at the same time, that my vote cannot be interpreted as an approval of the whole government policy.
Mr. Speaker, a third vote will be taken on the main motion, if we are called upon to vote, because it often happens that, the main motion is carried without a recorded vote. Now, rightly or wrongly, but I rather think it is wrongly, a vote in favour of the address in reply to the speech from the throne is sometimes considered as implying approval of all the bills announced in the speech from the throne. I recognize that in the one which we are now considering, ^ there are; projects that should be supported, and there are some with which I, for one, am in complete agreement, as for instance, the redistribution bill which I advocated during the (session held last year, as well as the definition of Canadian citizenship. On the other hand there are other measures which I cannot support. Thus, a paragraph of the speech from the throne reads as follows:
You will also be -asked to make -provision for , the permanent armed forces, to the composition of which much consideration- has been given.
Obviously, we have not yet been informed about the consideration given to that matter. We do not know what is involved. Neither do we know how many soldiers will be included in those permanent forces, or the manner in which it is proposed to maintain them. Consequently, I cannot blindly support that paragraph in the speech from the throne.
There is another paragraph which I cannot endorse. It reads as follows:
At this session yon will be asked to approve an ,agreement recently concluded for a loan to the United Kingdom which will help maintain the British market for Canadian food products and other exports.
Therefore, this endorses the loan we intend to grant to the United Kingdom.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not wish to discuss this matter thoroughly at the present time since it will crop up again during this session.


Mr. LALONDE:: Hear! Hear!


Frédéric Dorion: For the time being, I shall only say that after the war years we have just gone through, our people did not expect such a policy. During the war, it was said that patience was needed and we ourselves, at times, had to explain to our constituents that they must await the end of the armed conflict for various public works which they had long been requesting, because they urgently required them. In view of the situation arising out of the loan, and the obligations it will entail and considering that no important public works are announced, it is greatly to be feared that the projects planned for the past few years will not be carried out.
When I think of the numerous villages in the Charlevoix-Saguenay constituency which are now threatened with complete annihilation by the rising tides of the sea which every year sweep away a further portion of the shore, the danger is so imminent that the next storm might literally wipe these villages off the map. These Canadians, I say, have the right to demand that the government carry out the public works projects needed to protect their property.
Considering also the inadequate means of communication on the North Shore of the St. Lawrence which -make it impossible for the inhabitants of that district to live a decent life,
I claim that these people are fully entitled to' insist that the government spend part of the -public monies on improving their communications system, rather than using that money to pay the interest on loans made by ourselves to other countries. I think of the gallant
The Address-Mr. Dorion

inhabitants of Ile-aux-Coudres who, living some sixty miles from Quebec City, are completely .isolated from the rest of the world for approximately six months every year, because they have no wharves which could be used the year round.
About two years ago a group of citizens of Ile-aux-Coudres tried to cross the river to take a seriously ill man to the hospital, and I remember that they did their utmost in a small boat through floating ice to get him to the mainland where he could have obtained the required medical attention, but the man died because the weather prevented them from reaching the mainland before it was too late. If the people of Ile-aux-Coudires had suitable wharves they could organize a year round ferry service to the mainland.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I contend that before paying millions every year on account of the loan made to another country, our leaders should show the people that they are ready to undertake the public works which are sorely needed.
For that reason I must inform you that should a vote be called on the main motion I would have to vote against it.
There is also another matter about which nearly all those who have taken part in the present debate have spoken; I mean that matter of espionage of which I intend to say a few words.
First of all, I must say that I agree, with all those who have condemned the procedure followed in this case, in that I have deep respect for magna charta, which has been brought out with a view to proving that_ it had been violated by the government in acting the way it did in the arrest of the individuals whose names have now been revealed. However, Mr. Speaker, because I have deep respect and sincere admiration for the magna charta and because I want it to continue to protect our rights and liberties, I contend that the government has acted wisely.
The government acted the way it did in making the arrests precisely to prevent the sabotage of the magna charta. In my opinion the saying, "desperate ills call for desperate remedies," remains true. I am quite sure that the magna charta would have contained clauses pertaining to sabotage and treason had the possibility of such acts been forseseen at the time. Therefore, in view of the situation brought to light by the report of the commissioners, and especially by the inquest under way in Montreal, I contend that nobody Should hesitate to approve the attitude

of the government and particularly that of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Sit. Laurent) in the matter.
When, for instance, I see such items as that published in Saturday Night of March 23, and written by Willes Chitty, I wonder if one can be serious in making such statements. I shall read two sentences of that article.
(Text):
Yet Canada tolerates, with scarce a voice raised in .protest, the sweeping away with a stroke of the pen all the fruits of the struggle of the British peoples for freedom and democracy. . . .
So, perhaps, having said all this very badly, we may sum up our indictment if .as it ought to be-but never will be-laid against the war criminals at home. In our eyes, much as we despise the treason those now charged .and yet to be charged with the contemptible crime of espionage, the crimes committed in the name of freedom by the bureaucrat and .politician are far more heinous.
(Translation):	The publication of such
articles in an important and highly respectable newspaper does not constitute a frank and honest discussion of the important matter at hand. Besides, one could find to-day in our gaols hundreds of individuals who, notwithstanding the protection granted under our laws, and under the magna charta, of which so much has been said, are held in prison before they. have been sentenced, even before they have been accused; everyone knows that any man who is arrested is held in jail until his arraignment before a judge, who decides whether or not to grant bail, and even when the latter is granted, it very often happens that the required amount of cash cannot be raised and handed to the cler kof the court, in which case the man must remain in prison for weeks and even months. Very often the man is acquitted because the evidence is insufficient and does not warrant a trial.
If the principle invoked to blame the government and accuse them of having transgressed the provision of the magna charta were carried to its extreme-which seems to have been the desire of some people in the past few days-such cases of detention would no longer be possible and' no one could be kept in jail under circumstances such as those I have mentioned.
That is why, I believe, such an unjustified storm was raised. I was very much surprised to hear those who had no right to protest voice the strongest objections.
I remember very well that last fall, when the government presented a motion-bill 15, it Was-to extend the War Measures Act, some hon. members were opposed to granting such wide powers .to the government; and

The Address-Mr. Dorion
everyone recalls also how my motion to have the bill set aside could not be voted on for lack of support.
Is the government to be blamed if, having secured the necessary powers to enact P.C. 6444 of October 6, 1945, they invoked those very powers to act as they have done in this spy probe?
Mr. Speaker, if the government and more particular!}' the Minister of Justice are to be commended for the way they have dealt with .this matter, we must not forget that our present difficulties are nevertheless due to neglect on the part of the government,
I cannot but recall the obvious sympathy which has existed in recent years between the liberal party and the communist party in Canada.


Maurice Lalonde: That is not so good.


Frédéric Dorion: I remember that after the 1935 elections, when the liberal party was returned to power, one of its first steps was to repeal section 98 of the Criminal Code. Perhaps that section did not constitute a sure means of preventing what is happening to-day but surely it was a serious obstacle to the dissemination of communistic propaganda. I remember also that in 1937-1938 the Quebec provincial government, then led by the hon. Maurice Duplessis, had the Padlock Act passed by the Legislative Assembly. How vehemently have the members of the liberal party protested against that law. It was claimed then that the Hon. Maurice Duplessis was acting like a dictator. And yet, Mr. Speaker, it was another means of preventing the dissemination of subversive and communist ideas.


Maurice Lalonde: Did it succeed in preventing it?


Frédéric Dorion: This marked sympathy between the liberal and communist parties became even more pronounced during the last general election. In a review published by the communist party, in July, 1944, there was an article by Fred Rose, the hon. member for Cartier, from which I quote the following:
Ten days ago, Tim Ruck, national leader of the Labor-Progressive party, submitted to the *labour 'movement and to the country a project for the coalition of liberal, agricultural and labour forces, with a view to solving essential national problems.
And a little further:
I .have supported the speech from the throne outlining the programme of the King government for 1944. It definitely implied the adherence of Canada to the Teheran agreements, and announced a comprehensive programme of social reforms and plans for the post-war period. In regard to all major questions, that speech met practically all the requirements and immediate aims of the labour movement. It behooves the labour movement to cooperate with the liberals and with all patriotic forces in the struggle for the implementation of those plans. During the debate I advocated a union of all liberal and labour forces, to form the nucleus of national unity, to hasten the implementation of the plans submitted 'and to ensure their fulfilment.


Maurice Lalonde: Was this agreement approved by the liberal party?


Frédéric Dorion: I say to the hon. member for Labelle that I know that one day the communist party offered to cooperate with the C.C.F. party, but the latter immediately rejected the offer. I have never heard that the leaders of the liberal party had rejected such an offer of cooperation by the communist party.


Mr. MARIER:: The right hon. the Prime
Minister has done so.


Frédéric Dorion: Mr. Speaker, not only have the government displayed this measure of sympathy which I have mentioned, but through their negligence and their laisser faire attitudes, they have allowed the dissemination of communist ideas.


Maurice Lalonde: There was the Padlock Act to prevent that.


Frédéric Dorion: There was the Padlock Act, but if it was not applied by the Attorney General of the province, it is because, in 1939, the Liberal party was in power. It is probably the reason why the Act was not enforced.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, this laisser faire attitude was favourable to the steady dissemination of communist ideologies. I recall, for instance, that after the death of Louis Francoeur, a commentator of the C.B.C. on the French network, and a respectable man who enjoyed the esteem of his fellow-citizens, on several occasions his successors have expressed views echoing the communistic doctrine and they had thus instilled that communist poison, into our homes. Although some prominent men have called the attention of the authorities to the unabated campaign of propoganda carried on by communists, the government did not deem it proper to take action.
I have here Le Droit of May 31, 1944, and I find the following on the first page:
The Communists Are Very Active in Canada, says Mr. Kirkconmdl
Montreal, May 30 (CP).-Mr. Watson Kirk-connell, of Hamilton, Ont., stated yesterday before the annual meeting of the Royal Society of Canada, held at the University of Montreal, that "in so far as the communists in Canada
The Address-Mr. Dorion

are concerned, the dissolution of the Comintern has been followed by an unparalleled renewal of activity.
"Instead of calmly disbanding, he said, the Communist party, under its new name of Labor-progressive, has launched a campaign in its own country."
It is clearly demonstrated today.
A violent Marx-Lenin propaganda campaign is flooding Canada at the present time, he said.
Although the Labor-progressive party, whose national leader is Tim Buck, of Toronto, publicly professes to be on good terms with capitalism and although it dares blame the C.C.F. for its socialist tendencies, at the same time, it distributes revolutionary literature all through Canada, said Mr. Kdrkconnell.


Maurice Lalonde: What about the padlock legislation of Hon. Maurice Duplessis?


Frédéric Dorion: There is more, Mr. Speaker. Not only has the present government allowed this propaganda, but I claim that they have even encouraged it by certain, official publications. Here is one entitled Chronique ouvriere, French, and The Labour Facts, in English, and the preamble of the first number, dated February 15, 1944, states very plainly what it is all about:
Monthly information service on .the part played by labour in the war effort, supplied to the Canadian labour press by the Wartime Information Board, Ottawa.
This is indeed a government organization.
AH the following .information may be copied or reprinted according to the needs of the various newspapers.
This first number of February 14, 1944, contains the following:
Canadian-Soviet Exchange of Labour Information
All the 'Canadian labour unions earnestly welcome the suggestion of the labour representatives at the national council for Canadian-Soviet friendship, who have proposed an exchange of questions and answers between the labour unions of both countries. The project has been approved by both the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Trade-Congress.
And a little farther on:
Representative groups are organizing local committees in a certain number of communities. Through the national council and these local committees, the labour unions may obtain Soviet films and photos illustrating scenes of current life .in the 'Soviet union, posters displayed in factories, books and .publications on various aspects of Soviet activities.
This is quoted from a federal government official publication of February, 1944. From another issue, dated June 15, 1944, I quote the following excerpt:
( USSR Workers Learn More About The Canadian War Effort
The workers of the USSR are getting a better perspective of the Canadian labour movement and the part it plays in the current war.

Through the national council for Canadian-Soviet friendship, organized with the object of promoting better relations between the two countries, the Canadian labour unions are entering directly in relation with the corresponding unions in the USSR.
And again:
Besides organizing this exchange of communications between the labour movements in both countries, the national council supplies the unions of our country with authorized speakers, films, photos and literature on the Soviet union.
This again is to be found in a federal government official publication.
I therefore contend, Mr. Speaker, that the government is responsible for the situation with which we are faced nowadays; to my mind, the government, in order to satisfy the current demands of our people, will have to go further than the inquiry now in progress and will have to do more than prosecute only a few individuals. A thorough investigation into the various departments of the federal administration is imperative, since it is obvious that the ramifications of the organization brought to light recently are far more widespread than those which have been uncovered so far. The people will be satisfied with nothing less than a comprehensive investigation which will make it possible for the government to sweep away everything which smacks of communism and communistic propaganda. I am confident that after such a clean-up, and I hope the present government will perform the task thoroughly, life in our country will once again be worth living.
Mr. GEORGES H. HE ON (Argenteuil): Mr. Speaker, following a commendable custom, I wish to use his mother tongue, for which he no doubt holds a deep attachment, to congratulate the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau) for the fluent delivery and the clearness of expression with which he has moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Maurice Lalonde: Hear. hear.


Mr. HEON:: My honourable friend has had the thoughtfulness of expressing to his compatriots from Quebec the gratitude of our western brothers for the help given to the western French radio station. There is much that could be said about that project which is so worthy, so truly Canadian, and so essential, and about the obstacles it has encountered among certain well-known elements whose true motives are easy to discern.
For the present, I shall merely emphasize that old Quebec, which ever "remembers", is not unaware of the true situation in which our French-speaking compatriots from other provinces find themselves, and that, in the

The Address-Mr. Heon
words of the old ballad "It always thinks of it and never forgets". Finally, and this will be my last word on this subject, so long as our compatriots can rely on the enlightened patriotism of distinguished men, and I may mention such names as Baudoux, Yelle, d'Eschambault, Beauchemin, de Margerie, Joyal, Denis, Paimchaud, Lacerte, Bernier, Beaubien, Marcoux and many others, there will be every reason to hope and rejoice.
(Text):
I fully subscribe, Mr. Speaker, to the traditional congratulations heaped upon the mover (Mr. Yiau) and the seconder (Mr. Winters) of the address for the able and dignified way in which they acquitted themselves of their not inconsiderable task. The leaders of the various groups in this house must also be complimented upon the distinction and ability with which they discussed, and in some cases refrained from discussing, the grave issues and problems mentioned in the speech from the throne and with which this house must of necessity be confronted during the present session.
The speech from the throne reveals a sad truth in the following excerpt:
The turmoil which has followed in the wake of war has created new problems for governments in all parts of the globe. The world is full of unrest. Hunger, privation and suffering have become the lot of millions.
To all the peoples of occupied countries who during the war listened, often at the risk of death, at their secret radios to our pledge that if they would believe in the righteousness of our cause and help us defeat the common foe, "all the men in all the lands would live out their lives in freedom from fear and want," these enunciations of fact are far from encouraging. Yet it cannot be otherwise. For six anguished years the nations of the world have literally drenched the earth with blood, drained their resources and reserves to the last ounce, sacrificed the finest of their youth, destroyed their places of worship, their institutions of learning, their hospitals, their museums, their manufactures and their crops. The supreme cruelty lies in the fact that those least responsible for such a shameful condition in the affairs of men, the women and children of these destitute lands, will suffer the most and pay the highest price. They may well ask themselves, as we all should, if that is really what our much-vaunted Christian civilization has brought us to, twenty centuries after the Sermon on the Mount.
Shall we, as after the first world war, remain drunk with the wine of victory, return to our egoistical complacencies and forget the price
paid, or shall we restore and permanently reestablish throughout a terrified world those tenets of the Christian doctrine without which an enduring peace can never be signed, much less adhered to?
The answer lies with every one of us, and on this answer will depend whether we practice-and whether the oppressed nations will believe that we practise-what we preach when we say we are the champions of Christianity and freedom; or whether we have been and are prostituting these words to achieve our own selfish ends.
The masses of Poland, the Baltic states, the Balkans, Indonesia, India, Egypt, China and Iran must not be allowed to believe that the war has been fought for the supremacy [DOT] of one of five imperialisms, or for the securing of "sanitary cordons" between one great power and another, or for oil for the lamps of the Kremlin, or for battleships, nor for the privilege of making cannons instead of butter, or for the liberty of spreading anti-Christian and totalitarian ideologies, or for creating powerful fifth columns, but solely for the maintenance of moral principles, liberty and decency in every part of the world.
We have been assured that Canada has emerged from the war with its international prestige greatly enhanced, and it is apparent that through our proposed commitments we have taken a deep plunge in international affairs. I am one of those who believe in truth, simplicity and frankness in the realm of external affairs. Our policy should, in the words of the distinguished internationalist Harold Nicholson, be as follows:
Leaders in democratic countries should by 'all mean9 in their power refrain from policies which are difficult to explain openly and in detail. The public understands principles, whereas it does not understand manoeuvres: and a foreign policy based upon ascertainable and lavowable principles is more likely to recommend the ordinary citizen's consent, than one based in any respect upon ingenuity and adventure.
This citation should be given a place of honour in all the foreign offices of the united nations, particularly the big three, and more particularly among the Big Three in the following order, in view of its importance to themselves and the immediate necessity of allaying growing fear and distrust in their ulterior motives: the Bear, the Lion and the Eagle.
Peter Howard, the eminent author, has admirably defined the only foreign policy which can honestly and permanently be adopted by
the Big Three, if world peace is to become something more than a pipe dream:
The great powers must educate themselves to the conception that ther duty is to serve mankind rather than dominate it.
i
The Address-Mr. Heon

A newspaper clipping sent to me by a friend at Harvard, whose authorship I cannot establish, puts the question brutally but thoroughly thus:
We don't need pious, well-meant preachments which only confuse further the present confusion. We want an honest, clear-cut answer to the question:	On what grounds should permissions
he allowed 'to others which we denied to Hitler? Efficient, working agreements must :be reached . . . but on what terms? And at what price?
We are dead against robbery, rape and murder whether by the Wehrmacht or by others. We condemn brutal absorption of small, helpless nations by Hitler or by anyone else.
Hence, Mr. Speaker, since Wendell Willkie's "One World" has come to be, since the atomic age is with us, Canada must play its part in world affairs, a part commensurate with its immediate means and essential needs, and within the margin of its own domestic security and welfare. As much as we must, through Christian charity, our duty to humanity, and self-protection, render help to others, we also have to discharge our duties towards our fel-low-Canadians. There is a limit past which a nation of 12,000,000 people, boasting a national debt of $16 billion which must continue to increase with our contemplated commitments, cannot go. We must remember that a Canada whose citizens would be saddled with a backbreaking national debt, and ever-increasing taxes, thereby becoming discontented, would be a direct liability to the United Nations, and could not therefore render the help and services which are now pledged and expected from it. As compared with our good neighbour to the south, who is one of the Big Three, and apparently the biggest of them, we have undertaken a tremendous burden of international financing and obligations: on the proposed loan to Britain we are 3-5 times more generous than the United States of America. If the great republic wants to equal our contribution in ratio of population and dollar for dollar, it should lend $12,260 million without interest. For our friends to the south of us, who love to establish world records, this is one to shoot at! ! !
Apropos of the British loan, Mr. Speaker, I must candidly admit that I have not found amongst my constituents, nor in my province, and particularly amongst the farming and lower-income groups, that degree of enthusiasm which has become evident in certain quarters. To these of my fellow citizens who are not acquainted with the intricacies of cyclical financing, international obligations, and world responsibilities, and who are mainly concerned with making both ends meet in their own little family budget after income taxes have been computed and deducted, the 
proposed loan is more than a question mark.
I believe that on this proposed loan, as in any other important item of the country's policy, particularly foreign policy, the government should take this House and the country into its confidence. It is not the privilege of the rank-and-file Canadian to have access to the secret files of the ministry of External Affairs or the ministry of finance, nor has he the time or the training to study the curvaceous trends of international intrigues or politics. The popular saying, "no taxation without representation" should be extended to "no taxation without explanation", so that every Canadian will know in advance what is expected of him and will then be free to determine where his true course lies.
Perhaps if Canadians were told the true situation in Great Britain, its appalling financial position, its declining world trade, and the importance of maintaining, within the European sphere, sympathy and goodwill, the answer might be quite different. Why not put the cards on the table? Marshal Stalin has, without any scruples, in his answer to Mr. Churchill's speech. Mr. Bevin has, in answer to Vishinsky's accusation. Let that be the rule the whole way through!
Personally, and I owe it to my constituents, I am awaiting the explanation of the sponsor of the British loan bill before I form a definite opinion. I want to be shown that this loan will be to the best interests of Canada and world peace, that it will help convince the majority of the nations of Europe that they must choose between democracy and another regime, and that it will provide markets for our products and furnish work and wages to Canadians. But by all means let us have the truth, the whole truth, on this measure. Canadians love truth, but they hate half truths and deliberate lies.
On this proposed loan, I should like to quote an excerpt from an article by Henry Clay in the April 1946 issue of Foreign Affairs:
The problem is the long-term problem which will still face the United Kingdom when the transition from war to peace has been completed-the problem of establishing a balance in external relations. The proposed loan itself is likely to be exhausted before the transition is complete, but .the conditions attached to it will continue to have effect. By ruling out any policy of tying exports with imports bilaterally they will deprive British exports of a certain support they enjoyed in. the thirties. Taken with article eight, section four of the Bretton Woods agreement, .they subject British monetary policy once more to the requirements of convertibility which will compel a prompter balancing of imports than was necessary when sterling was inconvertible.

The Address-Mr. Heon
On- the w-h-ole, then, the -effect of the 'agreement is more to postpone than .to ease this long-term problem of Britain's.
In all of these international issues one very important principle must not be forgotten: Canada is not in a more advantageous but rather a less disadvantageous situation than some other countries. It is a fact that we have not been invaded, nor have we been stamped with the immediate horrors of war. This is wholly due to the grace of God, our geographical situation, the valour of our arms, and the (scientific certainty that planes must sacrifice distance to bomb loads. If we had been geographically situated where Poland is, who is there in the house to say that an eagle would not have struck us in the breast and a bear in the back? Let us not lose the sense of real perspective. We are not as badly off as some other nations; that is self-evident, and thank God for it: our territory has not been riddled, nor have our women and children known the fear of a heeled and ruthless enemy knocking at the front door. Thank God for thatl We are not in the humiliating and demoralizing position of having to count on the generosity of other peoples for food, clothing or credits, nor are we, through immediate exigencies and physical needs, unfortunately forced to forget national pride and international prestige. Thank God for that!
But all these situations do not make our own position one whit better than it really is. Our war veterans full and successful rehabilitation is not yet achieved, and one has only to visit, as I do, the various branches of our veterans' associations to realize that. Our housing problem remains unsolved; one has only to visit any city or town in Canada to become convinced of that. Unemployment is too high for comfort, and it is not a feature of our economy that we can truly boast of. Our industrial reconversion from war to peace lags, and one has only to enter any store to find out the discouraging shortage of consumer goods. Finally, let one glance at the income tax schedules, and he will readily grasp what our financial burdens are. It is not unfair to say, then, that although we are not as badly off as some other countries, we still have plenty to do to improve our own situation, and the Canadian people will expect us to do so immediately.
Another great issue is occupying the minds of our people through the shocking revelations of the Taschereau-Kellock commission. Personally I feel that too much wrongful publicity is being given to the affair and to those involved. There has been such an orgy of pictures of the accused, portrayed in delightful and affectionate poses with their wives, 63260-18
that one would almost be led to think that some of the accused have hired Hollywood press agents. There is a grave danger that the ends of justice may not be served; and those of us here in the legal profession will easily understand what I have in mind. The -accused have not yet been tried, and the twelve men who will decide their fate remain to be selected. With this flood of publicity it will not be easy to select jurymen who have not formed an opinion, and the defence will have -an opportunity of challenging almost everyone on the jury panel. Further, the accused have not yet been found guilty, and my years of experience as Crown prosecutor have taught me- to expect the unexpected verdict from the twelve "tried and true" men. With the flowing headlines and imaginative stories that are being circulated, the accused who may be acquitted will proclaim themselves martyrs to the cause of the proletariat, whilst those who may be found guilty will loudly proclaim that they were the victims of prejudice and persecution. Some restraint is in order; once the verdict is rendered, there will be time to come to conclusions and- tell the Canadian people all that should be told on this highly disturbing matter.
If I may have your indulgence, Mr. Speaker,
I -would like to close by giving briefly my opinion on the contentious question of a Canadian flag. The various polls conducted amongst all sections of our people, and particularly our armed forces, have shown that an absolute majority deems it a matter of national pride that Canada should have a flag which it can truly call its own. The difficulty arises however in the choice of a proper, logical and true design, and the various sections of our people have expressed widely-divergent views. Some have shed abundant tears over the prospect that the union jack might be withdrawn from the design; others have championed the cause of the fleur-de-lis, but almost all have shown a particular in'clination for the maple leaf.
I humbly submit that our true status within the Commonwealth suggests an honourable and satisfactory compromise. It is not the union jack which binds the peoples of the Commonwealth together, much less the fleur-de-lis. It is the allegiance to a common and revered crown which has given unity and strength through peace and war. It is our loyalty to the crown which has inspired us to take up arms and fight the good fight. Let it again be the crown that will bind alll Canadians, of whatever origin they may be, together under a flag for which they will be proud to live, work and die. The most rabid nationalist

The Address-Mr. Bracken

and the most fervent imperialist alike will proclaim their allegiance to the king of Canada.
I am not versed in heraldics, but I feel that a flag of sober colouring with a proud and large maple leaf in the middle, in the centre of which would be imprinted a large and distinctive crown, would meet with universal respect and approval.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: A week or more ago I spoke in this house and at the conclusion of my remarks moved an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In that amendment, among other things, I criticized the agricultural policy of the government. A day or two later the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) spoke for the government and discussed some of the suggestions I had made; and
he stated the f...sent policy of the government.
In the midst ot his remarks he made one statement which indicated that I was taking a different view now, being a politician, from that which I had taken some years ago when I did not suffer from the disadvantages of that classification; and he indicated further that I was correct in the earlier days but that being in my present position, I am wrong now. In view of these statements, and in view of the importance of agricultural production in these days in Canada, as well as in the world. I felt it my duty to take up some of the time of the house this afternoon to deal with this particular matter.
My amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, among other things, declared that the government had "failed to adjust their agricultural production plans to meet the altered conditions of the world's demands." In that address I said:
The wheat acreage of western Canada can be increased by nearly four million acres by going back to the percentage of summer-fallow that was used prior to the time we started paying people not to grow wheat. We do not need to reduce the acreage that is being used for feed crops for animals.
In what I shall say this afternoon I shall deal chiefly with wheat, because under these circumstances it is of major importance in the world's food economy. I shall touch briefly on dairy products, and even more briefly say a word about the general position of agriculture in the Canadian economy.
Further on in that address I said:
The acreage in fallow under pre-war conditions would be about fifteen or sixteen million. By going back to that amount of summer-fallow we can get three or four million acres more on which to grow wheat, which would give us thirty or forty million bushels; and in this way we will do much more to help correct famine

conditions in Britain or somewhere else than will be accomplished by all the effort to save food-though I am not discouraging the government in that policy.
And I added this:
Wheat farmers need to be allowed to get more of the world price if they are to seed three or four million acres of this land which will otherwise lie fallow this year, if they are to decrease the amount of fallow land from 19-4 million acres to about 16 million acres. All they have to do is, instead of summer-fallowing a hundred acres, to summer-fallow eighty and use the other twenty for crop.
The Minister of Agriculture has taken issue with this position. He defends the governments' policy of encouraging the summerfallowing of some twenty million acres out of sixty or sixty-one million acres now under cultivation for cereal crops in western Canada, as contrasted with the use of a little less than sixteen millions for this purpose before the war. That is the general position.
To those not familiar with the practice of summer-fallowing, let me say that it is a practice that is developed for the conservation of moisture in farming areas with low rainfall. In western Canada last year, and for a few years previously, nearly twenty million out of approximately sixty million acres under cultivation for cereal crops in those three prairie lay fallow for the purpose of conserving moisture.
I wonder if the members of the house appreciate the extent of territory twenty million acres represents? I have here figures for the total improved farm acreage in each of the provinces of Canada. The nearly twenty million acres lying idle out there represent twenty-six times the total improved farm acreage in Prince Edward Island, .twenty-four times the total improved farm acreage in Nova Scotia, sixteen times the total improved farm acreage in New Brunswick, twice the improved farm acreage of Quebec, fifty per cent more than the improved farm acreage of Ontario, twice as much as in Manitoba, over half as much as the improved total acreage in Saskatchewan, nearly as much as the total improved acreage in Alberta, and more than twenty times the total improved farm acreage in British Columbia.
I give these comparisons to show the extent of the territory which now lies idle. The question before this parliament and the Canadian people is whether it is wise to continue that proportion of land now lying idle when the world needs cereals for food, or whether it would not be wiser to reduce it to the neighbourhood of sixteen million acres; in other words, to summer-fallow four acres or a little more where we formerly summer-fallowed five.

The Address-Mr. Bracken
In defending the government's position the Minister of Agriculture charged me with having one set of views on matters of agricultural policy when I was supposed to be an expert in that field, and another set of views now that I have become, to use his term, "a politician". He made clear that the views I formerly held were sound, and that the government, of which he is a member, was now following them in so far as this particular aspect of agriculture is concerned. He sought to leave with the house the impression that, being a politician, I had departed from my earlier sound views and that what I had to say now on this issue was not to be taken seriously.
I am speaking to this house to-day for two reasons. First, I want to answer the wholly unfounded charge that, as an agriculturist, I spoke one way in earlier days, and that now, being a politician, I speak another way. Second, I think it necessary in the nation's interest to expose the fallacies of some of the government's agricultural policies, particularly those with respect to wheat and dairy products. In doing this, I shall analyse the minister's address, answer his baseless charges with his own words, and show from the reports of his own department and the records of the government's bureau of statistics that his policy deserves censure and not commendation at this time, and that it should be altered to help meet the present emergency.
The minister in his address, apart from the several side issues he brought in, attempted to do three main things.
(1)	He attempted to discredit the proposal I advanced that, in this time of food crisis, the summer-fallow acreage of western Canada might be safely reduced from 19,400,000 acres to about 15,800,000, and that an additional
3,600,000	acres be thus made available for seeding to wheat-an additional acreage five times the total of the improved land in the Province of Prince Edward Island. He represented this suggestion as being the view of "a politician" and that it differed from the views I held as an agriculturist in earlier days.
(2)	The minister attempted to show that the increased production of farm products since 1940 was due to the government's policy of increasing the percentage of summer-fallow from about twenty-eight per cent shortly before the war to some thirty-three per cent in the years following 1940. To put it another way, he was critical of and rejected the suggestion that the acreage of bare summer-fallow in western Canada should in this emergency be reduced from the 19,400,000
63260-18i
acres proposed by the government to something less than 16,000,000 acres, or to be more specific, 15,800,000 acres. He saw no virtue in adding, say 3,600,000 acres that would thus be made available to the limited objective of 23,400,000 odd acres suggested by the government for wheat for this year.
(3)	The minister's third main point was that the government In 1943 switched its policy from one of encouraging live stock production 'to one of encouraging a greater production of wheat. To use his own words:
We did not wait until everyone over in Europe was shouting for more food before we changed our policy from one of encouraging the intensive production of meat and dairy products to one of increasing the production of wheat.
I propose to deal with these three main points the minister sought to establish. I shall deal also with several other misleading and incorrect statements he made. And I shall conclude my remarks with some general observations on the relationship of agriculture to the general economy of this country.
Let me deal first very briefly with the minister's main points. He attempted to throw discredit upon- me by representing that I preached one agricultural doctrine thirty years ago and that I preach another now. In this connection I propose to show that he misquoted what I said in 1916 by omitting essential parts of what I did say. I am not saying that the minister did1 it deliberately; I am quite sure he would not do that. I shall show that what I said in those early years, and which the minister applauded as being sound practice for the farmers in the west, is exactly the same view I advance to-day, a view which he now says is both unwise and "political."
In connection with the minister's second main point, namely, that the government's policy of maintaining a higher than normal acreage of summer-fallow will increase the total production of wheat and other cereals, I shall show (1) that the policy of the government in this respect is not one that will increase total production but rather will decrease it; (2) that reducing the acreage of crops sown and increasing the acreage of land left summer-fallow beyond the percentage of pre-war days is a policy of decreasing production and not one of increasing production.
As for the minister's third main point, namely, that the government changed its views in 1943 from encouraging live stock production to encouraging wheat production, I shall show that the government's policies in this respect have been quite the opposite to what the minister now says they have been. I shall show that the recommendations of his own department similarly disprove his present contention.
The Address-Mr. Bracken

I come now to the second major point the Minister of Agriculture has sought to establish, namely, that by summer-fallowing 19-4 million acres out of 61 millions now under cultivation in western Canada, a larger production will be secured than if only, say,
15.800.000	acres were summer-fallowed. To put it another way, his contention is that with
41.500.000	acres in crop and 19,400,000 not in crop, (summer-fallow), there will be a greater production than if 45,100,000 acres are in crop and only 15,800,000 not in crop.
That is the problem the Canadian farmer is facing. That is the problem we face here in deciding what attitude we shall take with respect to encouraging them in their production plans.
As evidence in support of his theory, the minister referred to the average production of wheat in the years 1935 to 1939 when the percentage of land in fallow in the prairie provinces was about 28J per cent, and compared it with the production in the years 1940 and 1944 when the average in fallow was about 32J per cent. To use the minister's words:
The result was this-referring to wheat.
-the average crop from 1935 to 1939 was 312,000,000 bushels and the average from 1940 to 1944 was 420,000,000 bushels.
That is his argument. He says, Let us summer-fallow more than before the war; let us leave more land idle-even under these critical conditions. A little further down he said:
I am suggesting that we did follow that policy of greatly increasing summer-fallowing and we got the best results we have had in the whole history of Saskatchewan.
In other words, the minister gives all credit for this increased production to the fact that in the latter period there were over 19 million acres per year in summer-fallow and a little less than 22 millions in wheat, whereas in the earlier period there were four million acres less in summer-fallow and about three million acres more in wheat. My answer is that there is no justification whatever for accepting such a theory on the evidence given. The fact is that in the more productive period of 1940-44 there was not only slightly more fallowed land and slightly less cropped land, but there was more favourable weather, there was no major attack from wheat rust, no extensive losses from insects such as grasshoppers and cut-worms, and the varieties of wheat grown were more productive than those available in the preceding period.

Let me give some details. In the 1935-39 period the rainfall averaged 16 per cent less than in the later period. In two years, 1936 and 1937, the sum of the rainfall in the two growing seasons was an inch less than in the one growing season of 1942. One year 1937 was the driest year ever known in the histoiy of the west. In that year I believe Saskatchewan averaged only 2^ bushels of wheat, and large areas produced nothing. Considerable areas, even under summer-fallow, produced nothing. In two years of the 1935-39 period there was a rust epidemic which reduced the production by 160,000,000 bushels; in two years there was serious damage from cut-worms and other insects-grasshoppers, wire worms and saw fly causing a reduction of over 200,000,000 bushels. In one year, 1937, in July, the temperature reached 113 degrees in the shade, an almost all-time record for the prairie region. Whenever the temperature exceeds 100 degrees in the shade for any length of time, out there it means serious consequences to the wheat crop.
In 1942, on the other hand, the yield of wheat was more than three times the yield of 1937, and two and a half times the yield of 1936.
The fault with the minister is that he tabes a given position, and then seeks superficial evidence to bolster it up. In this case he gives ne credit whatever to nature. He takes it all unto himself and to the government, for no other reason than that in one period heavier yields were obtained than in another. I have never before from the lips of any responsible minister heard such a nervy attempt to take unto himself and the government all credit for the weather, and for the relative absence of unfavourable conditions.
The simple fact is that the average yield of wheat in western Canada over a period of years practically always exceeds fifty per cent of the yield of wheat sown on summer-fallow. This means that in all the wheat-growing region of Canada, outside very limited areas where the fifty-fifty plan of fallow and wheat is advisable, the total production will be increased in those rotation systems which crop two-thirds of the land each year or three-quarters of the land each year rather than in those which crop only one-half of it each year.
This does not mean that it is always less economical to follow the two-year fallow system. There are some very dry areas where this should never be departed from even in an emergency, and there are other areas where it may be more economical than any longer rotation; but the fact remains that on the average of the areas where wheat is now

The Address-Mr. Bracken
grown a greater total yield per farm is obtained where the land is cropped two years out of three, or three out of four, than where it is cropped only one year out of two.
All the facts of science and experimental tests go to indicate that the total production would have been considerably greater during the 1940-1944 period than it was had 25,000,000 acres a year been sown rather than the 22,000,000 that were sown.
To further bolster up his contention, the minister instances also the greater yield of oats and barley in the 1940-1944 period as compared with the 1935-1939 period. What he does not tell us here also is that the rainfall was less in the earlier period, that the acreage was less, that the damage form disease and insects was greater, and that nearly all of the oats and barley was grown, not on fallowed land, but on second, third and fourth crop land.
To climax his argument the minister says:
If we had had the increase only in grain production it could be argued that by that policy you do not get more food than by following the other policy.
He supplements this statement by asserting that larger deliveries of hogs were made, more cattle were shipped, and more eggs and dairy products produced. Why he should advance this as an argument to bolster up his case seems incomprehensible. With 6,000,000 acres more of crop land in use in the war period, what other result could have been expected? With better pasturage from increased rains, a bigger acreage of feed crops, and the use even of wheat for live stock consumption, no other result could possibly have been expected.
The minister then follows with the ridiculous argument that this live stock production is an "addition" to these enormous amounts of grain. The obvious fact is that we do not have a double gain when we have large amounts of feed grains and a large live stock production. We can have either one or the other, but not both. Feed grains are consumed where live stock is produced. That is the price we pay for live stock. Obviously, when the acreage sown to feed grains and the acreage used for pasture and hay are all increased, the live stock must necessarily also be increased.
The minister says that by greatly increasing summer-fallow in 1940-1944, he got the best results that had ever been obtained in the whole history of Saskatchewan. The reason he gives for those good results I have shown to be erroneous.
There was another period in the history of the west when equally good acreage yields and better total results were obtained and the summer-fallow land was not then thirtythree per cent but only a little more than twenty-two per cent. It was in the period 1924-1928. In that period the seasonal rainfall was almost one-half inch less than in the 1940-1944 period. In the period, 19241928 wheat in the prairie provinces averaged 18-7 bushels per acre, as compared with 18-9 bushels in the 1940-1944 period. Oats yielded 3T5 bushels as compared with 33-8 bushels; barley, 26-8 bushels as compared with 26-8 bushels; rye, 16-7 bushels as compared with 13-9 bushels, and flax, 8-6 bushels as compared with 7-4 bushels. Yet in that period, 1924-1928, the area of summer-fallow was only 22J per cent as compared with 32J per cent in the later period. Had the lower summer-fallow percentage of the 19241928 period been'used in the 1940-1944 period with its heavier rainfall, the total production in the later period, large as it was, would have been increased by whatever amount the five or six million extra acres would have yielded-an amount of approximately 50,000,000 bushels a year.
To conclude the discussion on this particular point, let me repeat two additional observations made by the minister. He says:
That, Mr. Speaker, should be sufficient reason for believing that the wheat policy my hon. friend (Mr. Bracken) advocated back in 1916 was right. The policy advocated again in 1919 was just as right, and the only reason he is wrong now is that he is speaking politically instead of as an agriculturist.
I accept the compliment that I was right in 1916 and 1919, and from what I have said the house and the country both will agree that my position now is the same as then, and that the minister's policy, having changed from what he said was right, must therefore now be wrong.
His other comment was this:
I submit again that I prefer to suggest to the farmers of western Canada that they accept the government's policy in connection with acreage in western Canada at the present time rather than the politically considered policy of the leader of the opposition.
From what I have said the house will know, and I trust the country will know, what value to place upon this gratuitous comment.
I come now to the third major point the minister attempted to make, namely, that the government switched its policy of encouraging live stock production up to 1943, and from that time on encouraged wheat production.
To quote the minister:
That policy was carried on until the fall of 1943 and then a change was made.
The Address-Mr. Bracken

A little further on he says:
So in 1943 we changed our attitude in the matter of production. We did not go_ to the conferences at that time and say "don't increase your wheat acreage any further".
Further on he says:
In other words, we believe that, up to date, we have followed a right policy in asking our people to produce greater quantities of wheat during the last two years than they produced previously.
Then he says:
We did not wait until everyone over in Europe was'shouting for more food before we changed our policy from one of encouraging the intensive production of meat and dairy products to one of increasing the production of wheat.
That was the minister's story when he spoke to us last week. In this he assumes all virtue for such heavy production of wheat as we have had during the last three years.
I propose now to show that the record tells a wholly different story.
The dominion Department of Agriculture for several years past has held an "objectives conference" for Canadian agriculture when it attempts to plan for the following crop year. At these conferences the dominion department puts forward its views with respect to what acreages should be utilized for the production of different farm products, and what the objectives shoud be for other lines of production. Such a conference was held preceding the 1944 crop season; another was held preceding the 1945 crop season, and still another was held preceding the 1946 crop season.
Let us see what the minister had to say with respect to the production of wheat on each of these occasions. On page 4 of the departmental publication covering the objectives for 1944, there occurs this statement:
The minister stressed the need for maintaining a food tonnage output through 1944 and not only for the duration of the war but in the relief period to follow. Production of meat and other live stock products was particularly stressed, and undue optimism with respect to immediate improvement in wheat marketing prospects, the minister warned, was unwarranted.	,
I ask you: Does that look like encouraging wheat production, as the minister said a week ago?
On page 7 of the same publication of the minister's, own department there appears this statement:
When speaking at the conference in support of the recommendation that no increase in wheat, acreage in Canada be encouraged for 1944, the dominion Minister of Agriculture cited the extent of remaining wheat surpluses and expressed the view that an average crop in 1944 on the same acreage as was planted in 1943
[Mr. Bracken.1
would provide Canada with sufficient wheat to meet the highest possible demand in the next two years.
Therefore the safest course of action would [DOT]be to maintain present output of coarse grains and keep summer-fallow acreage at a high level so as to be in a position .to produce more wheat if and when later required without further aggravating the present surplus position.
In these circumstances the objective for wheat in 1944 calls for 17-5 million acres, or-approximately the same area sown in each province in 1943. On the basis of long-time average yields, this would result in a crop of about 280,000,000 bushels.
What happened? Was the minister encouraging wheat production then? The minister recommended 17,500,000 acres for 1944. The farmers planted 23,300,000 acres. The minister's department estimated a yield of
280.000.	000 bushels for 1944. The actual production was 417,000,000 bushels. The minister did not encourage either a greater acreage or a greater production of wheat that year. The farmers nevertheless sowed nearly six million additional acres and produced
137.000.	000 bushels more wheat than his department estimated for.
There is the record-the minister taking credit for increasing wheat production since 1943, and the evidence of his own statements to the contrary in- each of the years then and since. There can be no other conclusion than that for such increase in acreage and in production as we have had in these last three years, the farmers of Canada and not the minister and not the government deserve the whole credit.
, Turning now to the agricultural programme advanced by the minister's department for the 1945 crop season, what do we find respecting the production of wheat? On page 5 of the department's agricultural programme publication for 1945, in a foreword by the Hon. James G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, appear these statements:
The agricultural programme for Canada in 1945 again emphasizes the production of live stock and dairy products.
Further down he says:
While .a continued heavy demand for live stock products means indirectly a good market for oats and barley, the outlook for wheat, on the other hand, is less certain.
And a little further down he adds:
Taking these various factors into consideration and recognizing that we have reached, or are veTy neaT, the peak of production with available acreage and man-power, it seems desirable to diveTt as much land and labour to the production of feed grains as the production of live stock products will require. Accordingly, [DOT]the programme outlined in this Teport suggests that in 1945 the area devoted to wheat be 20,700,000 acres in the prairie provinces, and a [DOT]total of 21,5000,000 for all of Canada. This

The Address-Mr. Bracken
would represent an acreage slightly less than was seeded in 1944. The remainder of the acreage devoted to grain in 1944 should go into oats and barley, leaving the area in summer-fallow approximately unchanged.
Does that look like changing his plans and encouraging wheat production?
On page 7 of the same departmental document there appears this statement:
In his opening address to conference delegates, the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. James G. Gardiner, made particular reference to meats, dairy products and wheat.
An a little further on in the same paragraph:
Dairy production should he maintained at maximum levels but in the case of wheat, the supply is in excess of the anticipated demand for at least another crop year and no increase in production is advised.	.
This statement the minister's department reports him as having made with respect to last year's wheat crop. Can anyone interpret that as meaning that the minister had changed his policy and was encouraging wheat production?
The report of the "objectives conference" for the 1946 season, as well, indicates again that the government does not ask for any increase in the wheat acreage.
In 1944 the farmers did not accept his advice. They seeded 6,000,000 extra acres and produced 137,000,000 extra bushels.
In 1945 also the farmers did not accept his advice. Instead of seeding 21,500,000 acres, they seeded 23,400,000 acres.
And now in 1946 again he, advocates no change in acreage for wheat even though the world is facing the greatest food shortage in the history of our time.
A week ago the minister said he was encouraging wheat production during these last three years. From what I have quoted of his attitude at the three conferences mentioned it will be clear that his attitude was quite the contrary.
I come now to the consideration of other views with respect to this matter. In referring to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a week ago Sunday, I shall not quote my own views but those of a newspaper that is a very close and intimate friend and admirer of the government, the Winnipeg Free Press. This is what it says:
To many people in Canada, this contribution to solving the crisis will seem somewhat inadequate, the reductions in civilian supplies trifling and the general "do-nothing" directive to the farmers a counsel of selfishness.
This is from the Winnipeg Free Press of March 22. It continues:	,
But, admitting these things and giving them full weight, the fact of world famine remains. Wheat is what will save human life and wheat
alone; and without permanently damaging our soil or the long-run prospects of our export markets, more wheat can safely be sown.
A little further on:
In the circumstances Mr. Gardiner's attack on Mr. Bracken in the House of Commons on Tuesday was unfair. Mr. Bracken had urged the use of summer-fallow. Mr. Gardiner retorted that Mr. Bracken, when he taught agricultural science in 1916 took another view, and that he was now only playing politics. What Mr. Gardiner is playing we really do not know; but we fancy that if he were living in Europe on 800 calories a day, he would be glad enough of another slice of bread.
It concludes the editorial in this way:
How can we justify our present course either to ourselves or to mankind? We have, relatively speaking, everything. We have a daily diet unsurpassed by any other nation in all the w-ide world. We luxuriate in food. We squander it lavishly. There is a world famine, and what do we do? We reduce the amount of grain for whisky-making by half. We cut down our flour consumption by one-tenth. We do not permit any collections of money for the purchase of food because it may cause some inconvenience somewhere or other. We ought to be ashamed.
Those are not my words; those are the words of the Winnipeg Free Press referring to the policies outlined by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture.
I come now to the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). He said;
There is some wheat being held on farms in western Canada, principally due to the present levels of income tax combined with the uncertainty of yields from the new crop to be harvested in 1946.
Then further on he says:
With this objective in mind the government has made an arrangement whereby wheat, which producers may not have intended to deliver at the present time, can be marketed and sold over the next three months, with cash settlement made at any time the producer may choose in 1946, 1947 or 1948.
That is a half-way policy. It will help to get out some of the wheat that is being heid back for the reasons the minister gives, but it will not bring it all out. These farmers were concerned, not alone with their income tax on possibly heavy crops in a single year but with the price of wheat next year and the year after that. With the world price nearly $2 a bushel and this government requiring Canadian wheat to be sold at no more than SI.55 on the world market to Britain, a little more to some of the other small countries, and only SI.25 at home, I have no doubt that many of these men are expecting higher prices in the future and may be holding back wheat in order to take advantage of that. The minister may get some deliveries with his new plan but he will not get all. He can get delivery of all if he will do one of two things. Let him either
The Address-Mr. Bracken

increase the price-nr take his controls off wheat and allow the world price-or let him tell the farmers definitely that they will not in later years be allowed any higher price than he is allowing then to receive to-day. As long as there is a prospect of their getting a higher price later they will be tempted to hold the wheat back. I suggest that the remedy is to take some of the restrictions off and let the wheat be sold at least up to SI.80, if not at the present world market price.
I wish now to refer briefly to the dairy situation, to which I also made reference the other day. About three years ago the government established subsidies for dairy products, which subsidies have remained substantially fixed ever since except for seasonal changes. The result is that gross returns to pro ducers of dairy products have .remained fixed for the past three years, with one or two minor exceptions. Yet during the period when dairy returns \vere relatively fixed, dairy farmers' costs have been steadily rising. In western Canada feed costs have risen some forty per cent and farm wages have gone up fifty per cent. In eastern Canada feed prices, since December, 1942, have risen eleven per cent and farm wages have risen twenty-five per cent or more. Good farm labour is difficult to hire, and the result is that dairy production all along the line is decreasing rapidly. The turn came eighteen months ago, in the prairie region, when milk production started to decline. In this area the decline has been going on for eighteen months with no sign of a let-up. In eastern Canada the decline started six months ago and is gaining momentum. All lines of dairy production are falling-cheese, butter and concentrated milk products-and at the same time that production is falling the demand is increasing.
We now have 600,000 more people in Canada than a year ago. At the end of this year there will be another 200,000 more people in Canada than at present. Yet the government sits placidly by and does not seem to realize that price determines production. There is only one way to prevent'the decline in dairy production from developing into a real crisis in the next twelve months, and that is to increase the return to dairy producers now.
The government has taken upon itself the functions of the free-price market. It controls the financial returns to producers through subsidies and price ceilings. If the decline in production is to be stemmed and turned into increasing production, the dairy 
farmers must have higher returns. The
dairy products price and subsidy schedules need immediately to be drastically revised to provide increased returns to dairy farmers. Under the present dairy products prices, farmers will not continue to milk cows under conditions of dear and scarce labour, high feed costs, and the price of dairy products out of line with beef cattle prices.
I wish to thank the house for its attention. I will not take time to summarize what I have said. Most of the points I have tried to make the members will understand and, I hope, agree with.
As for the position of agriculture generally, let me conclude with these brief words. Agriculture has never had a square deal except in war. It has never had even an approach to a square deal during the life of the present government until the last three years. It is now entering upon a period of declining production under the government's restrictive policies: price ceilings discouraging production, income tax denying wages to certain members of farm families, failure to get labour back on the farm, farmers' costs mounting, failure to keep farm prices up to mounting farm costs. In general, farmers fear a return to the conditions prior to 1943, when one-third or one-quarter of the Canadian people living on farms never got anything approaching that proportion of the nation's income.
I wish to leave on the record a statement showing the cost of things farmers buy compared with prices of Canadian farm products. It is a table of figures, perhaps the house will permit me to put it on Hansard:
Index Numbers of Cost of Things that Farmers Buy and Prices of Canadian Farm Products* 1926-29 = 100
Cost of	Prices of	Prices ofthings that	Canadian	Canadianfarmers buy	farm products	farm products (adjusted)**1935 	77-4	62-9	1936	78-5	68-8	1937 	83-6	86-3	1938 	81-4	72-9	1939 	79-5	63-7	1940 	80-6	66-5	67-81941 	91-3	75-6	79-41942 	99-7	81-7	87-81943 	104-3	95-0	101-51944 	106-0	101-9	108-01945 	107-3	104-4	109-6* Index	numbers from	Dominion Bureau of	
Statistics converted to base period 1926-29=100.
** Price index of farm prices adjusted upward for agricultural price subsidies, W.A.R., P.F.I., wheat participation certificates 1940-41-42-and free freight subsidies.
Upward adjustments for each year as follows: 1940-2 per cent; 1941-5 per cent; 1942- 7-5 per cent; 1943-6-8 per cent; 1944-6 per cent; 1945-5 per cent.

The Address-Mr. Gillis
I should like to impress upon the house what these figures mean. They mean that except for the last three years, prices of farm products, including subsidies, have never, since before the war started as almost never in the history of the past, approached the level of the cost of things that farmers have to buy. The black line that hon. members see on the diagram I have here shows the cost of things farmers have had to buy from 1935 until the present time. The red line shows the average price of farm products. The latter was always lower until the last three years, except in one period 1937 when there was a wheat failure in the west. The price of wheat went sky-high for those days and thus brought the average farm price for that year above the price what farmers had to buy.
That is the position of agriculture in the Canadian economy. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason more than any other that I find myself in the position I am in to-day. I realized that position-the inequity which agriculture had always had to bear. It is clear from this table and from the chart that during the eleven years reported, like all the years preceding, agriculture has never had a square deal until the last three years.
The provincial governments cannot correct these conditions; the dominion government can. I supported this governement for twenty years. On its agricultural and certain other policies including this very wheat price situation I differed with them, and so when the party I lead, in its platform in 1942, determined to try to get a square deal for agriculture and to start by raising the initial price of wheat from 90 cents to $1.25 I came with them.
The record for agriculture is that, except occasionally in war years, the price of things the farmers have to buy has always been away higher than the price of things the farmers have to sell. In general, farmers fear a return to conditions prior to 1943, when one-third or one-quarter of the Canadian people living on farms never got anything approaching that proportion of the nation's income.
I suggest that the government relax its price ceiling restrictions on farm products; that it remove such restrictions as limit the production of food, and, in some cases, perpetuate scarcity. Let it tell its price ceiling controllers to raise the ceiling limits on needed farm products, and let production increase to feed ourselves, to sell to the world and tr help keep the hungry from starving.
In the meantime I would change the stuped policy which keeps the price of our export wheat forty or fifty cents below the world price, and either fix it at $1.80 instead of $1.55, or let the world price prevail until the shortage is corrected. I would increase at once the price of at least one dairy product, namely, butter. I would say to farmers: summer-fallow only four acres where you summer-fallowed five acres before; sow seven acres where you had planned to sow six acres, and thus make available thirty or forty million bushels of wheat, food enough to feed the whole population of Britain for at least a month.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that the main amendment should receive the support of the house.


Clarence Gillis: It was the intention of the members of this group to try to shorten this debate. That was our intention until this afternoon. When this debate opened, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) rose in his place and informed the house that as far as he and his party were concerned they were prepared to shorten the debate and to facilitate the work of the house in order that we might get down to specific items and try to do something about the pressing problems before us. Although he made that announcement he proceeded to tell us that he himself did not intend to carry it out. At that time he occupied fully two hours of the time of the house, and even then we were prepared to go along.


Mr. TTJSTIN:: The hon. member's party has had the highest percentage of speakers taking part in this debate.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: The hon. member's party was the first to break the arrangement.


Mr. COLDWELL:: We have taken three hours.


Clarence Gillis: I do not mind the interruptions; they do not know any better. We were quite prepared to take the vote this afternoon, but we find ourselves in this position. The leader of the opposition takes the floor again and expects the members of this house who have something to say to provide him with an audience while he goes over the country on two or three more expeditions. So far as I am concerned-
(Mr. GRAYDON: The hon. member is defending the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).


Major James William Coldwell: We shall tell you.
The Address-Mr. Gillis


Clarence Gillis: I am criticizing the man who asked the members of this house to try to facilitate the work and shorten the debate. Certainly he did not set a good example. That is why I am on my feet at this time exercising my right as a member of the house-


Gordon Graydon: That is not a good enough reason.


Major James William Coldwell: It is a good reason.


Gordon Graydon: No.


Clarence Gillis: -and make some contribution to the debate. I am going to deal with the subject matter that I rose to discuss.
Unlike the leader of the opposition I am going to try to be as brief and explicit as possible. I am not going to tiy to cover the whole country, Europe and all those other matters that have been gone over. Since 1940 I have sat in this house many times listening to the debates, and I have questioned whether many of the people who have been in public office for the last twenty-five or thirty years mean anything when they rise and make a statement. In viewing them at close range, and being in close association with them and listening to their statements and their taking another course within fifteen minutes, the wonder to me is that we still have a country, because their statements do not mean very much. I am thinking of the statements made a few moments ago by the leader of the opposition. I am not an agriculturist; I have read something about agriculture. I know something about the record of public men in this country for the last twenty-five or thirty years, and I cannot reconcile the statements made by the leader of the opposition this afternoon with the fact that in 1940 he was on the platform with the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mackenzie King) advocating Liberal policies and defending the very things that he condemned this afternoon, it leaves the ordinary layman in a kind of quandary. Do they mean anything? Will the statements made this afternoon hold good next year? Will the leader of the present opposition be a Liberal next year, a Conservative, a Progressive Conservative, or what tag is going to be on him? Will he stand up to the pronouncements made this afternoon? When a person makes a statement I believe he should mean it; he should follow it through. If the policies and principles announced in 1940 were good at that time I have not seen anything happen that should change them. It is exactly the same situation.
To get back to the speech from the throne,
I wish to join with other hon. members in paying my tribute to the mover (Mr. Viau) [DOT]

and the seconder (Mr. Winters) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They made an excellent presentation of a bad case. I particularly wish to compliment the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. Sitting here and listening to him making a statement, I thought it was statesmanlike, but during the course of his discussion I wondered whether I belonged to the same province or not, having in mind particularly his defence of the policies of the government in matters of rehabilitation, employment, prosperity and all the things that mean something in the everday life of the people of that province. I certainly could not accept his statement with regard to the way the policies of the government are working out at the present time.
I wish to say a few words about unemploj''-ment, because in the speech made by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) he might lead the house and the country to believe that the 263,000 unemployed in this country at the present time-those are the registered unemployed; there are many not registered-were just a seasonal matter, and that most of these people would be out of work under ordinary circumstances at this season of the year. I wish to assure the minister and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg that unemployment in Nova Scotia is not a seasonal matter. It is something that has been there for many years, something that will develop into a permanent situation unless steps are taken to correct it. I should like to draw the attention of the minister and the government to a statement made by one of their own officials, as carried by the Halifax Herald within the last couple of weeks. The statement was made by Mr. Michael Dwyer, who is at present regional director of selective service for the maritime provinces. He certainly did not say that the unemployment problem in Nova Scotia is a seasonal matter. He made the startling statement that some ' 60,000 will be seeking jobs by June of this year. I am going to read just a short extract from the newspaper report, in order that it may be on record for the minister to read and check up with his own officials, as to the problem in that province.
Mr. Michael Dwyer, who is the maritime selective service director and former minister of manes, declared in an address to members of the Halifax Commercial Club, that 60,000 Nova Scotians will be unemployed by June of this year. This number will l>e without work even though all wartime factories were to be reopened and employment made available as in 1939, which w>as considered to be the province's top year. Mr. Dwyer also revealed an unpleasant fact when he said that an average of 15,000 young people each year leave this province in order to seek employment elsewhere.	[DOT]	.

The Address-Mr. Gillis
I should like to focus the attention of the minister on this point. In 1939, when war broke out, there were thousands, of young men in the mining districts and rural districts throughout Nova Scotia who never in their lives 'had the right to a job. They went into the services. While the war was being fought there was no expansion of industry in Nova Scotia or the maritimes generally. During the course of the war a few war plants were created, but immediately upon the cessation of hostilities those plants were closed. As I say, many of these young men who donned the uniform in 1939 and 1940 never had the right to a job; and despite all the promises. made by the government that they were building a brave new world, and that these young men would come back to all the things they did not have in the thirties, everyone of these men is coming back to exactly what he left in 1939. There is nothing for them except their gratuities; to live off them as long as tihey can and then, when the gratuities are gone, to find themselves exactly where they started in 1939, after fighting one of the worst wars in the history of this world. So that in reality the gratuity is not something given for service rendered; it is merely an interim payment of relief until such time as they go back on the regular relief rolls. That is about the only way to classify it.
The situation in that province requires that something should be done immediately. It is not good enough for the minister to rise in his place in the house and be optimistic about the picture, depending upon something happening. Something should be done at once. There are many things that can be done. For example, there is the strait of Canso project. The facts, figures and everything have been gone into; it has been discussed in this house in season and out of season. Back in 1942 the reconstruction committee recommended it, and it should have been commenced. If that one project alone had been started a year or so ago it would have taken the edge off the unemployment problem, temporarily at least; it would have been something for two or three years, and would have given us an opportunity to look around and see what else could be done. Many public works projects could be commenced in that province. Money has been appropriated for them; the contracts have been let, but still nothing is done.
The question of materials has been raised. We are told they cannot get the materials. Why not? I have an opinion on that point, and I am going to state it. Every speech that comes from the opposition ranks here is directed to the removal of price controls and the elimination of the excess profits tax. In
my opinion, the manufacturers and those who supply materials in this country to-day, whether it be lumber, shirts, socks-which you cannot buy-are on a sit-down strike, exerting pressure on the government to have these controls removed. That is my honest opinion. Go back to 1939; were not the same methods employed then? A bill was passed in this house writing in a profit limitation on war contracts. That statute was suspended by order in council, and when the Minister of Munitions and Supply was questioned as to why that had been done he told the house quite frankly that for months he had tried to let war contracts to the industrialists of this country, when our backs were to the wall and we required more materials, but he could not get them to accept war contracts until, the profits limitation was removed. In my opinion, the same thing is going on to-day. In the field of housing you sure not going to have houses built for the same reason. I believe the shortages in this country are artificially created. I believe the manufacturers are using the same methods they used in 1939, by withholding materials, creating unemployment, and having everyone sing the swan song with all controls, hoping for their removal and the removal of the excess profits tax. When that is done, in my opinion there will be no difficulty in getting materials in this country, and the things necessary to start our economy rolling in the right direction to supply peace-time needs. Personally I hope the government has sufficient back-bone to examine that problem realistically, because as a worker who suffered during and after the last war I know that if price controls are removed to-day and we are thrown into the hands of free enterprise as we were in the thirties, the people of this country are in for a terrific licking during the next few years.
I mention that just because someone has to face up to it, and the government must accept their share of responsibility. During the war the government planned their economy. They allocated their materials; they fixed their prices and directed the whole economy of this country for war purposes. As soon as the war ended, however, they said that free enterprise was going to do the job, so they sat back and passed it over. Now no one is carrying the ball, because the other fellows are sitting back and doing everything they can to embarrass the government, because they want to get back to the place where they can extract the savings the people built up during the war, and get the prices they want for everything. This procedure of shadowboxing with the problem of building houses and
The Address-Mr. Gillis

of supplying the necessities of life is not enough. The government is not facing up to the problem.
The official opposition, in my opinion, are simply the agents of the big industrialists, and are being used as pressure groups in the house in order to force the government to relax controls, so that industry may have unrestricted opportunities in the future to exploit the people.
What do the big fellows behind the scenes think about all this? An editorial which appeared in the Labour News of December 24, 1945, would give some indication. This is the official organ of the workers' educational association, a well-informed organization. This editorial quotes from the upper strata behind the scenes and, so that we may have a better understanding of the people with whom we are dealing, I shall read1 what is stated here.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Where was it published?


Clarence Gillis: In Toronto.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: That explains it.


Clarence Gillis: 
Mr. T. Y. GRANT (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to throw any bouquets at this late stage of the debate, but after reading the speech of the Tory member for Queens (Mr. McLure) I decided that I would have to make a few remarks. In congratulating the mover of the address (Mr. Viau), the hon. member for Queens praised him for his excellent French, but he did not compliment him on his English. I wish to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Queens is about as well qualified as I am to congratulate anybody on their French, and I am not qualified to do that. He did not congratulate him on his English, and I now take the opportunity of doing so for Prince Edward Island. I wish also now, since I am complimenting people, to congratulate the seconder (Mr. Winters), because, for one reason, he is a maritimer, and secondly, because he looks like my own boys, and he did an excellent job. I am not going into details.
I cannot agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) in his idea of shortening up debates in this house. I do not speak much myself: I have not been in very good health lately but I am all right to-night. The
The Address-Mr. Grant

leader of the opposition did not set a good example, because he read two long essays on how to shorten the debate.


James Arthur Ross: Do not read yours.


Thomas Vincent Grant: I do not intend to read mine. I have never done so.


Mr. BROOKS:: You have never spoken.


Thomas Vincent Grant: I have only a few guiding notes. The interrupter across the way reminds me of a little story. It was the time the Tories were in power here, during the last two years of the Tory regime.


George James Tustin: How about the tunnel?


Thomas Vincent Grant: Coming up to the House of Commons, members would be asked for nickels and dimes by people who were hungry. That was in the last two hungry years of the Bennett regime.


James Arthur Ross: And when your leader said, "not a five-cent piece."


Thomas Vincent Grant: A member was coming up here one day and, on meeting one of these boys to whom he was accustomed to giving a quarter, he automatically put his hand in his pocket to get a coin, but when he got near the fellow he noticed his face was all blackened up. He said, "Are you the man I generally give a quarter to?" The man said, "yes". The member said, "What has happened to you?" The man said, "To tell you the truth, mister, I was talking when I should have been listening." And what I have to say to my hon. friend across the way is, he should be listening instead of talking.
The leader of the opposition wishes to hasten things. He is somewhat like his friend Mr. Drew; he is watching which way the wind blows, and then at an opportune moment he trims his sails accordingly. I happened to go to church on Sunday. There was a mission going on, and when the time came for the sermon and the preacher stepped into the pulpit I saw that he was a young man from my own home parish, a missionary. He got talking about this business of hastening. Everybody, he said, is hastening to do this, that and the other thing-hastening to get up, hastening to get a cup of coffee, hastening to get to work; they are hastening to catch everything and have no time for prayer, and "finally", he said, "they will be hastening to catch the hearse." I thought the remark was very apt.
Between 1935 and 1945 the Conservative party had no representative from Prince Edward Island in this house, and they

appointed a man from York-Sunbury by the name of R. B. Hanson to look after the Tory interests of the island. He did so with a vengeance. He complained bitterly and continuously about the transportation, he kept it up day'and night, and then, when anything would be gotten for the island-which he knew nothing at all about-he would claim that it was on account of his speeches that we got something for the island. Now the hon. member for Queens is taking Mr. Hanson's place, but I tell you one thing, sir, he can never fill Mr. Hanson's shoes, because he could not be so contemptible.


James Arthur Ross: That would not be said if he were sitting in the house.


Thomas Vincent Grant: During the last election
campaign Mr. Hanson came over to speak in my constituency, and he spoke at Souris.


James Arthur Ross: Which Souris?


Thomas Vincent Grant: Prince Edward Island. I
will say this, that my opponent was a gentleman, and he made, I understand, a splendid speech, but Mr. Hanson when he rose to make his speech said he could not understand the mentality of the people of Kings in voting for a man like Doctor Grant. He said that to look at him across the floor of the house was enough for anybody. And there was an old gentleman in the hall wrho told the candidate, "Mr. MacPhee, you made a lovely speech to-night, but your friend1 Mr. Hanson made a lot of votes for Doctor Grant." I did not hear anything about this at the time. I became sick two weeks before the election was over and I did not hear this story until months afterwards, because I was in the hospital.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Incommunicado.


Thomas Vincent Grant: I was telling my wife about it, that he had said that to look at me across the floor of the house was enough for anybody. So she said, "Look, dear, don't mind the old toad; your looks are the best of you."
I wish now to come to another matter. These are pretty light matters I have to deal with to-night, because I am answering the Tory member for Queens. I come to the question of Prince Edward Island being left off the map of Canada. I understand the hon. member insinuated that it was the fault of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). But there is a history to this, and I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, why my opponent considered it a bad omen. In 1935, when R. B. Bennett held on to office to the last minute he decided to change the name

The Address-Mr. Grant
of the Tory party to the Reform party. No one listened to him Very much because most people intended to vote against him anyhow, no matter what he called the party. He issued a booklet about the size of that, with a blue cover on it, and on that cover there was a map of the Dominion of Canada and Prince Edward Island was not on that map. My hon. friend remembers that joke because I blazoned it all over the country, and he himself at that time was defeated most disastrously. He almost lost his deposit. That is why he thinks it is a bad omen for Prince Edward Island to be off the map. As one of the daily papers said to-day, however, it is not necessary for Prince Edward Island to be on the map. Prince Edward Island is so well and favourably known all over the world that it is not necessary for it to be on the map at. all.
I have to call my hon. friend, "the Tory member for Queens" because Queens is a dual constituency and I do not know whether he or the other member is the senior member. He was here from 1930 to 1935 and was then defeated; the other member came in in 1937, and now I do not know which of them is the senior member. Therefore I shall have to call my hon. friend the Tory member for Queens. This gentleman sat in this house for five years, almost six years, under the Bennett administration and was never known to raise his voice in the interests of transportation.


Mr. McLURE:: Oh, yes.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Hold on now; I will tell you. During that time two branch railway lines in my own constituency were closed entirely, scuttled by the Bennett government, and mail routes were established over those lines, but the Tory member for Queens never objected to that. The railwaymen's pay was cut 10 per cent or more; even the poor section-men's pay was cut, and the pay of civil servants was cut down; but the Tory member for Queens never objected, not a bit. He crawled before the feet of Lord Bennett and it was a hard job for him because he is pretty stout, like some of his colleagues.
We know why Bennett stayed on the gold standard. I am not an expert on these matters, but it was simply to enrich his millionaire friends. Although a poor man could not borrow 825 from a bank during those five years, there were more millionaires made in Canada than during any other five years since confederation, and a million people were on relief at the end of it. Do you know, Mr. Speaker why the Tory member for Queens is always called to order? He does not know the rules of this house and he is called to order every time he opens his mouth, and
why? Not because he is a Tory; not at all. Our Speakers are more favourable to Conservatives, as far as assigning rooms is concerned anyway. He was here for five years and yet he does not know the rules of the house. He did nothing during those five years-nobody did anything but Bennett-and now he comes back into the house after an absence of ten years, during which time he should have been studying the rules of the house, and he knows nothing. Those are the facts.


Gordon Graydon: Do not run down Prince Edward Island.


Thomas Vincent Grant: There are not many Tories in Prince Edward Islandi.


Gordon Graydon: The by-elections in the
province do not show that.


Thomas Vincent Grant: I shall have to tell another
story and it will be a better one the next time. I am not through yet. I wish to point out another thing to the Tory member for Queens, and I am sorry to have to say it right here: he should thank the Liberals for the fact that he is sitting in this house to-day. Queens county is a dual constituency, or a twin constituency, but the two Liberal candidates were not twins. That is why he is sitting over there. We know all about it in the island, and I warned them about it, but as between the two Liberals it was a case of the survival of the fittest and that is the truth.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is the fittest.


Thomas Vincent Grant: I am talking about the
Liberals.


James Horace King: I would ask the hon.
member who has the floor to address himself to the Chair, and to hon. gentlemen who aie interrupting I would appeal for order.


Thomas Vincent Grant: My hon. friend the member for Queens is a friendly, nice fellow. He is all right. But he said that in the speech from the throne there was no provision for the jobless. I do not think a Tory member sitting there, who sat in this house from 1930 to 1935, should ever mention the word "jobless", and I do not see where the jobless are in our province. There are no jobless in our province. We are looking for help in our province and the hon. member knows it. There may be some young men home from the army, but are they in want? No; they are getting out-of-work benefits, which amounts to a good day's pay for them.


Mr. FRASER:: They are still jobless.
The Address-Mr< Grant


Thomas Vincent Grant: But they are not starving
as they were when the' Tories were in power. The people of Prince Edward Island did not starve while Bennett was in power, for this reason:	They grew a good bit of stuff but
they could not sell it and; they had to eat it all. Prince Edward Island is God's own country. We have no Japs, no Social Credit, very few C.C.F.-


Mrs. STRUM:: There will be more after
a while.


Thomas Vincent Grant: -and not too many Conservatives. Like his predecessor, R. B. Hanson, the hon. member for Queens takes credit for any grants that are made for Prince Edward Island. He says, "I made fine speeches last year and I got the whole lot." Well, the car ferry was under construction before he was ever nominated. Grants for the piers, amounting to $5 million, were all decided on before he was ever nominated to run in an election. The grants to the hospitals were decided on by the committee on hospitalization before he was nominated.


An hon. MEMBER:: Which party?


Thomas Vincent Grant: What party was in power in the last ten years? Why, the Liberal party, of course. We have been in power since 1935. All these things were ready before the hon. member ever came into the house. He also complains that we are not encouraging tourist traffic to the island. I should like to know how much he and his party encouraged tourist traffic to Prince Edward Island. Why, they did not have one piece of machineiy for doing it. Since the Liberals came into power we have set up a tourist bureau. It is well equipped and under a good manager, and is advertising Prince Edward Island all over the world. That has been done only since the Liberals came into power.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Pretty weak.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Not too weak. The hon. member for Queens complains that they are charging freight rates on the car ferry. He quotes the dominion-provincial agreement which says there should not be freight rates. I think he wants everybody to get passes, if one can judge from the way he talks. He quotes the agreement with the Dominion of Canada, which says:
That .the Dominion of Canada shall assume and defray .all the charges for the efficient steam service-
Mr. Speaker, they do not assume the freight charges; they assume the charges for the ships and the running of them for the conveyance of mails and passengers. It does not [Mr. Fraser.)
mention freight, but freight came in afterwards. There were no automobiles at that time, of course. I continue:
... to foe established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the dominion, winter .and summer . . .


An hon. MEMBER:: You cannot read very well.


Thomas Vincent Grant: I cannot read as well as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). I continue:
. . . thus placing the island in continuous communication with .the Intercolonial railway and the railway system of the dominion, and such other charges .as may be incident to and connected with the services which by the British North America Act of 1867 appertain to the general .government and as are or may be allowed to the other provinces.
Does it say in this quotation, Mr. Speaker, that the dominion government is to pay the freight rates? Let me go a little further and show my hon. friend's lack of knowledge of how things are going. He quotes himself. He quotes the questions he asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), and this is one of the questions:
I want the Minister of Transport to set the rate himself.
The minister replied that he could not do it. The hon. member for Queens should know that during the time his own party was in power the railway was operated by a board of railway commissioners. It was run by the board of transport commissioners just as it is to-day. The minister had no power, but he asked this question and he thought he was doing something. He then went on to say:
Does the minister tell this committee that he has no authority over .rates?
He should have known that the minister has no authority over rates. Why did he not know that? The minister told him that he had not, and he then asked:
Does the 'minister mean by that, that the government cannot set the rates?
The minister, of course, said "no". It shows that the hon. member has had no interest in the welfare of his province or of Canada, or he would have known these things. If he did not learn between 1930 and 1935 he is too old to learn now.
He mentioned a name in this house that I have not heard a Tory member mention since I came here. He mentioned the name of R. B. Bennett. I have not heard that name mentioned by the Conservatives in this house since 1935; they are ashamed to do it. He said that Mr. R. B. Bennett made a survey of the cases and that he would do so-and-so. He then said that his leader had made a survey and that he had practical experience.

The Address-Mr. Hackett
I should like to know what practical experience the leader of the opposition would have of the case. I have crossed there since I was a boy and I have no practical experience. The hon. member said that his leader would fulfil the terms of confederation-that if he had been elected he would have done it. That means that since last year he would have done the whole thing which all parties have been doing their best trying to do since confederation. Had this great man, who is now leading the opposition, got into power he would have done it in a year. If he should get in power to-morrow they would throw him out the window within twenty-four hours. We know that; his policies are not their policies.
He advocated a super highway from Borden to Charlottetown. He should be the last man to speak about highways, because the only highway built on Prince Edward Island, except one short one, was built by the Liberals. The one the Conservatives built fell to' pieces. My hon. friend knows that and cannot deny it. It was no good. They did not have it properly engineered and drained, and it fell to pieces and has been a nuisance ever since. The Liberal government built hundreds of miles of highway throughout the province. What did the Tory party do for Prince Edward Island? How many potato warehouses did the Tory party build for Prince Edward Island? Not one. The Liberals built three in my constituency.	,


An hon. MEMBER:: No wonder you got elected.


Thomas Vincent Grant: If my hon. friend was a Liberal he would get as much as I get, but he could not get it from the Tories.
I wish to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) for what he has done. The Liberal party has built six boat harbours for the fishermen in Kings since 1935. That is more than has ever been done since confederation by all Tory parties. We are going to build two more this year. My hon. friend's speech is all baloney. What did the Tories ever build? After the Tory party was in power for five years, every wharf jn my constituency was fenced off. The only wharf that was not fenced off was the one used by Hon. J. A. Macdonald, a Tory member. The remainder were all fenced off for want of repair, and had danger signs placed on them. We have since put all the wharves in good repair. They closed two branch railway lines in my constituency and my hon. friend never raised his voice against it. He now makes this famous speech at a time when the people are prosperous. The fishermen are prosperous and do not know what to do with their money. A
fisherman and his son can go out and bank a thousand dollars a week. I saw it happen right in my own constituency, and under this Liberal government. When my hon. friend's party was in power the fishermen were starving and they would do nothing for them. As soon as we got into power we established the fishermen's loan board, to lend money to the fishermen to build new boats and we built fish houses for them. This has all happened since 1935. The fishermen were getting prosperous before war began.
I congratulate the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) on what he said. The Tory party are not over there for the good of the people. My private opinion is this: communism is the number one menace to Canada and Toryism is the number two menace.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered and well answered the Tory member for Queens. I have told him how he got here, and he should be thankful. I want now to say this. We all wish for peace; we hope for peace, and I for one, as perhaps one of the oldest men in the house, do not believe we are going to have any more wars. Let me conclude with the words of Robby Bums:
For ta' that, -an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, there is an ar-e-a in southeastern Quebec which in its interests represents very fully the entire dominion. There we find a completely balanced population. There are industrial centres in which factories -have grown up and where manufacturing prospers. The countryside is devoted to farming, and almost entirely to that type of farming known as dairying.
Dairying is in danger of extermination; I wish to direct a few words to the house on that subject. At this time I need not inform the house that I am opposed to controls. I am an impenitent opponent of controls; if, however, we are to have controls I ask that they be applied in such a way as to do the least damage -possible. The control of butter prices is threatening the dairying industry. At the present time the ceiling price of butter is thirty-four and a fraction cents a pound. There is a bonus or subsidy of ten cents a pound, which brings the maximum price received by the producer up to forty-four and a fraction v cents a pound. The farmers find that this price, when considered in conjunction with the cost of operating their farms, buying what is necessary to feed their herds and engage help
m
The Address-Mr. Uackett

when it can be found, is totally inadequate, with the result-and this is the tragedy-that the herds are being sold across the international border into the United States. There is an embargo on beef cattle; they may not be exported at the present time. This embargo, however, does not apply to dairy cattle. Within the last few. months something like ten thousand head have gome across the border into the United States.
Despite the shortage of butter; despite the demand for butter, we find that there has been a marked drop in the portion of the total milk production devoted to the production of butter. In 1941 something like 52-15 per cent of the milk produced was devoted to the making of butter. But in 1945 the proportion of milk used for making butter had dropped to 46-08 per cent, and that drop has been increasingly pronounced since the beginning of this year. Therefore I am going to ask those who control prices, and determine what the farmer shall receive for his sole marketable product in that part of Canada, to lift ceiling prices under those controls sufficiently to permit the farmers to make a livelihood from the exploitation of their herds, so that they will not be forced to sell their herds, as they have been forced to do during the past couple of years and especially during the last few months, when the cost of labour and supplies essential to the manufacture of butter has greatly increased.
I may c'onfide in you, Mr. Speaker, that if I had my way I would overnight abolish all controls affecting farm produce. I have heard it said that in that event butter might go to 75 cents a pound. Some people have said that it might even go to $1 a pound. Well, if it did, it would be one occasion when the farmer received something in the nature of equity for his continuous efforts. Within the recollection of all of us the farmer has sold his butter for 20 cents a pound and less; and if perchance he should find a short market for this commodity which would yield him a return that would make its production profitable to him, I submit that it would be an unusual experience and a very welcome one to him. The farmer resents controls. The farmer is the nearest thing we have to a representative of free enterprise; he is an extreme individualist, who depends upon his own efforts and his own enterprise in and out of season. We sometimes hear it said at election time that the farmer is the back-bone of the country. That backbone has had to bear very many burdens of adversity and, one would almost think, of ill will from the' present administration. When one sees the pernicious effect of these policies one cannot but deplore the fact that at the 
present time fanning is subjected to these controls. If the controls on farm produce were lifted or abolished, prices of farm produce and of butter in particular, would increase and herds now being sold for export would be retained at home. We are eating the seed corn, and if we carry that story to its conclusion there are bound to follow consequences which will be prejudicial to the country at large.
At this stage in the debate I am not going to discuss other problems which, with propriety, might be debated at this time. I believe thoroughly, however, there is not an hon. member within sound of my voice representing a rural constituency-with the possible exception of those belonging to the C.C.F. party, who believe in regimentation, in controls and price fixing-who would not welcome relief from these controls on farm products.	.
I doubt if there is a farming constituency which does not look forward to the day when free enterprise will again be established, when the farmer will be able to sell his commodities at market prices and buy the implements he requires, without the let and approval of someone who does not understand his needs and who frequently is unsympathetic to his requests.


Mr. RENE HAMEL (Saint Maurice-La-fleche) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, when the last session opened in September last, the war against Japan had just ended a few weeks before and the air was still filled with the echoing joy of victory. Perhaps at that time no one would have ventured to throw a discordant note in those rejoicings. But to-day, six months after our last enemy has surrendered, this short-lived joy has given way to unemployment, with its accompanj-ing ills, anxiety and fear.
The present session will allow the government to figure our losses and our gains of the past six years of war. Our liabilities in this catastrophe are known, at least in part. The material cost, spread among all the families in the country, amounts to approximately $7,600 or $19,000,000,000 for the country as a whole. Our losses exceed 90,000 casualties, without taking the wounded into account, that is to say more than 20 per cent, of all empire casualties. Add to that the-dislocation of so many homes, a stupendous increase of criminality, physical and moral sufferings breeding discontent among the people, and a deep scission between the two main racial groups in the country. Cana-

The Address-Mr. Herridge
dians have not accepted such sacrifices to be rewarded by a few medals and congratulations, the only apparent results at the moment.
Through progressive legislation we must dispel this dangerous impression. But we do not wish to delay the present debate. Let me only define our attitude on the two main problems which have been discussed since the beginning of the session.
As regards communism, we believe and always have believed that this theory is radically opposed to our religious principles, our national traditions and our philosophical conception of the human person. In order to protect the people from the menace of this so-called mystic of our time, verbal attacks will remain powerless so long as living conditions among the working classes are not in keeping with the economic possibilities of our immense and rich countiy, so long as drastic means are not taken to make financially possible what is physically and materially possible.
As for the financial agreements of which the approval has been announced, we cannot endorse them. This gift of more than $425,000,000, this loan bearing no interest and no guarantees of li billions of dollars seems to us untimely and unfair, at this time when the low-wage earner is overburdened with excessive taxes, when the Canadian head of a family may not borrow to build himself a home at less than 4\ per cent interest, when a large proportion of veterans are still without decent shelter. And for this last reason particularly, we shall vote against the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
(Text):


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended speaking in this debate; however, I shall take this opportunity to make only a few remarks. First I shall speak concerning the speech from the throne, and then I shall offer a few general observations as to our economic position as I see it at the present time.
From the speech from the throne I read this:
It is only in the light of the world situation that all our problems can he seen in true perspective. The future of our own and of every country depends upon sucees in the task of world reconstruction and the establishment of an enduring peace. Many of the measures you will be called upon to consider 'at the present session will he concerned with this wider aspect of human affaiTs.
With this I agree and, I am sure, all hon. members agree. We can build social security in Canada only on the foundation of international peace, and that is the base upon which it must be built.
In my opinion to-day we must view every changing situation in this fluid world with understanding, and it is in that connection I wish to make a few remarks concerning the present espionage situation. I am sure every humanitarian deplores the necessity for the maintenance by governments of secret services. I think every decent person dislikes and hates such under-handed practice. But that is the kind of world in which we are living, and the kind of world we must hasten to change.
Regardless of what was said some days ago by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) about supranational organizations, I maintain and, I am sure many others in all parties maintain that the only way we can rid the world of suspicion, misunderstanding-and hence, espionage-is by building a united nations organization and, through it, when the time is ripe, a world government.
I was interested to read quite recently in the Vancouver Sun of the resolution passed by the annual convention of the British Columbia command of the Canadian Legion. On March 19 last, at its meeting in Vancouver, it passed' a resolution to this effect. They urged that Canada take a leading part in establishing a post-war world policy and asked the dominion government to call upon the nations of the world to organize the united nations organization into a supranational government, first to establish world law; second, to maintain peace; third to administer justice in accordance with world law, and, fourth, that a world government be democratically elected by powers great and small upon an equitable basis. I think that represents a very wide section of opinion in British Columbia and shows the trend of thought in one of the most prominent sections of the Canadian Legion in Canada in, should I say, the best province in Canada.
I think this is a time in the world's history when we have to use understanding and exercise patience and1 tolerance. I am not here to defend everything that has been done by the Soviet Union or everything that has been done by any government, but I do ask the members of this house to consider the twenty-five years of misunderstandings that we went through after the last war and the lies and misinformation and propaganda that were given to the people in this and other countries. We have fought a hard war, and I am not underestimating the difficulties of the present situation. There are many obstacles to be overcome, but I am asking for a fair, tolerant and understanding approach to the situation.
The Address-Mr. Herridge

The post-war economic pattern from England to the Soviet borders is clear. The trend is toward nationalization of key points in the economy. In Britain the Labour party was elected on a platform whose main planks *were the nationalization of the Bank of England, coal, iron and steel, electricity, gas, railways, aviation and all internal transport, with a national board to control investments. In France the parties who won three-fourths of the seats in the national assembly campaigned on a very similar programme, part of which has already been fulfilled in laws covering the Bank of France and other large financial institutions. In Czechoslovakia all four political parties compaigned. for nationalization of mines, heavy industry, electric power, banks and insurance companies, and this programme is rapidly being put into effect. In the United States and in Canada the period of state capitalism has clearly arrived, despite all the claims of economists and advertising psychologists whom big business hires to put science in chains for profit. The capitalist economy has never, since the early pioneer stages, operated without state aid. In the United States and in Canada, it owes its privilege and its power to incorporation rights, the tariffs, the franchises, the subsidies and the state's promotion of foreign trade and investments.
When the second world war burst upon us the production we needed in this country was too great for our big business to handle. The state had in many instances to take over the functions of the capitalist, providing the funds and markets, building plants, securing and allocating raw materials* labour supplies and so on. The highest production records in our history, which big business now claims for so-called private enterprise, were made only with the aid and under the direction of the state.
Even in the international sphere it is clear that our miscalled free enterprise can neither function nor manage our share of the inter- _ national economic arrangements so sadly needed and now, to some extent, being planned. Our proposed loan to Britain, the international monetary fund, the world bank, the social and economic council of UNO, all tell the same story, the necessity for governments to make financial arrangements and the international development of state capitalism in every form. Not all the free enterprise propaganda can conceal the fact that we are moving steadily, in both the international and the national spheres, into the period known historically as state capitalism.
The immediate cause of the European trend toward nationalization is the fact that the

defeat of the nazis has left Europe in economic chaos. Industrial plants have to be rebuilt, and private capital is absolutely unable to tackle the job. Those who have gone through fascist tyranny are not in a frame of mind to rebuild the power of financiers who helped Hitler to office or profited by his system; unable to accept, let alone put into effect, complete socialization. The only way at present to relieve their distress is through limited nationalization methods, or in other words, a state capitalist economy.
I wish to make this point clear. In my opinion, in the modern industrial world the only .credit base strong enough to underwrite reconstruction in the world, as a whole, or in Canada, is the productive labour of all the people in all countries, under public control. The greater need in Europe has hastened this development. The same trend1 is in evidence in the United States and in Canada. Take, for instance, the wonderful success we have had with our rubber plant at Sarnia and other state-operated plants during the war. Look at the great development of the T.V.A. and the development of the Grand Coulee dam, the Boulder dam, and other great developments which so-called free enterprise could not undertake but which were undertaken by the state in the United States and by the state in this country, and successfully prosecuted.
The world-wide extension of industry and agriculture outlined in our international declarations and obligations is rapidly making obsolete the method of private investment financing for large-scale undertakings. In addition to the compulsion of immediate needs in Europe, there is the increasing pressure of ideas expressed by socialists and democrats everywhere. There is the insistent demand for democratic processes to be expressed in economic as well as in political control.
These are inevitable measures, because anyone who studies the situation closely can see them developing and continuing to develop. These inevitable measures and developments do not inaugurate a socialist economy, despite those who shout about not lending their money to establish socialism. What is being rapidly experienced in the western section of Europe, and will inevitably develop 'here, is a form of state capitalism, gradually passing from state aid and regulations to state ownership and management of banks, key industries, transportation and public utilities.
This development will modify some features of our economy. It will be, a modified form of capitalism. It will substitute state controls over competition and invsstment for our

The Address-Mr. Gourd
present largely private and monopolistic controls, but capitalist income will foe retained. Former owners of nationalized undertakings will be guaranteed fixed returns by the state.
This general development presents great opportunities. Historically, the final form of capitalist enterprise means that we have an opportunity of achieving a change from a capitalist to a socialist society in a peaceful and evolutionary way. The chances of success depend upon whether enough of our people are willing to join together in guiding the greatest peaceful transformation from one form of society to another in the history of mankind.
There are great dangers. If our developing state capitalism is allowed to become the economic instrument of monopoly finance capital, it will attempt to keep the economy operating by imperialistic expansion instead of serving the needs of the people by lessening profits and internal expansion.
There must be a strong demand from the people that the returns to capital in public and private enterprises be in proportion to the aid given with the risks removed by the state. For a peacful transition from capitalism to economic democracy, the following, in my opinion, are essential: First, at least ten years of peace. I am not suggesting that ten years of peace is all the peace that we shall have, but I do feel that if we can have ten years of peace we can guide intelligently the most successful evolution from capitalism to economic democracy in the history of mankind. I repeat therefore that, first, we should have at least ten years of peace. That is why, when I was campaigning, I said that the great issue before us to-day is, first, peace in the international sphere, and second, the maintenance of the democratic structure at home.
The second essential is a strong trade union movement. There is no question about it that well organized and strong trade unions are the great bulwark of democracy.
The third essential is a strong cooperative movement. Social changes are not brought about merely by written programmes, speeches and national advertising. Social changes are brought about largely on a sound and solid basis, the result of the hard work of all the people who join trade unions, cooperatives and community organizations, devoting their time and energy to the building up of democracy in the smaller spheres. These are the people who really build the fabric of democracy.
The fourth essential must be a strong farmers' movement, a strong agricultural movement. I believe it is absolutely necessary, if we are to survive this dangerous stage 63260-19
in our history and in the world's history, to work as far as possible for the decentralization of administration through provincial and municipal governments. I believe it is necessary for the federal administration to lay down the general policy to balance the national interests, particularly with regard to exports in the larger sphere of planning. If we are to maintain the democratic structure we must have decentralization. We have to get the administration in the hands of the people through provincial and municipal governments, credit unions, cooperatives and all such organs of the people themselves.
Finally, I think it is necessary to have a programme to provide the opportunity for this peaceful development, and in conclusion I should like to say this. Of all the parties in this house, this is the only one that has a programme which has been considered in logical relation to the development of society at home and abroad. A study of the Regina manifesto and national programme of the C.C.F. in relation to present economic developments at home and abroad will indicate that these programmes are designed to meet the needs of the Canadian people at this time. Any person who gives intelligent study to the history of the development of economies abroad and of our own economy at home under present conditions, and who reads the Regina manifesto and the national programme of the C.C.F. party, will realize that the people who drafted that manifesto and that programme did so with an understanding and appreciation of Canadian conditions, Canadian historical background and Canadian psychology, and with a full understanding of a programme that would meet the needs of our people.


Mr. DAVID GOURD (Chapleau) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, you will allow me first, in my maiden speech in this house, to congratulate you on the consistent efficiency with which you have been discharging the duties of your high office.
I also join my distinguished colleagues in congratulating the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau), the mover of the Address in reply to the speech from the throne, and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters), the seconder, for the eloquent and detailed manner in which they told us what the government intend to do during the present session.
Certain important and difficult problems will be submitted to us, especially as regards the new loan which appears to embody very favourable arrangements and generous conditions for the United Kingdom. While keeping an eye on our tremendous national debt,
1EYIBED EDITION
The Address-Mr. Gourd

we still realize the advantage of a further extraordinary effort on the part of Canada to control its foreign markets, for we must not forget that our country must export at least 40 per cent of its total production. We must have buyers and Great Britain is still our best customer. It is with this in mind that we must make it possible for her to buy our goods and, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the reorganization of our trade with England might result in keeping all classes of our people gainfully employed. I realize that this is the only means of preventing the disastrous unemployment situation that prevailed after the war of 1914-18.
Before speaking of the beautiful and immense northern part of the province of Quebec, I may be allowed to commend two others of my colleagues, the hon. members for Wright (Mr. Raymond) and Prescott (Mr. Bertrand), for having suggested that Canada should send a diplomatic representative to the Vatican, acknowledged as the greatest centre of Christianity in the world. The cooperation of a Canadian representative would help the few other ambassadors to contribute to the realization of enduring peace under the enlightened guidance of the holy father.
I wish also to congratulate the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) for his clear, accurate, and sincere statement on the Canadian flag, which should be distinctive and acceptable to all Canadians.
Now, I come to the 'constituency of Chap-leau, which I have the honour of representing and which is included in the Abitibi district, this large expanse of fertile land, well adapted to farming and stretching from Senneterre, in the east, to La Reine, in the west, on the Ontario boundary. In this region onljr a strip of land has been opened so far and settled by farmers, but it could extend to the north as far as lake Matagami, on the fiftieth and a half degree of latitude, about a hundred miles north of Amos, the county seat. In this large territory could be established a hundred farming parishes on fertile land which could supply the lumber and pulpwood so much in demand in this country. It would also contribute to the opening of mines, for mineral ores are to be found throughout the district.
The development of the north country would bring there a considerable number of people, which would relieve congestion in cities and help prevent unemployment, because the population cannot possibly be concentrated in large centres. In order to carry out the development of northern Quebec, it would also be necessary that the dominion govern-

ment should come to an agreement with the provincial authorities with a view to drawing up a comprehensive plan. There should be built a railway line, starting from the Canadian National line, either from Senneterre Junction or elsewhere, and leading northwesterly to lake Matagami and northeasterly to Chibougamou, which would help the development of water powers and facilitate the erection of a paper mill at lake Matagami. I should like to emphasize the fact that much gold, copper and other ores are to be found in the Chibougamou area. To facilitate the transportation of engineers and of the numerous mining prospectors, there should be established an air line from Montreal, with airports at Val d'Or, Amos and Noranda, from which district that line would continue on to Toronto, which now has air communications with North Bay and Ottawa. The route I suggest is several hundred miles shorter.
The governments concerned should also extend a dirt road as far as James bay covering a distance of 150 to 175 miles; this would help to bring about the above mentioned developments.
I might add that the federal government should also assist the provincial government in building highways and dredging certain rivers both of which are essential factors in the development of mines bringing in revenue which contributes to the prosperity of the country. All these projects should be included in past-war planning.
I will not conclude without outlining the income that might be derived from the implementation of these projects. Here are authentic figures relating to the tiny section already developed. In 1944, we harvested in the Abitibi district $25,150 worth of wheat, $472,540 worth of oats, $31,680 worth of barley, $2,261,500 worth ,of hay, not to mention thousands of dollars worth of buckwheat, rye, peas, beans and mixed grain. Moreover, our crop of potatoes amounted to $587,820, which does not include the income brought in by alfalfa, turnips and corn. We have also produced 1,334,209 pounds of butter, 97,747 pounds of cheese, not to mention the thousands of dollars derived from our crop of blueberries. Moreover, we sold and shipped one hundred million feet of saw lumber as well as millions of cords of pulpwood.
Neither must I forget to mention the mining of metals such as gold, copper, etc.; gold yielded a value of $42,000,000 and copper, a value of $22,000,000, these amounts being exclusive of all other minerals.
In passing, I take the occasion of suggesting to the directors of the Canadian National Railways that it is high time to improve the

The Address-Mr. Bentley
railway lines which run through our district if they want to furnish travellers with suitable means of transportation as well as take care of the shipping demand arising from the various products I have just listed.
In conclusion, I beg the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to appoint a bilingual controller of the experimental farm located at Kapuskasing, because the majority of those whom it serves are French-Canadians.
(Text:) Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current) : As a rule I do not take up a great deal of the time of the house, I had not expected to speak in this debate at all. As mentioned by some other members this afternoon it was felt that we might finish the debate fairly soon, but apparently that idea became sidetracked somewhere, and I felt that I should like to offer some of my opinions while the opportunity presented itself.
I was pleased this evening to hear the little battle going on between the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant) and the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure). It reminded me that the island was down there. I was a little surprised when the hon. member for Kings said that a map of Canada had been published that did not have Prince Edward Island on it. It is more years than I like to think of since I lived in Nova Scotia, but even back over all those years I can remember that there was a place called Prince Edward Island, so that I do not know how anyone could have forgotten it. The hon. member also said-and I hope the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) will take this seriously-that his constituency, which must be fairly small, actually had six fish docks built there, and that he expected to get two more. That is fine. We do not envy them their fish docks. No doubt they need them, or they would not get them. But I should like the minister to consider giving us one little bridge over the South Saskatchewan river at Saskatchewan Landing, at the same time he is building fish docks in Kings.
Before I say some things that may not be so pleasant, I should like to address one or two rather nice remarks to the house. At the outset I wish to join with those who have so eloquently said farewell to the Earl of Athlone and the Princess Alice, and to extend my best regards and those of my ^constituents. Our people out in Swift Current are just ordinary people, but they are warm hearted and hospitable, and on their behalf they would like me to say, in our plain way, "good-bye and good luck." While the group
63260-19$
I am with over here looks forward to the time when we shall form a government here, which will not be long, when the British North America Act and other necessary acts will be amended so that we shall have a Canadian citizen as governor general, until that time comes, with our usual Canadian hospitality we welcome to Canada the new governor general and his gracious consort.
While I am in a welcoming mood I should like to take this opportunity of inviting all those within sound of my voice, or who may take the trouble to read my remarks, to come to Swift Current this summer on the 1st and 2nd of July. We put on a good stampede there. They will find all the men wearing whiskers, and the ladies-^oh, we have lovely ladies out there-


Gordon Graydon: Address yourself to the Prime Minister on that.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Well, yes; perhaps
particularly to the Prime Minister. The ladies will be dressed as in the days of old. I know the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) will tell the house they have a better show in his city, because it lasts for a week. Our stampede lasts for only two days, but I am sure it would be equal to a week at Calgary, so that we should like to have hon. members come there if they care to do so. The new synthetic rubber from the Sarnia plant will no doubt provide the necessary tires, and gasoline, while not free, is now plentiful. So that on behalf of Swift Current I extend this invitation to all hon. members here.
I should like also to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Viau) and the seconder (Mr. Winters) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As others have said, it always pleases those of us who are veterans of either war when a veteran is singled out for some particular honour of this kind, and these veterans really did an excellent job. I think they could be called creators. It is a long time since I took a Latin lesson, but if I remember aright the word "create" is derived from the Latin word creo, which I believe means to make out of nothing, and they did an excellent job of making a speech out of nothing, which is practically what the speech from the throne is. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, who seconded the address, is a native of my own province, and I cannot but feel that his intelligence will so guide him that when we do form the government over there, he will still be on that side of the house. I think that would be a natural evolutionary process for such a brilliant young man.
The Address-Mr. Bentley

I wish also to express complete disapproval of the methods employed by the government in dealing with the investigation of Canadian men and women suspected of betraying secrets. Investigation was necessary. It would have been highly improper for a government not to have made an investigation; and if these people should be found guilty of giving away secrets or breaking their sacred word, they will have to be punished. But the practice of taking into custody men and women who have had no charges laid against them is, I believe, entirely wrong. I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well), the leader of our'party, and with speakers from other sides of the house who have said this was a wrong thing to do. I have grown up in this country believing that, no matter what might be the imperfections in our society, at least there was one thing we could depend upon:	that (the process of
justice which we have built up through many centuries of struggle would be kept inviolate, and that neither men nor women suspected of any crime, no matter how vicious that crime,' should be held in custody unless a definite charge was brought against them. I never believed such people could be taken into custody and placed in such a position that, unless they were strong-minded persons, they might say something which would help to convict themselves. I think the ^ government has demonstrated by this action that it has neither the ability nor the courage to safeguard the state without resorting to the practices of other governments, whom we *have just spent six years of our lives defeating, because they threatened to impose that sort of thing upon us. I say that this government, when faced with the task of protecting the state under democratic rules evolved through centuries of struggle, has fallen far short of the glory.
I should like to read the first paragraph of the speech from the throne:
It is just over six months since Canada emerged from- six long yeaTs of war. The turmoil which has followed in the wake oi^ war has created new problems for governments in all [DOT] parts of the globe. The world is full of unrest. Hunger privation and suffering have become the lot of millions. Other millions are homeless, many of them in exile.
That is fine, down to that point; not very much constructive about it, but a lot of information we can get from almost any newspaper or magazine. Then the next sentence states:
The problems which face the statesmen of every nation are formidable indeed.
In regard to Canada's contribution toward a peaceful and prosperous world, there is some

truth in that statement;'but in regard to our domestic problems, there should be no difficulty at all. We were not destroyed by war. We were nearly destroyed before the war by the depression, for which this government had no solution, although it was in power for four years before war broke out. In a land of abundant food, minerals and raw materials, people were hungry, cold and homeless, and those conditions would have continued under this government but for the war which, rather than the ingenuity of the government, opened for us a market which could and did consume everything we could produce. We speak of reconstruction, when in actual fact the needs of war and our ability to fill them brought about the reconstruction of our pre-war moribund economy.
I cannot associate myself with those who voice such fulsome praise for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe). The great generosity, loyalty and sincerity of Canadian men and women, appealed to by the publicity committees of the national, provincial and unit war finance committees; the hours of unpaid or ill-paid work during victory loan campaigns by humble citizens, regardless of party political affiliations, had a decisive result in filling the purse of the Minister of Finance, who in turn made available to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply all the financial requirements necessary to inspire profit-hungry industry to uncork the bottle of production. The reconstruction of Canada from hard years of humiliating poverty to a nation with everyone able to work on a payroll, and some not so able to work, was made possible by war, not by wise statesmen. It was the work of farm men and women with barnyard mud on their feet, factory boys and girls with grease behind their ears, lumberjacks with callouses on their hands, miners with grime on their faces, transport workers who kept the wheels of worn-out machinery rolling, fishermen with chapped and bleeding hands, dock workers with muscles in their backs and no spare tires on the front sides of their belts, merchant seamen who faced the seas and fought the enemy, and many of whom died, servicemen and women who fought or serviced the fighters, and scientists who discovered new processes.
These are the people who won the war. Before the war our present government was utterly incapable of formulating a programme of reconstruction, and now that the war is over, they are still incapable of making use of that tremendous productive power we have built up during the war.

The Address-Mr. Bentley
Then we read another paragraph in the speech from the throne, number 5 in my copy, because I have numbered them for the sake of convenience:
The -maintenance of a -high level of employment and national income is a fundamental aim of government policy.
That sounds splendid-"A high national income"; but what does the government mean by a high national income? How high is up, anyway? In the early days of the war, when the government was afraid it was not going to have the support of workers who were fed up with the kind of administration we had had, everything was promised. In those days the promise was "full employment". Them, as things settled down a little bit and industry felt itself more solid in the saddle, it became "high employment". Now it is modified to suit what I suppose the government thinks will suit the people-which it does not-and it is referred to as "a high level of employment".
I wonder why these changes were made? I wonder if it could possibly be because of some of the pronouncements by business men in this country, reference to whom was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).
I should like to read into the record two other pronouncements carried on the editorial page of the Western Producer of July 13, 1944. The first one is attributed to a prominent banker, and if hon. members wish to have his name they may communicate with the Western Producer. Perhaps that publication will tell them, but it did not tell me. This is the quotation:
Full employment would he incompatible with the free enterprise system, which carries with it the right to a normal float of unemployed.
And the other gem, attributed to a big business man, says this:
A corporation's efficiency is indicated by the number of men it can -release from a job, not by the number of men hired.
Possibly that kind of thing has some influence with this government. Even if we get a high level of employment, what does the government mean by "high"? Is seventy per cent high? Is sixty-eight per cent high? Should it be seventy-two per cent; or what, in fact, is a "high level"? Seventy per cent is usually considered a pretty fair level when one is writing an examination in school. I think schoolteachers will agree with that.
So that if we get a high level of, let us say, seventy per cent of employment, then inversely the other thirty per cent would be-well, what would we call them? Possibly we could call them the low level of unemployment. I
suppose they will sit around with patriotic fervour and sing about the glories of a country that gives seventy per cent of their brothers and sisters employment, but leaves them without it. If they sit around long enough they will get weak enough, of course, so that they will not be able to sing about it anymore. Maybe that is the way we shall get full employment-when that thirty per cent passes out from starvation.
The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton), who is my deskmate-and incidentally the terror of the Liberal electoral machine in that constituency-dealt very ably with agriculture in his address in this debate. He, like myself and others in this group, is in constant touch with the working farmers of the west. We know their problems just as well as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) knows them. We are not political agronomists. Our contact is right with the men and women on the farms, in their homes, in their fields, in their cattle sheds and other places where they actually perform the work of production,
It was a grand battle we witnessed here this afternoon, from one side. And no doubt other hon. gentlemen on the opposite side will come back in the near future with similar ammunition. They can quote figures from now till doomsday-and undoubtedly their figures will be correct. But whether they are put in the right place so as to give a wholly true picture is a different matter. Undoubtedly there would not be much question about the number of acres or the number of bushels produced, or about those other matters which were dealt with. But I would point out that the people who raised the wheat, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, cattle, hogs, poultry products and dairy products are not concerned with the learned battle which takes place in this House of Commons. They are concerned with policy which produces things they require, and which makes it possible for them to make their contribution in a community to people who need what they produce. They are not interested in the whole academic discussion as to who did what back in 1919, or at some other time.
If it comes to a question of who did what, I can assure hon. members that the farmers of western Canada have suffered equally under the regimes of Tory as well as Liberal administrations.	_
This afternoon the leader of the opposition made a statement with which I agree wholeheartedly. He said that never has western Canada-in fact, I believe he referred to
The Address-Mr. Bentley

agriculture in all Canada-had a square deal. That is a fact. And it does not require any long list of figures to support it.
When he was discussing this matter in this debate, the Minister of Agriculture said that he believed in planning. That is quite an admission to come from a source that champions free enterprise, when we consider that the free enterprise people of this country carried on such a round programme of condemnation of this group which had recommended that there be some kind of planning for national life.
I have never heard the Minister of Agriculture in this government, or the leader of the opposition or any of his followers deny that Mr. Trestrail and his group were friendly to them, nor have they denied that group in any way. I do not know whether they have given their actual blessing, but certainly their silence indicates that at least they have offered a covert blessing. So that when the minister said he believed in planning I felt most pleased, until he told us how his plans are to work out. He planned so well that even the most expert weather forecaster would not presume to compete with him.
Here is an example of the minister's planning. In the early thirties when the Tories were sitting on the government benches and the Liberals were on this side as the official opposition, he and his group proclaimed that there was nothing wrong with speculative marketing. There was no difference between the government and the official opposition, and there is no difference between them today, except that the government, having the load of responsibility, has had to accept the impact of logic and do a little planning. Otherwise there was no difference. They both agreed on speculative marketing. But at that time the Tory government had the load of responsibility, and they had to do something. We went through the world crash of 1929. When all the men and women and boys and girls who had a little extra money in 1929 and could speculate in wheat and options went broke and had no more wages or salaries or no more profits from their little businesses they disappeared as speculative buyers, and the result was that there was no longer any speculative market to make our open market system buoyant, as the phrase is. The government, charged with responsibility, were then forced by the impact of logic to introduce what they called their stabilization operations, and every taxpayer of this dominion, through the treasury, was put behind this plan of hypothecation for the sake of saving the speculative market through
rMr. Bentley.]
stabilization operations. I am not going to be too critical of that because at least the government did something to try to relieve the situation. But they got no credit for that from the present Minister of Agriculture or from his friends.
When the present minister became Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa in 1935 he proceeded to plan to do the things that he had said were necessary before he got that job. "Get rid of surpluses" was the cry, "and then we will get dollar wheat, and dollar wheat will pay your taxes." That was the great cry at that time-get rid of surpluses. How we would like to have ten times those surpluses in our bins at the present time, Mr. Speaker, so that we would be able to say to people in other parts of the world: Here is lots of wheat and lots of oats and lots of barley; and they would have been ready to pay more for it than some of the speculative markets did. I have bought barley at country elevators in western Canada for one and a half cents a bushel because the man who had it could not bother taking it back home with him and he said, "I might as well sell it for one and a half cents." Some barley had no quotations on it at all. You could buy good feed oats for eight cents a bushel, and the -most you could get in some years for the best oats was from thirteen to seventeen cents a bushel.


An hon. MEMBER:: So what?


Thomas John Bentley: So what? We felt just as the hon. member for Fraser Valley would feel if his orchards were full of fruit and there was no market for it, and he was forced to sell at ten cents a box. We do not like to be in that position. We did not like it then. At no time have the western farmers liked to be in that position, no more than anybody else wants to sc* his means of livelihood drop to such a low level. But if we had those surpluses now, should we not be glad? But when the present Minister of Agriculture came into office in this government in 1935 he proceeded to get rid of surpluses, and his planning, along with associations and possibly some occult powers, and nature, helped him to get rid of the surplus.
The year 1937 came along and no wheat was raised. His cry had always been: Get rid of surpluses and the price of wheat will go up. So 1937 came, and no crop. He and nature had worked well together. Nature did not produce any rain and the Minister of Agriculture and the other farmers did not produce any crops. The surplus disappeared, and the price of wheat did go up to SI a bushel.

The Address-Mr. Bentley
In the spring of 1938 the minister and nature did better. By that time the farmers had to buy seed grain back at $1.45 a bushel. Yes, the price of wheat had gone up, but nobody can say that that was the way to bring prosperity to the farmers, to have them pay $1.45 a bushel for seed grain and receive sometimes only eighteen cents a bushel when they sold that wheat. That is the basis of the seed grain debt in Saskatchewan to-day.
But the Minister of Agriculture, like the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe), is nothing if not an optimist. He believed that the future was going to do something better for him and the country. He said: We have got rid of the surplus; we have $1.45 wheat, and now what we need is a crop. Nature said, O.K., we shall have a crop, and so in 1938 nature and the minister produced us a crop, not a very good crop; it did not create a very big surplus, but it was more than the market was prepared to handle, and down went the price of wheat. Instead of being looked upon as a blessing it was looked upon as a curse, instead of nature's bounty. Down went the price again and remained that way until the farmers of western Canada had to take action themselves and come here to Ottawa and petition the government for some relief. That was long after the war had started. We believe in planning, but certainly we do not appreciate the particular type of planning that brought those results. Certainly planning is necessary. All through the years I have been associated with the kind of farmers I mentioned, not political agricultural experts such as we see in the house, but the men that actually operate the tractors, the combines and the seeders. That is the kind of man that I have worked alongside; I know what they want and what they need, and they know what they want and what they need. They have farm organizations and they believe in planning. I am not suggesting that I represent those farm organizations, so let no one here try to make capital out of that. These farm organizations are distinctly non-political, but from eighteen years of association with that kind of organization I know their story; I know something of their hopes and aspirations, and I know the kind of planning which they had hoped would be done and the kind of representations which they have made to this and other governments to have that kind of planning put into operation.
Here is a report from the Saskatchewan wheat pool, which every year issues a written report. After dealing with certain things which they would like to have had but which
they failed to convince the federal government to do, they go on to say in their annual report for 1941:
The government wheat policy to date has been *a policy of inflexible opposition to the recommendations of representative farm organizations.
That report was laid before the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan wheat pool in November, 1941, over two years after the war had started, _ and that organization, which is completely non-political, after trying in vain to have its programme accepted by the powers that be, whether Liberal, Tory or anything else, was finally forced to report back to its members that this government's policy was a policy of inflexible opposition to the recommendations of representative farm organizations. That does not look like very smart planning, if it is planning at all, having in mind the position of the organized producer.
Then there is another plan which the minister was telling us about the other day in his speech. I do not know whether he was trying to "kid" us or himself, or whether he has a great sense of humour. He introduced his acreage reduction plan. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) showed here a poster which said in plain terms, "Grow less wheat and win the war", and it had on it, "By authority of the Minister of Agriculture." I cannot believe that the minister would permit those posters to be put up if he knew his name was on them and disapproved of their being shown.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wrote it and put my name on it.


Thomas John Bentley: Good; we have that admission. That is a wonderful start for another plan, "Grow less wheat and win the war". I am told that during the last war- I was not here at the time-there was a great drive put on under the slogan, "Grow more wheat and win the war". In this war it is, "Grow less wheat and win the war." There is a kind of stock joke in Saskatchewan-I do not know about the other provinces-which runs like this: In the year 1958 a child climbs on its daddy's knee and says, "Daddy, what did you do to help win world war No. 2?" And daddy says, "My son, I raised less wheat; I summer-fallowed."


James Garfield Gardiner: Will my hon. friend
allow me to ask him a question?


Thomas John Bentley: If you do not take my time, I will; otherwise I would suggest what Mr. Speaker always tells us to do, put it on the order paper.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend spoke of a resolution passed by the Saskatchewan
The Address-Mr. Bentley

wheat pool in 1941. I wonder if he would read the one which was passed at their last board meeting.


Thomas John Bentley: I have that, but I have not time to read it to-night. We shall do so later on.
The minister said that he planned well. If he planned to reduce wheat production, why does he take credit for the fact that in 1942, following the wheat acreage reduction plan, we had the biggest crop of wheat the country ever had? Where did the plan go astray?
I have only a little time left, and there are some other things I should like to have dealt with.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas John Bentley: It is all right. You will get an opportunity, and you will probably go overtime a little bit and will get the unanimous consent of the house to do so.


John Horne Blackmore: Go ahead.


Thomas John Bentley: No, I will not if I can avoid doing so. I wish to mention one or two matters in connection with labour. We have, of course, in our group men who are thoroughly conversant with all labour problems, and I am not going to try to deal with those matters. But I wish to make known to the house the plight of a certain group of labour people in the west; I do not believe the same condition affects employees in the east. They are workers of the Canadian Pacific railway, and either because they wanted to strike or were inadvertently drawn into a strike away back in 1918 and 1919, they are now being laid off and retired at the age of sixty-five without the benefit of any retirement fund. I do not suppose that this government has any authority to order the CR.R. to do anything to correct the evil. The strike happened at a time when we had a labour-hating government-which I believe was not a Liberal government-and of course a labour-hating management, or they would not have done what they did. In any event these men are in that position; and I believe that this house could, if it so desired, persuade, or instruct, or whatever this house does to the government when the house really wants something done by it, that it set up some kind of fund which would give these men the same superannuation allowances to which they would have been entitled had this condition not been applied. I suggest that this is an excellent opportunity for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. 
Usley) to get together. The Minister of Labour could labour and produce a plan, and the Minister of Finance could exercise those marvellous qualities we are always hearing about, and finance it. Then everybody would be happy, and I believe the Canadian people generally would be glad to see these men properly taken care of. I hope the Minister of Labour will give, not only serious consideration and an investigation by some departmental employee, but actual serious departmental consideration and government official consideration in correcting the situation.
I have about exhausted my time. I am sorry I cannot see in the speech from the throne the many bright hues which have been mentioned by others. If we were a bunch of Hollywood people discussing a script that had come out, probably I would make the remark that the government had "laid an egg"; but I do not know that that would be appropriate, .for an egg is an important item of food at the present time if it is fresh, and if it is not fresh there are other uses to which it may be put, notably at election times. This speech from the throne is something like what used to be done when I was a child back home on the farm. They used to find some kind of lime egg, and sometimes an old discarded white door-knob, and put it in the nest to lure the reluctant hen to come up on the nest. I think what the government has done in the speech from the throne in this. It has put the hen on a door-knob and now it hopes to hatch out a house and lot.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I was paired with the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. BRIDGES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: I was paired with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BREITHAUPT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. JUTRAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Vaneouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McNAUGHT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Coyle). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McDONALD (Parry Sound):: I was paired with the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Daniel). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DESMOND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Clark). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I was paired with the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I was paired with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario). I was paired with the hon. member for Outre-mont (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McMASTER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted I would have voted for the
amendment.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, now that the votes have been taken on two amendments, one of which was moved by the Conservative party, and the other by the C.C.F., on behalf of the "Social Credit group I wish to move another one, one that we consider to be essential to the welfare of the Canadian people.
Before doing so, however, I wish to make a few comments regarding the speech from the throne. I think hon. members of the C.C.F. party will appreciate the reason we could not support their amendment. It was for the very simple reason that we did not have a mandate from the people of Alberta to support the establishment of a socialist state.

The Address-Mr. Quelch
Whilst the Conservative party may think there was nothing in their proposals that we could object to, let me point out that their proposals were absolutely hamstrung by their declared financial policy. I should like to remind the house of what that policy is, in part, as declared in the budget debate of last year by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell). I refer hon. members to page 1296 of Hansard of 1945 where the hon. member said:
So far as expenditure is concerned we must make up our minds, based upon the best estimate we can make of the national income, how much of this income can be safely taken by the state; having made up our minds on this, we must then make a heroic effort to keep our expenditure within that amount.
That declaration, Mr. Speaker, in the opinion of this group is a policy of reaction. It recalls to mind the policies of the former minister of finance, the Hon. Charles Dunning, under whose policies from 1935 to 1939 the resources of this country were systematically sabotaged as a result of curtailing expenditures in an attempt to balance the budget. It will be recalled that during those years the minister always insisted that the only money which was available to the government was the money that they could obtain from the people's pockets, and as a consequence we allowed over half a million people to remain unemployed and a million people to be on relief. So much for the Conservative policy.
What of the government's policy in this regard? I have already referred to their pre-war deflationary policy. But the house will recall the very sudden change that took place in government policy immediately after the declaration of war. It will be recalled that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated soon after the declaration of the war that no financial restrictions would be allowed to impede the government's war effort, that the only limit to our war effort would be a physical one, that of the number of men and materials that were available to execute it. That declaration received the whole-hearted endorsation of the people of Canada from one end to the other and received the whole-hearted endorsation of the members of this house. .
I would also remind hon. members that when we in this group from 1935 to 1939 had also made a similar declaration, a declaration of a realistic policy, namely, that whatever was physically possible and desirable should also be made financially possible, that declaration was ridiculed not only by members on the other side but by members in 63260-20J
other parts of the house. It was not until the fear of war struck the government that they were willing to adopt what might be called a realistic policy. Well, to-day the war is over, but once again we are reverting to pre-war policies. Surely it must be quite plain that if a realistic policy is necessary and justified in order to win the war, a realistic policy should be justified in order to win the peace. I say that for this reason. Winning the war is not the ultimate objective. Winning the war is merely the first major objective that must be captured in order that we may go on to the ultimate objective, that of winning a permanent peace, a peace that will have some permanency attached to it, and the only kind of peace that can have any permanency attached to it is one that will make it possible for peoples in all countries in the world to live in the greatest degree of freedom, free from the fear of want and aggression, free to live their lives as they choose; that freedom itself covers all other freedoms. Certainly, if that is to be the objective of the world, then Canada is in an admirable position to give leadership along these lines. But I would ask, do we find that type of leadership in the speech from the throne? I think it can very well be shown that we find therein to a very large extent a repetition of those policies that were put into force not only in this country but in all the highly industrialized nations throughout the world between the two great wars and even prior to 1914.
The speech from the throne makes it quite clear that in order to maintain full employment and a high standard of living the government depends very largely upon exports, depends very largely upon a programme of foreign investment. While it must be quite clear that exporting wealth without bringing back the equivalent in the form of imports may help to maintain a programme of full employment, it must be equally clear, on the other hand, that it will not maintain the standard of living of the people at the highest level possible because, when you ship wealth out of a country without bringing back imports to a similar amount, you are bound to reduce the standard of living to the extent that you have that unbalance.
We in this group quite agree that we have a moral obligation to make available to the areas that have been made destitute by war all the goods that we can spare. We are, for example, thoroughly behind the government's proposal for a loan to Britain. But I wish to point out that this is entirely different from a programme of foreign investment as

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
a part of permanent government policy, for the purpose of dumping our unemployment problems on the doorstep of another nation.
On motion of Mr. Quelch the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 27, 1946.