1947-02-07

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) -moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 10 to amend the Immigration Act and to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a short bill of only four sections, the first of which provides for the detention and bonding of persons travelling through Canada to another country. Then, under the second section there is provision for the repeal of section 80 of the act; and this arises as a consequence of section 3 of the bill which provides for the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act.

Section 4 of the bill provides for the admission to Canada of dependents of members of the Canadian armed forces who served overseas, without being subject to the provisions of the Immigration Act. This authority is to replace that now provided by order in council P.C. 858 of February 9, 1945.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 11, respecting Export and Import Permits.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this measure, which has a proposed life of one year, is necessary, in so far as export control is concerned, to ensure that excessive quantities of materials and supplies are not exported from Canada at the expense of urgent domestic needs. Because of world conditions and, in particular, of rapidly changing supply conditions, the bill provides for a necessary degree of flexibility in the imposition and administration of the permit system.
The import control provisions are necessary by reason of world shortages and the consequent international allocation of some commodities. In the case of other commodities, though not subject to international allocation, sources of supply are controlled by other governments, necessitating control in Canada to ensure that the limited supplies available are offered on an equitable basis to Canadian users and consumers.
It is to be hoped that controls of this type will not be needed beyond a year from now, but, in any event, any continuation of them would, under the proposed measure, be brought again before this house for review.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 12, to amend t.he Penitentiary Act, 1939.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the principle of the
bill is to allow the grand jury to go into these institutions. One of the cardinal principles of Magna Carta is that the people should take a large share in the administration of criminal justice. Whether these institutions are rightly or wrongly managed, the fact remains that they are managed by crown officers. The bill

Introduction of Bills
provides that the grand jury, in its presentment, shall include these institutions, one of which exists in each of the provinces with, I believe, one exception.
This recommendation is offered only to serve the public interest; in no way is it to be deemed as a criticism of the existing system of official inspection. To the contrary the object is to assist in more satisfactory administration.
The late Chief Justice R. M. Meredith, who presided so ably over the assize courts in Ontario for forty years, when addressing a grand jury at the York assizes made comments along these lines, and recommended strongly that the jury system should be made to apply to these federal institutions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 13, to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. MILITIA ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. BROOKE CLANTON (Minister of National Defence) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 14, to amend the Militia Act.
He said: This bill will make a number of changes in the Militia Act. As hon. members know, the Militia Act has not been changed substantially since it was first enacted in 1868. Many of its provisions are no longer effective, and such terms as "permanent force", "nonpermanent active militia", have been replaced. The bill makes a number of changes designed to bring the Militia Act into line with developments that have occurred during the war.
Motion agreed to and bjll read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That is it expedient to present a bill to authorize the payment of moneys under a mail contract, supplemental to the amount agreed to
be paid under the contract, and for the continuance of the payment of bonuses in respect of mail contracts, presently authorized by order in council, as supplemental payments under the proposed act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period during the national emergency arising out of the war and to provide therein that the governor in council may appoint and fix the compensation of the officers, clerks and employees necessary for the administration of any order or regulation continued in force by the act and further to provide that certain officers, clerks and employees may continue to perform the duties for which they were previously appointed.
He said: His Excellency the Governor Genera], having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Department of National Defence Act to provide for the appointment of not more than three associate deputy Ministers of National Defence and to give the governor in council power, by regulation, to administer the service estates of members of the forces who die on active service or while receiving hospital treatment or institutional care under the Department of Veterans Affairs on account of any disability suffered or incurred during their service as such members; to provide for the establishment of a defence research board charged with the duties of conducting and co-ordinating research and development for defence and of establishing scholarships and making grants in aid; and to provide further for salaries, remuneration and expenses of the board and of a pension or superannuation fund for the benefit of employees out of moneys appropriated by parliament.
Inquiries oj the Ministry
[Stage Direction]
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of a statement which he made on Tuesday last with respect to the extension of certain transitional powers. I should like to read two sentences from the remarks of the Prime Minister, as reported on page 83 of Hansard:
The government will introduce a bill to provide for the continuation for a limited period of certain transitional measures to the number of about fifty.
And further down:
All of these will be specified in a schedule to the bill. I have a tentative list here, but I think they can be given later.
My suggestion is that the government give consideration to letting us have a list of those orders in council now. The whole house has agreed to give right of way to the government next week, and I think it would expedite the work of the house if we could know what those orders in council are, preferably today.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I might say that the orders in council to which my hon. friend refers are attached to a bill which will be based on the resolution which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley) moved a little earlier this afternoon. The bill will be introduced on Monday and the orders in council will be attached to it.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Are we going to take up the resolution on Monday?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My colleague suggests that we will have the resolution on Monday and the bill will be introduced if the resolution passes. The resolution stage will come first and then the bill will be introduced later with the orders in council attached to it. As I understand it, the hon. leader of the opposition is anxious to have a list of the orders in council. If I had known my hon. friend was going to ask this question I would have had the list here, but I could arrange to have it tabled at six o'clock.


John Bracken: That will be entirely satisfactory. I think it will expedite the work of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There will be debate on the resolution in the first instance. As soon as the resolution is passed, the orders will be tabled attached to the bill itself.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I should like to know which of these measures is to be dealt with first on Monday. Will it be the one we are referring to now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might mention just what bills will be taken up. If hon. members will look at page 5 of the orders of the day they will see the bills listed. The first one that will be taken up is No. 4, the second reading of a bill to amend the Customs Act. standing in the name of the Minister of National Revenue. Next will be No. 3, second reading of a bill to amend the Militia Pension Act, in the name of the Minister of National Defence. Then No. 2. a bill to amend the Canada Grain Act, in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce; next a bill to amend the Feeding Stuffs Act, in the name of the Minister of Agriculture; then a bill to amend the Inspection and Sale Act, in the name of the Minister of Agriculture; then a bill to amend the Fertilizers Act. in the name of the Minister of Agriculture. There will be on the order paper on Monday a bill with respect to amending the Immigration Act, and that would come next. Then there is a bill respecting export and import permits. I cannot say whether that will come on on Monday; it will probably be Tuesday. Then there will be a bill to amend the Militia Act. All these will be taken up very much in the order I have given.


John Bracken: Do we understand that the government is not agreeable to letting us have orders in council in advance? I respectfully suggest that it would facilitate the work of the house next week if that were done.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As I will be introducing the resolution and the bill, perhaps I might explain at this stage the plans I had in mind. The resolution will be introduced, not necessarily before the bills that are now on the order paper are dealt with. The Prime Minister has said that it is anticipated a debate will take place on the resolution. I would prefer that it take place on the bill, but of course I cannot prevent a debate on the resolution.
With regard to the distribution of the orders, as has been indicated, they are about fifty, with a number of amendments. It is proposed to prepare an office consolidation of those orders in council with amendments for distribution to members of the house. We will do

Inquiries of the Ministry
that at the earliest possible day; I think it could be done within a very few days, perhaps by Monday or Tuesday. I see no reason why these should not be distributed before the resolution is introduced.


John Bracken: That is what I asked.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They are not quite ready now. They are in the form of orders in council and amendments, but it will make it very much simpler for the members of the house if they are prepared in the form of an office consolidation so that the members will have before them exactly what we are asking to have done.


John Bracken: What the minister has said is satisfactory except to this extent. He said he would give us what he can as soon as [DOT] he can, but could he not give us today a list of the numbers of the orders in council affected?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I can do that on Monday.


John Bracken: It is just the numbers of the orders in council to be dealt with that I am now asking for. Could the minister not give us that today?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is just the difference between today and Monday. I want to be sure they are correct, that is all. The bill is not introduced yet.


John Bracken: I know that, but I do not think the minister understood me. I am not asking that details be given today of the orders in council and amendments, but just for the numbers of the orders in council proposed to be dealt with. We would await detailed information with respect to the orders in council and proposed amendments. The minister should be able to give us today the numbers of the orders in council. However, I have made my request.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want to make it clear that I am not trying to withhold anything; I just want to make a final check. Some change might be made affecting one or other of the orders in council between now and the time the resolution is introduced.


John Bracken: We would not regard the list as final.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Do I understand that the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice will come before the house after the bills outlined by the Prime Minister have been taken up?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is my present intention, yes.



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO P.C. 1003 On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether any amendment has been passed to P.C. 1003 within the last week or two?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The answer is no.
NOVA SCOTIA FISHING INDUSTRY DISPUTE On the orders of the day:


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Is the Minister of Labour in a position to tell the house what the issues are in the present dispute which has tied up the major portion of the fishing industry in Nova Scotia, and what progress is being made towards a settlement?


Humphrey Mitchell: In the first place may I point out to my hon. friend that the courts of Nova Scotia have recently declared that the parties to the dispute, the companies and the men, do not come within the jurisdiction of either P.C. 1003 or the trade union act or labour law in Nova Scotia. This is a peculiar dispute, as I think my hon. friend will agree, in that neither party to the dispute has sought the assistance of either the federal or the provincial government. I have been in communication with the Minister of Labour of Nova Scotia, who has made certain suggestions with reference to the dispute in an effort to conciliate it, and I am informed that meetings are being held in Lunenburg to-day for that purpose.
My hon. friend asked something about the conditions.


Clarence Gillis: I did not say conditions, but issues-a different thing altogether.


Humphrey Mitchell: Prior to this dispute, the lay, to use a fisherman's language, was fifty-fifty, the company taking fifty per cent of the proceeds of the catch and the men the other fifty per cent. The fishermen are now asking for sixty per cent of the proceeds of the catch instead of fifty per cent.


Clarence Gillis: A whale and a sardine.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, they have lots of whales and sardines in Nova Scotia.
PUBLIC BULDINGS-CHAR SERVICE-WAGES On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether his department is giving con-
Inquiries of the Ministry

sideration to increasing the wages of the women cleaners in public buildings? The Minister of Public Works dealt with their holidays yesterday, but said that their wages were a matter for the Department of Labour.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon. member to put his question on the order paper.



FRASER RIVER LIGHTSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he any information to give the house regarding the damage done to the lightship at the mouth of the Fraser river when she went adrift and was wrecked in a seventy mile an hour gale which swept the Pacific coast some days ago?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Reid: I am always in order.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but he knows that the rules of the house require questions on the orders of the day to be brief and to the point.


Thomas Reid: My question is very brief, Mr. Speaker. What steps has the government taken to replace the lightship so that all shipping entering the river for the port of New Westminster may be facilitated?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: The hon. member was good
enough to give me notice of his question, and upon receipt of it I communicated with the agent at Victoria. The agent has advised me that the lightship's mooring chains broke and the ship drifted to Robert's bank, about one and a half miles west of Westham Island. The lightship is not in a very badly damaged condition, and it is expected that it can be brought back to its former position. In the meantime a satisfactory and effective light is replacing the lightship.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): I desire to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport. Has the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada submitted a report of its findings on sittings held July 17 and 18, 1946, at Charlottetown regard-

ing freight truck rates on the Borden-Tormen-tine ferry system? If so when will the report be available?
Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware that the board
has rendered a finding on the question, but I shall inquire and if my hon. friend will allow his question to stand as a notice, perhaps I can give him an answer later.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs based on a report that his department contemplates the removal of patients from Sussex Veterans Hospital, New Brunswick, to . Cornwallis, Nova Scotia. Does his department contemplate such a move, and if it is contemplated will the minister give reconsideration to the matter, having in mind, among other things, the great inconvenience and expense that such a move would mean to the patients' families and friends in their visitations, all of whom live in New Brunswick?
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): It is the intention of the department n.ot to carry on the hospital after the end of the current year. What other arrangements will then be made has not yet been decided. There is a possibility of some of the patients being moved to Lancaster or remaining in the vicinity and being attended by the doctor of their choice. The T. B. patients, of whom my hon. friend knows there are some at the hospital, will go to special institutions. I shall be very glad to take the matter up at any time with my hon. friend and the director of treatment services.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I should like to raise again the question raised by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) with respect to the distribution to members of the house of the draft bill on industrial relations. My information is that this bill has been the subject of discussion by a political party within the past two or three weeks. We on this side have not even seen a copy of the proposed bill. Can the minister not make a copy of the draft bill available to us in view of the fact others have received and discussed it?

Inquiries oj the Ministry____


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not really a bill in the ordinary sense. It has never been discussed by the government; but even before this government came into power, which was a long time ago, members of the opposition and many members on the government side raised the question of consultation. In order to permit that consultation, when we drafted P.C. 1003, a copy which looked like an order, was forwarded to national organizations of employers and employees. It was sent out confidentially. It was clearly understood between my department and the organizations concerned that it was confidential and had not received the approval of the government. If some individual has broken faith with me I cannot do much about it. As leader of a party or as one-time premier of the province of Manitoba my hon. friend knows that that is often done. I hope that in conformity with, or by agreement with, the observations made by these responsible organizations we shall be able to fashion a document which will be satisfactory not only to the government of this country but also to my hon. friend's party opposite and those who sit to the left of him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not much chance.


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought so. I said the other day that you could not agree with anybody.



OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in regard to a report in today's press that appended to the espionage report issued since the acquittal of six of those charged are these words:
It should not be assumed that in any case the evidence before the royal commission and that adduced in the criminal proceedings were the same.
Once last year I brought to the attention of the then Minister of Justice- .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -so that he-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: I am sorry, but the hon. member is out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall put the question. Who was responsible for what appears to be a gratuitous attack on the
courts, the members of the royal commission, or the Department of Justice? Who authorized the addition of these words which cast doubts on the judgment of our courts?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I submit that the question is not in order. It contains statements and allegations with which I cannot for one moment agree. A question in such form is not authorized by the rules of the house.



WORLD TRADE CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: On Friday last I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He advised the house that the question came under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to whom he referred the question. No reply has yet been given. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he will look at it and give us an early answer?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The Prime Minister said yesterday that questions might be dealt with on Monday. I have had the material prepared to give an answer to that question on Monday. I do not see why hon. members put any questions on the order paper if they are to be dealt with without going on the order paper so much more expeditiously than when they are there.



GREENLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government any information with respect to the proceedings which the press has reported between the United States government and the government of Denmark regarding the acquisition of Greenland?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The Canadian government has no such information.


Gordon Graydon: None at all?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: None at all.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. W. MacNaught for an address to His Excel-
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Howe
leney 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. Cold-well.
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I first wish to join with others who have spoken in this debate in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address. It semed to me that both speeches were admirable in form and that the men who made them will go far in the public life of this country.
The subject of my remarks today is housing. In the course of the debate a number of violent attacks were made On the government's housing policy, and I think that a reply should be given in spite of the fact that I heard pretty well the same speeches from the same speakers in the course of the Park-dale by-election. Just why anyone who took part in that campaign would again wish to warm up speeches that had so little effect on the electorate is beyond my imagination, but I suppose each man decides this matter for himself.
When speaking to this house last July I gave a comprehensive review of housing conditions in Canada. Since then real progress has been made toward meeting some of the need. At that time I expressed the hope thdt 60,000 units of housing would be completed in 1946. I am glad to be able to report that this target has been accomplished. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics now estimates that 59,846 housing units were completed in the calendar year 1946. This estimate is based upon actual reports from 623 urban municipalities and a representative sample of rural municipalities and unorganized territories. The final tabulations will be available late this month. I am informed by the bureau that they do not anticipate a substantial variation from their present estimate, but that supplementary reports are likely to increase the completion figure beyond 60,000 units.
Housing remains a major task which is being attacked with vigour. I do not wish to weary the house at this time with detailed statistics. From time to time such information will be tabled for the information of the hon. members. I hope that later in the session I will have the opportunity of making a full statement about housing. My remarks today will be limited to a brief review of some of the more important activities.
In 1946, 6,812 Wartime Housing units were completed, and at the end of the year 4,066 were under construction. The activities of

Wartime Housing Limited are filling to some extent the very great need for low rental housing which is not being produced by other means. We have had a very large measure of cooperation from the municipalities, and it may well prove to be the case that in 1947 the number of completed wartime housing units will equal the completions of 1946. There are now over 25,000 occupied Wartime Housing units.
When speaking to the house last July, I outlined in some detail the functions of the emergency shelter administration operated by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In many parts of the country there were people living in unsatisfactory types of accommodation. Others had lost their homes as a result of evictions under circumstances allowable by the wartime leasehold regulations. We started to meet this problem in 1945 when 1,051 emergency shelter units were completed for occupancy. In 1946 conditions became more acute. We realize that a much larger number of shelter units would be required in the municipalities. The large number of registrations of married veterans at universities necessitated steps for shelter units to meet in part their needs. By the end of 1946, 6,141 emergency shelter units were in occupancy, and 1,018 were under construction, most of which are now in occupancy. Negotiations were under way at the end of the year for another 1,010 units. In these figures I have included all forms of emergency shelter, in most of which the dominion government had participation, either by assisting the municipality in securing buildings, or by making a grant to the municipalties and the universities to assist in the cost of the conversion of buildings. The municipalities and the universities are providing management for the emergency shelter projects, and I cannot speak too highly of the measure of cooperation we have received from them.
The life insurance companies, through their jointly owned Housing Enterprises of Canada Limited, have some 3,300 units of moderate rental housing under construction. A few of these units were in occupancy as at the end of 1946, and during the first months of 1947 we will be benefiting by a continuous flow of new rental units from this source.
Hon. members will recall that the integrated housing plan under the National Housing Act provides for units for home ownership at a controlled sale price wutli a veterans' preference. We assist by priorities to provide materials for such units, and agree that if the units remain unsold we will purchase them from the builder. During 1946 work started on 2,001 of such units of which 566

The Address-Mr. Howe
were completed by the end of the year. Agreements have been signed with respect to a further 1,293 units which will be under way shortly.
Loans approved under the National Housing Act amounted to 860 millions in 1946 as compared with $24 millions in 1945.
Another important activity in 1946 has been our reclamation programme. Surplus armed service buildings are being demolished and materials reclaimed for housing. These materials are distributed under priority. Important quantities of materials have been made available allowing housing projects to proceed in spite of shortages in the supply of new materials.
I have mentioned these activities to indicate that during 1946 our efforts have increased.
I would emphasize, however, that by far the greater part of new housing in Canada is being produced by the construction industry without direct or indirect participation by government. In large measure the real success attained in meeting our 1946 target can be attributed to the skill, energy and ingenuity of management and labour in the construction industry as well as industries supplying building materials.
And now, what of the prospects for 1947? Material supply will be considerably greater than it was in 1946. I wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance which we have received from the committee of the Canadian Construction Association who have reviewed the level of production of all types of building materials. They have made recommendations to the government on steps to be taken to increase the production of those' materials which are in the most critical supply. Many of the recommendations of this committee have been implemented. Further steps will be taken with respect to those materials in which anticipated production is less than sufficient to meet our 1947 programme.
Subject to a few remarks which I will have to make in a moment, I believe that financing is available to meet a house building programme of any size. The facilities of the National Housing Act are available. Furthermore, there is an ample supply of mortgage funds from other sources. I think we need have no worries upon our ability to finance a greatly increased housing programme.
A part of our 1946 completions were the houses started in 1945. We do not know the number of residential units under construction but incomplete at the end of 1945. To remedy this deficiency with respect to 1946 the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in cooperation with the Dominion bureau of
statistics and the field representatives of the lending institutions, have carried out an actual count of incomplete residential units as at the end of 1946. A carry-over of
28,000	units, by degrees of completion, has been tabulated for the 122 municipal and metropolitan areas of a population of 5,000 and over. By the use of a sample survey the dominion bureau of statistics has estimated a carry-over of 12,000 dwelling units in other areas. This total carry-over figure of 40,280 units will form a substantial portion of our 1947 programme. During the last three months of 1946 completions were proportionately at a very high rate. It is likely that a large proportion of this carry-over will come into occupancy early in 1947.
I am confident that residential construction in 1947 will exceed, by a fairly wide margin, the completions in 1946. Certainly our very best efforts will be directed to this end. The establishment of a firm target for 1947 is not only desirable, but, in itself, will be an important factor in increasing the number of units which are completed. I realize that completions are, in some measure, dependent upon the impact of industrial and commercial construction-, which also draw upon our supply of building materials. I also realize that the accomplishment of a target is dependent upon the ability of the Canadian people to absorb new housing at the present level of building costs. Further, the need for housing is so great that any target should be set at the very limit of possible accomplishment. In 1947 we will be making a vigorous effort to meet a target of
80,000	residential units.
Attention must be paid to the type of residential units to be produced in 1947. In many respects the kind of unit is as important as the number. During 1946 about 75 per cent of the completed residential units were built for sale to home owners. The time will come, and perhaps during 1947, when more residential units for sale will be produced than- can be absorbed by prospective home owners. Because rental construction- was disappointingly low in 1946, we believe that steps should be taken to remedy this deficiency. I do not suggest that the building of homes for sale should be discouraged, but rather that the dispropor-tional ratio of the two types of construction should be corrected. We all know the very great advantages which accrue, not only to individuals, but also to the country as a whole, as a result of a heavy proportion of home-ownership. Nevertheless, in the light of today's conditions, there is as great a need for rental housing as there is for homes.
The Address-Mr. Howe

Although we will continue to supply rental units directly by way of wartime housing and emergency shelter, and indirectly by way of Housing Enterprises, there can, I believe, be little disagreement to a proposal involving reasonable steps to increase the supply of privately owned rental housing. We realize that present building costs of privately owned rental housing will involve considerably higher rentals than those being charged for wartime housing units. On the other hand, we believe to the extent that additional rental units will be added to the housing supply levels under, say $70 a month, the situation will be relieved. New additions to our rental housing supply at any reasonable level of rental will create indirectly units of rental housing at lower rentals through the filtering process.
We will be taking steps to allow owners of new rental housing units accelerated depreciation at twice the present rate. Perhaps the main reason for the reluctance of private owners to enter this field is their feeling that present capitalized costs may be high in relation to stabilized rents. By the device of accelerated depreciation, if present costs do prove excessively high in the long term, then the accelerated depreciation is very appropriate. On the other hand, if present costs are not high in the long term, then the effect of accelerated depreciation is limited to deferment of taxation.
We will also be proposing a longer period of amortization under the National Housing Act for loans on approved types of rental housing. This measure will be placed before this house in the form of an amendment to the National Housing Act.
We will also be prepared to extend priorities for materials to assist in the construction of all approved rental housing.
There have been suggestions that rental fixations by the wartime prices and trade board have been a deterrent to the volume of new rental construction. I am convinced that current fixations are high enough to permit economic rentals to be charged. We know of very few eases, and no recent cases of rental fixations making it impossible for builders to proceed with new rental housing units.
These aids and stimulations will be applicable to the types of rental housing approved by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We think it would be most inappropriate to offer these advantages to apartment houses with units renting at, say $150 a month. The criterion for approved rental housing units will be:
(1)	rentals under $70 per month, based on a standard 4-room unit.

(2)	veterans' preference for occupancy of completed units.
(3)	an average of at least two bedrooms per unit.
The priority assistance and the accelerated depreciation will be available not only to approved rental units financed under the National Housing Act, but also to those financed by conventional mortgage loans, and those which represent a full capital investment by the owner.
We believe that these steps will substantially increase the supply of new rental housing units. Should we be wrong, other steps must be taken, because we cannot allow a continuation of the proportionately low level of new construction in this field.
By the end of 1946 serviced lots in most municipalities of Canada had become critically scarce, and it is increasingly necessary to develop raw land. The price of fringe-area raw land is rising rapidly. In many localities it is passing through two or three hands before it gets to the builder. This is having the effect of increasing the price of land very much after the fashion of the late twenties. Many municipalities are now refusing to install services in the traditional local improvement method, whereby the cost of roads, sewers and water is charged against the land and repaid as improvement taxes for ten or fifteen years. Many municipalities are insisting that the builder or the developer of the land put in the services at his own expense, subject to the approval of the municipality. In order to meet this situation, we have been including the cost of services in the lending value of the land. This type*of financing has the advantage of reducing for the home owner the monthly payment to pay for such improvements. It also has the effect of financing by way of mortgages, debt which in the past was financed by the issue of municipal debentures.
The average price of fringe-area raw land is of the order of $150 to $250 per lot, and improvements run from $400 to $700. There are some substantial builders who can afford to develop acreage on this basis and pay for the services. But such builders are few in number. The working capital requirements of a builder are already high. The change in policy of municipalities points up a blind spot in our mortgage credit structure; namely, there is no established source of credit available to the builder or owner between the raw land stage and the completion of the framing of the house.
In view of these considerations, it is felt that an alternative method of assembling land for house building is necessary. We believe

The Address-Mr. Howe
that more attractive neighbourhoods can be developed if planned areas of land are serviced at one time. It will be another step away from the perpetuation of our gridiron pattern of development. Certainly our house building programme should not be limited either as to quality or quantity by the financial capacity of builders who must finance improvements.
There are two or three alternatives. One might be for the dominion to make improvement loans available to municipalities at a low rate of interest. Another would be for the dominion to arrange direct financing with the builders. The alternative which seems the most practical and to hold the most promise is to use the facilities of the lending institutions as an instrument to assemble land for residential purposes.
The life insurance companies are interested in improved urban development, and are particularly interested in the resulting mortgage business. They have continuous dealings with most of the house builders and would be in a position to make land available to them in the development of such projects. We would hope that in most cases builders and life companies would be working together in the development of projects. At the present time some life insurance companies, faced with the inability of builders to finance land and improvements, are making 60 per cent mortgages on acreage. However, this is only partially looking after the need.
We require an orderly development of the fringe areas, with care exercised that land development does not proceed too rapidly and that the development of land is kept on a proportional basis, not only between urban areas, but between districts within single urban areas. Towards this end we will be proposing an amendment to the National Housing Act to allow the life insurance companies to acquire and develop such land, subject to the approval of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Funds so invested by the companies will be guaranteed by the dominion and the income on such investments will be limited to a low rate of interest.
I believe that these two changes, which involve amendments to the National Housing Act, will provide all the additional financing facilities which are necessary. The changes will ensure that the attainment of our 1947 target of 80,000 units is not limited by financial considerations.
Our 1947 housing objectives will be achieved within the pattern of our method of operations in 1946. No major changes in policy are contemplated.
The attitude of the dominion with respect to public housing remains unchanged. Section 9 of the National Housing Act makes funds available at three per cent for a period up to fifty years for limited dividend companies who may receive contributions to a rent reduction fund from the municipalities and/or the provinces. At this point the dominion is not willing to participate in a rent reduction fund to create public housing. Nor are we prepared to make loans under section 9 to municipal housing authorities.
In speaking to this house in July, I stated that dominion grants under the National Housing Act for slum clearance were considered inopportune when the requirement for shelter was so great. I suggested that slum clearance would come later when the pressing need for the occupation of every housing unit is somewhat less. Generally, we feel that the continuation of this policy is proper. However, we are now willing to consider assistance by the reconversion of inside land, provided that the number of family units presently residing in the area to be reconverted is very small. At the present time there is not, nor has there ever been, a real shortage of rooms to rent. If a municipality wishes to reconvert a block of inside land" where there are very few families now living, we will give consideration to such a proposition. It would be our intention to attempt to find suitable living quarters for such families affected. Our policy in this respect has only changed to the extent of becoming somewhat flexible and selective. The general policy of refusing to allow demolition of residential units continues.
With the help of the municipalities we will continue to provide emergency shelter. The need for additional shelter to provide for emergency cases is somewhat less pressing than it was last October. We are likely to meet a lesser peak of need for emergency shelter next October.
The policy of Wartime Housing Limited remains unchanged. We will favourably consider applications for new units from any municipality for new Wartime Housing projects to the extent that the municipality will enter into standard agreement with us. I have already mentioned that we have some 4,000 Wartime Housing units under construction, and it is likely that we will have additional applications from municipalities. We will continue to accept such applications for houses which we can reasonably expect to complete in the year 1947. Later in the year we will give consideration to the desirability of a continuation of the present wartime housing programme in 1948. If it is decided that con-
The Address-Mr. Howe

tinuation is not desirable, we will then give the municipalities one month's notice that our present policy will change.
We will continue to develop and promote the integrated housing plan. I believe that we can exceed our 1946 commitments of some
3,000	units. The integrated plan is producing housing with a veterans' preference, and an average sales price of about ten per cent less than other forms of speculative building.
Housing Enterprises, with some 3,300 units under way, are assembling land to provide another 4,500 units of rental housing. It is our hope that in the year 1947 at least. 5,000 units by Housing Enterprises will come into occupancy.
We will continue to press for a greater supply of building materials, not only to assist in the activities I have just mentioned, but also to help new housing in all forms. We will continue with the reclamation of armed service buildings for as long as materials from that source are necessary to supplement the short supply of new materials.
As in 1946, we will continue to rely for the major portion of our new housing upon private endeavour. It is our policy to ensure that as much new housing as possible be built by private initiative. Towards this end we will lend every facility. If, however, for any reason the supply of housing by private initiative is insufficient, then and then only will the dominion government take a direct position in the housing field. I have already dealt with a number of operations in which the dominion is already participating for this reason. We would be very happy to withdraw from these activities, but, at the present time, this much needed type of housing would not be produced by other means.
In any large undertaking there is inevitably a difference of opinion upon the manner in which it is carried out. The housing programme is no exception. We have a full company of critics. To the extent that the criticism is constructive, we welcome it and try to mend our ways. However, there is much criticism which is not very helpful.
There was skepticism on the ability to achieve our 1946 target of 60,000 units. This has been satisfactorily answered.
There are those who insist that our sights are set far too low and seem quite unmindful that a backlog of years cannot be made good overnight or even in one year.
There are those who sincerely believe that a very full measure of public housing is the only answer, notwithstanding mixed experience with this form of subsidized housing in other countries.

There are those who feel that the supply of building materials is disappointedly low' in spite of the production of most items now being at record levels.
Some feel that all materials should be diverted to housing, or that industrial and commercial construction should be curtailed to the extent it is non-essential. They are none too clear on what constitutes essentiality to a high level of post-war employment or how such restriction could be managed. Recent experience, in the United States w'ould appear to confirm the belief that our present policy is the correct one.
The balance of the criticism seems fairly w'ell divided between beliefs that there is too little or too much participation by the government in the bousing field.
Those who feel that progress towards meeting our housing needs is proceeding at an unsatisfactory rate could well measure the accomplishments of this country with that of other countries. There are many bases of comparison, none of which are entirely satisfactory. However, on the basis of new housing units per head of population it will be found that house construction in Canada in 1946 was about 15 per cent ahead of the United States and 30 per cent to 35 per cent ahead of the United Kingdom. The comparison with the United Kingdom is not valid in that their endeavour is also directed to the restoration of units damaged by air raids. Nevertheless, this comparison is sufficient to indicate that whereas we have a long way to go, our rate of progress is more satisfactory than in other countries.
We make no apologies for the housing accomplishments of 1946. Real progress has been made, and indications are that 1947 will be the largest year of new housing in the dominion's history. More materials are available, the house building industry can handle increased volume, and such aids from the government as may be necessary are readily available. We all know that there is a housing shortage. We all know that it cannot be made good immediately. Just as war production reached a peak after two or three years, so, in the same way, we can look for an ever increasing level of accomplishment in our efforts to meet the housing needs of the Canadian people.


Mr. JACKMAN:: The minister stated that accelerated depreciation would be granted. What is the present rate on these rental housing units, and how much will it be when accelerated? For how many years will it continue under his proposal?

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not the figures at my fingeh-tips, but my impression is that the present rate is two and a half per cent on residential buildings. If so, the new rate will be five per cent.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: For how many years?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Until the investment has been amortized.


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Air. Speaker, I wish in the first place, following the pleasant practice which prevails, to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the motion, and to wish them well. I do not know that I can honestly wish them well in their next election, but I shall certainly wish them well during the years they sit in this chamber.
I wish to make a few remarks this afternoon, first of all on the question of dominion-provincial relations-and I hope they will be very brief. If they are brief enough, then I shall make a few more r'emarks on the subject of penitentiary reform.
But first I should like to say one word about what the Minister of Reconstruction an Supply (Mr. Howe) has said. I think those of us who heard the minister in July last thought he had made a skilful and, I think, a definite retreat from some of the fanciful figures which had been bandied about in the house; and I think he is quite entitled to get whatever satisfaction he can from the measure in which he has lived up to the greatly reduced promises which he made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I say to my hon. friend that the only promise I have ever made was for
50.000	houses in the first year after the war,
60.000	the next year, 80,000 the next and
100.000	thereafter. We are exactly on schedule, and I defy him to find any statement of mine making a more rosy promise than that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister should do me the justice of remembering that I indicated a minute ago, and very clearly as I thought, that he had adopted a tone somewhat more realistic than some other members of his party. After all, he is not the only minister or the only member who sits opposite, and we are entitled to pay some attention, occasionally, to what is said by other people.


An hon. MEMBER:: And to election
propaganda.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And, as my colleague says, to election propaganda. But I assure the minister I thought he was very wise in his more restrained figure.
He also said there would be no change in the policy of Wartime Housing. I doubt if he will win country-wide popularity by that. Nevertheless, there it is, and we will make the best we can out of it. The minister, at any rate, strives to be a realist. I was not so sure he was a realist in his remarks about the Parkdale election. It is quite true we might have had a larger majority in Parkdale; but after all, a win is a win and a loss is a loss.
I come now to a few brief remarks about dominion-provincial relations, and shall begin by dealing with two statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his speech of Monday last.
I think it is well for us to remind ourselves that when the provinces came together they reserved to themselves, for their own administration, all those things which were closest to the day-to-day lives of the people-education, the administration of justice, roads and -I emphasize this particularly-social services.
As we look back we will see that the fathers of confederation were wise. It is well to remember that although in the original set-up of confederation the provinces lived off subventions from the dominion, they did have fairly wide taxing powers, which, as time went on, they came to use more and more.
I think the wisdom of that will be seen quite clearly if one considers just one fact. I think experience has shown that those governments which are closest to the people have three advantages. First of all, they are closer to their constituents and they have a better chance of knowing exactly what is wanted. Second, they thus have the advantage of framing wise measures and, in the third place and perhaps most important of all, they have the advantage of being better able to practise due economy.
In this connection I should like to quote the words of an authority which I think will be accepted on both sides of this house, particularly on the other side. These words bear very closely on the principles which I have just endeavoured to enunciate. I quote the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as follows:	*
In a nation such as ours, with a heterogeneous population, separation of power is indispensable. To govern a people composed of heterogeneous elements, the separation of power is absolutely necessary. I will go farther. I would say that even to govern a people composed of homogeneous elements, where those people are spread over a vast territory, in that [DOT] case also the separation of power is necessary. In that case legislative union would lead of necessity to tyranny. It is only a federal union which could assure civil and political liberties.
And again I quote further words of Sir Wilfrid as follows:

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
It is a completely false principle that one government should impose taxes and another government spend the revenue therefrom. This will always lead to extravagance.
You will observe that in those statements of Sir Wilfrid two policies are soundly combined1-that is to say, the proper strength of the central authority or federal parliament, and there is also due regard had for the strength of the provinces. Now it is fair to say that this went on virtually uninterrupted until the last war occurred. At' that time, for reasons which are in the memory of us all, it was agreed, I think almost universally, that in order to mobilize the maximum amount of strength for victory we should concede to the dominion government further powers so that they could mobilize, as they did mobilize, the whole of our national strength.
I think now we are passing into a situation where the dominion, consciously or unconsciously, and I feel it is consciously, is seeking to take advantage of that and to create, a situation which was never intended at the time the agreements were made, and under which most of the provinces are virtually becoming economic vassals of the dominion. I think every fair-minded man will admit, I think every sensible man will admit that after the war it was necessary for the dominion to be given further powers than it had before the war. But I think it has gone away beyond that. We have reached the point where, as I said, the smaller provinces in particular are in danger of becoming economic vassals.
Let us face the fact that if the present intentions of the dominion government are carried out, whereby they get complete control of enormously large direct taxes through the income tax and still stay in the other taxation fields, we are going to reduce the taxing capacity of the provinces to so small an area that the dominion government in the future can in effect determine what the provinces are to spend. In a moment or two I propose to quote from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself and to show that that view is strongly supported by statements which he has made.
Having made these few preliminary remarks I wish to come to the first statement of the Prime Minister which I intend to discuss. Speaking on Monday last the Prime Minister said at page 64 of Hansard:
* . . if there were provinces that did not wish to negotiate an agreement they were free to take whatever course they themselves wished.
I propose to seek to show that that state-men is really a travesty, it is really a mockery of the situation. The Prime Minister himself on April 29 last, when opening the adjourned conference, said:
fMr. Macdonnell.]
The normal relationships between the dominion and the provinces were materially affected by the war. In 1941, to enable the dominion to mobilize the utmost financial resources of the nation for the prosecution of the war, the provinces withdrew from the income and corporation tax fields, in return for fixed annual payments, the amounts of which were set forth in wartime tax agreements. It was contemplated, at the time the tax agreements were entered into, that once the war was over and the tax agreements expired, the provinces would again be free to levy income and corporation taxes.
In other words, when those agreements were made the intention was that after the war the status quo could be reasserted. As the situation is now it has proved to be difficult and perhaps one could say without exaggeration it has proved to be almost impossible to bring about. Let us consider what has happened in that time. The taxpayer has become accustomed to having only one taxation authority levy an income tax on him. It does not need much imagination to see the heavy onus and the unpopularity that would be placed upon any government which imposed a second income tax. Of course no one knows that better than the Prime Minister. When he says that the provinces are free to take whatever course they like I do not think I speak with exaggeration when I say that those words are just a mockery. He knows well the difficulty, almost the impossibility of any province, except the two larger provinces, refusing to accept the dominion's offer.
In these circumstances several of the provinces, notably Alberta and Nova Scotia, pleaded for a separate taxation field, but the dominion refused it, or any rate any concessions which it has made have been so small as to offer no solution of the situation. In those circumstances for the Prime Minister to plume himself upon what he calls the agreement of the smaller provinces is, I repeat, a travesty. The truth is that the provinces were not free in any real sense. As I undertook to say once before in this house, the big stick has been used. The only difference now is that in some cases it is sugar-coated.
Does any one doubt that in the cases of Nova Scotia and Alberta we have not witnessed an instance of force majeure? If anyone does, let him read the speeches of the premiers of those provinces. I suggest that he should also consider the methods and the manner in which the negotiations were carried out. I propose to bring to the attention of the house some of the concluding items in the correspondence between the premier of Nova Scotia and the dominion government. Writing on December 5 to the Prime Minister the Hon. Mr. Macdonald said:

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
The original dominion proposals were submitted to a general conference. The budget proposals have never been submitted to a general conference. We think that they should be discussed in general conference as were the original proposals and that discussions should continue so long as any hope of agreement remains. We believe that there is still ground for such a hope.
I draw the attention of the house to the fact that the basis has substantially changed. In other words, since last July, the proposals which we voted on in this house have been substantially altered.
I wish next to quote from a letter which Mr. Macdonald wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada on December 18. It reads:
We have moved a long way from the position of August 6, 1945, when the dominion proposals were first presented. The movement began in November 1945 undoubtedly the greatest departure from the original position was taken on June 27 last in the budget speech. There, the social security measures of the original proposals were abandoned for the time being and the principle of dealing with individual provinces, instead of with all the provinces in a general conference, was adopted.
The final sentence of that letter reads:
I should like to hope, however, that another conference, called to consider another set of proposals, framed in the light of the experience which the dominion has had since May last, would produce good results.
That was on December 18. On December 20 the Prime Minister of Canada sent a telegram to Mr. Macdonald, reading:
Your letter of the eighteenth instant re dominion-provincial negotiations was duly received by me yesterday morning and its representations were brought to the attention of my colleagues in council yesterday afternoon. I regret there is nothing more I can say at the moment by way of acknowledgment. Kindest regards.
There the correspondence seems to halt for a moment. The Prime Minister said:
I regret there is nothing more I can say at the moment by way of acknowledgment.
It would look as if so far as the Prime Minister was concerned there might have been nothing more for eternity, because there is no further correspondence shown from Ottawa to Halifax; and the next letter is dated January 23, by the premier of Nova Scotia from Halifax to the finance minister.
Why do I bring this up? I bring it up because it seems to me that it shows the spirit in which these negotiations have been conducted. I suggest to this house that it is not the spirit in which negotiations between friends-and Mr. Macdonald was a former member of the dominion cabinet and, I presume, much respected by members of the cabinet'-should be conducted. He was treated in a way in which I suggest people who are dealing
with each other in a civilized fashion do not treat each other. That is what the record shows, and that is all I have to go by.
I add this. When the Prime Minister of Canada speaks about the provinces being free, no one knows better than the Prime Minister that it is virtually impossible for the smaller provinces to go back to a system of double taxation, and therefore for the dominion to ask exclusive use of the income tax and also at least partial use of the smaller taxes is to put the provinces in an impossible position. As a matter of fact I think the only real comment that can be made on this is that the freedom which the provinces have is very similar to the kind of freedom that a famous French queen suggested for the French peasants. When she was told that the people were starving for bread she said, "If they have no bread let them eat cake".
I now come to the second1 remark of the Prime Minister: "Then there is the matter of centralization. Where is the centralization?" Later in the same paragraph he says that the present proposals "will make the provinces wholly autonomous in the sense that they will be provided with enough revenue to discharge the functions which they are supposed to discharge under the constitution".
The best comment I can make on these words of the Prime Minister is to quote from himself, and I should like to read a brief extract from a speech he made to this house on April 3, 1930, when speaking in this house in a debate on old age pensions. The Prime Minister said this:
. . . Anyone interested in financing, whether of a municipality, a province, a dominion, an empire or a league of nations, will, I think, admit it is unwise, an unsound, a wrong principle for one body to have to do with raising the taxes and another to be concerned with the spending of the money so raised, that other body not having to account to the representatives of those who have paid the taxes.
Again on the same day the Prime Minister said:
. . . what the fathers of confederation were seeking to do was to give each-
That is the dominion and the provinces.
-a distinctive field or jurisdiction: but they recognized that in giving to each a distinctive field the provinces would to a certain degree be handicapped in the matter of raising revenues, and they met that situation by fixing certain definite subsidies to be paid from the federal treasury to the provinces.
In other words, the federal treasury was to supplement the resources of the provinces but not to usurp their taxing fields.
Either the Prime Minister was wrong in 1930 or he is wrong today, unless he may suggest that there has been some change in the situa-
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell

tion since. Change there certainly has been, and the change is such that it makes the Prime Minister's argument of 1930 just so much stronger and his logic more inescapable than it was then. The change is that the growth of responsibility for social services in these last seventeen years is something that I think nobody would have then believed possible, and therefore the burden on the provinces to discharge those obligations which were reserved to them and imposed upon them by confederation is greater than ever. Therefore I say that the "distinctive field", to use the Prime Minister's words, which he mentioned is even much more necessary to the provinces in 1947 than it was in 1930.
I propose to call one more witness, and then I shall have almost finished. The next witness is the Winnipeg Free Press, which is usually a supporter of the government. In between elections the Winnipeg Free Press often shows signs of independence, though I have always observed that when the election signal is flown they line up with the goverment. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) nods his head. I think he approves that very much, and no doubt if I were in his position I would, too. At election time the Free Press puts the telescope to the blind eye-would that be the proper nautical phrase?


Mr. ABBOTT:: I am sure the Free Press never would. Perhaps my hon. friend might.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When election time comes around we know where the Free Press is going to be. I take it that in quoting them I am quoting someone who will not be regarded by the government as a biased witness. The Winnipeg Free Press, which shows fleeting signs of independence, has this to say on this subject:
All Canadians must face the very dangerous theory inherent in all this and now affecting huge sums of taxpayers' money, namely, that one government in Ottawa should collect money, *without any definite limit, and hand it over to governments which can spend it without the responsibility of collecting it, without answering directly to the taxpayers who provide it.
I_ said I was going to be brief and I am going to try to keep my promise. I have just a few words to add because I do not want to labour the point or to weary the house. I should like to say just two things.
Do let us try to be clear as to what we are really voting on. Do not let us vote for centralization and pretend that it is not centralization. If the Prime Minister's words of 1930 are valid, then this is centralization, and cen-

tralization in a big way. If the words of the Winnipeg Free Press are valid, then this is centralization, and centralization in a big way.
There is an argument for centralization. I rather imagine tha't hon. gentlemen to the immediate left believe in centralization. If they do, that is their privilege, but I think they would call it centralization. What I object to is for the Prime Minister to say, as he does, that these steps are necessary in order that the provinces may have the autonomy they should have. I do not think the Prime Minister should say that. I do not see how he can say it in the light of what he said in 1930. Let us consider it a moment. Everything in the garden is lovely now for the provinces that have accepted the federal government's proposals, or at least that is what they think. But the Minister of Finance said very wisely the other evening in my hearing that if the provinces get more money they would have to undertake more responsibilities. That is quite right. But how much more responsibilities? Do thejr know? If their responsibilities and their needs expand in the years to come far beyond what anyone of us can now imagine, then where are they? Are they not going to have to come back and ask permission to do what they want? If that is their idea, well and good. I read the remarks of the premier of Saskatchewan, and without feeling that I have any right to press the point too far I think he seemed to favour the unitary state or to go a long way in that direction. I say that with whatever proper reservations are necessary.
And now my second point. Surely it is the quality of statesmanship to try to realize what we are doing and foresee the consequences of our action. I would plead with the provinces and particularly with those provinces that believe they have a special way of life- and there are such-a special culture, special views to protect, to try to consider what they are doing now and to see how far it takes them.
As I said a moment ago, if the words of the Prime Minister in 1930, which I quoted, are right, then this is centralization. If the words he used in 1930 were right, then it is contrary to the whole spirit and intent of confederation.
I want to add one thing. We never would have had confederation unless people were ready to sink personal differences. I understand that Brown and Macdonald disliked each other. The geniality of Macdonald and the acidity of Brown when brought together curdled, I gather. But they actually made friends with one another or went through the appearance of so doing. They played euchre together. I cannot imagine anyone who is not

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
a friend of another playing euchre with him.
I do not see why anyone should- play euchre anyway. That is what they did. They got together and they worked for the benefit of this country, although as soon as it was over I believe they resumed their former condition of estrangement and dislike. I believe that the situation which faces us now calls for that same kind of quality.
The other night the Prime Minister spoke about- generosity and chivalry. If I remember aright he was speaking about international affairs. But I would ask him if these qualities have to be confined entirely to international affairs; whether we could not indulge in the luxury of having them for ourselves in our own personal affairs. I do not think the premier of Nova Scotia was treated with generosity and chivalry at Ottawa, but I want to add this-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Or Mr. Drew in his remarks about an incompetent government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: These things are going to be settled some time. No sensible person believes that we are going to move through these next few years without heart-searching problems which will require the greatest unity that we can muster up. Not all the pleasant words in the speech from the throne conceal from the ministers themselves the tremendous problems they are facing. I quote Mr. Macdonald because he is a former colleague of the members of the government. He has asked- again and again why we cannot have that spirit. I do not know why. I say that sometime it will be done because we must have all people of good will and understanding in this country mobilized together if we are to arrive at what I suppose we should like to call our manifest destiny. I will say that if the Prime Minister will not do it, then there is another man in this house, my leader who sits here and who knows both sides of this question perhaps as no other man does in this country, who will do it when the time comes.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to add just a word or two briefly on the subject of -prison reform. I hesitate to make two speeches in one but this is my only chance, and perhaps I should make a small personal confession. I have a sort of pious interest in this because my father was chairman of a prison commission which reported some thirty-five years ago, and so far as I know the report which that commission made, while it was on a less ambitious scale than the succeeding reports, recommended things which were later recommended in the Biggar-Nickle-Draper report and more recently in the Archambault report.
I should like to read one sentence from the Biggar-Nickle-Draper report. The reason I read it is that-it is pleasant to speak on noncontroversial and non-partisan matters-I believe if bon. members would just take five minutes to consider what this sentence says we would not have fifteen months' delay in doing anything about the matter. We would not go on month after month neglecting it, leaving it while young men who -perhaps have made a slip and get into gaol are turned into adept criminals by associating with adept criminals. We would get on with it.	I
should like to read this sentence which shocked me and I hope it will shock everyone in the house. It is very short:
Speaking for themselves, the members of the committee would not before undertaking this investigation have believed that the penitentiary system could have been as needlessly cruel as it in fact is . . .


Mr. NICHOLSON:: What year was that?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am glad the hon. member asked that question. This report was written in 1921, twenty-six years ago. IVe have one report written nearly thirty-five years ago, another report written twenty-six years ago and a third report written eight years ago, and if my information is correct our penitentiary system has changed very little since 1868. It was a great shock to me to learn that.
I should like to say a word about prisoner rehabilitation. I hold in my hand a wire from the president of the Canadian penal association. I want to read briefly from it. Ho says:
No major penal reforms possible unless Ottawa takes action on Archambault recommendation No. 18 re unreformable prisoners. Everywhere I go it becomes more apparent that General Ralph Gibson is mixing humanity with efficiency in his commissioners' duties but he is hampered by no action on abovementioned Archambault recommendations, especially No. 18.
I should like to read recommendation 18: All incorrigible and intractable prisoners in the penitentiaries should be segregated in one institution.
That does not need a major change in present strategy. Surely it is not an overwhelming thing that could not be done. I remember that fifteen months ago in the house several members here present today urged that we get on with the matter. So far as I can discover, all we have is another annual report filled with figures but devoid of humanity. I suggest that there is no reason why this cannot be done. I hope that perhaps my few words may reach not only hon. members but also others outside. I can-
The Address-Mr. Campbell

not understand why social institutions and the churches do not descend on the house and insist that this thing shall be done in accordance with the tenor of the Archambault report which has now been before us for eight or nine years.


Mr. MAX CAMPBELL (The Battlefords):: In speaking in this debate last night the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby) quoted from an English publication and outlined instances of farmers who for reasons that were not given were compelled to vacate their farms during the war years. The hon. member commented and said that the socialists said, "Out you go", and had given the farmer in question three weeks' notice to quit. He said that the socialists did that. Did they? Look at the record and see. He said that this happened during war time, and the tragedy to which he referred occurred on October 17, 1943, not 1946, not 1947, but 1943.
Who were in power at that time? This is in Great Britain. The Prime Minister was Winston Churchill, and no one would refer to him as a socialist; and his Minister of Agriculture was the Right Hon. Robert Hud* son, who together with Lord Wolverton was responsible for the domestic food supplies of war-torn Britain. And who made decisions as to what the farmers should grow or what discipline should be inflicted upon farmers who refused to do their part in relieving Britain's wartime necessities? They were farmers' committees and not bureaucrats, not socialists.
As my hon. friend knows, the most Conservative element in England's political life has always been the farmer, so that when he refers to a socialist as being responsible he is distorting the truth. It should be said right now that the policies of the new labour government of Britain with regard to agriculture and the use of the land have been enthusiastically endorsed by the national farmers union of England, which is remarkable, considering the fact that the members of the national farmers union have been, and were throughout the war, staunch supporter's of the British Tory party. The lessons they learned during the war have caused them now to support the enlightened policies of the British Labour government. Let me say to my hon. friend that he should be careful that he does not distort the facts to suit his own arguments. We saw a good deal of arguments of that kind in Saskatchewan not many years ago, when all sorts of charges were brought against the C.C.F. party in that province.
I would remind the members of this house that in spite of arguments of this kind, in spite of the fear which certain people tried to put into the people of Saskatchewan, there is a 
C.C.F. government there today and the people are not losing their churches or their freedom. In fact, they are perfectly happy as far as the government of Saskatchewan is concerned.
I now come to what I really wanted to talk about. In the last session this house set up a committee on Indian affairs. The committee was to make a study of Indian affairs and members of this house were asked to go through their constituencies where there were Indians and Indian reserves and make a survey and come back and report to the committee. I did that.
There are seven reserves in my constituency and I am preparing a brief. I do not intend to go into the question at any length today because when I present my brief to the committee I shall have certain recommendations to make. But there are several problems which I think call for immediate attention and which should not have to wait until the committee brings down its report.
First of all, I would speak about the residential school in the town of Delmas in Saskatchewan. I visited this school and was hospitably received by the principal, Father Rouselle, who is a young man with a number of years' experience in the Duck Lake residential school, and who has many good ideas. He is interested in the Indians and I believe that, if given an opportunity, he would do some good work. My criticism of the school would be that it is badly overcrowded. There are some 109 pupils in the school and I would say that sixty-five would probably be about the right number that should be there.
A number of the pupils had measles when I was there and there was not a room of any kind in which these sick children could be isolated. I propose that the government make plans immediately to build a day school on one of the reserves, the Sweet Grass reserve, which is not very far from the town of Delmas, and a number of pupils now going to the Delmas school could go to the day school and relieve this overcrowding. I think that day school should be built, and preparations should be made now to have it built this summer so that the children might go there before the next fall term. We have had many fires during the last year. Only last Sunday the residential school at Lac la Ronge was burned. This is an old wooden building. The principal himself is afraid of fire. From what he told me, they are taking every precaution against fire, but the fact remains that the building is a firetrap and there is a danger that what we have seen in other places might occur again.

The Address-Mr. Campbell
Another problem that is immediate in that territory is the question of roads. This was brought to my attention when I made a trip with Doctor Head, the Indian doctor for that area, out to the Red Pheasant reserve. After we got into the reserve we found the roads were terrible. In rainy weather where there are potholes surrounded by bush, it is impossible for the doctor or anyone else to get through. The only way of getting through is by saddle horse. The farm instructor told me that if he could have a few machines provided-just a few small machines-they could fill in the worst of the holes themselves. The doctor's job is not an easy one in that huge area where he has 2,500 Indians to look after, driving thousands of miles every month, and it is imperative that the government make plans to start some kind of road programme in those reserves. It does not need to be extensive but it should be enough so that the doctor can get to patients.
Another question that has bothered a good many people who have to travel through reserves to get from one town or district to another is the condition of the roads. One bad road lies between the town of Paynton and the town of Cut Knife. That runs through two reserves, Poundmaker and the Little Pine reserve. The councils in that area will not accept responsibility for building roads in Indian reserves. They say it is a dominion government responsibility, and I agree with them. But if the government would make a grant- to the municipalities I think they would be willing to carry on that work.
I just want to mention briefly the living conditions of these Indians. Some of the reserves are better than others, but there are two of them at least, and I think probably four, where the living conditions are very much below normal. For instance, on the Red Pheasant reserve the diet consists principally of bannock and rabbits when the Indians can get them. These people depend for their livelihood on the sale of firewood. It takes them a day to gather a load. They may travel for three or four days before they can find a buyer and then they get three or four dollars a load when they do find one. So you can see that their standard of living cannot be very high.
I did not go through the reserves with the object of finding things to criticize, but I am just going to give the house an instance of departmental red tape. It has to do with the case of an old lady, sixty years of age. She had been born and brought up on the Sweet Grass reserve, but moved to another one twenty-eight miles distant. In accordance with the regulations, what has been done with
that woman since she moved there some few years ago is that she has been forced to travel twenty-eight miles by horse and wagon, when she could borrow them, every two weeks in order to get her ration and then drive back again to where she 'was living. I took the matter up with the agent, and I might say that he was cooperative; I am hoping that the situation has been corrected. But that is one of the things that is causing so much unrest among our Indian population.
Another matter that was brought to my attention by the minister of natural resources of Saskatchewan was that of liquor. I am not a teetotaler myself, but those hon. members who know anything about Indians know that when they get liquor they lose their heads to an even greater extent than some of us white people. Last year, especially in the Lac la Ronge district, there was a very good fur catch. The Indians sold those furs at good prices. There were no banks in the district, and there was no place for them to put their money so they kept it in their pockets. The result was that it was not long until white renegades and metis found out that the Indians had money, so they obtained and sold to the Indians supplies of liquor of all kinds-bootleg whiskey and, worst of all, lemon extract or vanilla extract, or whatever they could get. Even some of the storekeepers in the districts sold the Indians extracts in very large quantities, in quantities that should certainly not be sold by any storekeeper to anj-body, because the only use to which those quantities could be put would be for drinking purposes. The minister of natural resources of Saskatchewan told me that he was writing or had written to the Post Office Department asking them to provide an opportunity for these Indians to put their money in local post offices, or, in other words, to start post office savings accounts in those areas so that the Indians would have an opportunity to put their extra monej' in them.
I do not want to detain the house very much longer, but there was one little story that I was told which I think might interest hon. members. It was in connection with diet. I heard it at a meeting of old-timers who call themselves the historical society in the town of Battleford. We were discussing Indian problems. I was telling them what I thought the Indians should have in the way of diet, that we should see that they had milk, vegetables, and the kind of food that would -build up bodily strength. One of the members there who had been principal of an Indian residential school told me that a few years ago they had, at the Anglican school at Lac la Ronge, two
The Address-Mr. Campbell

children by the name of Ross who developed tuberculosis. These children kept getting worse and worse. The officials of the school decided that they were going to die and that possibly the best thing they could do with them would be to send them home and let them die there. So they sent them home. The principal, some four months later, happened to be in the district and went to see what had happened to these children. He found out that when they got home they had been fed on fish heads and bannock and had become fat and regained their strength. I think that is a remarkably good illustration of what the residential school sometimes does to Indian children. The children are taken away from their natural environment where they have been absolutely free, and are put in the residential school where they are under control and are given different kinds of food. I think the main reason for the sickness of these children was just that they were lonesome and pining away.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I could go on at great length with this Indian story, but I do not think I should at this time. I just want to sum up by saying that I want to see this government build a school on the Sweet Grass Indian reserve this summer, and I want them to do something about a road programme in and through the reserves. I should also like to have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) see that orders are given to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to put a stop to the exploitation of the Indians by renegade whites and metis. In order to do that, I believe that the Royal Canadian Mounted police force will have to be substantially increased before they can cope with the menace of the liquor traffic among the North American Indians.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, tradition has it that speakers in this debate should congratulate the mover and the seconder of the motion. Therefore I am glad to take this opportunity to do so. Since coming to Ottawa this session I read a very interesting article in Maclean's by the hon. member for Quebec East. In his article he says that what is needed is not a change of leadership but a realignment of policy. This debate on the speech from the throne is a most excellent opportunity to consider the various policies which confront the Canadian people.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Would my hon. friend allow me to make just one correction? I think I get sufficient laurels as Secretary of State for External Affairs and do not need those which belong to others. The hon. member referred 
to the hon. member for Quebec East. I am sure he meant the hon. member for Quebec South.


Norman Jaques: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I meant the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). I merely mentioned it because I think this debate does offer the best opportunity to discuss the policies which are before the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his speech the other day said that no party on this side of the house could command sufficient confidence of the people to form a government. I think that is true; and I think it is also true of the government side of the house. If there were an election tomorrow I very much doubt if any party could command a much better majority than is enjoyed by the present government. The reason is not that the leaders of any of these groups or parties are discredited. It is because this floor, which separates the government side of the house from this side, is not a true division.
If it were possible to look into the minds and, if you like, the souls, of hon. members, and if one could read their innermost thoughts I feel reasonably sure that some hon. members opposite would be more happy and comfortable on this side, and that some on this side would be more happy over there.
I would ask this question: Quo vadis? Which way are we going, or which way do we propose to go at the present time? Is it to be security with freedom or social bondage without freedom? We in this corner offer the Canadian people social credit instead of social bondage. We are not particular who does the job. We shall be only too glad to get behind and endorse any party, no matter what the name may be, that will set Canada on the way to social credit-security with social freedom-instead of continuing the way we are going at the present time, and that is toward social bondage and insecurity.
This is a good time for Canadians to sit down and count their blessings. In the last year or so I have been fortunate enough to travel, and not only in Canada. I spent a winter in Great Britain, and in the last twelve months I have paid several visits to the United States. I am sure that, today we Canadians can congratulate ourselves, when we compare our conditions with those of the vast majority of people in other parts of the world. When we realize the conditions under which the vast majority of the people throughout the world are living todayr, we Canadians should be glad to get down on our knees and thank God we live in Canada. That is the way I feel about it, anyway.

The Address

Mr. Jaques
In order to preserve our blessings and freedoms, I shall not permit myself to be intimidated by any subversive forces which may single me out for their abuse. The blessings we enjoy in Canada cannot be attributed to any one party in the house; still less can they be attributed to socialism of any brand.
Surely we have enough examples in the world today to know that the imposition of socialism in any of its forms has inevitable results-loss of freedom and a lower standard of living. We Canadians enjoy our blessings as a result of freedom enjoyed and private enterprise employed by our forefathers; and it is that heritage that they handed down to us which we, above all other people, with the possible exception of our neighbours to the south, are blessed to enjoy today.
My close relatives live in England. Three years ago I spent the winter over there. Times were bad then, but my brothers and sisters who are there tell me that they are infinitely worse today, and that they look as though they will be even worse than that in the future.
The freedoms we enjoy in this country are under steady attack; let us never forget that. The chief enemy we have to face is the philosophy of Marxism, whether it be advocated by communists or by their fellow travellers. I have been attacked in the press, not only in Canada but in the United States, for my association with organizations which in the United States are known as Christian nationalists. I make no apology here for believing in Christian nationalism, andi I regard anyone who attacks the principles of Christian nationalism as an enemy of this and every other country which still preserves its freedom.
In order to settle any dispute, let me quote the ten principles on which Christian nationalism -was built:
1.	The preservation of America as a Christian nation.
2.	Expose and fight communism.
3.	Safeguard American liberty against the menace of bureaucratic fascism.
4.	Maintain a government set-up by the majority which abuses no minority and is abused by no minority.
5.	Protect and earmark national resources for our own citizenry first.
6.	Maintain the George Washington foreign policy of friendship with all nations, trade with all nations, entangling alliance with none.
7. Oppose a world government and a superstate.
8.	Prove that the worker, the farmer, the business man, the veteran, the unemployed, the aged and infirm can enjoy more abundance under the true American system than any alien system now being proposed by foreign propagandists.
9.	Stop immigration until all veterans have jobs.
10.	Abolish the corrupt money system.
Those are the ten points of the American
organization of Christian nationalists. They might be modified to some extent to meet Canadian conditions; we might not be so particular about immigration, but by and large I endorse those principles. I was glad of the opportunity last December to speak on their platform in Los Angeles.
I have been accused by a section of the press which I would refer to as being a part of the red network and the pink fellow travellers, of indulging in anti-Semitism and fascism. I propose to spend a few minutes dealing with those charges and seeing what they really amount to. Certain members of the press and radio in the United States have been quoted in Canada as speaking against me, Walter Winch ell being one. I will not defile the air of this chamber by giving Winchell his right name, but they mentioned John Roy Carlson, whose real name is Derounian. This man wrote a book called "Undercover", which was published by Dutton and Company. The publishers have been sued from time to time and have been forced to pay heavy damages. I had the privilege of sharing a platform in Chicago with a gentleman who obtained $10,000 damages from the publishers of "Undercover", Mr. Jeremiah Stokes, a prominent citizen of Salt Lake City. In giving his judgment against Carlson and the publishers, Mr. Justice Barnes is reported as follows:
This book charges the plaintiff (Robnett) was disloyal, anti-Semitic, and a nazi agent. During the entire course of the trial, I never heard any evidence to sustain any of these charges. I think this book was written by a wholly irresponsible person who would write anything for a dollar. I think the book was published by a publisher who would do anything for a dollar. I don't believe any investigation of this author was made by the publishers to the extent they say there was, because they cared for the dollar more than they did for the almighty truth. I wouldn't believe this author if he was under oath and I think he and the publisher are as guilty as any one who was ever in this court before.
That is plain English and I think it will be enough to settle Comrade Roy Carlson, alias Derounian, alias half a dozen other names; it should be enough to settle his claim of being the upholder of the truth or anything good. If certain newspaper men and correspondents -I dare say this applies to some members of this press gallery-think Walter Winchell speaks for decent Americans, then their education has been sadly neglected.
The Address-Mr. Jaques

I addressed three meetings in Los Angeles last December where we averaged 1,800 attendance. There were from twenty to thirty people on the platform, including half a dozen minister's of the gospel. Anyone who attended those meetings and who met the members of the audience or those who spoke on the platform would know that it would be impossible to get a finer collection of men and women. One of the leading Baptist ministers of the city of Los Angeles officially opened the meeting and blessed it with his prayers.
However, thanks to the smearbund and other such ragtags and bobtails, such meetings are denounced as being rabble rousers.
Last fall a gentleman by the name of Albert Kahn visited Canada, and I should like to quote from a Vancouver paper of last October to tell the house some of the things which he was kind enough to say to his Canadian audience. He said:
In Poland-"General Anders" soldiers secretly flown in from Italy, are responsible for more than 2,000 Jewish massacres in the past year; some of them bore British intelligence service papers.
Isn't that a nice little innuendo?
In Greece-Old men and women in concentration camps being starved to force their democratic partisan menfolk from the hills.
Then he makes this statement:
Fascism is immensely strong in the United States today, and there is intense anti-Semitism. Jews cannot ignore the fact that this may not end in baiting and beatings, but rather in death chambers. Anything that happens in the United States is reflected in Canada, and Jews must fight fascism by supporting Russia through the trade union movement and militant progressive action in all political issues.
There you have the real truth of antiSemitism. There is no anti-Semitism in Canada and, to say there is, is to libel the Canadian people. In the People's Weekly, the official publication of the C.C.F. in Edmonton, of January 18, 1947, Mr. Clifford Lee in a featured article, says:
In Canada anti-Semitism is stronger now than it was in Germany in 1930. A recognized political party, the governing one in this province, openly solicits votes on this appeal in the places it knows will tolerate bits of Hitlerism.
According to this, the Canadian people are worse than the Germans were in 1930. The truth about so called anti-Semitism is that it is a communist racket, the dirtiest racket in America today, a racket that muzzles the press and silences members of parliament and members of congress. He says that anti-Semitism is rampant in Canada today, worse than it was in Germany. What complaints have the Jews to make of their treatment in Canada
[Mr. Jaques.1
or anywhere else under British rule or under the rule of the United States? Go where you will and you will find the Jews prospering as they have never prospered in any other country. But let any man get up publicly and make a stand against communism, and what is the result-if he is able to get people to listen and attract a following? Immediately he is called a fascist. According to these communists and their fellow-travellers, if a man is not a communist he must be a fascist, and if he is a fascist he must be anti-Semitic. That is the communist "smear." That is their answer. I just take this opportunity to say that I am not going to be silenced by the gutter press or the guttersnipes of the radio.
Let me quote a bulletin of the national economic council of the United States. It is headed "Red Terror" and says:
Unless groups like the economic council expose and fight these desperate men, we Americans will find, as people in other countries have found, that only one step beyond the "smear" and defamation squad is the liquidation squad, and unless men and women all over the United States support patriotic groups there will be no groups with knowledge and guts enough to fight.
Coming to Ottawa recently, I addressed a public meeting in Regina. Originally I had intended to address just a local social credit group meeting, but at a public meeting that was held some time before and addressed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the chairman announced that another speaker would be there a week later and would attempt to show the link between socialism, communism, and all these other isms. Immediately the challenge was taken up by the C.C.F. who were there, and they demanded to appear on the platform and share in the debate. That request was granted, and I received a wire asking me if I would consent to it. But when the C.C.F. learned that I was to be the speaker-


Clarence Gillis: They got frightened!


Norman Jaques: Oh, no. They refused to share the platform with me. That was their privilege of course, but I was a little curious to know the reason. When the meeting took place not only did the C.C.F. refuse to share the platform but they refused to come into the hall. There was not a single C.C.F. member in the hall that evening, I was told. But-and here is the point-the provincial leaders of the communists were there in force, and they were there for the express purpose of putting me on the spot. Now you can see why it was the C.C.F. made themselves absent; for, had they opposed me, then they must have supported the communists, and had they opposed

The Address-Mr. Jaques
the communists, which they claim they do, they must have supported me. They were nicely on the spot, and that is how they saved their faces.


Clarence Gillis: I think the answer is that they would have been wasting their time to attend.


Norman Jaques: You waste plenty of it here. As a matter of fact last session I said you were fellow travellers and I have not heard anything since-in fact, everything I have heard and seen from that day to this only proves it to the hilt.


Mr. BURTON:: You are wrong.


Norman Jaques: I am not wrong, and I can prove it. Let the C.C.F. show me one policy on which they have not agreed with the communists.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: You would not understand.


Norman Jaques: I understand too much for you, my hon. friend. The C.C.F. were on the spot at that meeting. If they had put in an appearance they would have had to support the communists against me, or they would have had to oppose the communists and support me. I answered questions that the communists at that meeting put to me for one hour and forty-five minutes. They asked me questions about butcher Franco, Mihailovich, and so on. I was asked, how did I explain my defence in this house of butcher Franco? My answer was this. I do not defend butcher Franco or butcher anybody else, but I do defend the right of the Spanish people to manage their own affairs and settle their own problems just as I defend the right of us Canadians to settle our own affairs without interference from outside. Speaking of butcher Franco, I said, "He may be a butcher. I do not know. But if he is, he is only a retail butcher." I said that the communist boss is in the wholesale butcher business and desires to have a world monopoly of butchering and fellow-travellers are only too anxious to help him to get into that position.
Then there was Mihailovich, whom I defended, I am proud to say, in this house last summer as soon as he was captured. I would recommend to hon. members a book by David Martin called "Ally Betrayed", which goes into che whole case of Mihailovich. I should like to quote from the foreword by Rebecca West, the novelist:
They lied, and knew they lied. Never was there such a debauch of lying as the communist campaign against Mihailovich; and nearly the whole of the left wing, communist or not, opened its poor silly mouth and S3166-15
swallowed the revolting mass. I am a socialist. But I have to admit that in the last few years the left wing has shown itself just about as good a custodian of the sacred principle of liberty, fraternity, and equality, as the watchdog who was found holding a lamp in his mouth for the burglar who was cracking the safe. They should have recognized this campaign for what it was. and should have realized that the men who carried it on were as likely to give the people political and economic freedom as A1 Capone and John Dillinger.
There is one other book I might recommend to hon. members if they have not read it, namely, "Animal Farm", by George Orwell. It is a small book but a masterpiece of satire.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: A very good story.


Norman Jaques: I only hope that every hon. member will read it. It is a book which could be read as a fable by children and as a satire by their parents and grandparents.
The hon. member for Peace River suggested that parliament should set up a committee to examine into un-Canadian activities to correspond with a similar committee of congress which has done a most excellent piece of work. I hope that that suggestion will be acted upon. If it is I shall be only too glad to appear as a witness and testify before it. I have nothing to hide.
The other day somebody sent me a copy of "The Nation", which is a United States leftist, fellow traveller paper. I should say that it is communist; I do not know what else you can call it. It contains an article by Carey McWilliams, called "The Cross and the Circle". I may say that the Cross and the Circle is the symbol which we Social Crediters use on our literature. He devotes most of his article to an attack on the Quebec Social Credit movement or the Union des Electeurs. He tries to prove, of course, that they are fascist and anti-Semitic. He condemns me for my association with the Christian nationalists and he says:
Although they have been asked by the leaders of Canadian Jewry on numerous occasions to repudiate Jaques, officials of the Social Credit movement of Alberta have thus far declined to do so. Jaques. they reply, "is a sick man . . . he has heart disease . . he may die any moment."
It is comforting to know that, and I can only hope that I can say with Mark Twain on a somewhat similar occasion, the report is somewhat exaggerated. But whether it is exaggerated or not, whether I die in the next minute or not, so long as I am a member of this house I intend to defend the rights, privileges and the freedom of the Canadian people, and I do not intend to be silenced by any red network, by any agent of the antidefamation league or by any other racket,

The Address-Mr. Mclvor

because that is what they are, communist rackets. I am going to fight communism so long as I have the strength to stand up and fight.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, there are a great many things for which we are grateful. First, I am sure we are grateful that we are living and are in good health. We send our thanks to Him whom Mr. Speaker addresses respectfully every day. I vwas thankful, too, that the speech from the throne contained references to the old age pensioners. I was grateful for that because I am one who knows something of the condition under which many of the old pensioners live, and I am convinced that if this government is in power long enough some day it will pay $50 a month to the old age pensioners. I do not think that would be even enough. To my way of thinking, the pension schemes of Canada should all be united' under one head, railway pensioners and all other pensioners. They should be made compulsory and contributory because we know that there are men who earn big money and they get rid of it very easily. If they had to save to take care of their old age it would be a great benefit to them. I have known railway workers who had served to within one or two months of receiving a pension but did not get any, and I have felt that that is not fair.
Amongst railroad workers there is an organization which is advocating a contributory national pension, and I think the government will give it kindly consideration. I should like the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) to take notice of a group of civil service workers who served in the last war but who were not members of the civil service until after the war was over. These men and women, especially men, because there were not very many women in the last war, should have their cases considered1 and should get credit for the time they risked their lives overseas.
Yesterday I was pleased1 to hear the Minister jf Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) give expression to public policy in reply to a criticism from the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). The government is well advised to be alive to the needs of Canada and to the opportunities of securing splendid people who are willing to come here and who would make good' citizens.
I had a little trouble in getting affidavits' to try to get a young man out from Belgium who fought in the Polish army against Germany, who was taken prisoner and escaped, which shows that he had a lot of initiative and would take a lot of risk. Then he fought in the Russian army against Germany. After the war
[Mr. Jaques.l
was over, he was sent back to his own home in Poland. When he went back he could not find the address of any of his kith and kin; his father, mother, uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters were all murdered. tHe was even- denied a place to call his own, even the place on which his house was built when it was destroyed. That man would make a grateful citizen of Canada and I am thankful that now he will qualify.
I am sure we were glad to see the widening of the Immigration Act to include others. I have had a plea sent to me that the citizens of India should have the same opportunity as the citizens of other countries should have when they come to Canada from Europe or from any part of the commonwealth of nations. I believe they should be treated in the same way.
As an Indian chief, Mr. Speaker, I think the Indians of Canada are entitled to become citizens of Canada. There is nobody who has any better right to become citizens of Canada than the Indians, and they will make good ones. I taught in an Indian school; I served on church committees where Indian relationships were discussed, and I have found the Indians, boys and girls, men and women, willing to cooperate with those who were willing to help. I think it is high time that the government granted our Indians the rights of citizenship.
I would be remiss in my duty if I did not say something about the Thunder Bay district. We have two progressive cities there. I think the resources of the Thunder Bay district excel the resources of any other district of the same size in Canada.
Farmers in this house know we have a splendid farming district that produces *well. We have perhaps the greatest potato yield in Canada. Our potatoes are good, even better than those that come from the maritimes. We have a 500-bushels-to-the-acre club, and I should like to know how many members in this house can say that there are farmers in their districts who can go over 600 bushels to the acre. This productivity is due in part to the energetic efforts of the farmer representatives of our community and of our agricultural sub-station.
We have also fishing. Of course it does not compare with the fishing industry on the Atlantic or the Pacific, but if any of you have ever tasted lake Superior trout you will not want fish from any other place. It has a taste all its own and when you get one bite it calls for another.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: It's your last.

The Address-Mr. Melvor


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I heard a man. in a public meeting at Fort William declare that we could take care of a great deal of the unemployment of Canada if our natural resources and our lumbering industry could be developed. Take our mining. It is growing, and since the United States need iron ore they will be coming to the Thunder Bay district for it. While Steep Rock is in the neighbouring constituency it is close to us, and there you get the finest grade of hematite ore produced on this continent. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) will support me, I believe, when I say that the Steep Rock mine is producing in such a way as to command the respect of all mining interests in Canada.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And the United States.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you. I knew you
had sense in your head. But we do not like to see our iron ore shipped from the head of the lakes because we have a great deal of power. We have the finest water system in Canada. The Fort William water system is half way up Mount McKay, which is 1,400 feet above sea level. Our water works are efficient, pumping clean, pure water, and it does not cost us anything to distribute that water throughout the city. There is nothing better in Canada. We have enough to attract people and induce them to come and invest their money there and develop our iron ore, but what we need is a little more consideration for the mining industry and for the development of our gold, silver, lead, copper and iron ore.
These are our outstanding needs at the present time if we are to stimulate the mining industry. When speaking of the special needs at the head of the lakes, I would mention one outstanding necessity and that is hospitalization. Our hospital is more than crowded and we shall have to build an addition to it, which perhaps will be accomplished in 1948.
We are appealing to the dominion government because about ten per cent of the beds that will be occupied will be occupied by the Department of Veterans Affairs and by the Indians. I think all hon. members will agree that there is great need for hospital construction throughout Canada. When you find that the wives of young veterans have their little bundles from heaven delivered in the hallways it is time we woke up to the needs in connection with hospitalization. The coming of these happy bundles from heaven has increased in Ontario by 111 per cent since 1939. Surely to goodness, we have enough 83166-15J
resources in Canada to take care of their arrival so that they will have a peaceful coming and a thorough upbringing.
We need to develop the waterfront, and I am sorry that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is not at present in the chamber. In 1935 we were promised a big breakwater. It did not come and it has not come yet, though I can almost hear the waves washing against it right now. We have there a sawmill that is employing at least 500 people and it is growing every day, but that sawmill needs protection for its approach on the waterfront of Lake Superior so that extra money and time and labour will not be necessitated.
We need to open up the trans-Canada highway. It is not generally known even in this house that there are wonderful beauty spots at the head of the lakes. I was west this year when I heard a great deal about the glories and the beauties of British Columbia all along the line, but there are no finer sights to be seen than those which you can view from Mount McKay or the Port Arthur park. You will see nothing in the west that will compare with the beauties at the head of the lakes, and it would be well for the wise men of the east to come to Fort William and Port Arthur and enjoy the beauties there.
We also need a great waterways development and we thing it will come. This would enable businessmen to have their goods delivered into the very hub of Canada at cheap rates, and when this waterways development takes place the people of Canada will realize what we have there.
Another thing we need is a trade school. We have a trade school under the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) and it did a great job for our young veterans. Now we know what they are capable of doing in a trade school. I suggest that every last unemployed man in Canada should be sent to a trade school so that he may use his hands and his head in order that when his period of unemployment ends he will be better fitted for a job. I am sorry I cannot enlarge on that at the moment.
Another thing we need is still more consideration on the part of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for those who gave unselfish service during the last war. I do not need to mention the Red Cross workers because their achievement was outstanding. I would also mention the dry canteen, where women served day and night to
The Address*-Mr. Mclvor

make things comfortable and cheerful for our young men visiting the head of the lakes. We had two bands, one Scotch and one that thought it was even better. Whether it was or whether it was not is a question, but these two bands gave outstanding service day and night, sometimes at three, four or five o'clock in the morning. Their services were appreciated, and those of the people who had charge of those workers serving coffee and refreshments continually when a train came in deserve some recognition. But even better than that, I say that the Minister of National Defence should take into consideration the citizens in the different countries of Europe who protected our boys at the risk of their own lives. I know of one boy who was housed in a home where there were six children and a widowed mother. It was a big farm, at one time there was a German officer housed there and of course it was very difficult for them to hold that Canadian in confinement. Naturally, he wanted to clean up on the German, but it would not have been a good thing to do. I think a citizen of that type who has risked his or her life, the lives of his family, his home and everything, should have some recognition from this government.
I have a resolution on the order paper, but I do not think it will come up so that I shall have an opportunity to speak on it before the first of June. That is in connection with the acoustics of this chamber. I would say that it would perhaps not cost anything for a megaphone to be placed on your chair, Mr. Speaker, one in front of the Clerk, one in front of the Prime Minister, one in front of the other leaders and perhaps one to be provided) for each group, in order to try them out. We are not so conservative in this house, are we, that we are not willing to try a thing out and see if it will work? I think megaphones are an outstanding need. Nearly eleven years ago I presented a petition to the then Minister of Public Works in this respect, but it fell by the way side, and I think it is time this suggestion is taken into consideration. Surely one of the electric appliance companies or perhaps the C.B.C. would lend us enough megaphones to try them out and see how they work.
I should like to speak about housing. I visited a good many of our wartime houses in three days. I saw over 100 at one time, and I did not find anybody who wanted to move out; they were well satisfied. According to the facts that come to me now, a number of the people who have lived in those houses since they were put up, want to buy them, but they IMr. Mclvor.]
find that they are worth more now than when they were put up. I would say, and say with emphasis, that there is not a man in Canada

and we have the best brains in Canada, I suppose, in this house-and there is not a man in this house that could have done a better job in dealing with housing than the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe).
The Prime Minister was speaking about the great changes that were taking place. Of course we who took mental and moral science know that you cannot even step into the same river twice in the same place, that everything is changing and changing for the better. When we were at school we memorized the seven wonders of the world; you remember the pyramids of Egypt, the hanging-gardens of Babylon, the temple of Diana, and so on. The Minister of Reconstruction would not put one of those up against the great things of today. Compare the pyramids of Egypt with the atomic bomb as a wonder. Compare the hanging-gardens with an aeroplane containing fifty people rising from the ground under its own power. Compare the temple of Diana with some of the great wonders you see around you, like the radio. You cannot sit down to the radio and not wonder how it is that you can pick out one programme from a thousand, hear it and understand it when it is in your own language. It is one of the wonders of the world. But, Mr. Speaker, the greatest wonder of the world to me is the organization that can take a man who has gone to the devil, is down and out, and can make him clean and fit for life in society again. I would say that this parliament and this house should encourage those workers, no matter to what branch of the church they belong, to stick to their jobs. They have the greatest job in the world, and to me it is the greatest wonder in the world that a man can again be made clean, fit and whole.
I should be very remiss as an athlete-and I still try to do a little in the way of athletics even though old age may be creeping on-if I did not pay my tribute to a little girl- whether she is Scotch or not, I do not know, but her name is Scott, Barbara Ann Scott- who led all Europe in the recent skating competition. Those hon. members who skate a bit know that there is no more graceful physical exercise than skating. Swimming compares favourably with but does not excel skating, which is graceful, pleasant and develops the whole body. This little Canadian girl from Ottawa has given leadership to the boys and girls of Canada to get out of things of a questionable nature and into something that

Peace Treaties
will develop their bodies. As one of those who are fond of athletics, I want to pay my tribute to Barbara Ann Scott, and to wish her all success in the future.
On the motion of Mr. Adamson the debate was adjourned.



PRIVILEGE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker. I rise to a question of privilege. On the orders of the day this afternoon I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) whether any amendment to P.C. 1003 had been passed within the last week or two. My question was quite clear and, the minister answered it quite clearly. He said the answer was "no". I have now secured from the privy council office and hold in my hand a copy of P.C. 302 passed on January 30. 1947, amending the war time labour relations regulations, P.C. 1003. It was passed on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I may say this. I must have misunderstood my hon. friend. I thought he asked whether P.C. 1003 had been superseded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Amended.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not catch that. Let me say that very frankly. The last thing in the world I would ever do in this House of Commons is to mislead my hon. friend or anybody else. If the hon. member is speaking of amendments, the order was amended. Because of the policy of wrage control it was amended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That's not all.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just wait a minute, now. I am not trying to be clever. I am trying to be sensible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am listening, but-


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right. But do not get up and question other people's honesty of purpose. That does not get you anywhere.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have read the amendment and I am listening to the minister now.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know'. I must have misunderstood the hon. member. I say that sincerely and let it go at that.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 6 p.m.
Monday, February 10, 1947