1948-01-29

INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Tem-iscouata):: Mr. Speaker, in this morning's Montreal Gazette there is a news item by Arthur Blakely headed "Ultimatum Sent Ottawa Palefaces by 'National Indian Government' ". I am wondering if we are to have a war following this ultimatum, whether it will be a civil war or war with a foreign country.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the Secretary of State be kind enough to inform the house of the answer that has been given to the ultimatum of the Indian government of Loretteville, Quebec, to the palefaces at Ottawa?


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question is addressed to me. I have just seen the article in the newspaper a copy of which the hon. member submitted to me. I shall look at it again and decide what the reply will be.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Do Indians not come under the Minister of Trade and Commerce?



HONG KONG


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question which I wished to direct to the Prime Minister. In his absence perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs will take note of it and give consideration to it. It arises out of a statement which came over the wires this morning. In view of the report released by the war office in London today with regard to the Hong Kong incident, and the reference contained in this report to Canadian forces in that area at the time, will the Prime Minister now table the Drew correspondence which he agreed to table on July 14, 1942, and which has not been tabled to date?



PETROLEUM PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct
a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Has his attention been called to the fact that the customers of a fuel company in Ottawa today received notice that their supplies of furnace oil cannot be continued? If so, can the minister indicate whether any steps will be taken to conserve the supply now in hand, or what will be done to meet the crisis?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The situation has
been called to my attention. The facts are that the company in question entered into contracts with its customers but failed to enter into contracts with its own supplier.


Mr. MacNICOL:: It would not likely be
one of the large companies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the F. W. Argue
Company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is difficult for the government to help enforce a contract that does not exist, and difficult for the government to find oil when all oil is under great demand. I think the customers had a right to expect that the company in question would exercise usual business prudence and contract for its supplies from a reliable refiner. My officers are attempting to help in obtaining supplies, but it is doubtful whether any solution of the situation is possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the government not
considering rationing?



VEGETABLES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. As the import ban on United States cabbage is to be lifted this week and the ceiling price set, is it the intention of the government to subsidize the importation of United States cabbage?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: No.
Inquiries of the Ministry



IMPORT RESTRICTIONS-PLANS FOR SPRING PLANTING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Finance. Does the government intend to announce the future plans regarding the importation of lettuce, celery and vegetables, so that the vegetable growers and hothouse men can plan for the future and the needs of the Canadian people? Their vegetable seeds for the spring planting must be ordered at once. Mr. SPEAKER: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question because the vegetable men have to order their vegetable seeds within the next month.


Gordon Graydon: These people are not interested in the vegetable growers; one can easily see that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, may I not have an answer to that question?


Mr. GRAL DON:: He should have an answer to the question. It has to do with urgent business of everyone.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I always like to answer questions. A delegation from the vegetable growers came to see me this morning. That may be what has prompted my hon. friend's question.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: There is nothing wrong with that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I discussed the matter of fresh vegetables with them. I pointed out that the import restrictions on these vegetables are part of our exchange conservation program, essentially temporary in their nature, but that for obvious reasons it was impossible for me or for anyone else to say how long it would be necessary to keep these restrictions on.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: My question was prompted by a letter which I wrote the Department of Agriculture on January 5.



CANADA-NEWFOUNDLAND REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ACTION OF NEWFOUNDLAND NATIONAL CONVENTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the interest across Canada in our negotiations 
with Newfoundland, and the fact that yesterday its national convention opposed the submission of the confederation plan to the people of Newfoundland, would the government through the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs make a statement to the house so that the country will understand from parliament, rather than from the press so far away, just how the situation now stands, whether or not the door is closed to further negotiations, and the prospect of further confederation discussions?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I will examine carefully the terms of the question that has just been asked by the hon. member and endeavour to have some statement made. The hon. member will realize that the Canadian government stated terms which in its opinion would be fair for union and is taking no part whatsoever in presenting those terms to the people of Newfoundland, nor would it venture to do or say anything which might be regarded there as trying to influence the decision of the free people of Newfoundland.
The information we have is that there was a vote against recommending to the government of the United Kingdom the inclusion on the ballot of any question about union with Canada. The information we have is that this national convention was an advisory body and that its decisions were not binding either on the people of Newfoundland or on the United Kingdom government. We have not received any information of decisions taken since the report in the newspapers of the vote in the national convention.


Gordon Graydon: I take it from the minister's remarks that the door to further negotiations is not definitely closed.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. The offer is still before the people of Newfoundland and before the commission government of Newfoundland.
The national convention has expressed by vote its views, but it is only, as I said, an advisory body and the matter still has to be dealt with by those who have the constitutional responsibility for a decision.



EXCESS PROFITS TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance of which I have had no chance to give him notice. In view of the report appearing in the press that the Minister of Transport intimated that the government was considering an exten-

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
sion of the excess profits tax, will the Minister of Finance say whether any consideration has been given to that by the government?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what report my hon. friend is referring, but if he is referring to the speech I delivered in Kingston, such is not the case at all. What I did say there, and those who were present would confirm it, was simply this, that consideration might well be given to the question. I did not say nor did I indicate in any way whatsoever that the government had considered it.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[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 arising out of an item in today's Citizen regarding the mounted police personnel and the promise made to them by the commissioner some time ago that their salaries would be increased with those of other government employees. Is it the intention to do something by way of increased pay to meet the increased cost of living for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: Consideration is being given to
adjustments of the pay and allowances of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has it been definitely decided to move the Department of Agriculture library from the Confederation building to the experimental farm? If so, could this question be reconsidered?


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question I would say it had been decided to move the librarj' from the Confederation building to what has been known as the Records building at the experimental farm. I understand the question is whether that decision could be reconsidered.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will look into it. I might say that from the question which was
submitted to me I gathered that hon. members have been using the library here and think it would be handier to have it in the Confederation building than away out on the farm. I shall submit the idea to those who have considered it for reconsideration.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, January 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Dion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, at adjournment yesterday I was about to discuss the matter of feed grains or coarse grains.


James Horace King: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Wait until they get the leadership fixed up over there.


James Arthur Ross: Who is in the lead now? I wish to take a moment or two to refer to the feed grain or coarse grain situation in Canada. May I say, that as of October 20, 1947, barley at a given point in Melita netted the producers 80 cents a bushel, less freight, and- handling changes to Fort William; oats netted the producer 54 cents a bushel less these expenses.


James Horace King: Order. May I call attention of hon. members 'to the fact that there is too much noise in the house. It is impossible to hear the hon. member who has the floor.


James Arthur Ross: Then there was a subsidy to feeders in other parts of Canada of 25 cents a bushel on barley and free freight from Fort William east and to some points in British Columbia, and 10 cents on oats. At this particular season of the year livestock production was decreasing in Canada. Price ceilings on coarse grain were lifted as of October 21 and embargoes were kept against coarse grains and beef or pork and other products going to the United States and certain other countries. Today barley is approximately $1.15 net to the producer at Melita and oats 75 cents a bushel, and subsidies are off to -the feeders in other parts of Canada.
On January 2 this year the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) announced the meat prices that would prevail on the contract to Britain. I wish to quote them here, along with a comparison of the meat prices then prevailing in the United States. Bacon, No. 1, United Kingdom contract price $36 pet 100
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross

pounds. The United States price was $66 per 100 pounds. Beef, grade A, $27.50 per 100 pounds United Kingdom and $47 United States. Eggs, 54J cents per dozen United Kingdom and 56 cents per dozen United States. Cheese, 30 cents a pound United Kingdom and 37J United States.
That shows a considerable difference in the then prevailing prices. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the conversation on the other side could be subdued a bit.


Mr. BRADETTE:: There is some on that side too.


James Arthur Ross: At this date the people on the prairies and the farmers generally do not need to be told who pays the bill for tariff protection in this country, taking into consideration these price variations. The Manitoba government, in its submission to the Sirois commission in 1937, placed the burden of tariffs on the three prairie provinces at $29,000,000 annually; but tariffs in 1937 would look like free trade beside the present restrictions. And do not forget the loss in the marketing of wheat which I pointed out in my remarks yesterday.
I have before me a report put out by the dominion Department of Agriculture with regard to the 1947 inspected livestock slaughterings, and Manitoba leads in the loss ratios. I wish to quote a few of them. In Manitoba the decrease in slaughterings of cattle in 1947 as compared with 1946 was 33-7 per cent. The decrease for western Canada was 29-6 per cent, for eastern Canada 9-9 per cent, and the average for Canada was a decrease of 22-5 per cent. In hogs, the decrease in Manitoba was 12-7 per cent and in western Canada 12 per cent, while eastern Canada showed an increase.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor, but I would ask hon. members generally to realize how very disagreeable it must be for one who is trying to be heard, as well as for the Speaker, who is trying to follow the debate, to have so much noise in the chamber. If for some members it is necessary to carry on conversations, there are lobbies on both sides of the chamber expressly for that purpose.


James Arthur Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say that hog slaughterings in eastern Canada showed an increase of 20-4 and for all Canada an average increase of 4-4 per cent. There are many other factors that might be taken into account when you realize the manner in which the people got rid of brood sows and young pigs during the crisis last fall.

In the matter of sheep, Manitoba showed a decrease of 32-6 per cent, western Canada 25-7 per cent and eastern Canada 26-3 per cent, the average percentage decrease on all sheep slaughtered in Canada being 25-3. The total decrease for livestock in Manitoba was 23-1 per cent, in western Canada 19-1 per cent, while there was an increase of 4-4 per cent in eastern Canada and a general decrease of 7-8 per cent across Canada. I do not think there can be any doubt that there has been a decrease in the livestock marketings and slaughterings during 1947.
Moreover, when you realize that the implements of production which the farm producer must purchase can be purchased as cheaply in the United States as in Canada, you realize to some extent the embarrassing position in which these producers have been placed by the present administration.
I should like to refer to a story, an exclusive story, by the Minister of Finance in New Liberty of January 31. May I say first of all that I do not believe the Minister of Finance has done himself justice in the manner in which he has written the story. It has to do with the dollar crisis, which is also referred to in the speech from the throne. I am not going to read the whole of the story, but there are some paragraphs that are pertinent to the situation of the agricultural producers of Canada. On page 5 he says:
At the same time, Europe failed to recover as rapidly as had been hoped and was unable to send us either the kind or quantity of goods that we had been expecting to get. This increased still further our requirements from the U.S.
Then he gives examples. Well, a great many people in this country did not expect Europe to get back on its feet very rapidly after the termination of the war. Then there appears a photograph of an agricultural scene, and the minister points out that Canada spends nearly $60,000,000 a year on United States farm machinery. Under the illustration there is a statement that farmers postponed buying during the war; then started to make heavy purchases in 1946. He seems to be surprised about that. I know that some of his colleagues and members on this side pointed out year after year during the war that on the average western farmers had been purchasing around $50,000,000 of farm machinery annually, and when the war came on they had to stop these purchases.
I wish to make this point, and it is something I have emphasized every year since I have been here. The natural market for our export cattle is the United States. If under the then existing legislation the embargo had

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
not been on since the year 1942, and if we had been allowed to ship 200,000 head of cattle annually to the other side at the prices being paid, our cattle exports would have taken care of that $60,000,000 of farm machinery brought in from the other side, and they would also have met the dollar crisis. There is no argument about that.
When some people tell you that the best market for our meat is Britain, I would point out that in 1939 we shipped to the United States over 201,000 head of cattle, while we shipped only 4,000 to Britain. I emphasize that point. I know there is a discussion ^ in Canada at the present time about upsetting price ceilings. I am sure briefs must have been submitted to the minister, certainly as far back as two years ago, asking that the beef producers be allowed to ship cattle to the United States and that the difference in prices prevailing in Canada and the United States be pooled for future distribution. Surely that is fair enough to the consumers in. Canada, and that submission has been made on more occasions than one.
On another page of the story by the Minister of Finance there appears the following:
How can bans on the import of such articles as washing machines and refrigerators be justified? By no stretch of the imagination can these be termed luxury goods.
I agree, but when I read in an eastern paper that there is a good deal of credit due to a certain member of this house because he was able to lobby with the department and have this 25 per cent tax taken off sporting goods, it does not add up and make sense. We have had a very fine and efficient rural electrification program in Manitoba during the past year or two and I can assure you that the officials of that hydro set-up and the farmers themselves are greatly disturbed by this austerity plan which was announced in November. Those people have been waiting and hoping for the day when they could install electrical machinery and the frigidaires to which they are entitled. More than that, we all know that we over sold things when our boys were overseas and now that these young men have come home and are desirous of setting up for themselves they cannot get what they need for housekeeping. They have that added burden thrown upon them. I protest against this sort of legislation, which is very unfair and unjust at this time.
Further on the minister makes this statement on page 8 of the article in New Liberty:
All taxes are unpleasant and this one is meant to be. The revenue isn't important; the less raised the better.
I do not know how the taxpayers of Canada can follow that statement, but that is a part of the minister's story in the article I have been discussing. I do not wish to deal further with it at this time but I contend that this austerity program is the result of the government's administration of affairs throughout the war years and since. They are solely to blame for the present state of affairs. It could have been avoided if they had listened to some of the requests from this side of the house and from producer organizations in Canada.
I want to make another reference-


James Horace King: I am sorry, but I must call to the attention of the hon. member that his time has expired.


James Arthur Ross: I understood that I had twenty minutes left; and making allowance for my lost time, I have yet ten minutes. May I have two or three minutes to finish?


James Horace King: If the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


James Arthur Ross: The matter of income tax assessment and amendments to the act are also referred to in the speech from the throne. First of all I want to put a few points on the record and to say that in 1945, which was the last complete year for which we have had the assessments brought up to date, Manitoba farmers paid $1,866,950 on a net farm income of $86,500,000. In the same year Quebec farmers paid $59,913 on a net farm income of $155,900,000. Manitoba farmers have also paid six times as much tax proportionately as Ontario farmers. The income tax branch took on 1,900 new employees during 1947, at a time when the number of taxpayers was decreasing greatly owing to raised exemptions; and the people find it difficult to understand that situation. More than that, we have heard much talk about the fictitious surplus of some $650 million collected from the taxpayers of this country during the nine months of the present year.
You will remember that in the prairie provinces we used to have a tax form which consisted of one sheet. We apparently have two different farm systems in Canada. Since January 1 every farm magazine and newspaper in the prairies has been carrying an advertisement asking all the farmers to go to the post office and procure this new form and the book of instructions. With respect to the book of instructions, I want to compliment
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross

the department upon getting it out. I think it is most useful. But I wonder what the farmers are going to say when they get hold of one of these forms. They have been going to the post offices in my riding since January 1, and when I left there the latest information I had was that there were none of these forms in the post offices. Since my arrival in Ottawa I have been able to obtain one, but I am told that it is impossible to procure one in the other provinces in Canada. But when 3nou think of the small form which the farmers used to have to fill out, and compare it with this form, consisting of six pages-each one much larger than the little form which they used to have to fill in-with some fifty-four principal questions and many subsidiary ones, and a financial statement of inventory the equal of anything you will fill out at the bank, it seems ridiculous.


Mr. TIMMINS:: And with the black band.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, and with the black band. I think you are going to have some little difficulty with the farmer producers of these prairie provinces. Right here I want to pay respect to the inspectors I have known who have been assessing farm incomes in my province. They are an agreeable and cooperative group of men who have done their best to acquaint farmers with conditions and to assess them fairly. There is no complaint at all about those individuals. But as I say, to me this is a ridiculous form and one that certainly will not be appreciated by the average farmer who has to file a return. I want to make a protest on behalf of those farmers with respect to such a form as this which is supposed to have been simplified. I have never seen anything more complicated in my life. According to the return last year, out of some 108 inspector's assessing farm income, seventy-nine of these were employed in the three prairie provinces, while twenty-nine were employed in the other six provinces of Canada. Naturally the prairie farmers are wondering why there is this great disparity. I think an explanation is owing to the taxpayers of this country with regard to what I have set forth here.
I want to comment on the cost of living, and to say that in my opinion the appointment of a parliamentary committee on price spreads, or the cost of living, as suggested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is simply having the government hedge on its responsibility to the public. It is simplv a delaying matter and a hide-out for the government who are responsible for this. I want to assure them that under the wartime prices and trade board the transitional measures act of 1947 gives them all the law that is required

to prosecute any profiteer, and it is their responsibility to do so if they know of any such practice prevailing. In that extension there is included P.C. 8528 passed by this government in 1941, and it certainly provides fines and heavy sentences for undue profiteering. That can be found on page 22; and it is the government's responsibility to implement it. I am sure that nobody in Canada will appreciate the fact that the government now offers to set up a committee which will be a hide-out for them from their responsibilties at least for many months or maybe longer. The people of Canada are entitled to something better than that.
When I commenced my remarks yesterday I stated what in my opinion should be done for many veterans in this country. Since then I received in my mail this morning a copy of the February issue of The Legionary in which the dominion command of the organization finds fault with the ten per cent increase and demands that it should be at least twenty-five per cent. They go back to 1926 which was the last time when amendments were made. Without going into further detail, I want to endorse that statement in The Legionary. It appears on pages 10 and 11. I personally endorse it wholeheartedly. It is the least that they can expect. I should like to read two or three lines from page 23:
... to many disability pensioners, and to all the burnt-out men in receipt of war veterans' allowance, the "cost of living" actually means the cost of keeping alive.
And nothing else. Surely we, the citizens of Canada, owe these men at least that much.
I am wholeheartedly behind that brief.
(Translation):


Mr. BONA ARSENAULT (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, on February 6, 1947 I outlined to the house a program for the economic and social reconstruction of the Gaspe peninsula, and of Bonaventure county in particular.
On behalf of my constituents, I explained how government participation in the settlement of our main problems would best ensure the economic stability of Bonaventure county whose best interests are closely allied to those of the whole Gaspe peninsula.
I called the government's attention to the urgency of rebuilding our fishing harbours, repairing our wharves, dredging our seaports, improving our water and railway communications. I also mentioned the utmost necessity of stopping the exodus of our young people by affording them proper opportunities within

The Address-Mr. Arsenault
our own country. To encourage agriculture, I asked the government to establish a dominion experimental farm in Bonaventure county. Finally, I stated that our large and small industries, fishing, farming, logging and mining, should be organized1 in a modern way, as a basis for the economic and social superstructure of our district.
Today, I am happy to state that the present Liberal administration gave us, in so far as it was humanly possible to do so, the co-operation which I requested of the government ever since I first took a seat in the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Bona Arsenault: I shall go even further and say that never in the past has any administration done more in a few short years for the constituency of Bonaventure than the dominion government now in power has achieved.
I grant that because of the great scarcity of various building materials, several contracts given by the Department of Public Works could not be carried out last year, but the situation having improved in that respect, Bonaventure county fishermen and seamen, particularly those of Gascons, Ruisseau-Chapa-dos, Gascons West, Port Daniel, St. Godefroi, Paspebiac, New Carlisle, Bonaventure and Ruisseau-Leblanc will be satisfied with the improvements that will be made to their harbours during the current year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Bona Arsenault: This part of the program which I brought to the attention of the government is therefore being carried out, and I am deeply grateful to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier).
The many improvements which have been made to our Matapedia-Gaspe branch-line, since I was elected, lie outside the scope of my remarks. Yet it is impossible for me to ignore the fact that six railway stations have been rebuilt in Bonaventure county since 1945, that a new Sunday passenger service has been opened, that bridges have been repaired, the railroad improved and more modern rolling stock put into service.
I realize how much credit for that goes to Mr. J. P. Johnson, general manager for the Atlantic region and Mr. J. E. Gauthier, superintendent for the Campbellton division, but I also know that they have been splendidly supported in their efforts to improve our railways by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the members of the Board of Transport Commissioners.
I should like to dwell at some length on another and perhaps more important step in the economic emancipation of Bonaventure county. But first, may I briefly point out to the government and to hon. members of this house the peculiar agricultural situation of this Gaspe region and what measures we are contemplating with a view to solving, in a prompt and practical way, the numerous problems which the farmers of Bonaventure county are facing.
As I have already stated in this house, the county of Bonaventure is first and foremost a farming area.
In 1931, there were 3,884 farms occupied in that county. At the time of the 1941 census, the number had increased by 816, reaching a total of 4,700. The county of Bonaventure ranks fifth among all counties of the province, as regards the number of occupied farms. The county of Abitibi is first, with 7,309 farms, followed by Matane, with 5,525, Beauharnois, with 5,387, Temiscouata, with 5,197 and Bonaventure with 4,700.
As regards the area under field crops, the county of Bonaventure in 1931 ranked thirty-fifth, while in 1941 it was the thirty-first among the 90 provincial counties of Quebec. In total value of livestock, which was $1,540,015 in 1941, Bonaventure held the thirty-fifth place. Four counties only, Bagot, Huntingdon, Shefford and Temiscouata, were ahead of it in 1943, as regards the shipment of calves for the market. It ranked fourth as far as the shipment of lambs was concerned, led only by the counties of Beauce, Lake St. John and Temiscouata.
We export about $600,000 worth of agricultural products per year. More precisely, from June 1, 1942 to June 1, 1943, Bonaventure county exported agricultural products valued at $584,402 as follows:
Vegetables	$	9,706.00
Potatoes	 16,634.00
Fruits	 4,673.00
Dairy products	 113,020.00
Meat	 58,530.00
Eggs	 52,543.00
Livestock	 327,382.00
Hay	 1,914.00

The Address-Mr. Arsenault


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Bona Arsenault: 
Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Hear, hear.


Bona Arsenault: What we have missed most so far is the popularization of technical and scientific agricultural knowledge, as well as the organization of production with a view to satisfying the needs both of local and foreign markets.
There is the soil that must be worked, drained, tilled, fertilized and conserved so that it may go on producing more and more as time goes on.


Pierre Gauthier: Hear, hear.


Bona Arsenault: Then there is the stock to be improved, looked after and controlled, so that it does not become a drain on the farmer's resources, but rather a source of profit to him, as he has a right to expect it to be. There is specialized agricultural production that must be popularized, encouraged, stimulated. There is vegetable or animal production that must be selected, put in order, protected against disease, insects, weeds, etc. Production must be organized.
There are also the supervision of markets and the marketing of products, including grading, packing, distribution as required, the sale in the natural or processed condition, and



194S

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Arsenault
the establishment of proper bodies for the carrying out of such functions, as well as for supplying the implements and equipment required for the successful working of a farm. In brief, it calls for a reorganization of agriculture in the county of Bonaventure and the Gaspe peninsula on a practical and profitable economic basis, by making available to our farmers such experience-tested scientific data as they have lacked so far, by giving them an opportunity of improving their herds, urging them to produce more and in a better way, and encouraging young men to stay on the land and ensure their future.
As early as 1912, the mayors of the county of Bonaventure in a meeting held at the county seat, New Carlisle, were requesting, as the best solution for the agricultural problems of the county, that the public authorities establish a dominion experimental farm, which policy, they pointed out, would afford the Gaspe peninsula all the encouragement justified by the quality of its soil and the fact that it was the oldest centre of Christian civilization in North America.
On February 2, 1914, Hon. Charles Marcil, member for Bonaventure at the time, appealed in this house to the then Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Mr. Burrell, asking him to establish an experimental farm in the constituency of Bonaventure.
I now wish to renew, thirty years later, on behalf of this same constituency, the plea made by the county's mayors in 1912 and the frequent requests voiced by Hon. Charles Marcil in favour of the establishment of a federal experimental farm in the constituency of Bonaventure, as the only means of placing our farming industry on a paying basis, by encouraging our farmers to increase and improve their production and by organizing our agricultural production in terms of the needs of the various local and foreign markets.
I hope the government, at this very session will place at the disposal of the Right Hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the money required for carrying out this undertaking, which is so vital for the constituency of Bonaventure and the Gaspe peninsula.
While there is general appreciation of help given the Canadian farmer, especially in the province of Quebec, by the dominion Department of Agriculture's establishment of experimental farms in Canada, it has possibly not been adequately stressed in this house.
In the Minister of Agriculture, we have a professional farmer, an outstanding technician, ever eager to promote the development of Quebec agriculture.
In the huge task of organizing and managing experimental farms in Canada, he has been wonderfully seconded by Dr. E. S. Archibald who, since he succeeded Dr. Grisdale as director of experimental farms in 1919, has become outstanding in experimental farming.
In recognition of Dr. Archibald's worthy services to Canadian agriculture, the Canadian Geographic Society a few months ago, named a mountain after him in Yukon.
There are four dominion experimental farms in the province of Quebec: at Lennoxville, Sainte Anne de la Pocatiere, Assomption, and Normandin (Lake St. John), and an experimental substation at Sainte Clothilde, in Chateauguay county.
I am firmly confident that buildings will soon be put up to house the Bonaventure county experimental farm, whose work will benefit the whole Gaspe peninsula. It would rank as one of the worthiest federal contributions to the welfare of the people of Bonaventure county and of the whole Gaspe peninsula.
Pierre Gauthier: Hear, hear!


Mr. MICHAUD:: Hear, hear!


Bona Arsenault: Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I want to express a wish, which will be shared, not only by members of the Liberal party, but I am sure by the entire population whatever be their political ties.
At the national Liberal convention, on January 20 last, the prime minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) expressed his wish to relinquish active political life.
The Right Hon. the Prime Minister reiterated statements to this effect and the nationwide publicity given them through the medium of radio and the press have somewhat prepared us to the idea of such a tragic happening.
Nevertheless, the citizens of the whole country and, more particularly, those of the province of Quebec hope against hope that, his health permitting, the Right Hon. the Prime
The Address-Mrs. Strum

Minister will, for many more years, remain at the helm as leader of the Liberal party and prime minister of the Canadian government, in order to guide the destinies of the Canadian nation to still greater heights.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Bona Arsenault: The resignation of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister during one of the most tragic periods of world history, when allied nations are in such need of his moral support, of his sound advice and of his invaluable experience in statesmanship, would have but one parallel: the sudden passing of Franklin Roosevelt a few months before the end of the recent world war.
A Liberal convention may undoubtedly choose a successor to the Prime Minister, but it will be hard to find someone to replace him either at the head of the Liberal party and the government of the nation or in the hearts of all Canadian citizens, regardless of political affiliation.
But should the day come when our country suffers that irreparable loss which would be the retirement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) from active political life, there would remain only one way in which a grateful Canadian nation could fittingly crown the end of a career so fruitful, so rich in accomplishment, so sublime. It would be by designating the right hon. the Prime Minister, through the Canadian government, as the first Canadian governor general of Canada, the country which he loves so much and which thanks to his unceasing work he has placed among the top-ranking nations of the world.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
(Text):


Bona Arsenault: But should' the day
come when our country suffers the irreparable loss of the retirement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) from active political life, there would remain only one way in which a grateful Canadian nation could fittingly crown the end of a career so fruitful and so rich in accomplishment. It would be by designating the right hon. Prime Minister, through the Canadian government, as the first Canadian governor general of Canada, the country which he loves so much and which by his unceasing efforts he has placed among the top-ranking nations of the world.


Mrs. GLADYS STRUM (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the government does not need to be told that the sharp increases in the price of food, clothing and fuel to heat their homes is a very real hardship to millions of Canadian people. Mounting fear goes hand in hand with

mounting prices, and the end is not yet in sight. This serious situation is the result of government action, and the government alone must bear the responsibility for it. Buyers' strikes from coast to coast have sprung up spontaneously to protest the price of beef, bacon and pork, and even Halifax, which last summer sent a Liberal member to instruct the government, saw its city council passing unanimously a resolution urging provincial and federal governments to do something about the constantly rising price of food.
The price ceilings now imposed on a few articles are but a feeble gesture, and even the the government would not claim that it has attempted to attack the problem of high prices. The government's own action is an admission that income has been reduced and that living costs have in effect reduced pensions and other fixed payments. I refer to the government's action in raising the salaries of civil servants, the tables of which are given on page 490 of Hansard, increases which were long overdue, and to the tables increasing the pay of the armed forces. These are a recognition that the responsibility is the government's and that shrinking income is the responsibility of this administration; and so out of the public treasury they have made up the lack of income by these increased payments. But these increased payments have only partly met the needs of people who either are or have been in the armed forces of this country. We still have not adequately cared for the disabled veteran or the widow of the veteran.
I have here the veterans' monthly, The Legionary. It discusses the S10 a month proposed increase and points out that it is completely inadequate. While the increase has been granted to the veteran, there has been no recognition given to the fact that the veteran's wife and' the veteran's children must eat. It is just a flat increase for the veteran, while in the case of the armed forces there is increased pay and increased1 allowance.
There is another group to which the government owes responsibility. I refer to the student veteran. The student veteran finds himself in an exceedingly difficult position. Many of these boys are married. They live in cramped quarters in the veterans villages huddled1 around the university, in Manitoba, for example, at Fort Garry. In these little dwellings the veteran is struggling to do his homework while his wife is struggling to keep the baby quiet. The housing is makeshift. Their income is completely inadequate. In many cases any savings these boys had have been exhausted; they are forced to try to find part-time work, and as a result their

The Address-Mrs. Strum
courses are suffering. The examination results at Christmas indicate that many of them will be asked to leave university.
Not only are the boys suffering but the girls are suffering too. I have in my hand two documents from students at Carleton college. Both girls and boys have the greatest difficulty in pursuing their studies. If the government's policies have caused annuities and pensions and allowances to shrink, the government must come through with increased subsistence payments for these students who are trying to finish college. I have here the names of students and their family conditions. Many of them are married, many of them have children. They are all taking from twenty to forty dollars a month from savings, or borrowing that much from relatives to help them get along. What you do if you have no relatives I do not know. I want to emphasize that if we are going to protect our investment in these veterans we must see to it that we restore the value of their money because our policies have reduced the value of the gratuities that we promised them.
The government itself recognizes that its policy was perhaps not the best one in the world. At the end of December the excess profits tax came off. I have here an interesting quotation from the Journal of January 28, from a speech made by the Minister of Transport at Kingston:
The imposition of a greater excess profits tax deserves careful consideration.
This is a hint that the government may be repenting of its hasty action in removing the excess profits tax in its budget of last year.
I made so many speeches on price control last session that I feel I did my duty in this house by the Canadian family. Last year on March 7, April 21, May l,and again on May 9, I tried in vain to persuade the government to retain price controls and subsidies. We in the C.C.F. anticipated what is now Canadian history. Let us briefly go over the history of price control. The following is taken from the January 25 edition of P.M.:
Canada first placed an over-all ceiling on prices on December 1, 1941, and was probably more successful than any other country in keeping prices virtually stationary throughout the war. The index stood at 115-8 on December 1, 1941, and was only 119-9 on January 1, 1946, five years later, when decontrol started for some items . . . During the past year the cost of living has risen five times as much as it did throughout the four-year period of rigid control.
On April 29 of last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) led the Canadian taxpayer down the garden path with sweet words of tax reduction. His budget was greeted with cheers from all sides. Of course the biggest
and best cheer leaders were the corporations who had been paying excess profits tax. They found that this tax would be removed at the end of 1947. This meant a loss of $279 million to the treasury, but the families of Canada also were offered the bright inducement of "a very definite reduction" in the personal income tax. A wage earner, with two children, earning $1,800 a year would under the new budget pay $4 less than the previous tax levy of $20 in 1947. In 1948 the $20 would be reduced by $10, so a net reduction to the taxpayer of $10, or 50 per cent, would result. A family on $2,500 a year and paying $193 in taxes would pay only $130 at the new rate, a gain of $63. Let us see what this government has cost this family through the removal of subsidies and its decontrol policy. I will list just two items. The amounts of these items used in a year are based on the minimum calculated necessary to maintain good health as laid down by the Toronto welfare council and are based on a family consisting of two adults and two children. We will suppose that the family uses a quart of milk for each child and a pint for the two adults and the government butter ration of half a pound per week per person. The cost last year for milk at 10 cents a quart equals $109.50. This year the increased cost at 17 cents a quart makes the milk cost $185.15, or an increased expenditure of $76.65 on milk alone.
To have consumed just the wartime butter ration of 104 pounds a year would make the cost last year $46.80; but the increased cost this year brings it up to $75.92, an increased expenditure of $29.12. On these two items alone the removal of the subsidy has cost this family $105.77 against a tax reduction of $63, which reveals this family to be $44.77 worse off since the removal of subsidies. If we add to that figure the increased cost of bread, meat, fresh fruits and vegetables it adds up to a staggering argument in favour of subsidies.
I wish to illustrate what happened in relation to meat. Everyone remembers the packers strike. The packers were able to clear their abattoirs of storage meat and take advantage later of a glutted market. The delayed deliveries caused congestion at every shipping point. I remember a shipper telling my husband that in all the years he had bought cattle he had never before had to feed cattle in a stockyard for days on end. Every little country shipping point saw cattle in the stockyards waiting for freight cars to move them out of the west. Markets were depressed as farmers unloaded. This condition was aggravated by the government's announcement of the removal of ceilings for producers of coarse grain and the withdrawal of subsidies for feed
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross

purposes. This completely demoralized the livestock market and the production program. It is very well described in the December 22 issue of Time magazine under the heading "Saskatchewan-vanishing herds." I quote:
Since ceilings were lifted from coarse grains the prices of oats and barley for feed have skyrocketed. While the government thought it over, Saskatchewan dairy farmers, going out ot business, were selling their herds to the United States and Mexico. The province's milk cattle were down 10 per cent. Hogs were being slaughtered while still too scrawny to make sausage meat. Saskatchewan's pigs were off 46 per cent. Any day, any minute, the government was going to have to do something about the uproar in the livestock industry.
I shall be pleased to hear when they do. Then the contracts with Britain merely reacted to intensify this very bad situation. Even before the United Kingdom contracts were announced the government bureau of statistics recorded these increases in food costs. These are taken from the Labour Gazette of December, 1947, taking August 1939 as the base period. They are as follows:
Index
Beef sirloin steak	 180-6
Beef,	rib roast	
197-5Beef,	stewing boneless	
204-3Beef,	rib roast	
207-0Pork,	fresh shoulder	
191-6Bacon side	
194-4Lard, pure	
243-9
These figures are just in the meat field. Rising costs were reflected in every other field of food commodities, as the following will indicate:
Index
Eggs, grade "A" large
Milk	
Butter	
Cheese, plain mild ... Flour, first grade .... Tomatoes, canned ....
Beans, dry	
Corn syrup, lb	
141-3
193-8
245-3
205
I ask the government, is there any cheap food anywhere? There is not. There is no substitute for these expensive foods. Look at the price of vegetables; look at the price of cabbages, turnips and potatoes. Look at the price of beans, macaroni and rice. There is no cheap food any more. Since the removal of the subsidy on bread flour, even bread, which is always the staple article of the poor, is very expensive. These figures just go to illustrate that point.	.
The contracts with the United Kingdom gave another excuse for another round of increases in prices. Milk, meat, butter, fresh fruits and vegetables, as I have mentioned, all reflect rising living costs.
I want for a moment to discuss subsidies, because I think the Canadian people must

make up their minds about subsidies. A subsidy is a device to protect the living standards of the people. According to a recent Gallup poll there is no doubt that the great majority of Canadians want price control. If we have price control we have just two simple choices. We can try to enforce price control below cost or at a reasonable level without subsidies in the face of scarcity. If we do that we shall bring into being a black market which will completely defeat our objective. The other alternative is subsidies. When we pay subsidies to producers we maintain an industry, we achieve distribution and we underwrite consumption.
On April 2, 1947, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley), then Minister of Finance, in answering a question asked by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) gave a monumental statement that has been used in this house many times. He listed the costs of administering the wartime prices and trade board and the cost of subsidies paid under it. I think the answer should go along with the tables and therefore I am going to use it again in spite of the fact that it has been used many times.
The hon. member for Stanstead and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had asked questions with regard to the cost of subsidies. These were the answers given. The Minister of Finance at that time said that the wartime prices and trade board administration cost $12,000,000 annually; the wartime prices and trade board subsidies and trading losses cost $84,000,000 annually; the agricultural subsidies cost $65,000,000 annually; remission of duties cost roughly $5,000,000 annually, and the coal subsidies $5,000,000 annually. The total costs approximated $186 million annually, or $930 million for the five years. In summing up he said this:
On this basis, the Canadian consumer would have had to pay $8 billion for goods and services for which, under price control, he actually paid only $6-5 billion, a saving of $1-5 billion a year for five years.
In addition to this, the government as a huge purchaser of goods and services, itself saved money because the price control program was in effect. Mr. Ilsley estimated this saving -to the government alone at one billion dollars a year
Putting the two savings together, they totalled $2-5 billion annual saving for a total expenditure of less than $200 million annually.
Coming down out of the dizzy heights of billion dollar finance, what Mr. Ilsley said was this:
Every time the government spent a dollar on maintaining price ceilings, it saved the country more than $12.50.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt for a minute?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Yes.

The Address-Mrs. Strum
'Mr. ILSLEY: I remember clearly that at the time I said that I took great pains to indicate that I was using a very theoretical basis for that figure. That is the reason the quotation begins "On this basis". It was on the assumption, an assumption which I made it clear might or might not have been correct, that there would have been the same rate of increase in prices during this war as there was during the last war over a similar period. I was pressed very strosgly to give those figures, and for those reasons I made it abundantly clear that I was going on a theoretical assumption.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even half that saving would have been a good investment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: From the way my bon. friend has presented the case I would get the impression that I had stated that as a fact, that that saving had been made.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: The minister was stating it in defence of the wartime prices and trade board and justifying the existence of it and the economy of it, and I think he was justified in that defence. There is nothing new about the payment of subsidies. Grants out of the consolidated revenue funds of the provinces are made in aid of education. There are municipal taxes on property, but every province in Canada pays a subsidy'- to education out of its revenues. The family allowance is a subsidy paid by the Canadian people as a recognition of their investment in the children of the nation. Old age pensions and mothers' allowances are in effect subsidies and, as I have demonstrated, food subsidies are a saving even to the persons paying income tax, the persons who are supposed to be paying all the taxes. As the Minister of Finance so well pointed out last year, as individuals and as a nation, subsidies are the cheapest and most equitable method of insuring ourselves against inflation.
In spite of the troubles, the shortages, and the great difficulties in Great Britain, and in spite of the fact that they have to import most of their food, Great Britain continues to protect the British family with the device' of subsidies. I might quote from the Ottawa Citizen of December 2 where it points out in a table that the retail price of flour there is 7 cents per pound, the subsidy being half that amount or 3i cents; and milk, sugar, cheese, margarine and tea are the examples quoted here, all of which are heavily subsidized in order to protect the nutritional standards of the British people.
Recently we have been treated to very wordy discussions of the new trade ngree-5849-43
ments, and we are told a lot about our import restrictions. We are finding out the result of the excise taxes. I had a very interesting experience in my constituency in December, and I decided that there must be some leaks somewhere in the government because one of my constituents went to town on Saturday and found that the price of a certain sleigh had jumped $20 and the price of a tractor over $500 and it was not until the next Monday that the government's announcement came out. The Cockshutt people knew the week before, but the Canadian public did not know until Monday, and this increase of $20 on the sleigh meant that my constituent cancelled his order for that sleigh, while the increase of over $500 on the tractor meant that the order for that tractor was cancelled.
These increases in prices are devices for controlling consumption all right, and no doubt they will to some extent control imports into the country. But it is a very peculiar device, a peculiar kind of rationing, because there is no equality in rationing of that kind and the person who needs the article most may not be able to buy it, while the person to whom money does not mean nearly so much will have it made available to him.
I was greatly interested in pricing electrical equipment in Ottawa, things such as toasters, mix-masters, irons and the ordinary every day equipment in the home. They all suffer from the imposition of the taxes. It means a great deal to those who are setting up homes and adding bit by bit to their equipment. It will be very hard for young people to buy these things at the advanced prices.
Sometimes we think that the families of Canada who are in these unhappy circumstances do not make up a very large proportion of the population, but I find in the 1946 Canada Year Book that, according to the 1941 census, of a population of over
11,500,000	there are nearly two and one half million families totalling over 9,000,000 persons. Families are listed as families having both husband and wife living at home. When you go over the tables that give the income ratings, and when you hear the Minister of Finance say, as he said last year, that more than half the people escape income tax because they do not reach the taxable level, you can understand what the government's policy has done to their food budget, their clothing budget and the replacement of equipment for which they have waited throughout the long years of the war. You can understand that they view with alarm the prices which are steadily mounting, and you can also understand the
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

representations of the Canadian consumers association, which is a non-political body representing the women of all the great organizations of Canada. There is nothing radical about them. They represent those large national organizations that have come together to set up the Canadian consumers association, and you can understand why they are asking for price control and subsidies and why they demand that these things be regulated.
I think it is time we gave decent Christian burial to the antiquated, pagan, classical economic theory of Adam Smith which teaches that if each individual seeks his own best interests the result will be the greatest good to the community. It is not true, and yet we insist on applying it. We insist on allowing powerful groups and individuals to persuade us away from good legislation, and we permit them to alter government policy. At this time, when there is so great a demand on production, when we are still supplying tremendous quantities of goods to Europe, and in the face of the proposed Marshall plan, which will continue to put pressure on prices and will continue to divert goods, we have no business permitting the Canadian economy to take this turn.
I say that the government has failed in its duty, and the Canadian people know it. This gesture to set ceilings at unjustifiably high price levels is no remedy and no excuse, and the Canadian people know that also.
Mr. JOHN R. MacNICOL (Davenport): It is my intention to deal briefly with two problems which I am convinced are major problems in the affairs of this country. Number one is the St. Lawrence seaway, and number two is the serious oil situation in Canada. I chose the St. Lawrence seaway because of a statement made in the United States senate, I believe on Monday, by one of its most brilliant and capable members, Senator Lodge. In it he made a certain remark. Perhaps I had better quote it to have it exactly right. I am quoting from the Ottawa Citizen of last evening.
Lodge commented that the treaty of 1932 which was defeated in the senate in 1934 had never been approved by the Canadian parliament and that the present agreement had not gone through parliament.
There was no reason then nor now to be convinced that the project would gain the approval of Canada's parliament, Lodge said.
I may say that the import of what the senator said is correct, namely, that the seaway matter did not come before parliament in 1932. I was here then. In 1932 I remember very strongly protesting that we might at any hour of the session be called upon to discuss

the seaway question but had not been given any information by the government of the day. I can say the same thing today. If the bill before the present session of the United States senate passes, the St. Lawrence seaway treaty may be pitchforked into this house at any time. If so, how many of the members of this house are familiar with the simple rudiments of all the engineering and other matters that pertain to the St. Lawrence seaway? I feel now, as I have felt for quite some time, that the government should have done either one of two things. They should have set up a special committee to find facts and figures pertaining to the whole problem of the St. Lawrence seaway, I do not mean for the purpose of enabling members of the house to criticize it or support it, but at least to enable this house and our own senate to become familiar with the problem. I feel that we should do that now. We should set up a committee to study the whole problem of the St. Lawrence seaway. Or if the government cannot do that or does not feel disposed to do it, I would suggest that they purchase for every member of this house and of the senate the minutes of the United States senate with regard to the St. Lawrence seaway. I have in my hand a copy of them. They are most complete and full and give a mountain of information with regard to the whole problem. At least one of those two things should be done.
I remember saying to myself in 1932 if this problem came into the house-I was in favour of it, and am in favour of it now; I have no hesitation in saying that-I was not at that time qualified to talk on it. I am not going to discuss now the pros and cons as to whether we should or should not favour it. While I am in favour of it, I do not want to enter into that at the moment. Following 1932 and for the fifteen years thereafter, I myself have made a most exhaustive survey and inquiry into the whole problem. I have covered the entire watershed from the east to the west, right from the height of land both north of lake Superior and west of it, from where the waters of the basin start in the primal springs in that watershed. I followed those waters right down to where they mingle with the tidal waters in lake St. Peter in the province of Quebec. That is a distance of close to 1,500 miles, for it is 1,200 and some odd miles from Fort William to Montreal. I have made an accurate survey of all the problems in connection with the lakes, the connecting rivers between the lakes, the harbours on the lakes, the falls on the rivers between the lakes and the international seci ion of the

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
St. Lawrence river itself right down, to lake St. Louis. If the bill were brought into this house I would feel competent to discuss it from almost any angle, but it is not my intention to do that today.
In today's paper I read a statement made by a senator yesterday, which statement I believe should have something said about it. In this morning's Ottawa Journal the senator is quoted as saying that if the canal were built at would be an ice-way instead of a seaway. I have lived on several main areas of the St. Lawrence seaway. When I was a boy I lived in the village of Iroquois at the very head of navigation on the main river; later, in the beautiful town of Prescott which is so well represented by my friend the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman); later, on the shores of the St. Mary river west of Sault Ste. Marie, and for most of my life on the shores or in the proximity of lake Ontario. While this senator calls it an iceway, I can tell him or anyone else that for at least eight months of the year-240 days is the sailing season, or the number of days that men are engaged to operate ships-that seaway is anything but ice. It is a fine waterway all the way along, and for only a short period of the four serious months in the wintertime is there no navigation thereon. I do not know of any other waterway in the world in the same latitude which is as free from ice as is the St. Lawrence waterway.
As I said, I do not intend to enter into many of the details in connection with the program. I am in favour of it because I am convinced from long study and travel that it would be a great advantage to Canada. I believe it would be the same advantage to the United States, but it is perhaps not for me to say that. Even today, with our 14-foot St. Lawrence canals, which control the size of the ships in terms of draft, the traffic over the St. Lawrence waterway is just a little less than 9.000,000 tons a year. That is a fine tonnage. If the canal were built, all the evidence which has been submitted before the senate committee at Washington indicates that the tonnage would be up to approximately 25,000,000 tons a year. I believe those are the figures that ex-President Herbert Hoover used in his remarks when he appeared before the senate committee. It would be a great thing for Canada and a great thing for the United States. Everywhere I travelled in western United States and in our own west, I found almost unanimous support for the St. Lawrence waterway.
When one stops to think what it would mean in relation to power, he finds it is simply colossal. At the power house which is to be erected at Barnhart island approximately 5849-43J
2,200,000	horsepower will be developed, of which one-half would be for Ontario and would be taken by the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission, while the other half would go to the state of New Y'ork. That would mean a great saving in coal for both Canada and New York. The coal and oil value of 2,200,000 horsepower of electrical energy is almost staggering. In oil it means approximately 20,000,000 barrels on each side of the line, or a total of 40,000,000 barrels. Some put the figure higher; some may put it a little lower; but if we take it at 40,000.000 barrels that is a tremendous amount of oil, and if we had it today it would largely solve our fuel oil shortage, both in the United States and in Canada. As far as coal is concerned it would mean approximately from five to five and a half million tons on each side of the line, which would be a very great thing for both Canada and the United States.
Personally I cannot see why anyone should oppose the St. Lawrence waterway, if for no other reason than the figures I have just quoted in regard to coal and oil. As to employment, over a period of four or five years-though I think it will take longer-it would mean an average employment for every day of the year, though it would be higher in summer than in winter, of approximately 11,500 men. That is quite a number of men, and a great deal of employment. That estimate has to do with the work on the canal itself; and I am sure it would mean as much employment, if not more, in the factories making the materials which would go into the construction of the canal, such as steel, cement and everything else. It would be a gigantic work-producing program, and I for one hope it passes the United States senate. Certainly if it comes into this house I will support it here.
I make that statement after a long and exhaustive study of the matter. When I went to the southwestern United States last fall I took with me this volume of six or seven hundred pages I have in my hand, and it is the second or third book I have studied word by word in relation to the St. Lawrence waterway. So I feel that at least I should be able to take a humble part in any discussion of that question in this house. I know that the additional distribution in Ontario of 1,100,000 horsepower of electrical energy would greatly increase the industrial activity of this province and, in proportion, would increase the number of men employed in our factories. It would also help the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec, because they would be able to retain some of the power which now they so generously sell to us in Ontario, and the use of power would be evened up. So for these
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

several reasons, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I would be in favour of the St. Lawrence waterway.
Even with our limited canal depth at the present time, and the fact that the harbours along the great lakes have been built more or less in accordance with the draft of the ships that ply the St. Lawrence waterway today, a great commerce has developed; and a deeper draft fh the canal would give a gigantic impetus to the grain trade of this province. That is a subject on which I shall be making a speech by and by, so I need say nothing more about it today except that it has already meant a great deal to this province in the transshipping and processing of grain. I have also in mind a survey I made of the elevators at the head of the lakes and a computation of what I was informed each elevator handled. The capacity of the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur is approximately 150,000,000 bushels. I doubt if there is another port in the world with the elevator capacity of Fort William and Port Arthur. So, after studying all the complexities of the problem and making allowance for the arguments against it, for there are some; after assessing the value of those arguments, I am convinced one hundred per cent that the arguments for the St. Lawrence waterway far outweigh those against it.
Now for a short time I want to talk of another matter; that is, the fuel problem in Canada. I have advocated in this house previously, and do so again without hesitation, that Canada should have a national fuel policy to include both oil and coal. The time is long past when we should have measured up to our responsibilities and made every effort to defend the people of Canada against just what they are now experiencing, a shortage of oil. I do not know what we are going to do about it now, but I can see nothing short of disaster unless this country does something to meet the problem. I remember suggesting in this house some years ago that we should devote our utmost energy to the development of our fuel resources. I am glad to say that today they are commencing to do this in the United States, and I hope our government will take a leaf out of the book of that country and make an honest effort to ascertain every possible source of fuel in this country, and to conserve our fuel. In the Christian Science Monitor of a day or two ago I read a comment on the fuel shortage and the proposal by some United States senators that exports of oil to Canada should be banned. That would be nothing short of a tragedy. I use oil in my own home. I am away much of the time, but I leave the burner operating, of

course cut down a great deal, and my janitor calls to see that it does not stop running. I cannot conceive what would happen if my oil supply were cut off. I may add I do not expect it will be, because I deal with a very high-class company which will not take on more customers than they can supply. They have a contract with me and I harm a contract with them, so I have nothing to fear. The fact is, however, that the oil shortage has materially interfered with the installation of oil burners in Canada and with the activities of the factories in this country producing those burners, and that has had its effect on the labour market. Here is the reference to the remarks of the secretary of the interior, whom I had the great pleasure of meeting last fall at a big convention in Phoenix, Arizona:
Julius A. Krug, secretary of the interior and the nation's watchdog over its resources, has [DOT]advised significantly full steam ahead on the development of synthetic fuels.
Then he goes on to recommend an investment of $9,000 million in projects to produce synthetic fuels, and mentions a small pilot plant at Rifle, Colorado. When I left last fall, after the house closed, I had made arrangements through the secretary's department at Washington, where I have a friend, to visit the small fuel oil pilot plant referred to, at Rifle, Colorado; and I did so. That plant is situated about 177 miles west of the city of Denver. I will not forget that trip, because I had forgotten to take gum to chew or batting for my ears. Two engineers accompanied me. from Denver, one the chief of the industrial department of the Rio Grande and AVestern railway, and the other the chief of the industrial department of the state of Utah. The latter had come to meet me at Denver, and we rode by motor from Denver to Salt Lake City. Neither of them had any gum or batting to put in their ears. And before we got over those high mountains, ranging from 9,000 to 14,000 feet, we were all deaf. It was a month before I could hear properly. If hon. members "have never had that experience and wish to go over the mountains of Colorado, I would strongly advise that they take both gum and cotton batting so that they may be able to hear afterwards.
I made a careful examination of the synthetic plant at Rifle, and found in it great encouragement. In that vicinity are found the Rifle shale oil resources, of which I hold a sample in my hand. That shale oil resource is
1,000	square miles in extent, and each square mile has a capacity of 300,000,000 barrels of oil. This means that in that one area at Rifle there would be a capacity of about 300,000,000,000 barrels of oil. That is why it is

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
stated in this article that they have enough shale oil resources in that area to produce fuel oil for a thousand years to come.
We have shale oil in Canada, too, but how much it is I do not know. I have in my hand a sample I procured in New Brunswick two years ago. I believe it was in the county of Albei t. This sample looks to me just as good as the Colorado shale. If there is a considerable quantity of it in New Brunswick there is no reason why we should not be building a pilot plant to perfect experimentation in producing oil from shale.
We shall have to produce oil from every possible resource. At Rifle they have two gigantic retorts, each with a capacity of about forty tons. It takes eighteen hours for the shale to burn from the top to the bottom. Perhaps I might add that the retorts are upside down and the fire burns down. When the fire burns to the bottom, all that is left of the shale is cinder, with all the oil extracted from it. They are producing there at a rate of fifteen to thirty gallons of oil per ton of shale put into the retorts. I compliment them upon their energy and their foresight in making surveys in every direction to defend themselves against any future disaster.
I spoke to one man who, although he was not connected with the government, knew what he was talking about. I said to him, "Why are you so anxious to produce oil here?" "Well," he said, "during the war our ships were sunk on the Atlantic and on the Pacific. But if another war comes along they will not be able to sink our land ships. We will never be caught without oil again."
I compliment them upon their energy and upon their program of trying to save themselves from disaster. I should hope that we would do the same thing in Canada. Everyone knows that the production of oil appears to be shrinking. Whether that shrinkage will prove disastrous, no one can tell. We have some oil in Canada. In 1944 this country produced over 10,000,000 barrels, most of which came from Turner valley. However, in 1946 we produced about 2,000,000 barrels less than that, showing that our production had gone down. I do not know whether production has recovered recently, or whether present production will make up for the shrinkage in other areas.
I say the government should make every possible effort to find oil in Canada, if it can be found. If it cannot, then we shall have to turn to our great coal resources. Perhaps in this connection I should place on Hansard our coal record, as it is found at page 15 of a publication put out by our own government
under heading, "Coal Reserves of Canada". The profitable and possible amounts of coal that can be dug in Canada are as follows:
Province	Quantity
Tons
Nova Scotia	 1,557,203,000
New Brunswick	 50,690,000
Ontario	 75,000,000
Manitoba	 50,400,000
Saskatchewan	 12,065,440,000
Alberta	 23,93* ,150,000
British Columbia	 9,415,018,000
Yukon	 942,200,000
Northwest Territories	 1,314,880,000
Let me state frankly that, while we have some coal in Ontario, it is of low grade, and I do not know whether it will be developed.
I believe that in this province we ought not to depend too much upon our coal resources. The Saskatchewan coal is known as lignite coal, and is of good quality.
A few days ago the secretary of the interior of the United States pointed out that they could produce oil from coal, through extraction by hydrogenation. If they can do it, so can we. In this connection I am informed that the coal in Nova Scotia would be particularly suitable for the yielding of oil from the hydrogenation process.
The point I make is that today this country's oil supply is in such utter jeopardy that no effort should be lost to obtain oils and fuels from all possible sources. Of course we have to have oil, as well as coal. We know that during t.he late war the Germans produced about 300,000,000 barrels of oil a year from their coal; and they have only a low-grade brown coal which would not compare at all in quality with either the coal found in Alberta or that found in other parts of Canada.
I remember referring last year to the Alberta Hard Coal Company which had been trying to organize the shipment of high-grade coal from the foothills of Alberta. I wished them every success at that time, and I repeat it now. I do not know what progress they are making today, and I have not seen the manager, Mr. Mervyn Brown, who is himself an ex-Albertan, having been mayor of Medicine Hat, However, I wished him every possible success, and if his company is operating I trust his success will continue.
I hope the government will endeavour to institute a national fuel program. If anything happened to the transportation facilities which must be used to bring coal from Alberta and Nova Scotia to Ontario, or if we were unable to obtain it from either source, I am wondering just what a box we would be in. If we had not our imports from the United States we would certainly be in a bad position. So
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

I urge the government to make every possible effort to initiate a national fuel program. Millions of tons of coal should be stored in our large cities. Why should we not send down from Alberta and up from Nova Scotia thousands of cars of coal a year for storage in the great cities of Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, London and other cities around our great lakes? We shall have to do something to save the people of this countiy from a possible disaster caused by the lack of fuel oil and coal required to keep our homes warm. We have ample supplies of coal here in Canada and certainly we should use them.
I remember a few years ago promoting the extraction of oil from the oil sands of Alberta. I shall not thresh old straw at the moment but might mention that, having learned that they had tar sands in Utah, after great difficulty in ascertaining how to get to their tar-sand mines, I finally was able to arrange a trip to Vernal, Utah, where the tar sands are located. They look to me very much the same as we have in Alberta, although not to anything like the same extent as our tar sands. We have enough tar sands in Alberta to prevent us from worrying about oil for a thousand years to come if we can only develop them.
Vernal is a beautiful little city, and the mayor and council whom I met were very kind to me. The pilot plant at Vernal is much like the one we used to have at Fort McMurray before the government destroyed it during the war, and on which the government had lost, I believe, approximately $2,000,000 in operating it as a government plant. I saw oil extracted at Vernal, but not in large quantities because it is only a pilot plant ; 'but they were so well pleased with the results from that pilot plant .that the mayor and the rest of the other folks I met there told me that their next program was to build a 10,000 barreha-day plant. If we had a
10,000	barrel-a-day plant operating on our tar sands, think what that would mean to this country! So I would again urge the minister of reconstruction (Mr. Howe), if that is the right way to describe him, to look over the possible fields for the production of oil and coal in this country to promote the advancement of 'Canada, and defend our people from possible disaster through lack of coal and oil.
I do not know, Your Honour, that I need say anything more. These are, in my judg-

ment, two major problems for Canada to solve. I conclude by saying that I hope that the United States congress will pass the St. Lawrence seaway bill and that it will come before us here in due course, and finally, if ' the minister of reconstruction does me the honour to read what I have said, I hope that he will look into the possibilities of .the production of oil in this country and a greatly expanded production of coal.
(Translation) :


Mr. REAL CAOUETTE (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I listened with special interest to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis). His address contained timely suggestions. The hon. member expounded good ideas on behalf of Canadian farmers, especially those of Quebec. The people of this country long for the time when the government will adopt a policy calculated to be of some help. Then the hon. member made a plea for a class of society which includes many unfortunate people, that is the invalids and the crippled, who are not now granted a pension. For eight years, there has been a demand throughout Canada and especially in the province of Quebec for the payment of a generous pension to them. As the hon. member said yesterday, and I am in complete agreement with him, parliament should, during this session, pass an act granting a generous pension to our invalids and cripples.
A few days before, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) had mentioned the urgent need of reform in the department of Finance. To the bureaucrats now employed, let us substitute other bureaucrats. Such is the reform advocated. He took good care not to elicit the matter. What are presently the necessary reforms in the financial field? For the past twelve years Social Crediters have been explaining in the House of Commons, the philosophy and technique of Social Credit. Never has the government deemed advisable to try at least to solve our problems by the methods proposed by Social Crediters.
Mr. Speaker, some time ago, we had some kind of monetary reform. A few years ago, for instance, the large copper cents were called in and replaced by smaller ones; the small silver five-cent piece was replaced by a larger one, coined out of nickel. This kind of reform will not greatly improve living conditions in Canada. We need something more definite. We need some reform which will help all Canadian citizens. Mr. Speaker, such mone-

The Address-Mr. Caouette
tary reform is of prime importance. All sorts of reforms are advocated, the reform of institutions as well as moral reforms, but when the need for monetary reform is mentioned, we are told that it does not make sense. One must not talk about monetary reform.
Yet, in 1935, the leader of the present government said these words which I shall quote again this year:
Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury once in control will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to the government, and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament is idle and futile.
Mr. Speaker, this year again no mention is made in the speech from the throne of restoring to parliament its supremacy, or of depriving the controller of our economic blood of his discretionaiy power to issue currency and credit at will and, thereby, to exercise his control over the life of each and every Canadian, including the members of this house. It is high time this government committed itself to a reform which will once and for all restore to parliament its sovereign prerogatives and make democracy secure.
Opinions differ as to the meaning of true democracy. Democracy has been discussed for many years, in fact since Canada is a nation. Its virtues are being extolled in high-sounding phrases, but very few people know the real meaning of the word.
By democracy, most of us understand a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Such a definition is far from complete. Democracy implies something else. It implies the idea of service and common good. Democracy must also be the servant of the people; a democratic government must see that our citizens have enough to eat and benefit from the abundant resources of the country. Such is democracy. Mr. Speaker, we may have a government of the people, by the people and for the people in certain constituencies, but in others we have it not. For instance, at election time some people will resort to "telegraphs" electoral bribery and sundry other vote-getting practices. That is not democracy. It is not the type of democracy we fought to uphold, nor is it the kind we want for ourselves. During an electoral campaign, some persons-Catholics at that, and the very ones who advocate great Christian principles-will stoop to scandal-monger-ing and to spreading 'the very worst in ordter to gain votes and secure power.
Mr. Speaker, democracy is something nobler and greater. We want a government of the people, by the people and for the people. However, if we want such a government everyone must play his part and do his share. A democracy comprises three main groups: first, the voters; second, the people's representatives and third the government. In a democracy, each of those groups has its functions and responsibilities. It is useless to hope for a democratic government when one of them shirks its duty. For the past several years, we have been told that we can expect good results from democracy. We certainly have rights to assert, to claim and to enforce, but, Mr. Speaker, in a democracy we also have duties. We shall now see what duties devolve upon each of those groups and which they must endeavour to respect.
For instance, electors cannot be considered solely as a mere voting-machine, as many seem to think. The electors constitute a strength and they must make use of their power. Electors are citizens like the rest of us. In a democracy, the electors should not support a candidate solely because he sets himself up as a saviour, nor should they support a government that claims to be such. Electors must keep a sharp eye on their representatives, regardless of political ties. The main duty of the people is to keep an eye on their representatives, to ask for results and not to suggest methods. It is not for them to recommend methods. They send us here to carry out their wishes for the purpose of the results they demand. Voters want results, and that is why they send us letters and make representations. Recently, we have been receiving more and more representations because the electors are organizing not only in the province of Quebec, but all over the country. We must, of necessity, ask for all that our constituents request and all that Canada's physical potentialities make feasible. The aspect of financial possibilties will be dealt with later.
Therefore, the function of the electorate in a democracy is to keep a sharp eye on its representatives and to inform them of its objectives as well as of the results they expect from them. The electorate will never ask for a noose to put around its own neck, nor will it
The Address-Mr. Caouette

call for anything it does not want or for what might be harmful. The people know what they require and seek what is beneficial to them, to their families and to all the citizens of the country.
The second group, consisting of elected representatives, also has its function and duties. We are bound to call for what our constituents ask of us and to put their requests before the government, persistently and tirelessly. Has anyone ever seen this policy applied in the past? No, never.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I interrupt the hon. member's sermon?


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member will wait his turn to speak.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He's afraid.


David Réal Caouette: Let him choose his ground.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall never go out of my way to listen to you outside this house. It is my bounden duty to be here.


David Réal Caouette: The same holds for the hon. member for Temiscouata.
Mr. Speaker, the duty of members is to ask the government for what the voters require of the members.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let us hear about the communist-crcditers whom one is meeting everywhere outside the province of Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: Let us hear rather about your Liberal jail and your Liberal caravan in Temiscouata county.


James Horace King: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I maintain that members must represent their constituents in Parliament. As regards the attacks of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) against the Union des Electeurs in his county, which has been putting pressure on him for the past two, three, four or even five years in the House of Commons, let me say that the member for Temiscouata has no respect for organized voters in his constituency.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not listen to them, they're a bunch of crackpots.


David Réal Caouette: Which is no doubt why you represent them here, seeing that the electors are usually represented here by those who are like them.


Jean-François Pouliot: They are not very numerous and they are all batty.


David Réal Caouette: And they have a like representative.


James Horace King: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when some members are at the service of the electoral funds or of certain political parties, they are not free men at the service of their constituents. There are some who fit this description. For instance, on the 21st of January we had the trial of five Montreal bandits who had committed acts of violence during the Sorel election. These men pleaded guilty to having knocked out Mr. Louis Evan and to having illegally detained Mr. Gerard Mercier.


An hon. MEMBER:: When?


David Réal Caouette: One wonders at times like that whether democracy really exists in Canada.


Mr. LESAGE:: When did they plead guilty?


David Réal Caouette: And if, at'least, those people who claim they are imbued with great principles of Christianity or of Christian charity put them in practice in due course rather than forget them to resort to electoral schemes of which the people are well aware. But no, those people who claim to be steeped in Christian ideals and Christian charity are but whited sepulchres, since when the time comes to act according to those principles, they forget them and fall back on dishonest and scandalous electoral practices.


James Horace King: I draw the attention of the hon. member for Pontiac to standing order 41 which reads as follows:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive language against either house, or against any member thereof.
I therefore ask the hon. member to act accordingly.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is of no importance whatsoever since the hon. member does not know what he is talking about.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by the rules of the house, at your request, and I shall be respectful in my attitude as I always try to be.
Mr. Speaker, the function of the government in a democracy is to call for technicians and to instruct them to bring about the results

The Address-Mr. Caouette
which the people expect. Technicians should always be engaged for the specific purpose of reaching the objectives which the people have in mind.
Mr. Speaker, the government does not act democratically when it inflicts on the people burdens to which they object. It is also undemocratic for members to request measures to which the people are opposed. It is our bounden duty to call for what the electorate wishes, and we all know what that is, namely, freedom and security.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Last year, we introduced a program. This year again, I had the Electors Union platform put on the order paper: notice of motion No. 38 calls for tax exemption on all income of less than $3,000 per annum; a pension of $60 per month to every person of sixty years of age or more; a pension of $60 per month to every invalid of full age and, finally, a national dividend of $20 per month to every citizen of this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not enough!


David Réal Caouette: This program should be put into force without any increase in taxation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Without taxes?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Let them jeer, Mr. Speaker. We shall not depart from this program. Those who make fun of it today may have to approve of it tomorrow.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will never get to the end of it, that is true.


David Réal Caouette: Likewise many things which were rejected yesterday are admitted now. When we advocated pensions for disabled and invalid persons, we were held up to ridicule. But the same proposals carry more weight today because they are sponsored by them. There are still many people in this country who will find fault with any idea originating in somebody else's mind. Unless they have thought of it first, it has no merit.
Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Union des Electeurs and of the Social Credit party can be carried into effect. I realize that it would be impossible to achieve such programs within our present financial framework. But there is a call for the reform of our financial system from many quarters. The hon. member for Temiscouata is asking for reform in the 5849-44
Department of Finance. Let us carry out such reforms and put a curb on any corrupt practices, so as to clear the road for implementing the policies of the Union des Electeurs and Social Credit. It is only logical to relieve of taxes all income below $3,000 a year.
To tax the income of bachelors earning $750 a year and1 married people earning $1,500 seems illogical to me. It is inhuman to make such inroads upon the family budget. We must, of necessity, force the government to modify their income tax policy. Let them remove taxes on all income below $3,000 per annum. Last year, when we advocated the same program, we were still held up to ridicule. But there has been some small change since then.


An hon. MEMBER:: There has been no change at all.


David Réal Caouette: Since that time, Mr. Speaker, their excellencies the bishops of the province of Quebec have met in Quebec city and suggested that any annual revenue under $3,000 should be tax-free. Immediately, the next day, I read a statement by an official in which it was said that this was none of the bishops' business. I have not seen any statement defending our bishops' stand on this question.
Mr. Speaker, the second point is that of old age pensions of sixty dollars per month payable at sixty years of age. We owe this pension to our old people. There are some young members here, and I am one of them, and we must guarantee our old people not a pension which will enable them to starve to death quickly, but a generous pension, one which will enable them to live in comfort, from sixty on.
The third point in this program is the following: Let he who is crippled or invalid receive a pension of sixty dollars per month as soon as he comes of age. That too is admitted by all.
There are at least three points in this program that are admitted, of which the last is the national dividend. That is more difficult. How are we going to distribute this dividend? Where will we find the money? Will we have to resort to taxation?
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) made a speech in his constituency in which he said that the total production
6S2

The Address-Mr. Caouette
and purchasing power of this country amounted to six billion dollars and he added that it was impossible ever to distribute a national dividend. The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet is not well informed about the total production in Canada, because it reaches a yearly figure not of six but of twelve billion dollars, and the total amount of money in the country barely exceeds five billion dollars. As a matter of fact the figure is $5,500,000,000.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I must say that in my speech I did not make the statement which my learned friend has just mentioned.


David Réal Caouette: I accept that denial, on the assumption that it is correct.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I said that the amount of money in circulation exceeded, at the time I spoke, the whole quantity of consumers' goods available. That opinion has been confirmed during this debate by none other than the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) who is the leader of my learned friend in this house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the explanation given by my hon. friend from Montmagny-L'Islet, I must say that I took my figures in the official statistics of Canada. I have every reason to believe they are accurate. If not, I am not to blame. However, we know that the total production in this country reaches a value of twelve billion dollars a year, that Canada's national income in 1947 has been about $8,500,000,000. That makes a difference of nearly four billion dollars in the total purchasing power.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Would my hon. friend allow me a question?


David Réal Caouette: A little later.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: On that matter


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker,- '


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Will the hon. member permit me a question?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker,-


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Do not forget that the national income is not the amount of money in circulation.


David Réal Caouette: My hon. friend will
admit that I do not have to read my speech.


An hon. MEMBER:: What do you hold in your hands, then?


David Réal Caouette: Only notes.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: Talk about the elimination of taxes.


David Réal Caouette: The constant interruptions of my hon. friends do not disturb me in the least. If they wish to know why, I may tell them that I had the privilege of visiting most of their constituencies in 1947. They do not like it at all when they see their constituents organizing. They cannot conceive that constituents can look after their own interests. They begin to realize that their seat is getting to be slippery and they themselves become a little touchy.
Mr. Speaker, we call for a national dividend of twenty dollars for each and every one.


Mr. LALONDE:: Payable in cash?


David Réal Caouette: We do not call for a national dividend based on nothing but for a dividend founded on the real value of Canada. We have been accused of wanting to revolutionize everything in Canada, of being revolutionists. Social Credit has its own technique, which is to make money based on everything that exists in Canada. That is all. We are not demanding money based on nothing, nor are we asking for something that would be scattered to the four corners of Canada. We are calling for an intelligent reform, which would take into account Canadian production. This national dividend would be distributed to the Canadian people, who have asked for it. And we will obtain it, here in Canada, because we are tenacious; we are determined to go the whole way and nobody can prevent us from doing so. Each year, Mr. Speaker, Canada is distributing a national dividend in the form of interest paid to the banks on our national debt.
We have thus paid this year, in interest only, $471,000,000. This means forty-three dollars for each person in the country. The Canadian people have built up this country and what we have here, but, after four hundred years, we find that the bankers are drawing the dividends.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are the families not drawing one?


David Réal Caouette: No, we stand for a
system by the people, for the people. We want money to be used for the consumers' needs, and our system will be based on Canada's

The Address-Mr. Caouette
national production. We will ask that all new money, all new credit in Canada be controlled by the government and that all this credit be made available to Canadians. Some will again say this is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. If so, the insane are becoming more numerous in the province of Quebec and in the whole of Canada. A national dividend is a possibility. It is long overdue. Social Crediters are not the ones who ask that money be put into service for Canadians; they are not the revolutionists in this country. Those who ask that Canada's wealth be put into service for Canadians are not the revolutionists. The revolutionists are those who have tolerated a regime which allowed wheat to be burnt in western Canada, which allowed thousands of barrels of fish to rot in the maritimes and thousands of tons of apples to decay in Quebec and Ontario.


An hon. MEMBER:: This is demagogy.


David Réal Caouette: A regime which tolerated the massive destruction of useful production, when there were in our country 600,000 unemployed and hundreds of thousands of others who lacked the necessities of life and who had nothing to eat. Those who tolerated such a system are the real revolutionists, Mr. Speaker.
We appeal to the people, where more gray matter is to be found than in the heads of certain members of this House of Commons.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the electors of Quebec did not know whom they were voting for when they cast their ballots.
In closing, may I express my constituents' desire for improvement in the legislation passed for their protection. I quote from a letter addressed to me by Mr. Saint-Amant, secretary-treasurer of the Federation of the U.C.C. for Temiskaming:
You, no doubt, are aware of the unbearable conditions under which the farmers of our province are labouring at the present time. The dominion government's removal of the subsidy and of the ceiling prices on grain, the reopening of the Winnipeg grain exchange and the speculation that followed have brought about an increase of 50 to 60 per cent in prices, added to an exceptionally poor crop in our province, have caused such a prejudice to our breeders that, in order to avoid the losses which seemed certain, some of them have slaughtered their young pigs and reduced their stocks of cattle to an alarming extent.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: When was that letter
written?


David Réal Caouette: November 17.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!
5849-44-J


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Before the new contract
with Britain was signed?


David Réal Caouette: The same conditions
still prevail in Pontiac; let my hon. friend come and see for himself, if he doubts my word.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: After the new agreement
with Britain came into force, the price of pork was raised by $6 a hundredweight.


Maurice Lalonde: They must be special
hogs-


David Réal Caouette: If the hon. member
wishes to keep his seat after the next elections, he had better sit on it now.
First, the dominion government should entrust the wheat board, or other body set up for that purpose, with the sale and distribution of feed grains to farmers of eastern Canada, so as to prevent any speculation that would entail undue price increases and upset distribution;
Second, the dominion government should immediately contact the British food ministry and set new prices for all farm products which we supply Britain under contract.
As for the products we sell Britain, I admit, Mr. Speaker, that there has been some improvement, as the hon. member for l'Islet, has just said. However, that is not enough, and we can still do better. That is what the writer of the letter asks.
I have other letters from Remigny, from Mannville, from the professional syndicate of The St. Eugene de Guigues Catholic Farmers' Union, and another one from Charteris, in the old districts of Pontiac and, finally-


Joseph Arthur Lesage: They are all dated earlier than January 1, are they not?


David Réal Caouette: Yes. I have another letter dealing with a different problem. For the information of the hon. gentlemen opposite, it is signed by the Abitibi Electric, a Val d'Or concern, and reads as follows:
Dear sir:
We take this opportunity of protesting against the 25 per cent tax on refrigerators in the consumers' interest; this so-called luxury tax should be removed immediately.
We trust, dear member, that you will do everything in your power to support us when parliament reopens.
Needless to say, I energetically call for the removal of this 25 per cent tax on refrigerators.
I notice that time flies, so, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I renew my plea on behalf of the electors of Rouyn-Noranda who, for the past
The Address-Mr. Caouette

two years have been asking that a postman deliver their mail to their door.
It is possible, as the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) has admitted, to establish a door to door mail delivery in the sister towns of Rouyn-Noranda through the building of a bigger post office. This problem in the towns of Rouyn and Noranda calls for a prompt solution.
As regards Val d'Or, the post office is too small for the town's population. It occupies a house which costs $2,700 a year in rent to the government. The lease is expired and the landlord refuses to renew it. But the post office department has already purchased a lot on the second street in Val d'Or for the sum of $12,000, with a view to erecting an adequate post office. It is most important that this post office should be built as soon as possible, in order to accommodate the
12,000	citizens of this town.
As far as rural mail delivery is concerned, the people in all our agricultural and settling parishes are ready to make the tin boxes themselves in order to receive their mail.
Only government action is needed now to close the deal and to see that rural mail is distributed in every agricultural parish and in every settlement in the constituency of Pontiac.
I will not take up any more of the time of the house, but I wish to inform it that we are always ready to co-operate as much as possible in order to ensure the establishment in this country of a type of government which respects human rights, as my ihon. friend from Kamouraslca (Mr. Marquis) said yesterday. I concur in what he said yesterday, but I wouldi have wished that he had not been satisfied with expounding good principles. I would like his words to have some effect, and in order to achieve that end we must have more and more co-operation. We are not the ones to refuse to co-operate when such co-operation is required1 in the public interest. If he is ready to do so, he must toil with us towards the establishment, in this country, of a type of government which will respect the dignity of the human being, a government which will not work solely for the almighty dollar but which will serve the best interests of the people and of the children of this country.


Maurice Lalonde: Could the hon. member for Pontiac give me some further information? When explaining the national dividend, he said a few moments ago that his party- should it through some election miracle be put in power-would distribute a monthly national! dividend) of $20. My question is this: is the hon. member for Pontiac willing to assert that this national! dividend will be payable in money?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde), I may say that the national dividend will be payable in money.


Maurice Lalonde: That is what I wanted to know.


David Réal Caouette: The national dividend is based on the discrepancy between production and the total money in circulation. It will be distributed through a new issue of money or credit-it matters little how we call it-ordered1, by parliament. At a certain time, the dividend may be $5, and in other periods it may reach $20 or even $50 a month. That depends on the year's production and the total sum of money in circulation.


Maurice Lalonde: With the hon. member's consent, may I ask him a further question? I understand your answer to be the following: This dividend will be payable in cash, according to the needs of the people?


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Maurice Lalonde: Secondly, is it not true
that the clerk who distributes goods or services will be compelled at times to sell these goods or services below cost?


David Réal Caouette: Never. Mr. Speaker, the national dividend-


Maurice Lalonde: Thank you, that is all I wanted to know. Is the answer to my last question yes or no?


David Réal Caouette: No.


Maurice Lalonde: Douglas says the opposite.


David Réal Caouette: That is not true. Show us that.
(Text):


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I know hon. members will not expect me to follow the arguments of the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Caouette),

The Address-Mr. Reid
much as I enjoyed listening to him. No one was surprised, on coming back after the Christmas recess, to find that almost the first speeches made in the house were in regard to the high cost of living. Everyone who went back to his constituency must have been met with the criticism of many citizens and electors on the extent to which the cost of things in general had increased. Therefore at the outset this afternoon I wish to commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on his statement that a committee will be set up right away to deal with the high cost of living. I trust that the deliberations of this committee will be sufficiently thorough to enable it also to find out what some of the companies in this country are doing.
Speaking of putting controls back on, 1 think it is interesting to note that many of those now advocating controls are the same people who, during the war, complained about the controls or regimentation to which they were then subjected. I well remember complaints made to me personally at that time about some of the bureaucrats so-called who were then in charge of affairs. These people could not get this; they could not get that; they had to have licences for this, that and the other thing, and there were bitter complaints because in those days we were forced to accept some regimentation. I am one of those who believe that if the selfishness of mankind is to run rampant, as it seems to be doing in this country now, then of course some control will have to be exercised; and I am frank to say that selfishness does not exist in any one class of our people alone but permeates our society from top to bottom and affects us all. One thing, however, I believe we shall have to guard against, is that we do not go too far and begin our regimentation all over again, setting up little bureaucratic bodies perhaps permanently here in charge of officials who are not directly responsible to this parliament.
There is no doubt that the financial statements of many firms which have been issued recently have brought a great deal of comment and criticism from certain quarters and likewise aroused some concern, because it is evident that one of two things should have been done by many companies. Either they should have reduced the prices of the articles they sell or they should have increased the wages of those who produce those articles. Therefore I am very glad this committee will be able to bring before it witnesses in order to find out why certain companies are charging such enormous prices at the present time.
I hope consideration is being given the suggestion which was made this afternoon in
regard to the reimposition of the excess profits tax in order to curb the selfishness being exhibited by certain companies today. Certainly I would be in favour of some such action. If they are not prepared to reduce the prices of the articles they sell, or if they are not ready to increase the wages of their employees; in other words, if they are not going to play fair with the public but are bent on soaking the people to the limit, then I say it is time some curb was imposed. So I am in favour at the present time of the reimposition of the excess profits tax to curb the selfishness being shown by many concerns today.


Mr. KUHL:: Give us some specific examples.


Thomas Reid: I could give specific examples if I wanted to, but I am not going to place the names of certain firms on record until the committee is set up. When that is done, however, I shall be pleased to draw its attention to certain firms and certain articles.


Mr. FLEMING:: If I may ask a question, has the hon. member brought these cases he speaks of to the attention of the enforcement officers of the wartime prices and trade board?


Thomas Reid: I have brought them to the attention of the government, and I think that is good enough. I have carried out my duties as a member of parliament should.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the government taken any action as a result of what the hon. member has done?


Thomas Reid: Yes, they have taken action; the Prime Minister has announced the setting up of the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that all?


Thomas Reid: Will you give the committee time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why does he not go and
take action directly?


Thomas Reid: Just a moment ago an hon. member across the way asked me for facts. I am not prepared to say whether or not they are facts; that is up to this committee. What more do you want? Do you want to pillory some company just on a simple statement by someone? I do not think you want that, do you? I believe the government are moving along very well, and I am glad they have heeded some of the representations that have been made.
Just before the house adjourned in December an important statement was made by the Prime Minister in regard to veterans and
6S6
The Address-Mr. Reid

their pensions. It is no secret to hon. members who have just come back from their constituencies that no veteran and certainly no legion body are at all satisfied with that announcement. I am greatly concerned about the matter, and I am very glad a veterans affairs committee is to be set up this year. I would urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) and the government to have that committee set up right away, and not wait much longer. Many matters must be looked into and considered in addition to the questions of increased pensions affecting veterans, widows, their children and the recipients of the war veterans' allowance, important as those matters are.
I wanted to make just one comment here. Since the beginning of this parliament a sort of feeling seems to be growing up that only those who saw service in the war have sympathy for the returned man. I think every member of parliament, whether or not he saw service, has sympathy for the returned man; and while it was commendable to set up a committee composed entirely of ex-service men, perhaps it might have helped, and certainly would not have hurt, if one or two members of that committee had been other than returned men. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because I had the privilege of serving on every veterans affairs committee until the last one; and if the records are looked up I think I can say without boasting and without fear of successful contradiction, that the care and sympathy shown by members on those previous committees equalled that exhibited by the last committee which was appointed.
Without casting any reflection on any member of parliament, because I am speaking now of those who have had to do in the past with the administrative end of veterans affairs, my experience over those years has been that sometimes a general or a colonel was not always the best man to deal with the affairs of privates. Sometimes I was inclined to think they assumed the army attitude of somewhat looking down on the affaire of a veteran private, provided that the man concerned had just been an ordinary private when in the services. I say that without malice. I say it after eighteen years of experience around here. I wish to go further now, however, and say I believe the time has come when we should review the matter, not simply from the point of view of the present increased cost of living, but that we should review the whole pensions system of our veterans, and in the light of all conditions I make the assertion that had we had no world war I, and were we putting into effect today for the first time a new Pension Act, it would be based upon actual conditions

today. When it was put into effect many years ago, conditions in Canada were quite dissimilar to what thej' are now. I believe each and every one of us will admit that the feelings of many may change over the years. I cannot forget, however, the time when those men and women offered their lives for Canada.
I can remember a time when even the Canadian government was fearful of what might happen to Britain. I remember it was hinted at one time steps had been taken to remove the British government to this country. When I think of those dark days and I think of the appeals made to the young men and women, and the realization that but for them this parliament might not be here today, I cannot but say to myself and to the government that the best is none too good for them; and I say that in all sincerity.
One of the many problems before us is that of the war veterans allowances recipients, and the decision as to those who are or are not eligible, I have in mind men who enlisted in world war I w-ho were prepared to go to France, but who found themselves held in England, for some military reason, and who today find that they cannot obtain war veterans allowance because they did not see service in France. Surely the time has come now to review that condition. We have allowed war veterans allowances to those who saw service in South Africa; and I am not belittling in any way those who served in the South African war. I do remember, however, that in those days Britain was not in any peril; she did not particularly require as she did in world war I or world war II help from outside countries. The same applies to those who saw service in the Riel rebellion. The government was good enough to grant war veterans allowances to men in those classes. I say that the committee, of whomever it is composed should give careful consideration to war veterans of world war I, and in fact all veterans who, through no fault of their own and in the best of faith, offered their services and were held in Britain for the duration of the war.
There are many other matters about which I could speak at this time, but I shall not do more than add that in my view the veterans committee should be set up immediately to deal with every aspect of affairs affecting veterans.
I come now to one other matter, one which affects farmers both in the east and in the west. Hon. members will recall the discussions we had during the two weeks before Christmas when the price of feed grains and the contract with Britain were under consideration. Right now may I say

The Address-Mr. Reid
a word of commendation of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who, though he did not get all that the poultrymen and perhaps other types of farmers wanted, nevertheless, from all accounts reaching us, put up a great fight with the British buyers on behalf of Canadian farmers generally.
On. that occasion I said in the house that, since the subsidy had been taken away, and because of the increased high cost of feeds, we should have had an increase in the price of eggs of at least seven cents a dozen. I placed the figures on record at that time, and I shall not repeat them now, other than to repeat that we should have had that seven cents.
I repeat that statement because I was astonished, upon reading a press report, to find that the Minister of Agriculture endeavoured to refute my assertion that, on account of present feed prices, an additional seven cents was required. I am sorry the minister is not in his seat at the moment, because if he were I would say to him I would gladly debate the matter at any time. Someone behind me suggests that I would not debate it with Jimmie Gardiner. I say: Why not? As an experienced poultryman and one who represents a poultry district I did not make the assertion lightly, nor did I offer any fictitious or hypothetical figures.
British Columbia surveyed the entire matter carefully with respect to the cost of eggs, and it was as a result of this scientific and practical survey that the information was given me showing that we should have at least seven cents a dozen more for eggs. If called upon, I could produce that information at any time.
One thing, however, stands to our credit in connection with the contracts between Canada and Great Britain, namely, that, differing from New Zealand, Australia and, I believe, India, we did not go out with the idea of soaking the Britisher to help ourselves. It came as a startling surprise to most of us when the Minister of Agriculture placed on record the prices obtained for wheat sold to Britain by farmers in New Zealand and Australia. Those two countries, it became clear, are charging the British all they can, although I hear that the wheat farmers in those countries are not receiving as much as those in Canada. That money is -being put into the exchequer by Australia and New Zealand. They are, it seems to me, soaking the British, -and at a time When Britain is hard pressed; yes, soaking the British-and I say this advisedly-to help improve their own economies. Canada cannot be accused of doing that kind of thing.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I had been dealing with several matters and making a plea to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) to have the committee on veterans affairs set up this session as soon as possible.
I had also drawn attention of the government to the plight of the poultrymen and the high cost of feed. I shall not repeat figures that are already on the record, but I do want to say that in my opinion the poultrymen cannot carry on under the present high price of feed and the present price of eggs. I wish again to commend the work done by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in negotiating the agreements with Great Britain in the month of December last. I understand that it was through no fault of his at all that we did not get the seven cents we thought we might get. But if no better price can be obtained for our eggs exported to Britain the poultrymen are asking either that subsidies be restored, and that a ceiling price be put on feed grains. I realize that there is a divergence of opinion regarding subsidies, and I quite realize the danger there is in some subsidies, but so long as we are granting subsidies to certain interests and industries in this country, I think the farmer's cry for a subsidy should be seriously considered. If it is the policy of the government to do away entirely with subsidies and adhere to the stand they took before parliament last December that no further subsidies would be granted, that is one thing; but if subsidies are to be paid to any group, I claim that the poultry farmers are just as much entitled to consideration for a subsidy as any other group or class.
May I also point out the serious position in which some of the veterans find themselves who have gone into the poultry business. It is all very well to say they went into it of their own volition, but the fact of the matter is that after 1942 the dominion government, by advertisements and through its officials throughout the length and breadth of this country, told our people: We want eggs, poultry and food for Great Britain. Our people took that advice and went into production. It is true that they received some assistance. Following the cessation of hostilities many veterans, after surveying the field of possible endeavours, chose to go into the poultry business.
A delegation of returned men who had gone into the poultry business met me before I left home and I was surprised at the reasonableness of their request. They suggested that the
The Address-Mr. Reid

provisions of the loans act be extended to enable them this year to purchase day-old chicks. Just consider, Mr. Speaker, some of these men who came to see me were owing feed bills amounting to $1,500, and yet they were optimistic, enthusiastic and wanted to continue in the poultry business, believing in their hearts and minds that they could pay back this $1,500 to the feed companies if only they were given some further encouragement. Surely it is not too much to ask that the loans act be amended to enable these veterans to go to the banks and negotiate with government assistance a loan in order that they may purchase day-old chicks and thereby carry on and in time redeem their present indebtedness.
The one big cloud over the poultry industry today is that they do not know what the future holds for them. They do not know whether to sell out and get out of the business entirely or whether they should continue, because the agreement with Great Britain on poultry and eggs expires in January of next year. It is good for only one year. With that in mind the poultrymen are wondering whether they should buy more day-old chicks or liquidate their poultry now, pay off their indebtedness and seek some other kind of work. That is a serious state of affairs which cannot be lightly overlooked by the government. It will not be in the best interests of the veteran poultrymen themselves or of the country at large if we do not put a ceiling on the price of feed or enable them to get a loan or help them by way of subsidy if subsidies are to be continued. And so, Mr Speaker, I stand in my place tonight and make a plea on behalf of this great group who, in my opinion, are making a valiant effort to establish themselves with as little assistance as possible from the government.
I know that one of the sticklers in the agreement with Great Britain was the sterling exchange position. I have no knowledge of what dickering went on behind the scenes, but I was wondering if those who represented the dominion government had considered that for the time being at 'least we might be prepared to accept sterling and build up a bank of sterling in this country which we could use, when the time came, to buy goods in return from Great Britain. I am not sure whether that suggestion was made. If not I think we were somewhat remiss in our duty. I am not going into high finance because that is a sphere I know little about. But it is a suggestion that is worth considering.
In view of world events and outlook today, it is well for us and the British commonwealth of nations that the United States is

getting closer to us. Whether some of the people of the United States like it or not, the United States is, in my opinion, now coming within the sphere of the British commonwealth of nations because she is taking part in world affairs not only in Europe but elsewhere in the world, a responsibility which Britain alone has carried for more than a hundred years. I was going to suggest that one way out of the difficulty caused 'by the lack of sterling exchange on the one hand, and the shortage of United States dollars on the other, might be the creation of a unit of currency that would be acceptable to all the countries of the British commonwealth and to the United States. I am not sure whether that could be done, but it is of no use simply to stand aloof and for one country to say to another: I will not accept your currency and we have no goods to give you. If we simply do that and no more the situation might rapidly grow worse. I come back to the thought I expressed a moment ago that, in view of world events and of what may happen in the future, it is well for us all that the United States and the British commonwealth of nations should come closer together in their dealings and deliberations.
One hon. member this afternoon raised the question of the pay of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley). I am sorry that he is not here at the moment because I want to put in a plea for the staff or employees in the British Columbia penitentiary. There was a time wdien men were lured into that service by the hope of a pension, but there has since grown up amongst various companies and firms superannuation schemes for the benefit of all their employees. Therefore the government does not stand alone in offering superannuation. 1 know of many w'ho have retained their employment with the government although they would have liked to leave. They have stayed simply because superannuation loomed ahead for them. But we have a group of employees in the penitentiaries who have, in my opinion, been neglected far too long. A large delegation saw me before I left, and I was astounded at some of the things they told me regarding the wages they received. For instance, they told that a grade I received an increase of $5 a month and it took five years before he reached his maximum; whereas a grade II got an increase of $120 a year and reached his maximum in two years.
The senior keeper of the penitentiary informed me that, although he had been thirty-three years in the service, it would be another eleven years before he reached his maximum

The Address-Mr. Reid
for superannuation. There are three classes in the penitentiary, namely, the custodian, the industrial and the engineer.
I hold in my hand a comparison of the rates of wages paid in the provincial institution and in the penitentiary in New Westminster. Conditions in the provincial institution are far better in regard to salaries and wages and hours of work. I am not surprised that the personnel working in the penitentiary are asking for a forty-hour week. That is particularly true in regard to that branch of the dominion service who are working forty-eight hours a week. When they look around them they see that the great majority of those employed in the dominion government service work far fewer hours. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to criticize the civil service generally and the hours they are working. But it must be realized that they work not over thirty-four hours a week and less than twenty-nine hours in the summer months. Yet we have a group of civil servants in the penitentiaries who at times take their lives in their hands, working forty-eight hours a week. It is little wonder that they complain and say,
' Why should we be treated in this way while others employed by the same government are working the short hours they are". I am not complaining about the civil service because the tendency today is toward fewer hours of work.
I now wish to put on the record the salaries that engineers in both of these establishments receive. In the provincial institutions engineers receive S260 to S296 a month, whereas we are paying the same class of engineers $210. These men are also training convicts. I had it drawn to my attention that last year nine convicts received fourth-class certificates from the tuition received at the hands of the teachers or instructors in the penitentiaries, and at least two of them went out and procured positions at a higher salary than that received by their instructors. That may be an isolated case, but bear in mind that industrial plants and provincial governments themselves pay higher wages and offer greater inducements to employees than does the dominion government. It is little wonder that many of our people are attracted or lured away across the line where more is offered for the services which they can give. At a later date when the civil service estimates are before the house I want to go into this more fully than I have done tonight, because I realize I have touched only but one branch of the service, namely, those employed in the penitentiaries.
I should now like to refer for a moment to postal matters. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) raised the point the other day and asked whether a committee was to be
set up to investigate rural mail routes. I am bringing this matter up not for the purpose of creating jealousy or to suggest that we do things in a bigger and better way in British Columbia, but I can tell hon. members from the other provinces that the rural routes in British Columbia are larger than those of the other provinces. The number of boxes on rural routes out there are astounding, when compared with those in the other provinces.
I have before me some of the rural routes in my own district. On one route a man handles each day 687 individual letter boxes. There are seven routes, and on the seven routes there are a total of 3.923 mail boxes. That is the last count I have. I am told that in Ontario and Quebec a route which has sixty or sixty-five boxes is considered to be a good one; yet we have in British Columbia the fastest-growing province in the dominion. I say this particularly to my hon. friends from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. We have been few in number for a long time; but British Columbia is growing at such a rate that it will not be long before we shall be sending down as many members as either of the two older provinces. I am not going to say why the people are leaving the other provinces to come to our province, but we have increased so rapidly that since the last census our population has increased from
817,000	to nearly 1,500,000, and in another fifteen years or so we may have three million people out there. When we have the number of members coming to this house to represent that population you will then hear more about British Columbia. That. is not a threat, Mr. Speaker; it is just a plain statement of fact.
I have just one more suggestion to offer before I resume my seat. I am asking the government to give some consideration to amending the Farm Loan Act which was put into force many years ago. But conditions have changed since that time, and it should be amended. Under the Farm Loan Act today a first mortgage loan is restricted to $5,000 plus another $1,000, making a total of $6,000. In the light of building costs and the like today, I believe these loans should be increased to $10,000. The value of barns and farm buildings in general has increased. Nothing was done during the war years to take care of barns or to keep them in repair. Under provincial regulations the provincial authorities are tightening up. They are going around the province condemning many of these buildings. A man on. a modern stock farm today requires a lot of money to put up a modern barn. Without a modern barn a
6S0
The Address-Mr. Miller

man cannot farm successfully. Therefore, I am asking that consideration be given to amendments to the Farm Loan Act.
Loans under the Farm Loan Act should also be for a longer time. Because of the shortage of help, our farms in British Columbia have become mechanized. The farmers are buying machinery. Conditions have compelled them to do that because labour has been reluctant to go on the farms, or it has been almost impossible to procure workers for the farms. Consequently the farmer has been purchasing machinery. Today you see one man or two men doing the farm work which was formerly done by eight, nine or ten men. Therefore I am asking that the loans under this act be provided for a longer period- than at present. Also the farm loan board, if they are in business at all, should go out after business andi advertise. If they do not do that, let us. consider winding up the Farm Loan Act and let the farmers get their loans elsewhere.
Perhaps I have spoken longer than I had intended, but I have just touched on a few of the local matters. At a later day I intend to deal with some other important matters.


Mr. C. C. MILLER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite a while since the mover and the seconder moved the address in reply to the speech fro-m the throne, but not too long ago to enable me to recall the manner in which they performed their duties and to offer to them, as many other speakers have done and as it has become customary to do, my.sincere congratulations on their effort. Particularly I should like to congratulate the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) who, in his maiden speech, took part in this debate by seconding the motion for an address. None of us is too far removed from his maiden effort to forget the difficulties of t'he first speech; certainly not I, whose time in this house is still fairly close to that first dreadful day.
To the junior -member for Halifax I should like to say particularly that, as I sat here and listened to him, it was not difficult for me to offer my congratulations sincerely, and not simply as a matter of form.
Like many other speakers who have taken part in this and, may I say, other debates,
I should like to refer to the cost of living. The last speaker truly said that the cost of living is one of those issues which in recent months has, as we say in the west, like a prairie fire spread quickly across this nation and become more than a problem, almost an emergency.

I come from a locality in which there are not only a large number of farmers but also, scattered throughout that constituency, a large number of smaller towns and cities and villages. These towns are mostly rural towns; that is what we call them because, directly or indirectly, they are mainly dependent upon agriculture for their existence. In these towns scattered throughout my constituency there are many people who are in receipt of small incomes. In fact, I would say that over sixty per cent of the inhabitants of my native -city of Portage la Prairie are what might be termed small income or salary earners.
Under existing high cost of living conditions these people have no chance in the world of balancing the domestic or family budget. We see these men and women whom we have known all our lives going around and acquiring that worried look which we so well remember from the depression years of the thirties. That should not be; but whether it is the fault of this government that these conditions exist, or whether it is not, is beside the point. This fact must be self-evident, that the responsibility for curing that condition among the people is definitely the responsibility of those who are entrusted with power in this country.
The small income groups, the old age pensioners and those in receipt of veterans pensions and so on are all in the same position, if not worse. There is another group for whom I should like to say something tonight, and that is the civil servants. There are a large number of civil servants in the constituency I represent. Some of them are federal civil servants and some of them provincial, because we have several provincial institutions there.
There you see a group of people who have not been given an increase of any consequence since the war years. The high cost of living has sneaked up on them and, through no fault of their own, they have been practically bludgeoned into a position where they are unable to afford many things which they must have to keep body and soul together. It seems to me strange indeed that the employees of our government, above all people, should find themselves in this unsatisfactory position. It is a travesty. The increases announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) at the pre-Christmas sitting, were entirely inadequate, and on top of that there are countless hundreds to whom these increases do not apply.
What I object to and what I am trying to make clear is that every government, federal or provincial, knows full well that these men

The Address-Mr. Miller
are not getting enough to meet the cost of living, that they are not able to balance the family budget, that they are worried. In the name of all that is fair and just and right, I maintain that the government, whether federal or provincial, should immediately establish some sort of temporary bonus system to relieve the situation in which these people find themselves; and then, if it takes time to settle the procedure, if the government must dilly-dally in making the temporary arrangements permanent, it should be seen to that this delay will not be at the expense of these people, while governments are trying to establish a method of doing things, making up their mind what to do. While that is going on we should see to it that these people are relieved from worry and want.
We are told that relief both from indirect taxation and from income taxation would do more than put additional money in the hands of spenders and thus create more pressure on a rising market for scarce goods. I do not pretend to be a monetary expert or a specialist in economics, but I know that the people who require that assistance and who would benefit most from relief from indirect taxation and from a lifting of the income tax are those people who are in receipt of small incomes. They are not worrying about bringing pressure to bear on scarce goods; all they are worrying about is to get a little more money with which to buy food and clothing and pay rent. They will not put much pressure on scarce goods but they must be enabled to have a house to live in.
It does not take an economist to figure out that the course suggested by speakers in this party should be followed, namely, relief from indirect taxation and a reduction in income tax. It does not take an economist to realize that this course would not put pressure upon the purchasing of scarce articles, while it would make it easier for this class of small salaried people to have a little more money in order to balance the domestic budget.
Everybody on the government side of the house realizes that this is a bad situation throughout the country. As we go through these little towns and villages we find that business is becoming poor; that merchants are starting to complain of a falling off in trade; that unemployment is making its appearance once again, and that a demand is being made that local merchants give credit. That is only a small sign; but I maintain, economist or not, that it is the first sign, if not of depression, then of imminent recession. These are storm signals which the government must observe; for, if they do not observe them, we shall be
far into the cycle and we shall not be able to halt what may turn out to be a serious depression.
Unlike the last speaker, I cannot find it in my heart to praise the government for establishing or promising to establish or appoint a committee to investigate the cost of living. That, it seems to me, is only shifting the responsibility and is but a poor makeshift, a poor tool to use in coping with this great national emergency. It seems to me that the government have everything to guide them in deciding what they shall do or shall not do, or what they can do, because they have all the so-called experts at their beck and call. What more can they get from a committee? If there is a remedy the government should find it among their own employees, bring it in and tell us what will be done about the situation, or that situation will become not only a calamity but a national disgrace.
It would be difficult for me at this time to refrain from some reference to income tax. Again let me say that I do not for one minute profess to be a student of monetary affairs, but I have always been told and have understood that there is a danger point in taxation and, if that point is passed, immediately we start downhill. It is the first impetus to recession or depression, whatever you wish to call it. It is, I suggest, an axiom or a self-evident truth that we have long since, particularly in the matter of income tax, passed the danger point and it is time for a scaling down. This is particularly true at the moment of city and town people. The people in the cities and towns need what they pay in income tax to keep body and soul together. They have not enough money to balance their budgets and this would be a measure of relief to them. When they have not enough money to pay bills and doctors' bills they should not be subject to income tax.
It has been proven beyond question that we have reached the saturation point in taxation. But let us consider the farmers. As the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) said today, a new form is being spread among the farmers of western Canada. It is called the prairie fanners 1947 income tax return. Prairie farmers, Mr. Speaker! What does that mean? Does it mean that we are to perpetuate the difference which has long existed in taxation between the western farmer and the eastern farmer, or does it mean that the western farmer is of such and such a quality or breed that a special form must be used to track him and his resources down to the last tenth of a cent?
The form is all right. It is prepared unquestionably by able accountants. But I
The Address-Mr. Miller

ask you this question, Mr. Speaker: What form that a chartered accountant or trained accountant may prepare can a farmer fill out correctly? I often wonder if many of the men who serve under the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MeCan-n) ever saw a farm. They have a form here which would take the farmer all the Sundays in the year to fill out, and that is about the only time he has to spare.
In the practice of law in a rural western town I have had some experience with* returns for farmers. I know that you cannot make book-keepers out of them. I also know that the department, in their wisdom and in an endeavor to be helpful, sent out a book of instructions which nine out of ten farmers will lose during the first week they will have them. Nevertheless, that book is good; but I suggest that, in the distribution of these books throughout the length and breadth of the prairie provinces there should have been delivered with every one *of those books either a stenographer or a book-keeper. Perhaps the eastern farmers would like that too.
Now let me deal with this summary on the back page of this iniquitous form. May I say right now that I do not agree with the hon. member for Souris when he says that the department should hurry up the distribution of this form. I think they should recall every one of them, bring them in and burn them. There is not one of them worth anything to a farmer.
Here we have this summary. They are going to find out the net worth of the farmer, a man who proverbially is honest but is a poor book-keeper. Here are the first three questions on that statement:	The first is,
"Cash* on person or on farm". They even want to know what the farmer has in* his hip-pocket from day to day. The second question is, "Cash in bank". Well, there is nothing particularly wrong about that. I do not know whether or not any of them have cash in the bank now. I imagine some of them have. But here is the third question, and it is the pay-off question. They want to know, "Cash in safety deposit box at banks". Mr. Speaker, what sinister suggestion lies behind that question? Do they think the farmers of my native province are a bunch of crooks hiding their currency in safety deposit boxes in the banks to keep it from the income tax people? If not, why is that question in* there? Our farmers want to know why that question is there. Is it to be on the forms that are to be delivered to farmers in other parts of Canada, or is it the farmers of western Canada alone who must disclose if

they are stealing money and putting it in safety deposit boxes, and things like that? I do not think it is right.
From the experience I thought I had in making out these forms, I had occasion to write to the minister in protest, saying that if the department used these forms there would be considerable opposition among the farmers of the west with regard to making them out, not because the farmers particularly do not want to pay income tax, although none of us loves to pay it. Yet I think I am fair in saying that the western farmers hate making out these cursed forms more than they hate paying the income tax. They do not go in for bookkeeping. They do not know how to do it. These forms bother them to death. I suggested to the minister that they make these forms simpler and not try to go through with this, because they would get better cooperation from the farmers if they used a simpler form. However, the deputy minister wrote me back a nice letter in which he suggested that he thought perhaps I was one of those fellows who thought farmers should not pay income tax.
There is one thing being done in the farming communities in the west which is not bad; in fact, it is rather praise-worthy. Inspectors are being sent out, and they are holding meetings to explain this form. I do not think they can ever explain it to the satisfaction of the farmers. I was amused at an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune on January 27 of this year, when the Tribune suggests that the farmers will have many questions to ask of these educators who are going around the country. I will refer to only the last one. It was that the farmers will probably ask the tax officials for assurance that the money they are paying in income tax is being used providently and economically. I think the farmers will want to know just that.
There is one other point I wish to make, if I may change over to it now, and that is with regard to the question of unemployment insurance. There are two points I want to raise in connection with this matter. This is definitely important to our town and city people in the west, and likely it is important all over Canada. First of all, a man or girl who is working is made to pay a certain amount week after week or month after month, as the case may be. Then there comes a time when this girl or man has reached a sufficient length of employment in point of time to entitle such person, if laid off or out of work, to the maximum benefits. I maintain that, after any employee reaches that point, he should no longer have to pay anything in to that fund and should be given, in effect, a

The Address-Mr. Miller
paid-up poli-cy in the fund until he or she has drawn something out of it. I do not think that would put the fund in an actuarially unsound position, because at the moment I think there is something like a $400 million surplus.
The other point 1 wish 'to make about unemployment insurance is this. I was astonished just a few weeks ago to have come into my office a man who had been ill, wras still ill, and was unable to work. He had worked for a long time and, had he not been sick', he would have been entitled to draw unemployment insurance benefits. However, he left his job, not to quit work but to go to a hospital and lie on his back for six or seven months. When he went in to collect unemployment insurance he was calmly and properly told by the officials that he was not entitled to draw any unemployment insurance because he had been sick in the hospital and unavailable for employment. That seems to be an utter disregard of the promises which were made to the people when this scheme was initiated. I think an amendment to the regulations or to the act should be put through whereby a man, if he is genuinely sick and unable to work by reason of sickness, should be entitled to draw his unemployment insurance for the same period as if he were available for work and there was none. Otherwise, to me it seems to be a mockery.
Another point that is of local interest to me is the question of rents on wartime housing. We have a number of those schemes in various places in my constituency, particularly in the city of Portage la Prairie. There should be a differentiation in the minds of the government between places like Portage la Prairie and some bigger centres like Toronto or Windsor. I say that for this reason. In the city of Portage la Prairie-and I use it as an example-most of the people, as I said before, are in the small income bracket. To me it seems incongruous and unfair that, in the city of Portage la Prairie, these young returned boys and 'their wives living in these houses and I am not criticizing the houses; they served a purpose and are serving a good purpose-who are earning likely from $85 to $150 a month, should be paying rent running from S22 to $30 a month, depending on the size of the house. In a community where the earning power is small or the salaries paid are small, I maintain it is not fair that such a large proportion of the small salary should go to provide shelter. It is not a proper percentage of salary. It might be proper in some other centre, but not in a city like Portage la Prairie. I urge the authorities to give this
matter consideration and maybe reduce the rate of rent in our community and others in a similar position.
I want to say a little about the agricultural situation. It seems to me 'that now, at long last, the farmers are realizing that the prices they are securing for their products are not fair ones having regard to the cost of the things which they have to buy. It is becoming increasingly evident, I think, throughout the country that they are desperately dissatisfied at the present time. I am not going to enter into a discussion of the wheat agreement or anything like that; I am just making the statement that they are becoming dissatisfied. That should be a warning to the government, and 'they should try to rectify that position.
The coarse grains situation is terrible. It has been discussed here time and time again, so that it is not necessary for me to go all over it, but the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) gave an explanation which to me was far from, satisfactory. If I remember correctly he told us that everybody, every farmer, knew the ceiling price on coarse grains was going off in September, anyway, and that this action was delayed until October 22 only because of the packers' strike. In all fairness I must say the minister may be right when he says everyone knew, but I have made extensive inquiries, particularly among the farmers, and I have yet to find a single farmer who had any conception whatever that there was to be any change in the prices of coarse grains until the following August. When the minister says they knew I presume he must believe that is a correct statement, but I repeat that I cannot find any farmers who knew the ceiling was coming off in September, and that this was delayed simply because of the packers' strike.
There is also a rumour going around-I almost hesitate to mention this, and I emphasize that it is only a rumour-that in speaking to members of the federation in Ottawa some weeks ago the minister, in explaining the peculiar manner in which the ceiling wras taken off coarse grains, said he knew a delegation was coming from the old country to talk about food prices and food contracts, and that the coarse grains were thrown into the open market for the purpose of demonstrating to the Britishers who came over here that they were getting cheap food, and to show what would happen if the farmers were really given the world price in the open market. I hardly believe the Minister of Agriculture would put on a side show like that for the benefit of visitors from the old country, and
The Address-Mr. Miller

in doing so sacrifice the welfare, not only of the livestock industry, but also of the entire industry of agriculture throughout this country, both east and west. But I suggest that it is being rumoured in the locality where I move around that this was the explanation given; and I am told that one of those men who said he heard it accepted that as a perfectly logical and common-sense explanation. If that is a common-sense explanation I suggest that the federation should replace that particular officer, in any event.
I think most farmers agree that the Minister of Agriculture or somebody has bungled the whole situation as far as coarse grains are concerned from the point of view of the farmers, the livestock producers and everybody else. It has been bungled from beginning to end. With all the respect I have for the ability of the minister, I am afraid that if he remains in office for even the brief space of time during which I believe he will continue to occupy his present position he may, though unwillingly and unwittingly, preside over the liquidation of the industry of agriculture in this country'.


Mr. WARREN:: The western grumblers!


Calvert Charlton Miller: The western grumblers? I
think I am giving the views of the western grumblers better than the Minister of Agriculture has given them.


Ralph Melville Warren: I doubt it.


Calvert Charlton Miller: There is one other point
with which I wish to deal rather quickly, if I may. I think at this time I am justified in commenting upon a condition which exists among ourselves, the people of this country, with respect "to some of the things thar have been done to take away from us our natural freedom. I am amazed at the attitude now taken by our own people with regard to the assumption by the government of almost dictatorial powers over their rights and freedoms. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, while we boast of our democratic way of life I believe we are in danger of losing our dearly earned and highly treasured freedom. That freedom is the hallmark of democracy as we know it. No enemy is taking our freedom from us; nevertheless we are losing it just as surely through our own lassitude. More and more our property and our liberty are falling under the absolute control of either government employees or ministers of the crown. These government employees have no responsibility whatever to the people; and I do not think even a minister of the crown has the right to take unto himself such wide and extensive powers.

What has happened to the courts? Now they are usually taken out of the picture. Usually someone not qualified so to do sits in judgment upon us, either without a right of appeal or with a right of appeal so expensive that none of us can take advantage of it. I maintain that our courts were established by the people for their own protection, but the functions of our courts are being usurped more and more by officials. Many people think statements like this are just the rantings of another lawyer. That, as I said a moment ago, is the attitude which amazes me; that we do not worry more about the fact that we are losing those freedoms. We Canadians sit back complacently and say, "This is a free country. We have always been free and we always will be free." We forget that we have this freedom simply and solely because it was won for us through the struggles of our forebears. It is not something we have acquired by ourselves and for ourselves. It was acquired by others who suffered that we might have it. But, as has been said here previously by others more competent than I, we have grown so accustomed to freedom that we cannot even contemplate the possibility of losing it. Let us remember that within our memory and within our time other countries thought exactly the same thing, and that within the last ten or fifteen years peoples of other countries have seen their freedom vanish, to be regained only by further struggles and sacrifices. Many of our liberties in this country already have been curtailed, and this has occurred so gradually that none of us has noticed it creeping upon us, and none has really noticed his loss. More and more our statutes, both federal and provincial, provide that instead of a man being held innocent until proved guilty, which is the basic theory of British justice, he is now forced to prove himself innocent in our courts of law. Many statutes also provide that a man who innocently does a prohibited act is guilty of an offence by reason of the mere contravention of a statute, notwithstanding the fact that one of our great basic rules of freedom and liberty is that no man shall be convicted of an offence unless he commits a wrongful act with wrongful intent. Now a man can be found guilty of an offence because of the contravention of a regulation, and fined or sent to jail. Some of these regulations are not even made by parliament; they are made by committees and boards.
All these things are bad enough, but in addition I am afraid-and I do not like this-

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny
that some people are beginning to suspect, though they may do so unfairly and unjustly, that political friends get favoured treatment while he who is without friends at court can whistle and like it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I am not accusing anybody or any group; I say I believe that feeling is spreading in our country, and it is not good. There is no use trying to laugh it off. It is there. Let us go out and try to correct it. Canadians should fight these many encroachments on their liberty. The trouble is that nobody bothers or gets excited until he has had his own toes trampled upon. Some day it will be too late. We may laugh and be incredulous now, but some day we shall awaken to the astounding reality that much of that traditional liberty which was so dearly bought has slipped away from us beyond recall.
The latest example of encroachment upon our liberties is the giving to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) of this government widespread powers. He becomes the czar of all the czars, and even though the present minister may be the fairest man in public office, yet the office which he represents is being invested with powers which are too wide, powers so wide that we who hope to continue to live in a democracy should, at least in my humble judgment, rise up and protest. He has the power of life and death over industry, and even though the present minister who has received this power, or is going to receive it, might not do so, someone in the future, whom we cannot now know, may use this tremendous power to crush the business life out of his political enemies. That is a sorry position, and I maintain we should not even be placed in a position where that might be possible. It is too serious. However, the citizens as a whole do not become alarmed any more because, obviously, we cannot conceive that we shall ever lose our liberty. Nevertheless, these steadily increasing encroachments will in due course encompass our ruin.
Responsible government officials, crown officers and so on, defend all these statutes and encroachments by saying that the integrity of our crown prosecutors and the high sense of public duty of officials who administer the law constitute our assurance that there will be no miscarriage of justice, no loss of freedom and no abuses of the wide powers given to these people. The answer to that, even if such a defence were acceptable, is that it is still impractically dangerous to part from the
safeguards which, from wide experience, have been placed around our liberties, and to replace those safeguards with the pious hope that government employees or party officials or ministers of any political stripe, invested with excessive powers, will act wisely or fairly.
Certainly I believe that no one in Canada should willingly relinquish the protection of our liberties embodied in the great principles of British justice and British parliamentary practice enshrined in the hearts of Britons everywhere, and which are regarded by all Canadians whom I know as the great heritage of one who calls himself a Canadian.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my genial friend the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Miller), particularly because in the first few minutes of his speech he referred to the high cost of living and the difficulty the people in his constituency were experiencing in that regard.
I was glad he made reference to that, because perhaps he has now struck on a policy which is not very different from that of the party to which I belong. I hold in my hand a quotation taken from the Winnipeg Tribune of October 19, 1946, which purports to have been taken from the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) at a time when he was taking part in the by-election in Portage la Prairie at which the hon. member was elected. I hope these words are not prophetic, because this is what the leader of the opposition said in relation to the issue of the cost of living:
Mr. Miller's election will have no effect whatever on government controls because Inis views, stated on every platform, are in entire accord with the government's stated plan.
I am sorry the hon. member was given such a poor start because, in effect, the leader of the opposition said that, whether the present hon. member was elected or not, it would make no difference whatsoever so far as government policy is concerned, because he is in full accord with it. The hon. member may say, "After all, that was not my own statement"; but it was the statement of the leader of the opposition.
However, I have also his own statement made just one day earlier, on October 18, in which he is reported in the Portage la Prairie Graphic as having said this:
Mr. Miller emphasized there was no difference between the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives on price control and inflation.
I will leave it at that, because I hope to come back to the policy of that party later in my speech. I do not say that in any spirit of
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny

oarping criticism, but merely to point out that it is sometimes convenient not to make statements of that kind during a by-election when there is a chance of one's speaking later on the floor of the House of Commons.
Regardless of the many important issues which could be discussed at this time, there can be no doubt at all in the mind of anyone, irrespective of where he sits, that the issue uppermost in the minds of people throughout the country and members of the House of Commons is that of price control and the cost of living. I do not think there is any use in fooling ourselves that we can side-track public opinion any longer by talking about incidental matters in the house. I believe the great majority, perhaps seventy-five per cent or more, of the people in the country who sent us here, expect that during this session of parliament in 1948, before we go home, we shall do something about the cost of living. And I serve notice that the people will not be satisfied with the setting up of a committee to study the question, if that is all that is to be done.
In a recent poll of public opinion about a month ago it was reported that seventy-six per cent of the people of Canada were in favour of the re-establishment of price controls. That makes it the issue of the day. I do not think there was ever a time, certainly not since the election of 1945, when seventy-five per cent of the people of Canada expressed themselves as being agreed upon the necessity of taking a certain step at any time. I believe that this is the last gasp for those members of the Liberal party who are private members and who, like myself, are sometimes referred to as the backbenchers. They have sat session after session without offering criticism; and I am sure I speak accurately when I say that at times they have ground their teeth at some of the government's policies brought down. But through it all they have faithfully and dutifully stood by and voted for the government in order to maintain it in office.
On this one occasion I believe the government should declare an open vote on the amendment before the house so as to permit private members of the Liberal party to express their opinions on this very important question of price controls; because if they do not declare themselves now I believe they will find a very warm reception awaiting them upon their return to their constituencies; perhaps a little warmer than they expect. I do not say that in order to frighten them; but every member of the house to whom I have spoken tells me his files are bulging with letters and resolutions from various bodies

throughout the country demanding, requesting and urging that something be done immediately about this question of prices.
I shall not quote the resolutions and letters I have received; it would take too long. But I shall refer to the bodies which sent them. For example, these include the various branches of the Canadian Legion; the united electrical radio and machine workers of America; the Winnipeg labour council; the Canadian Congress of Labour, the brotherhood of express employees; the trades and labour council of Winnipeg; the dominion civil servants of Vancouver; the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks; the express and freight handlers; the Winnipeg general hospital employees ; the Canadian association of consumers -and a whole string of farm organizations and co-operatives too long to mention. That is the almost unanimous expression of opinion from the people we are here to represent. This is no disgruntled minority looking for a concession. It is the people of Canada who are speaking to their representatives in plain language and asking them to do something in this house; and I believe that before we disperse for the session we should be able to show something in the way of legislation and say: We have answered the call of the people of Canada.
What is the government doing about the matter? I think the hon. member for Portage la Prairie was correct when he said that, no matter what views and policies the various parties may hold on this question, the government for the moment are responsible for taking action within the life of this parliament, and it is up to the government to take the initiative. What are they going to do? We were given an indication of what they may do by the Prime Minister's announcement that a resolution will be introduced to set up a committee of the house to study the price question. This is not the time for setting up committees to study a question which requires immediate action.
There may be some members of the house who sat on the price spreads committee of fourteen years ago, which reported in 1934. I have some figures here gathered by that committee which I shall give later. The work of the committee was later transferred to a royal commission. The figures gathered prove that at that time profiteering was going on undoubtedly on a large scale. That was fourteen years ago. So the government cannot say that they have not been warned or that they have not the material facts upon which to base action. I have three large volumes here embodying the work of that commission.

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny
They were kindly given to me by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), perhaps because he had no room for them in his own office, or because he may have thoroughly digested them. These volumes give the data gathered and they contain a mine of information. So the government have all the evidence they require, if they are looking for profiteers, to get down to business.
I notice that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) is reported in the Toronto Star as having said that the government will turn the searchlight on those people who are profiteering. These were his words:
The government intends to turn the searchlight on those people who have profiteered as a result of the goverment taking off price controls, and they are going to have to face the eventualities of price profiteering at the expense of the people.
That is an excellent statement but it comes about fourteen years late. Further on, he said:
We as Liberals admit we made a mistake, so we have put the controls back on again.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The question is obvious: what controls? The government are just kidding themselves if they believe they have re-introduced price control.
I think the one class of people who have the most to complain about are the farmers. In western Canada the farmers for many years were promised stabilization. The organized farmers, the pools and co-operatives of various kinds agreed with the government that stabilization was the objective to be striven for, and we did achieve a certain amount of stabilization during the war. The bulk contracts with Great Britain for meat, grain, eggs and other products did bring an assured price to the farmer which acted as a floor price, but at the present time that floor price is acting as the ceiling price. The farmer is selling his wheat, his eggs and his meat products at ceiling prices to Great Britain. While those prices are not bad as compared with what prices used to be, the farmer has a legitimate complaint because the prices of all the products he has to use in his operations are going up day by day, and no one knows how high they will go. Take the price of gasoline, oil, farm implements of all kinds and the tools the farmer uses in his operations; the prices of all these things are going up day by day, and as a consequence the farmer is in a very uncertain position.
We had a long discussion before the Christmas recess of the feed grain situation and how that was handled. That one blunder by the government threw the whole livestock
production industry into complete chaos, and it had no sooner begun to revive than it was faced with sharp increases in the prices of all the articles the farmer has to buy, while the prices of the goods he sells are fixed by the agreements and by the fact that he cannot ship his produce across the line into the United States. It almost seems to me that somebody in the government is deliberately trying to upset the stabilization program which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) from time to time advocates in this house. It w'ould appear that someone was trying to sabotage the efforts at stabilization which the minister has told us so often he is making. As a matter of fact, I have often heard criticism of the Minister of Agriculture which was not justified. Heaven knows there is enough legitimate criticism coming to him, but there were times when criticism that should have been directed at the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) -was actually loaded on to the Minister of Agriculture. It put me in mind of the story of the lady who brought her little boy to school for the first time. She told the teacher he was a very sensitive child and gave her a long list of instructions how to handle little Douglas. She said, "If Douglas does anything wrong you must not punish him; just slap Jimmie next to him, and you will frighten him in that way." That seems to have been what was happening sometimes when criticism was directed against the Minister of Agriculture.
The farmers of western Canada have been very patient. I believe they have made an intelligent approach to this question of prices. They are one occupational group-there may be others-which did not seek to take advantage of the world shortage of food. If ever there wras a time when there was a chance for profiteering in this world it was in this time of shortages. But the farmers of western Canada are close to the soil; they know something about the production of food and of how much work it requires to make a living, and they have a great deal of sympathy for the population of the world and were satisfied to take what they thought was a fair price, even though they were tempted and are still tempted by the Winnipeg grain exchange and other bodies which dangle $3 wheat and things of that sort in front of them. But the farmers are practical people and they say this: Not only shall we serve the needs of humanity better if we take a reasonable price for our food products now and have a stabilized market now and for the future, but it will be in our own best interests in the long run if we do not gouge our customers. So they
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny

were prepared to accept prices that were reasonable, provided that they were in proper relationship to other prices. But now they see all other prices going sky-high, and even the most patient farmer finds his patience becoming exhausted. They are justified in saying to the government: You offer us stabilization with the one hand, and then you give us confusion and chaos with the other. I believe if nothing is done about prices in the next few months there is a real danger, not only of a great loss in potential production on the farm, but of non-delivery strikes such as have taken place in the past, resulting in general dislocation.
There are those who say: Prices are high because wages are high. I have plenty of evidence here, if the house will hear it, to show that wages are not the cause of high prices today. For example, one report taken from the figures of the bureau of statistics shows that in 1946 Canadian corporations made a profit of $61 out of every man, woman and child in this country as compared with only $31 in 1938. It goes on to show that the total profit figure of these corporations was $3,059 million, and during the same period of time figures are quoted here to show that the real wages, that is the real purchasing power of the workers, farmers and salaried people in Canada dropped by eight per cent. In other words, it is quite clear that it is profiteering which is creating the high prices. That is even more serious than if it were wages or salaries which were doing it, because there would be a tendency for wages and salaries to find a certain level, even if it were high, and then stop there; but there is no level at which profiteering will stop. If they can make 100 per cent profit today, tomorrow they want 125 per cent. If they can get away with that, the next day they want 150 per cent.
I hold in my hand a pamphlet which, going back to 1938, shows the cost of producing a tractor. These figures are taken from a survey of the federal trade commission of the United States. It shows that out- of every $100 spent in producing a tractor, only $51'3, or 51*3 per cent, represents the cost of material, which includes also factory overhead and freight. The remainder amounts to 48-7 per cent of the selling cost, which includes the manufacturer's profit, the dealer's margin, advertising and so on. If it costs almost as much, within a few cents on a dollar to sell a tractor as it does to build it and ship it, then there is something seriously wrong with an economic system which operates in that way. As a matter of fact, out of $100 in the production 
of this tractor, direct labour received only $4-80. Therefore no one can say it is wages that are pushing up prices.
The hon. member who preceded me referred to the condition in which people who are on fixed income find themselves. I hold in my hand The Legionary, which is a publication of the Canadian Legion. In this publication they point out that the proposed increases to those on pension and those who are receiving allowances are far too small. I shall quote just a paragraph or two to show their point of view. On page 10 we find the following.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the date of the issue?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: February, 1948. It
arrived today. I quote:
The general opinion regarding the government's proposals is that the}' are not sufficiently adequate to offset the rising cost of living. Furthermore, no provision has been made to increase the additional pension provided for wives and children or the pensions of other dependents entitled under the act.
It goes on to say further:	.
... to many pensioners and to all war veterans allowance recipients the tremendous increase in actual living costs is nothing less than catastrophic.
That is only one example. One could go on and quote letters and resolutions from old age pensioners, from other people on fixed incomes and from people who are not even provided for because, let us not forget, that while we are worrying about the purchasing power of those who are on pension, there are thousands of people in this country who should be on pension but are not. There are crippled adults in every province. For example, in Manitoba there is no provincial legislation to provide any financial assistance to crippled adults. They become a charge on the municipality in which they live, and quite often they live in a municipality which has difficulty in keeping up its roads, its schools and its bridges, and has nothing with which to finance people in that category. There are people who are between sixty-five and seventy years of age who, because of poor health, some through rheumatism or arthritis, some through paralysis or something of that sort, are completely disabled and who cannot apply for old age pension, but find themselves in a desperate position. The recent increase in the cost of living hits them all the harder because they have so much less to live on.
I want to refer to the position taken by the official opposition in this house on the question of price controls, as I said I would do. I am

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny
speaking of our friends the Progressive Conservatives. Let me say at the outset that I am not saying this because I want to engage in a quarrel with them, but because of the motion which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) attempted to have adopted in the house the other day asking for the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the high cost of living. I was glad he moved the motion; I was sorry it was not acceptable; but I was surprised at the same time, because if any party in this house has a record for advocating decontrol it is certainly the Progressive Conservative party.


Mr. SKEY:: Not the way the government did it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; you wanted it faster.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The hon. member for Trinity says, "Not the way the government did it"; but the only difference in the way the government did it and the way the Progressive Conservatives would have done it is that the government did it more slowly. To prove the accuracy of that statement, I am going to turn to the record. We can always depend on the record whenever there is a dispute. On March 5, 1947, this matter was discussed in this house, and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart), who was in the house a few moments ago, had this to say. which will be found at page 1059 of Hansard. Referring to the wartime prices and trade board, he said:
We have an army of men of various types running around the country doing a useless job, and it is about time they were put on the production end. I have reference to employees of the wartime prices and trade board.
Further on, he warmed up to his speech and said:
If the small businessmen of this country have to put up with this kind of thing, it is time that somebody took a sawed-off shotgun and started to work.
That is decontrol with a vengeance. Further on, he had this to say:
For goodness sake, let us get back to normal. Let the law of supply and demand hold sway.
Well, we got it faster than he expected. The law of supply and demand did hold sway for a time, and then what happened? Then his own leader rises in his place in the house and moves an adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance because the law of supply and demand has held sway.
I have no objection to anyone being for decontrol. They have a perfect right to do
so; but if a party in this house in one session of parliament advocates decontrol, and then in the next session of parliament complains because they got it, there is something wrong somewhere. I am not going to suggest that we run for the sawed-off shotgun or anything of that sort, but I will say this. It is easy enough for members of the Progressive Conservative opposition to get up in this house and blindly state that if government controls were removed the law of supply and demand would soon bring us back to normal. Surely they realize by now that for every law, so-called, of supply and demand, there are a dozen economic lawyers whose chief purpose seems to be to stymie its efforts, to destroy free competition, to restrict production, to obstruct trade, all of which are the essential elements in the creation of monopoly.
The Progressive Conservatives were not the only party that advocated decontrol. Our friends the Social Crediters are on record by a statement of their own leader on March 21:
Social Crediters are implacably opposed to planned control.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: That is, state socialism.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If they prefer unplanned control that is their business.


Charles Edward Johnston: How about the Bretton Woods agreement, which you supported?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am not the author, either of the Bretton Woods agreement or of Social Credit unplanned control. I am merely stating what is on record and if it is not palatable to my hon. friend-


Charles Edward Johnston: Be consistent with yourself.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -then it is his trouble and not mine. But so much for the parties in the house. I do not need to refer to the policy of the government itself or of the party that supports the government because their action speaks for itself. They have talked controls but have decontrolled full steam ahead while doing so. But what about other organizations outside parliament who give us advice once in a while? I have a statement of March 26, 1947, by the president of the Robert Simpson Company, which is the same as we hear from the official opposition. That gentleman said:
An over-all and immediate lifting of ceilings would quickly react to the benefit of all consumers.
An hon. member beside me says. "Particularly Simpson's", and he is right to the hilt, because I have an excerpt from the price spreads report of 1934 which shows something of the history of the Robert Simpson Company. The president says that all consumers would
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny

benefit. I wonder whom he had in mind particularly. Here are the figures on certain goods sold by the Robert Simpson Company in Toronto. Sewing cabinets: The laid-down cost was S7.33 per unit, and the selling price, $14.75. The mark-up was $7.42, or a percentage mark-up of 101-23. Not bad. Then take men's overcoats. The laid-down cost was $822; the selling price, $20; the mark-up, $11.78, or a percentage of 143-31. Men's bathrobes: laid-down cost, $1.87, selling price, $3.95, mark-up, $2.08, or a percentage of 111-23. Girls' woollen highgate coats cost $6.79 and the selling price was $22.50. The mark-up was $15.71, or a percentage of 231-37. Then assorted dresses, for girls, I presume: initial cost, $5.10; selling price. $19.75; mark-up, $14.65, or a percentage of profit of 287-25.


Charles Edward Johnston: That includes the new
look, though.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: This was in 1934. The next item is capes. The original cost was 81.58; selling price, $7.50; mark-up, $5.92, or a percentage profit of 374-68. Not bad for the Robert Simpson Company. No wonder the president now says that an over-all and immediate lifting of ceilings would quickly react to the benefit of consumers.
Time is passing and what I have to say must be said as briefly as possible. Let me say this, and I say it, not because I happen to- be within the ranks of the C.C.F. but because it is an economic fact. What is required is more public ownership, more public utilities, more public enterprise in order to keep a check and act as a police force, if nothing else, for this so-called free enterprise, to keep it within reasonable limits.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: What kind of police force?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: My hon. f-riend wants
to know what kind of police force. I mean an economic police force which will prevent private enterprise from running hog-wild. I do not mean putting anyone up against a stone wall or anything of that sort. But this is not radical. My hon. friend would be surprised to know that fourteen years ago the price spreads commission made some recommendations as to how to prevent price spreads such as they had investigated at that time, and one of their recommendations was public ownership and operation. They gave the reasons for it:
Public ownership, for a variety of reasons- to provide a competitive check on private enterprise, to supplement ineffective regulations over a monopoly, to control consumption, to provide revenue . . .
And so on.


Mr. PROBE:: What party was in power?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Of course the majority
of those who made the recommendations were Conservatives-not Progressive Conservatives. They were more progressive than, the Progressive Conservatives. That is what we suggest, and I have to put it briefly because time will not permit me tQ enlarge upon it. In contrast with that, we have what the official opposition, the Progressive Conservatives, would propose as their solution, and it is contained in a statement made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who, I am glad to see, is here. Speaking at Carberry, Manitoba, at a nominating convention he said:
On every hand I hear the question, what does the party stand for,-
A good question.
*-and in w-hat direction does it tend?
Then he goes on:
But recent events have shown that while we are a party with great principles, we have not succeeded in acquainting the people with the fact.
Then, as if finding a reason for that he says:
Salesmanship cannot be successful unless you have something to sell.
Then he went on to strike the first blow in acquainting the public with the great principles of his party, and one of the cardinal .principles he sets out is this:
Private enterprise would be at a maximum, and public enterprise restricted to a minimum under Conservative policies, the speaker declared.
There is the cardinal principle of the Progressive Conservative party.
Mr. MaeINNIS: No wonder they are not selling.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Private enterprise at a maximum and public enterprise at a minimum.


An hon. MEMBER:: Page the province of
Saskatchewan.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: One of the finest examples of public enterprise in this country is Saskatchewan, and perhaps the brightest spot in that respect is our co-operative movement. As a matter of fact, it was not started by any government but by the people themselves.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was started by Gardiner.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was done in spite of many people.

The Address-Mr. Michaud


John George Diefenbaker: A box factory is the finest example.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I knew I had some members in the box but I did not think they would admit it.
Let me continue what I was saying. The co-operative movement is the finest example of public enterprise we have in the country because it is prepared at the same time to look after its economic future and give the members of that institution or other people a lead in a new way of life, to point the way toward a new philosophy of production and distribution, a new social philosophy, pointing to a way in which people can live together in harmony and produce and distribute for their mutual benefit rather than snatch the bread from each others hands, which is the present tendency. Yet my friend, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who was nurtured in Saskatchewan and ought to know better, says that under his government public enterprise would be restricted to a minimum. Perhaps it is not by coincidence that the drive we witnessed two years ago across Canada by the so-called taxpayers' association to tax the co-operatives out of existence, was led by a member of the Progressive Conservative party in the Manitoba legislature, Mr. Thorvaldson. He is giving us a foretaste of what the cooperative movement could expect if the party of that stripe were to get into power. I believe that, regardless of where we sit in this house, it is becoming quite evident that this is a modern civilization we are living in and that things have speeded up to a point where we can no longer depend upon prices to find their own level as long as the fixing of prices is in the hands of private firms or individuals, because the tendency will be to raise the profit as high as the traffic will bear. The solution that we propose, as I said a moment ago, is for the people of this country, through cooperatives and, if necessary, through government initiative, through public enterprise, to go into the fields of production and distribution which are most suitable for that type of enterprise, and in that way act as a stabilizing and equalizing force in our economic system.


Benoît Michaud: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak in this debate, at least at this stage; but after listening to so many speakers from different groups voicing their grievances and making demands on the government for public works of various sorts and, in addition, giving all kinds of valuable advice to the government, I thought perhaps I should endeavour to do something along that line.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Benoît Michaud: I take notice of the "hear, hears" from the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party. I think the house will take notice that they do not come up to mine as far as volume and timing are concerned; but it is a noble effort and I appreciate it.
First, taking up the matter of grievances,
I think it is only fair to say that at the present time throughout Canada the main grievance is the increased cost of living. Without a doubt, this is the problem of the hour. Is it to be wondered at that prices have gone up?
I know of no prolonged war which was not followed by an acute period of inflation. Considering the great increase in currency which took place since 1939, one can easily understand why there should be rising prices and inflation. In 1939, according to figures which I secured from the Department of Finance, there was roughly $200 million of legal tender in circulation in Canada. In 1917 it had grown to SI,200 million, an increase to six times the pre-war figure. If we look at the amount of the legal tender in the hands of the public, we find that there was approximately $144 million before the war compared with over a billion dollars in 1947, or an increase to seven and a half times pre-war figures. If we consider the amount of the bonded debt, government bonds in circulation, they are approximately $13 billion as compared with two and a half billion before the war, or roughly five times the pre-war figure.
If there is the slightest degree of truth in the so-called infallible dogma of so-called orthodox economists, namely, that the price of commodities bears a fairly constant ratio to the amount of currency in circulation, then present prices should be at least three times what they were before the war because the total amount of legal tender increased by six times, whereas Canada's production just about doubled. I do not think anybody will dispute the statement that, without controls, prices would have increased threefold and more since 1939. Nothing but ceilings and controls kept them down, and everybody should have known that. I think we are all in agreement as to the evils of inflation and deflation. During both operations it is the little fellows, the man in the street, the farmer and the labourer who get it in the neck.
Inflation is not good for the man whose main assets consist in bonds, mortgages and bank savings. These assets gradually dwindle in value during a period of inflation. The same is true of all persons in receipt of pensions or what is generally known in banking terms as "government transfers to persons," and of
The Address-Mr. Michaud

which there are seventeen items according to the recent report of the Royal Bank of Canada.
It appears quite obvious to me that, in the absence of some extrinsic means of regulating prices, the enormous amount of currency now in circulation, if let loose, is bound to cause some considerable measure of inflation. Again it is these extrinsic regulations which kept prices down during the war and the immediate post-war period.
To any sane thinking person it was quite obvious that a premature removal of ceilings and controls would bring about inflation. Why then, in the face of that, did the present government, when attempting to pass these temporary emergency bills, meet such a stiff opposition on the part of the Progressive Conservatives and the Social Crediters in the course of the three previous sessions of this parliament. AVould it be, perchance, that the big interests, for which the Progressive Conservative party stands, find a fertile field for high profits during periods of inflation and during periods of deflation as well? Apparently big interests are all for these kinds of fleecing operations.
Personally, I am inclined to think the government decontrolled somewhat too quickly with respect to certain commodities. I realize that it was impossible to bring in every decontrol measure exactly at the right time. On the whole the government did a remarkably good job, but it was only a human and not a divine job, and for this reason a few errors might have been made. We must consider ourselves fortunate, however, that the loyal opposition were not in power during the postwar years. They would have done away with all controls a long time ago, and we would have suffered considerably more from inflation.
It was perhaps necessary to decontrol sooner in certain fields in order to teach some fools who did not understand the necessary implications of what some agitators induced them to do; that is, clamour for the removal of controls. I had an instance of this in my own riding just about a year ago, when a group of blind followers of unscrupulous and fascist-minded leaders requested the immediate removal of all controls. I feel confident that very few of those eight hundred odd people would sign the same petition today. In any event I would challenge them to do so. As I said a moment ago, perhaps it was necessary for the government to decontrol a little too quickly in order to teach a lesson to such fools.
At this stage I wish to congratulate the government on the partial reimposition of controls, ceilings and mark-up limitations with respect to certain commodities. I hope such

controls will be maintained as long as may be necessary to fully protect Canadian consumers. As yet I do not know what the effect of this mark-up control will be on the price of chemical fertilizers, in which a great many people in my province are very much interested. I have not seen any figures, but we were told something would be done along that line. The province of New Brunswick is the second largest per capita user of chemical fertilizer. I am not prepared to discuss this subject at length this evening, but I wish to call certain facts to the attention of the house and to voice the great concern felt by our farmers in the maritime provinces. On December 1, a news item appeared in the press of my province, and perhaps throughout the country, apparently emanating from some government department, reading as follows:
Ottawa, December 1. A 20 per cent jump in fertilizer prices in the maritime provinces next spring was predicted today by the dominion Department of Agriculture in a report placed before the opening meeting of the the dominion-provincial agricultural conference.
"As the maritime provinces are at the end of the longest and most expensive freight haul from sources of supply of most of the chemicals in Canada, or have to obtain supply in the United States, where prices are now much higher than in Canada, prices of mixed fertilizers in the maritime provinces next spring may be substantially higher than in Ottawa and Quebec." the report said.
"In the circumstances, it is possible that price increases in the spring of 1948 will approximate eight per cent in Ontario, twelve per cent in Quebec and twenty per cent in the maritimes. Prices tend to rise to the world price level which is still much higher than Canadian prices. It is possible that the phosphates and potash which Canada must import from the United States and other countries will increase again in price if supplies continue to be purchased in the United States for the needy countries of Europe and Asia at prices which would seem to have no ceiling."
Following this press report or news item, the president of the maritime federation of agriculture sent an open letter to the editor of the Saint John Telegraph-Journal. I am not going to read it all, but I wish to bring out some points contained in that letter. After referring to the news item, Mr. J. E. Walsh, president of the federation, went on to question the justification for an advance, and to say that it would need some explaining to show why the maritimes should pay more than other areas. He then went on to point out where the different ingredients come from. As the news item indicated, the phosphates and superphosphates are imported from the United States. It is by far the bulkiest of the ingredients going into mixed fertilizer. These are processed at Baltimore, Maryland, and at Belceil, Quebec, some thirty miles east

The Address-Mr. Michaud
of Montreal. The second item in importance, from point of view of size, is the potash; the ingredient generally employed is muriate of potash. The source is principally New Mexico and Europe. Finally, the third element of the nitrogen group is composed principally of sulphate of ammonia and ammonium nitrate. The sulphate of ammonia is a by-product of coking coal, and is produced at the various steel plants throughout Canada. The ammonium nitrate is produced principally in Upper Canada, most of it at the Welland plant which was sold to North American Cyanamid Limited.
The biggest price jump was in connection with this latter ingredient, where the increase was a little more than fifty per cent, On this point I wish to read from the letter of Mr. Walsh, who, in referring to ammonium nitrate, said:
This represents the most violent price advance and in the farmer's eye the least justified. The three Canadian plants were built by Britain to supply nitrate during the war if her own plants were bombed. Britain did not lose her plants, so the ones in Canada manufactured the material for fertilizer. Costs that were known during the war showed the plant at Calgary making the fertilizer formulae at considerably less than $20 per ton and writing off a good portion of plant cost in so doing and the plant at Port Robinson, Ontario, reported costs of less than $40 per ton. Farmers do not believe that the $91 price is justified.
That is the present price; it jumped from S60 to S91. In his letter Mr. Walsh goes on to remark that as far as the maritimes are concerned the imported ingredients can be brought by ship, so that the argument of the long haul should not apply and should not make these fertilizers more expensive for the farmers of the maritime provinces.
In a letter to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacKinnon), which I wrote to him shortly after I noticed this letter in the Telegraph-Journal, I got some valuable information. I had asked a number of questions, among which was one as to the possibility of finding supplies of phosphates, superphosphates and potash in Canada. On this point I should like to quote an important paragraph from his letter:
This production could be developed provided there is a sufficient demand to warrant the capital expenditure involved. If the potash deposits in Saskatchewan were developed it would also relieve the demand from foreign sources of supply for this material, and the same would apply if phosphate rock deposits in Quebec were similarly developed.
I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or the department concerned to inquire as to what the prospects are of
developing those sources of deposits to which reference is made in the letter of the Minister of Fisheries.
The people of this country have the impression that when we deal with fertilizer manufactures we are dealing with one .of the most powerful monopolies in this country. I have no figures here which would be of any assistance to hon. members on this point. Perhaps the committee which will be set up might look into the matter; and I suggest that it ought to look into it, because there is a definite feeling among the farmers of the country that we are paying much too much for our chemical fertilizers.
On this point I would call the attention of the house to the fact that, during a period of years, 'the fertilizer companies have discouraged farmers from buying chemicals instead of mixed fertilizers. They have kept the price of chemicals so high that they have discouraged the farmers from buying their own ingredients and mixing it themselves.
For those who may not be familiar with this problem, I may add that a ton of fertilizer does not contain 2,000 pounds of fertilizing ingredients; some contain as low as 1,400 pounds, the rest being filler. In years gone by, farmers used to buy their own ingredients and mix them, thus saving as much as perhaps twenty-five per cent or more of the price, and with little extra work. However, it seems that this practice has been discouraged by the fertilizer companies, and a pamphlet issued by the Department of Agriculture bears me out on that point.
In this connection I should like to quote a few figures. In 1927 the percentage of unmixed ingredients sold was 62 per cent, while the percentage of mixed fertilizers was 37 per cent. In 1946 the unmixed ingredients constituted only 15 per cent of the sales, as compared with 62 per cent in 1927, whereas the mixtures accounted for 84 per cent of the total sales. I suggest that these facts would bear some investigation.
Reverting to the matter of prices and price stability generally, one must admit at once that it is a most difficult problem for any government. I believe every sensible person will admit the necessity for the greatest possible degree of stability in the prices of goods and services, but no one seems prepared to offer an effective suggestion to bring that about. In order to make the present prices of goods correspond with wages, I believe prices should be rolled back to about the point they were a year ago. This would indeed' be a difficult problem. The very least that could be expected would be to have
The Address-Mr. Michaud

prices rolled back to what they were in September last, and to hold them there tightly.
As all hon. members know, control of prices in normal times comes within provincial jurisdiction. Unless we are prepared to rely indefinitely upon the emergency doctrine, I fail to see how the federal government can hang on to controls for any great length of time. It is a matter of determining when the emergency ceases. That is a big constitutional question, and one on which those great constitutional lawyers on the other side of the house have not, to my knowledge, offered any very constructive suggestions.
Perhaps we could look at the problem from the angle of trade and commerce, which comes within federal jurisdiction. If it thus became a matter falling within federal jurisdiction it might be possible to see that no exorbitant profits were made by the numerous and sometimes unnecessary intermediaries between producers and consumers.
Under the wartime prices and trade board regulations, reasonable mark-ups or profits for most commodities were established. I am wondering whether the federal government has not the jurisdiction to legislate in that field at any time, and I suggest that it be tried until it is held ultra vires by the courts of the country. I realize I am now skating on the rather thin ice of provincial harmony. If I lived in Quebec or Ontario I might not dare to speak in such a vein; but in New Brunswick we are not quite so touchy on the question of autonomy. At least most of the people are not, because most of those with whom I come in contact call for price ceilings. Considering that the government fixed prices during the war, they now blame that same government for the increase in the prices which followed the removal of ceilings. It would appear to me that if the government were to keep on controlling mark-ups or profits at all the different levels of trade it might help to solve some of the problems of rising prices.
I wish now to touch upon a few other matters. Many hon. members in this debate have referred to the income tax, and those who have mentioned it have called for higher exemptions in the income tax schedules. Some have suggested $3,000 and $1,500. This afternoon my good friend the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis) suggested $2,500 and $1,250. I am not prepared to suggest any figure, more than to express the view that these exemptions should be increased considerably. At least they should be raised to $2,500 for married people. I anticipate some of our

good friends who have been clamouring for this exemption for two or three years will say that they were right and we were wrong in not advocating it three years ago. But conditions three years ago were somewhat different. Then we were in the red, and deep in the red. In 1945 we had a deficit and in 1946 we budgeted for a deficit. But now, with a huge surplus in prospect, I think the government could well afford to raise the exemption as suggested by most of those who have spoken on this subject in this debate.
I also wish to make mine the representations that have been made by various speakers with reference to invalids. I would go so far as again to mention elderly people who are not now eligible for old age pensions. There are quite a few over sixty-five years of age who are not in a position to earn a decent livelihood. I hope that at some future time, whether in co-operation with provincial governments or not, some social legislation will be put on the statute book whereby these underprivileged people will be better looked after than they have been up to now.
I could not resume my seat without making reference to some of the needs of my constituency. I am sorry the Minister of Fisheries is not in his seat at the moment because I wished to call to his attention the urgent requests from the people of the county of Madawaska who for years made representations to the government with a view to obtaining a fish hatchery in that county or at least rearing ponds. Year after year they have made these representations, and just before the outbreak of world war II the hatchery had been promised to them, but the war broke out and nothing could be done.
The county of Restigouche, which has a coastline of some forty miles, needs in the worst way additional wharf facilities, particularly Campbellton and Dalhousie. Dredging is also needed in the worst way. Some slight work was done along this line during the past year, but not sufficient to meet the demands of our fishermen and shippers. The result is that our ports do not enjoy the reputation they would have if they were provided with these necessary facilities. Moreover, they do not get the business which would normally go there.
Finally, we need public buildings in many places. At this point I wish to express my appreciation for whatever public works have been undertaken to this date. I would refer to the new customs and immigration building which will be opened shortly at Edmundston. Another one is needed at St. Leonard, and I understand that steps are being taken to press that project. I urge the government to do its

The Address-Mr. Moore
utmost to see that these much needed buildings are erected as soon as possible. A post office building is also needed in the beautiful and rapidly-growing village of St. Quentin.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How big is it?


Benoît Michaud: It is quite big. It is only thirty-six years old, but it is big and it is growing.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How many people are there?


Benoît Michaud: I could not say offhand, but the population is doubling about every five years. Land was purchased for the purpose before the war and I understand that moneys were voted for the erection of the building. I realize that it is not the policy of the government to put up many public buildings at this time, but there are cases where it is absolutely necessary to do so, where revenue would be lost to the government because of lack of proper building facilities. I feel that St. Quentin is a deserving case and I hope that something will be done about this building in the near future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nothing about potatoes?


Benoît Michaud: I shall have further representations to make on the estimates, but for the time being I bring these projects up because they are most urgently needed.


Mr. RONALD MOORE (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, we have been assured that ample opportunity will be afforded in this debate to discuss the problem which is uppermost in the minds of the Canadian people, namely, the high cost of living in Canada at the present time. As one travels from one part of Canada to another one must realize that the cost of living is the main issue before the people of this country today. As the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) said when he spoke a short time ago, labour unions, farm organizations and other bodies have communicated with members of the House of Commons asking them to bring the question of the high cost of living before the house at the earliest possible moment. I would not like to see this question become a political issue because it is of too much importance to the people of Canada at this time.
Before the war ended, this government had provided the country with a pretty good system of price control. Generally speaking, our economic system was on a fairly even keel and good relationships existed between the farmers, labour, and company organizations with respect, not only to the cost of living, but to the general income level of the Canadian 5849-45
people. This happy situation could have been continued had the government of this country retained price control for a time longer.
The statement is being made generally throughout the country that one of the reasons for the great increase in the cost of living is that labour is demanding more and more in wages. I remember a number of years ago when that used to be one of the trump cards brought out by those who supported leaving conditions as they were. It seemed to be an answer to say that the increases in the cost of living were due to labour going on strike and demanding higher wages. But if we go carefully into the question I think we can prove that that is not the case, and most certainly it is not the case now.
I do not want to give any figures whidh have already been quoted in the house, but I should like to refer for a moment to the profits which have been made by twelve leading textile plants in Canada, comparing 1946 with 1945. According to my information, confirmation of which may 'be found in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and also in the survey of financial corporations, one of the leading textile plants in 1946 made a profit of 521 per cent over 1945; another one made 309 per cent; then at least three were well over 200 per cent; another two plants made well over 100 per cent. The average increase in profits in the thirteen plants between 1945 and 1946 was 137 per cent. What was the increase in the wages of the people who worked in those textile plants? According to the bureau of statistics, in January, 1946, the weekly wage in the textile plants in Canada was $24.23. In 1947 it was $25.61, an increase of $1.48 a week, or approximately six per cent from 1945 to 1946. Obviously the increase in the selling price of textiles in Canada was not due to an increase in wages which went to the workers; in the main it was due to the greatly increased profits which went to the owners of the industry.
Because the increases in the cost of living are bearing so heavily upon our people, we ought to be in a pretty fair position to call on this government to do something about the matter. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Toronto Globe artd Mail on March 7, 1947, dealing with price control. This was at the time the omnibus bill was being discussed in this House of Commons. The article was written by the staff correspondent of the paper, Mr. Baldwin. It says:
Liberal party members are pressing on cabinet the necessity of braking the prices board's decontrol program and continuing present subsidies for a longer period than is now contem-
The Address-Mr. Moore

plated. Some of those who six months ago were chafing at the government bit and urging more rapid removal of controls are now getting worried at rising costs of living and suggesting that the line be held even if subsidies have to be increased rather than curtailed.
Listen to this:
Yesterday's Liberal caucus gave some attention to Justice Minister Usley's omnibus bill which, among other things, continues power to enforce price and rent control. First definite indication of the extent of proposed subsidy withdrawals during the year has been given by the estimates tabled this week. Butter subsidy is one of those rumoured for early withdrawal with a consequent jump of at least eight cents a pound to the consumer.
The article goes on to show that in the month of January of last year the price index jumped from 127 bo 127-8, and due to the decontrol the prices board expected a further increase in living costs in February and March. The article then goes on:
In the light of these facts and fears, the rank and file of the party is said to have urged a slowing up of the program. Western farm members who, with a few exceptions, have been ready to support Agriculture Minister Gardiner's farm stabilization plans point out ominously that these plans cannot be carried out if prices across the board are going to be allowed to skyrocket. While a large factor in increasing prices would be the rise in the price of agricultural products, it is realized that if subsidies here are removed it will set off the spiral of a price rise which would inevitably boomerang with double impetus on the farmer.
According to this report, that was the opinion of many backbenchers of the Liberal party last session. Where are these members today? Where do they stand on price control? One of them has already spoken thus far. I was glad to see that he supported price control, but I should like to see the others rise in their places and urge this government to reimpose these controls. They ought to be reimposed for one very good reason, namely, that there will be no end to price increases without controls. In effect we have the same situation today that existed during the war years. There is just as great a demand for Canadian commodities today as there was when our armies were in the field. I insist that this government and this House of Commons should see to it that something is done to protect the Canadian people against the ever-increasing cost of living. The only way it can be done is by the reimposition of price controls.
I know there are widely divided views in this house between the government, the Progressive Conservatives, the Social Credit group and ourselves. This is a matter of vital concern to every consumer in Canada, and it is one issue on which we ought to drop these

differences and re-institute controls which have proven themselves to be to the benefit of every person in Canada.
Speaking to the United States congress, the President referred last year, at about the time that we were discussing the omnibus bill, to the fact that they had lifted controls in the United States, but at the same time he implored United States manufacturers not to take everything the market would stand; otherwise they would wreck the United States economy. The same thing applies to Canada and we are going to find it out. If we allow our manufacturers, our industrialists and our free private enterprises to take everything the market will stand we shall wreck the Canadian economy just as surely as the people of the United States are going to wreck theirs.
The reason we have a huge demand for commodities today is that Europe was destroyed. So long as we have to supply commodities and capital goods to rebuild Europe, there will be an unlimited demand for everything that can be produced in Canada. Because of that fact, the government ought again to take hold of the situation as they did in the war and re-institute these controls which worked so well to the benefit of everyone.
I w-ould not want to impute motives to any individual, particularly to those who have not an opportunity to reply to me, but for the consideration particularly of the Progressive Conservative group I should like to quote from one of the directors of the Bank of Nova Scotia. I insist that he expressed the point of view which in some degree was along the lines that this group have suggested, particularly with respect to controls. This is what Mr. H. L. Enman, vice-president and general manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia, had to say in his annual address:
But if there ever was a time when selfrestraint was necessary, that time is the present. If sellers were to take full advantage of their bargaining position we should simply accelerate the inflationary spiral of rising prices and costs, and build up a high-cost structure which would, involve a difficult and painful readjustment when the price trend turns in a downward direction, as some day it most surely will. Many prices are already at levels which appear to be high not only in relation to past experience but in relation to the general price level.
That is a pretty fair statement of the situation. I believe it calls for action on the part of this government. The only action that they can put into effect which will meet the situation is to reimpose the controls which they have already taken off.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Ronald Stewart Moore: Yes.

The Address-Mr. Moore


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the hon. member regard that quotation which he has just read as advocating the imposition of government controls? I thought the word "restraint" meant, restraint to be exercised1 by each individual. That is what I gathered as I listened to the hon. member reading the article.


Ronald Stewart Moore: I will accept that correction. As I said, I am not trying to impute motives to that gentleman. I thought, from reading this article, we could make a very good case for the reimposition of controls on the basis of what that man who has experience in business has said. It may be true that he meant restraint on the part of the individual, but I think it has been proved that such restraint is an utter impossibility when there exists the possibility of making such great profits. I have quoted the profits that have been made; so have other individuals, and the same experience obtains in the United States. Therefore, if the interests of the country and of private enterprise itself are to be served there ought to be a reimposition of controls.
I should like to deal next with the question of some solution to these difficult problems. Personally, I do not believe that, apart from a socialist economy, there is any solution for the economic problems which confront us today. I will prove that. I do not mean a totalitarian economy, but a socialist economy under the direction of democratic socialism. We already have in this country adequate proof in illustration of that point.
Take the great co-operative movement which has already been referred to this evening. The principles that underlie co-operation are distinctly socialistic and I challenge anyone to disprove that. In Winnipeg we have one of the most efficient hydro systems supplying power to that city. It is municipally owned, by the people of Winnipeg. It is a socialist institution because it has been built to serve the people of Winnipeg and not to make profits for a private owner. The same applies to Ontario. You have in this province a hydro-electric system which serves the best interests of the people, and its purpose is not to make profits for any individual. There are many members in this house who come from Toronto, and they belong largely, I believe, to the Progressive Conservative party. In the city of Toronto you have one of the finest transportation systems on the American continent, the Toronto transportation commission.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And the only reason it has been so successful is that it has kept the hands of the socialists out of it.
5849-45J


Ronald Stewart Moore: That is a socialist institution, is it not? It does not serve the interests of individuals. Does it not serve the interests of the people of Toronto, and is it not owned by the people of Toronto? Do you not think it would be a good thing to extend that principle to other parts of our economy?
One hon. member on the other side of the house who spoke referred to the Welland plant which was used to manufacture fertilizer. The government sold that plant to a private corporation and, immediately it was sold, the price of fertilizer almost doubled in this country. I have not the figures to prove that right here, but I venture to say that the owners of that plant are making a very large profit on its operation. I am not kicking against the profit they make, but I want to draw a comparison, because in another instance this government followed a different course.
Take the great Polymer Corporation which the minister of reconstruction set up during the war years to produce rubber when we lost our supply of rubber in the East Indies. This is a government-owned, crown corporation. In 1943 the cost of rubber per pound at the plants in Sarnia and Windsor was 39-96 cents. By 1946 it had been reduced to 20-35 cents per pound, and on November 1, 1946, the price had fallen to 18-5 cents per pound. The cost of raw rubber, by the way, is 20-5 cents per pound in Singapore.
No doubt some members will recall that last year a number of tire companies made an announcement over the radio that very shortly the cost of tires would be reduced to the prewar price, and I venture to say the reason they were able to make that statement over the radio is the fact that they were able to get fairly cheap rubber from the crown corporation which at. the present time is operating to serve the interests of the Canadian people and not the interests of a few only who would operate the plant for private profit.


John George Diefenbaker: In rising to take part in this debate, I do not intend to follow the line that has been taken by those who have preceded me, but I might say to the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Moore) and also to the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny), who spoke a little while ago, that it is interesting that when they dealt with the success of public enterprise, they referred to public enterprise under free enterprise governments. They did not deal with the way business has been done by the government of Saskatchewan, in boots, boxes and bricks, in which businesses the government of Saskatchewan has been engaged over a period of well on to three years.
/OS
The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker

Ail hon. MEMBER: We will tell you about that.


John George Diefenbaker: I am getting answers now on the subject. When my hon. friends had the opportunity to speak and to show how successful socialism is in the operation of business in their own experiment in Saskatchewan they were unable to point to any successful businesses other than transportation and the liquor business.
This evening, in the time at my disposal, I intend to refer once more to certain invasions that are taking place on the part of the state on the rights of the individual. We find ourselves in this house in a position where the government, having had the opportunity to answer, is not yet able to deny, nor has any minister risen in his place to deny the charge that never since the days of Charles I has any democratic government imposed taxation by order in council. We have asked the government to point out one example and, though members have spoken on behalf of the Liberal party, not one has accepted the challenge and denied that never before in almost 300 years has taxation been imposed by order in council, as it was on November 17.
I am one of those who consistently, by reason of the invasion of individual rights- which invasion has been accelerated in recent years-have asked that a bill of rights be passed by parliament to the end that the rights of the individual shall be preserved. I have asked particularly that any bill of rights which is passed shall assure to the individual the right to take proceedings against the state. While my hon. friends to the left give lip service to a bill of rights; while they did bring in one in Saskatchewan, that bill of rights does not permit of any individual in that province having recourse to the Courts as against the state. I say this, sir, that the right of recourse to courts should not be denied the individual as against the state when the state engages in business.
On occasion I have pointed out various invasions of the right of the individual- interferences with freedom of religion, of association and of speech. On this occasion I am going to refer to a matter which today is before our country, namely, the proceedings now under way in Alberta. I do not intend to refer in any way to the merits or demerits of the prosecution. I do not intend to refer in any way to the facts in issue in that case. However, we, in parliament, have a responsibility. Over the years, freedom in its various forms has been entrenched upon. Freedom of the press is one of those freedoms which must be preserved. Without freedom of the press,

there can be no freedom under parliamentary institutions. There can be no freedom of the press under autocracy, nor can there be autocracy so long as there is freedom of the press. One of the most interesting books on the subject is entitled, "A Free and Responsible Press", issued about a year ago. The commission which was set up for the purpose of investigating freedom of the press asked this question: Is freedom of the press in danger? Its answer to that question is yes. It concludes that the freedom of the press is in danger and for three reasons. It says:
We do not believe that the danger to the freedom of the press is so great that that freedom will be swept away overnight. In our view the present crisis is simply a stage in the long struggle for free expression. Freedom of expression. of which freedom of the press is 'a part, has always been in danger. Indeed, the commission can conceive no state of society in which it will not be in clanger. The desire to suppress opinion different from one's own is inveterate and probably ineradicable.
I place one more quotation before Your Honour, and that is a statement made by Jefferson, one of the great democrats of all time, when dealing with this subject during the days following the American revolution.
The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right. Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.
Within the last few weeks a prosecution has been launched in this country against two persons, Mr. Cooke and Mr. Dingman, the one the publisher of and the other an author of articles for New Liberty. I shall not deal with the facts of these cases in any way. I do not assert that freedom of the press permits licence. I do not assert that freedom of the press permits the publication of those things which are libellous. After all, liberty consists in diminishing the rights of each of us in order to maintain the rights of all of us. I would point out-and I am glad the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) is in his place-that in this case a use is being made of the law of libel that was never contemplated by parliament, and indeed was denied parliament when the amendment came before it in the year 1888.
In my opinion a responsibility falls on parliament at this session to assure that never again in our country will freedom of the press be placed in a position where a publisher or an author will be subject to be taken from one end of Canada to the other in order to meet

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker
charges in various provinces. The Criminal Procedure Act was discussed in the house, at page 1513 of the Commons Debates in the year 1888, and it is interesting to read the debate at that time. Sir Richard Cartwright participated in that debate, as did Mr. Laurier, as he then was, and Mr. Thompson, the minister of justice, afterwards the prime minister. In some of their debates in those days members spoke at great length, and their speeches ran to six, seven or eight hours. But on this matter, each and every one of them1 spoke succinctly. Sir Richard Cartwright said this: This bill, I suppose, is intended to prevent what does appear to be an injustice, the taking of a man from one province to another province to try him.
Then farther on, he goes on to say this:
The bill is an excellent one, and I am very glad to see it introduced.
Mir. Laurier, as he then was, said:
There is no reason why we should depart from the general rule that an offence should be tried where it is committed, and I do not understand why a newspaper should not be tried where it is published. The doctrine prevailing hitherto, and against which this bill is intended to apply, was that the newspaper editor could be tried in any part of the dominion.
Mr. Thompson, as he then was, said:
The whole object of the bill is to establish a different principle in regard to newspapers from that which prevails in regard to any other class of publication, and the justification of that principle must be based on the exceptional character of a newspaper. The reason why the newspaper editor may be brought to any part of Canada for trial is that the publication, in a legal sense, is committed wherever his paper goes, and that therefore an editor, who in the province of Nova Scotia publishes a libel, and sends his paper to the province of British Columbia, may be brought there for trial, because there his paper, in a legal sense, is published. But considering that newspapers have a general circulation, and that that must necessarily be more extensive over the country than any other medium of communication, it is considered fair that they should not be held to the strict sense of the term "publication," but that the place where the paper is in the popular sense published-that is wherever the paper is printed or wherever the editor resides-shall be the place of trial.
There is a principle which has stood the test of sixty years. There is a principle which has been accepted since and is accepted elsewhere in democratic countries; if it were otherwise, the position would be that no newspaper in this country would dare to assert a matter of general interest to be wrong without placing itself in jeopardy of being prosecuted in nine provinces.
I am surprised, sir, that prior to this the Minister of Justice has not placed before the house and the country his decision as to
whether or not this section shall prevail, or whether it shall remain possible to evade the plain meaning of the act by charging conspiracy, and thereby to circumvent the provisions of the law as it stands. Parliament in 1888 acted with a full realization of what freedom of the press meant; for in the days of Laurier, Thompson and Cartwright, freedom was accepted as a principle. That was before the present government came to office. That was before continual infringements of the rights of the individual became characteristic of government. Those were the days when men believed that to preserve democracy the freedoms must be preserved. Those were the days when it was believed that every citizen s right was equal to the right of the state. That was before the days when by statute and order in council the citizen was placed on a lower level than the state in his rights against the state. Those statesmen accepted freedom as a principle and placed on the statute books of the country section 888, which reads:
Nothing in this act authorizes any court in one province of Canada 'to try any person foi5* any offence committed entirely in another province: Provided that every proprietor, publisher, editor or other person charged with the publication in a newspaper of any defamatory libel, shall be dealt with, indicted, tried and punished in the province in which he resides, or in which such newspaper is printed.
When the government replies I ask it to tell the house and the country whether or not it intends to fill in the gap which today, permits the use of conspiracy as an omnibus to evade the principles of the section. Conspiracy has always been relied upon by prosecutors as a means to get evidence against the individual. Conspiracy to commit an offence is distinguished from the offence alleged to have been the subject of the conspiracy. The definition of "conspiracy" is simply this: the agreeing or combining or confederating together by two or more persons to accomplish some unlawful purpose, or to accomplish a lawful purpose by some unlawful means.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member; I hope he will understand I do not like the idea of interrupting him, but I have to do my duty, and actually he is on the borderline. If he will look at page 430 of May, 14th edition, he-will see this:
Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate.
I understood that in his speech the hon. member commenced to discuss human rights, a matter he dealt with last session, and to deal with the intention of the government to study that matter; but I wonder whether,
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker

according to our rules, he should be permitted to discuss a case which actually is sub judicem


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I
entirely agree with what you have said. I am not discussing the facts of the case;
I particularly said so. I am not discussing whether or not there is justification for the prosecution, or what the courts will do. I am discussing the question of freedom of the press in this country, pointing to the use of the machinery of the law in a way contrary to that which the experience of democratic peoples has shown is necessary in order to preserve freedom, and I am suggesting that this is something that deserves the attention of the House of Commons, which is the custodian of the freedoms and liberties of the people. Where wrong has been done, let it be punished; but the law says, and those who sat in parliament in 1888, decided, that prosecution for defamatory libel should take place where the libel was committed or where the editor or publisher lives. That, sir, is in this province of Ontario, and nowhere else. For that reason I submit that I am within the rules; and I await your ruling.


James Horace King: I did not raise a point of order; I just wanted1 to ask the co-operation of the hon. member. He will understand that it is disagreeable for the Speaker to interrupt anyone making a speech, especially the very good speech the hon. gentleman is making. But I have to do my duty. In reference to the case in question, which, if not discussed, at least was mentioned, we must assume that the judges of our courts will apply the law as it should be applied. If the hon. member wishes to discuss freedom of the press I have no objection, but I would ask him to be very careful not to discuss a matter which is now pending before the courts.
'Mr. DIEFENBAKER: I bow to your ruling Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can do what 1 was trying to do in an abstract manner. I was simply trying to place before this house the necessity of maintaining, not only in the letter but in the spirit of the law that great freedom of the press without which democracy cannot be preserved. I want to point out that under no circumstances did I refer to the facts of the case now before the courts. I am one of those who believe that where there is guilt it should be punished; but it should be punished according to law, not according to caprice, and not by evading a statutory provision that parliament considered necessary to protect liberty. To do otherwise is to prevent any publisher in this country from [DOT] 
maintaining that independence of viewpoint without which there can be no freedom of the press.
To be a reality, freedom of the press demands that parliament shall set limits on its capacity to interfere with, regulate or suppress the voice of public opinion as it is heard through the press. And, sir, the freedom of the press includes the right to be in error, as long as what is said is not said maliciously and is in the public interest. This is another example of our freedoms in this country being diminished by the authority of executive power. We have to go back to the days of Wilkes and Erskine to catch once more the vision of what the preservation of freedom in a democracy means. Who would have believed that the day would come when one's right against the state might be denied; when one's right of free speech would be denied-and I am not referring to the days of war-when one's right to practise one's religion as one pleases might be denied, when the right of the press to write as it will in the public interest would be denied, as it would be, if this principle of permitting a multiplicity of prosecutions were permitted.
I am asking the Minister of Justice this question: In view of the fact that this challenges the very right of a free press in this country, does he not believe that in this parliament and at this session an amendment should be brought in whereby, regardless of what the charge may be, where libel or defamatory libel is charged against the press of this country, it shall be charged in that jurisdiction where the publisher lives or where the magazine or newspaper is published? Let us go back-


Mr. LOW:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether your ruling is now being adhered to. I have no objection to my learned friend's discussing the whole merits of this case, or of any other case. In fact, I am enjoying it. I kept still, and did not wish to interfere. But it does look to me as though the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is skating around on very thin ice at the present time. He is definitely creating public opinion on a matter which is now before the courts. The very thing he is arguing is being argued today in Edmonton, and will be decided by the courts of that city. He is arguing the principle involved in the argument which is now before the magistrate in the court at Edmonton.
With all due respect, I submit that even the principle he is now discussing is now sub judice, and what we should now have

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker
understood is the question as to how far any of us will be allowed to go in the discussion of that very principle which the hon. member for Lake Centre is now discussing. That is the question I should like to have answered, because we would be quite prepared to jump in and take part in the discussion if it is allowed* to go on. I should like to be assured that I shall have just as much freedom to discuss that question as my hon. friend from Lake Centre will have, or indeed, any other hon. member. That is all I want to know.


James Horace King: I took the liberty a few minutes ago to intervene in the debate in order to interrupt the hon. member for Lake Centre and to call his attention to the fact that he was on the borderline. Of course the hon. member for Lake Centre, being a lawyer and a man of experience in the house, knows perfectly well it is against the rules to discuss any matter pending before the courts.
The question is whether he is discussing just now the freedom of the press or the case involving a magazine and a reporter which is now before the Alberta court. I hope the hon. member will abide by the rules. I would ask for his co-operation not to interfere in any way with the matter pending before the court in Alberta.


John George Diefenbaker: The last thing I would want to do would be to discuss the facts of that case. This, however, as I see it, represents an opportunity to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice and the government what so often I have endeavoured to do in the past, namely, the necessity of preserving freedom in this country, under law. I bow to your ruling realizing as you say that the line is close. The last thing I would like to do would be in any way to discuss the merits of any matter which, as the hon. member for
Peace River (Mr. Low) has said is before the courts.
But the question of the propriety of the use of the statutes of this country in a manner contrary to that contemplated by parliament in 1888 is not, I submit, the discussion of a case in Alberta; it is a question of freedom itself being at stake, and requires on the part of the government an assertion as to what they intend to do in order to assure that this freedom shall not follow in diminution some of the other freedoms which the people of this country have seen attenuated and diminished in recent years.
I know of nothing better on the subject of freedom of the press than that which is contained in the address of Erskine in the case. The Attorney General against John Stockdale, in 1789, where it is stated:
If it be asked where the line to this indulgence and impunity is to be drawn, the answer is easy. The liberty of the press on general subjects comprehends and implies as much strict observance of positive law as is consistent with perfect purity of intention, and equal and useful society; and what the latitude is, cannot be promulgated in the abstract, but must be judged of in the particular instance and consequently upon this occasion must be judged by you, without forming any possible precedent for any other case; and where can the judgment be possibly so safe as with the members of that society which alone can suffer, if the writing is calculated to do mischief to the public?
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MARTIN:: It is the intention tomorrow to resume the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) for the second reading of Bill No. 3.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 30, 1948