1949-03-10

Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Parliamentary Assistant to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday's edition of the Ottawa Journal contains an article the headline of which reads as follows: M.P.'s' figure of $600,000 not enough". The article, which is rather lengthy, concerns the grant from the dominion government to the city of Ottawa, and contains this sentence:
Some time ago both George Mcllraith and Jean Richard, Liberal members for Ottawa, endorsed a grant of $600,000 yearly.
In so far as that statement refers to me, it is incorrect and without any foundation whatever in fact. At no time have I ever suggested or endorsed a figure of $600,000.


Mr. Graydon:: What figure did you endorse?



OMISSION OF NAME FROM DIVISION LIST

Mr. H. G. Archibald (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, on the first vote, I voted against the motion of the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy), but my name was not recorded on the division list. Would it be possible to have my name recorded on that list?


Mr. Speaker:: The omission will be corrected. May I take this opportunity of saying that during the course of divisions there is often a great deal of noise in the chamber, which makes it difficult for the officers at the table properly to complete their records. I should like to take advantage of this occasion to ask hon. members to keep quiet while divisions are in progress, as an aid to the responsible officers in the carrying out of their duties.



RESTORATION OF QUESTION TO ORDER PAPER

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to the fact that question No. 37 on the order paper yesterday, standing in the name of the
member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), was first mentioned as answered; that was found to be erroneous and it was ordered to stand. Through some misunderstanding it has been dropped from the order paper today, and I would ask that it be reinstated.



STANDING COMMITTEE ON MINES AND RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Matthews (Kootenay East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources, a copy of which I sent to his office this morning. In view of the fact that the standing committee on mines and resources has not been called to meet for the last five years will the minister arrange for the calling together of this committee this year so that matters pertaining to this department may be discussed?


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I shall give the matter consideration.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister when he intends to deal with the motion which he presented, having to do with the hours of sittings of the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope that it will be proper to deal with it tomorrow. I had hoped that it might be of consequence even before that. I still hope that it may become of consequence tomorrow.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ANNOUNCEMENT OF CHANGE IN MINISTERIAL JURISDICTION

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to inform the house that at the request of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. MacKinnon) arrangements have been made to transfer the ministerial responsibility with respect to the trans-Canada highway project from his department to the department of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. This does not involve legislation, nor does it involve any formal action by the governor in council. The action has been

Questions
approved, however, by a minute of council. I am making the announcement to explain why any future matters or questions connected with that project will be dealt with by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).


Mr. Fraser:: 1.	What documentary motion pictures of foreign lands have been produced by or for the national film board during the last eight years?
2.	What are the names of each of these pictures: in what country was each taken and in what year?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	"Out of the Ruins"-Greece-1945. This film on the work of reconstruction in Greece was produced by the national film board in co-operation with UNRRA. A cameraman was lent to UNRRA and the film was supplied by that organization to the national film board for the production of a documentary film which was released in 1946.
"The People Between"-China-1946. This was an information film about the Chinese people and the contribution made by UNRRA in the work of reconstruction.
"Mexico Today"-Mexico-1947. This film was produced by the national film board with the assistance of the Mexican government who made film available to us without charge. The film was released in the "Canada Carries On" series in June, 1947.
"Suffer Little Children"-Greece-1945. This film was made in co-operation with UNRRA out of material filmed by a cameraman lent to that organization. The film showed the plight of children in Greece and the work of UNRRA in caring for them.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



SHIPS OPERATING FROM PACIFIC COAST PORTS- RADIO EQUIPMENT

Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	Did the Department of Transport since January 1, 1946, receive complaints of the failure of ship owners and operators to keep radio equipment on ships operating from ports on the Pacific coast in proper working condition?
2.	Did the Department of Transport since January 1, 1946, receive complaints of the failure of ship owners and operators to maintain radio watchkeeping on ships operating from Pacific coast ports?
3.	If so, were such complaints investigated and by whom?
4.	Was a report made to the Minister of Transport?
5.	If so, when?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) By the district superintendent of radio, who found that the charges were not substantiated and that the equipment in the respective vessels was in good working order and the proper watches being maintained. The other representations would involve amendments to the Canada Shipping Act and these are under consideration.
4.	Yes, verbally from time to time.
5.	Answered by No. 4.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Knight:: 1.	Are displaced persons given any practical tests in Europe to establish their ability in skills they profess, before being cleared for entry to Canada?
2.	When a D.P. immigrant admitted to Canada upon his claim to the possession of certain skills, becomes unemployed within the first year through inability to perform those skills, and is ineligible for unemployment insurance, has such immigrant any claim for support upon the dominion government?
3.	If not, does the responsibility for his support rest solely upon the local municipality?
4.	Is any definite instruction in the English language given to displaced persons in Europe who have been screened for and are awaiting entry to Canada?


Mr. Cole (Verdun):: 1.	Displaced persons brought to Canada as workers under the "group movement plan" are selected by employment officers of the Department of Labour who examine them to determine their suitability for the occupation in accordance with requirements of the employer in Canada. Where special skills are called for trade tests are conducted.
2.	Displaced persons brought to Canada as workers under the "group movement plan" come forward on the definite understanding that if it is found after their arrival that they cannot perform the work for which they were selected that they will accept such work as may be selected for them by the Department of Labour. If a displaced person is unable to perform the work for which he was selected the Department of Labour locates alternative employment.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	Yes, by the international refugee organization when practical to do so.



CANADA HIGHWAYS ACT, 1919

Mr. Merritt:: What was the total expenditure, by years and by provinces, under the Canada Highways Act, 1919, and its amending acts?


Mr. Maybank:: (Table on p. 1325.)
Dominion Expenditure under The Canada Highways Act, 1919, Chap. 54, 9-10, Geo. V and Amending Acts
Fiscal Year Ending	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia	Totals$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.40,264 79 103,493 93	56,374 19	295,100 00	86,446 52	478,185 50486,412 69	438,303 74	483,843 80	1,031,229 01	351,740 74	193,773 29	367,026 47	3,455,823 67106 277 01	811,068 94	371,973 01	1,143,879 51	2,047,918 28	165,547 47	544,820 71	662,910 88	5,854,395 81124 079 40	97,347 82	297,202 60	1,117,065 68	1,377,440 88	557,372 32	360,130 31	135,571 13	4,066,210 14March 31, 1925	34,158 56	61,601 76	56,365 65	1,306,766 21	840,646 14	79,279 87	335,759 80	210,585 93	2,925,163 9212,288 79	640,490 61	181,671 32	133,535 04	85,943 71	415,374 01	1,649,328 6950,000 00	57,744 29	163,966 25	59,629 88	346,496 5253,269 37	257,045 27	121,860 93	792,220 18	1,224,395 75
603,455 00	1,468,720 00	1,163,845 00	4,748,420 00	5,877,275 00	1,602,265 00	1,806,255 00	1,477,810 00	1,251,955 00	20,000,000 00

Questions

Questions



NATIONAL HEALTH


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What is the estimated shortage of mental health personnel in each province?
2.	How many mental health personnel are now being trained under the professional training grant and the mental health grant in each province?


Mr. Reid:: 1.	The funds provided under the health survey grant will enable the provinces to make an estimate of the shortage of mental health personnel in Canada. As the surveys have not been completed such an estimate is not yet available.
2.	Hundreds of nurses and attendants are being trained in the mental hospitals across the country with the aid of additional instructional staff and equipment provided out of the mental health grant. Also, grants to training institutions such as the university of Toronto, Dalhousie university, the Maritime School of Social Work, university of Western Ontario and university of British Columbia, have permitted great expansion of training facilities which will be reflected next academic year in the large number of postgraduate students being trained for mental health work. In addition, the following mental health personnel are receiving training bursaries under the professional training and mental health grants:
Prince Edward Island, none; Nova Scotia, 1; New Brunswick, 1; Quebec, 13; Ontario, 10; Manitoba, 1; Saskatchewan, 3; Alberta, 5; British Columbia, 5; Canada-39.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
"let's ALL SING TOGETHER"
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Has the national film board sold the animated films called "Let's All Sing Together", series 194445, for reproduction purposes, or made arrangements with any individual, or company, for reproduction and sale of these films?
2.	If so, what arrangements and financial considerations have been made?
3.	With whom were these arrangements made, and when?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Yes.
2.	In February, 1945, an agreement was made whereby Walter O. Gutlohn Inc., New York, U.S.A., undertook to distribute the series for a period of one year. This firm contracted to pay the national film board a royalty fee of $2.50 for each print sold or leased. An extension of the agreement was granted on October 10, 1946, to expire December 20, 1947. This extension was signed with Film Tel Inc. (formerly Walter
O.	Gutlohn Inc.) a division of International

Theatrical and Television Corporation. In September, 1947, Library Films Inc., the successor to Film Tel Inc., took over the distribution of these subjects. In March, 1948, a new agreement was drawn up with Library Films Inc., for a five year period. As is customary after sales have reached 500 prints, the royalty payment was reduced on this agreement to $1 per print sold.
3.	See answer to No. 2.



* IRRIGATION


Mr. McCullough (Assiniboia):: 1.	How many pre-development irrigation farms are proposed under P.F.R.A. plans in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What will be the location of these developments, and the number of acres utilized in each case?


Mr. Gardiner:: This is a matter of government policy which has not yet been determined.	.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION -EMPLOYEES, ETC.

Mr. Lockhart:: 1.	How many persons are employed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	Are any persons employed outside of the city of Ottawa by this corporation?
3.	If so, at what points?
4.	What was the total amount paid out in salaries
and traveling expenses to employees of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the year 1948?	[DOT]
5.	What are the names of the principal officials of the corporation?
6.	What salary does each receive?
7.	What were the traveling expenses of each such official during the year 1948?
8.	Have any increases in salary been granted to employees of the corporation since it was set up?
9.	If so, to whom and what increase to each of them?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	On February 28 the total number of persons employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was 1,883. Of these 533 were part-time employees on a fee basis or labourers engaged on a day to day basis for maintenance work.
2.	Yes.
3.	Persons employed outside the city of Ottawa by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are attached to offices located at the following places:
British Columbia: Kelowna, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Vernon, Victoria, Trail.
Manitoba: Winnipeg.
Ontario: Fort William, Toronto, Hamilton, Brantford, Preston, Kitchener, London, Sarnia, Stratford, North Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Kirkland Lake, Parry Sound, Peterborough, Kingston, Smiths Falls, Renfrew, St. Catharines, Trenton, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, Wei-

land, Collingwood, Long Branch, Orillia, Ajax, Windsor, Leamington, Cornwall, Port Hope, Owen Sound.
Quebec: Chicoutimi, Cartierville, Montreal, Nitro, Beauharnois, Quebec City, Sherbrooke, Sorel, Hull, Cap de la Madeleine, Lauzon.
Alberta: Calgary, Edmonton.
Saskatchewan: Regina, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon.
New Brunswick:	Saint John, Moncton,
Fredericton, Campbellton.
Nova Scotia: Halifax, Amherst, Pictou, New Glasgow, Dartmouth.
In addition the corporation has part-time representatives on a fee basis at the following locations:
British Columbia: Penticton, Prince George, Cumberland, Port Alberni, Nelson, Rossland, Kimberley, Nanaimo.
Alberta: Lethbridge, Medicine Hat.
Saskatchewan: Weyburn, Yorkton, North Battleford, Lloydminster, Melville, Prince Albert.
Ontario: Kenora, Fort Frances, Geraldton, Sioux Lookout.
Manitoba: Portage la Prairie, Brandon, Dryden.
Nova Scotia: Liverpool.
Prince Edward Island: Charlottetown.
4.	Total amount paid out in salaries, $3,698,218.49. Total traveling expenses during the year 1948, $247,460.32.
5.	David B. Mansur, Esq., President; Major General Hugh A. Young, Vice-President.
6.	D. B. Mansur, $18,000 per annum; Major General Hugh A. Young, $12,000 per annum.
7.	This information is not available from government records.
8.	Yes.
9.	This information is not available from government records.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. McCuaig:: What was the total amount of unemployment Insurance paid out in Canada in the years 1946, 1947 and 1948?


Mr. Cote (Verdun):: Total amount of unemployment insurance paid out in Canada during:
1946		 $51,085,261.75
1947		 32,039,339.36
1948		 40,268,110.44



* HOSPITAL GRANTS


Mr. Knight:: 1.	Has the government received any requests for a broadening of the terms of the federal hospital grants to include the building of living accommodation for nurses (nurses' homes) ?
2.	From whom have such requests been received?
3.	Have any of these requests been granted, in whole or in part?
Questions
4.	Whether or not such requests have been received. has the government had this matter under consideration?
5.	Has a decision in regard to it been reached? If so, what is such decision?


Mr. Marlin:: It will be more convenient, Mr. Speaker, to deal with this question orally. As the hon. gentleman knows, the present basis of the federal grant with regard to hospital construction is much broader than that originally envisaged in the proposals made by the federal government to the provinces in 1945 and 1946. It is true that there have been discussions with various bodies, governmental and otherwise, in this country as to broadening the base to include matters referred to in the question. There is nothing, however, that I can say at the moment beyond this. The government is giving consideration to this matter and its policy will be announced, in the light of experience, in due course.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT


Mr. Jones:: 1.	What is the total number of employees in the British Columbia branch of the Department of Transport (radio division) ?
2.	How many radio inspectors are employed by the Department of Transport in British Columbia?
3.	What steps have been taken by the department to appoint an inspector, or inspectors, for the interior of British Columbia?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	290.
2.	Six.
3.	Action has been taken towards the appointment of a radio inspector for the interior of British Columbia during the fiscal year 1949-50.



RADIO RECEIVING LICENCES


Mr. Shaw:: 1.	What was the total number of radio licence inspectors employed in the province of Alberta during each of the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948?
2.	What was the total amount paid in wages, salaries, commissions, traveling allowances, living and other allowances to each such inspector during each of the above years?
3.	What was the total amount collected by each inspector from radio receiving set owners during each of the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Two (one at Calgary and one at Edmonton).
2.	Salaries:
1945-46	1946-47	1947-48Calgary	
$2,460	$2,640	$2,880Edmonton ....	2,580	2,880	3,000
No traveling, living and other allowances paid.

Questions
3.	Radio inspectors do not issue radio receiving licences except on demand at their offices. The following are the amounts collected by the Calgary and Edmonton inspectors in respect thereof:
1945-	46
Calgary	 $ 976.00
Edmonton	 579.50
1946-	47
Calgary	 $1,040.50
Edmonton	 1,685.00
1947-	48
Calgary	 $ 832.50
Edmonton	 3,357.00



RURAL MAIL SERVICE


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	To what company or companies have contracts been let for the carrying of mails to the following post offices in British Columbia: Galiano, Mayne, North Galiano, Pender Island, Port Washington, Saturna, South Pender?
2.	What are the amounts of the contracts?
3.	How frequently is mail delivered to these offices?
4.	When do the various contracts expire?


Mr. Bertrand (Laurier):: 1.	The post offices1 at Galiano, Mayne, North Galiano, Pender Island, Port Washington, Saturna and South Pender are served by a water service known as Victoria-Vancouver (Gulf islands route).
*The service is performed by the Canadian Pacific Railway under an agreement covered by order in council P.C. 1543 of 22nd April, 1947.
2.	The rate of payment is $12,000 per annum.
3.	Mail is delivered to: Galiano, Mayne, Pender Island, Port Washington-Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays; North Galiano-Mondays; Saturna, South Pender- Mondays, Thursdays; each week.
4.	The order in council expires March 31, 1951.
*The Canadian Pacific Railway steamers deliver mails to the wharf and the following contracts for the conveyance of mail between wharves and post offices are in effect:
Galiano and wharf, D. A. New, $327.60 per annum; contract expires 30-6-49.
Mayne and wharf, A. K. Steel, $126 per annum; contract expires 30-9-50.
North Galiano and wharf (Galiano), G. A. Bell, $416 per annum; contract expires
30-	6-52.
Pender Island and wharf (Hope Bay), S. P. Corbett, $30 per annum; contract expires
31-	3-50.
Pender Island and wharf (Port Washington), J. S. Stigings, $150 per annum; contract expires 31-12-49.

Port Washington and wharf, J. B. Bridge, $33.60 per annum; contract expires 30-6-49.
Port Washington and wharf (Hope Bay), J. S. Stigings, $150 per annum; contract expires 30-9-50.
Saturna and wharf, F. J. Jackson, $63.50 per annum; contract expires 31-3-49; renewal to 31-3-53.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Jones:: What steps have been taken by the Department of National Revenue (income tax division) to open any branch office or offices in the interior of British Columbia?


Mr. McCann:: Since the report made in 1945 by an independent committee, the taxation division, Department of National Revenue, regularly reviewed the possibility of expansion in the number of district income tax offices. At the moment it is not considered advisable or practical to expand the number of income tax offices in British Columbia.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many complaints regarding 1948 awards under P.F.A.A. have been received?
2.	Is re-inspection of certain areas contemplated? If so, when will re-inspection take place?
3.	Is there any set procedure to be followed by farmers who are dissatisfied and desire re-inspection?
4.	In cases of re-inspection do the rural municipalities concerned receive notice in advance? If not, will consideration be given to giving such notice?



BUILDING MATERIALS


Mr. Caoueile:: 1.	During each of the years 1947 and 1948, what was the total production of the following items (a) in quantity; (b) in dollars: nails, lumber (board measure), pipes, bricks, cement, bath-tubs, water closets?
2.	During each of the years 1947 and 1948, what was the total production, in dollars, of building materials in Canada?
3.	What was the amount of Canadian exports during each of the years 1947 and 1948 of (a) nails, in tons, in dollars; (b) bricks, in dollars; (c) pipes, in dollars; (d) bath-tubs, quantity and in dollars; (e) water closets, quantity and in dollars; (f) lumber, in feet and in dollars?
4.	What housing companies are still given government priorities?
5.	Are wartime housing and national housing enterprises still operating in Canada?
6.	Are other construction firms operating in Canada by virtue of privileges granted by the federal authorities?
7.	If so, what are the names of such companies?

8.	What quotas are allocated to the several construction organizations in the procurement of building materials?
9.	What percentage of the total production of 1947 and 1948 was allocated to companies, and to what companies?



HOUSING-HASTINGS COUNTY, ONT.

Mr. White (Hasiings-Peierborough):: How many houses or housing units were erected and completed in the county of Hastings in the years 1947, 1948, in co-ordination with the following agencies:	(a) Veterans Land Act; (b) Wartime
Housing Limited; (c) Integrated Housing; (d) special plans under National Housing Act; (e) private builders or any other means?



LEGAL SERVICES-HASTINGS COUNTY, ONT.

Mr. White (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	What are the names of the legal firms and solicitors in the county of Hastings (a) receiving fees from the dominion government or any of its commissions from 1st January, 1946 to date; (b) to whom any fees are still due and payable?
2.	What amounts have been paid to each of them, in what year, and for what services?
3.	What amounts are still due to each, and for what services?
4.	What are the names of the legal firms and solicitors in the county of Hastings, at present employed by the dominion government or any of its commissions?



HOUSING


Mr. While (Hasiings-Peierborough):: 1.	How many homes were built under the V.L.A. in the county of Hastings?
2.	What is the total cost of each home constructed under the V.L.A. in this area?
3.	Who was the contractor or contractors for this area?
4.	What is the present proposed sale price of each home?
5.	What was the original price asked in each case?
6.	How many homes have been sold to date and what is the price in each case?
7.	What was the cost per unit of project overhead and how was the same made up?
8.	Have any veterans made deposits on proposed purchases and later declined to proceed with the purchase of such holdings?
9.	If so, by whom and why were said deals not completed?



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT AND VETERANS LAND ACT, HASTINGS COUNTY, ONT.

Mr. White (Hasiings-Peierborough):: 1.	How many applications have been made to purchase farms in the county of Hastings, under Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act?
2.	How many applications have been accepted?
3.	How many applications have been refused?
4.	How many applications are still pending?



PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


Mr. While (Hasiings-Peierborough):: 1. How many prosecutions by the wartime prices and trade board were instituted in the county of Hastings in each of the years 1947 and 1948?
Orders for Returns
2.	What is the total amount of fines levied in such prosecutions?
3.	What is the total amount paid to legal firms and solicitors in connection with such prosecutions (a) in legal fees; (b) in traveling and other expenses?
4.	What is the total amount paid to investigators in connection with such cases; (a) in salaries; (b) traveling and other expenses?
CONTRACTS FOR CONTRUCTION OF VESSELS Mr. Hazen:
1.	How many tenders were called for the construction of vessels by (a) the Department of Transport; (b) the Department of National Defence; (c) the Department of Public Works in the year 1948 and to date in 1949?
2.	What companies submitted tenders for each type of vessel and for what amounts?
3.	What companies were awarded contracts for each type of vessel and at what prices?
DEPORTATIONS Mr. Diefenbaker:
How many deportations for illegal entry into Canada have been made by the Department of Immigration in each of the years 1947, 1948 and 1949 to date, and to what countries?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many written permits provided for by section four of the Immigration Act were issued by the minister during each of the years 1947 and 1948 (a) authorizing any person to enter Canada; (b) authorizing any person to remain in Canada; and in either case without being subject to the provisions of the said act?
2.	How many of these permits have been included in a return laid before parliament within thirty days after the commencement of the next ensuing session of parliament in each of the said years?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I should like to ask why
this question should be made an order for return.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This question and the preceding one deal with the same subject matter, and the same subject matter is involved in the question which was erroneously left off the order paper today. It concerns the Prime Minister's office, the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the office of the Minister of Mines and Resources. The officials of all three departments have to confer on the form of answer to be made.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Park Manross (London):: I should like to make a correction in an article which appears in this month's issue of Chatelaine, a copy of which is now lying on the desk of the Minister of Finance. The article is
Inquiries of the Ministry entitled, "Look here, Mr. Abbott." an error in the article.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out to the hon. member that the rules require that questions asked on the orders of the day should be brief, and I would ask him to govern himself accordingly.


Park Manross: Does the Minister of Finance know that there is an error with regard to the tax on soft drinks? The article says that they are taxed twice. The fact is that they are taxed three times-8 per cent, 25 per cent and one cent per bottle.


Some hon. Members:: Order.



CHILD WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Gladys Strum (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What steps has he taken to comply with the request of Premier McNair of New Brunswick for assistance in investigating the baby black market operating out of Saint John, New Brunswick? Can the minister give any assurance that the government has taken action to stop the traffic in babies as revealed by the Alberta royal commission investigation of 1947?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I did not realize that the traffic in babies was a matter for the Department of External Affairs, but I will try to secure the information and give it to the hon. member. No information on the subject is at my disposal at the moment.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Is not the citizenship of Canadian babies involved, and does that not come under the minister's department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. Kidd (Kingston City):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. How many students will be admitted to the Royal Military College at Kingston in 1949, and how many will be admitted to Royal Roads, B.C., in 1949?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I have asked my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that when tMr. Manross.]
they wish to put a question before the orders of the day are called, the question should be urgent and brief. I suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: My question, Mr. Speaker, is prompted-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: Never mind; I have the floor. My question is urgent. I am addressing my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker. My question is prompted by an article which appears in this morning's press.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows perfectly well what the rules are; in asking a question he is not allowed to make a statement.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: Let the minister answer my question.


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: The minister will comply with the rules of the house and with the directions of the Speaker. If the Speaker says that the question is in order, I will answer it. If it is not in order, it ought to go on the order paper, in which case I will answer it in due course.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Has Grierson, who said he had a temporary comfortable job with the national film board, made approaches to the board about the production of an Anglo-Canadian motion picture?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: The answer is no.


Brooke Claxton: He did not say that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He did say he had a comfortable job.


Brooke Claxton: Not with the film board.


Mr. Coldwell:: With UNESCO.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that under section 209 (c) of the Criminal Code it is an indictable offence for anyone to post for transmission or delivery

There is

by or through the post any letter or circular concerning schemes devised or intended to deceive or defraud the public, will the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to forget the rules of the house. As I have already reminded hon. members, when a question is put before the orders of the day are called, the rules require that it should be urgent and brief.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I have come to my question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for a legal opinion. I do not think that is the kind of question that should be asked at this time. I suggest to the hon. member that he put his question on the order paper.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[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 fact that newspaper dispatches indicate that Sir Norman Brook, secretary of the United Kingdom cabinet, is to arrive in Ottawa either today or tomorrow, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate what the government's attitude will be with respect to the early calling of the commonwealth conference of foreign ministers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think the latter question arises out of the first part of the question addressed to me by the hon. member for Peel. With respect to the latter part of his question, no doubt the Prime Minister will deal with this matter when the occasion demands.



COMMUNISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick Davis Shaw: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will he at his earliest possible convenience-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member if this is the same question that he asked previously?


Frederick Davis Shaw: No, Mr. Speaker. It is another question entirely. Will the Minister of Justice tomorrow, or at his earliest possible convenience, indicate what action the Department of Justice contemplates with respect to the
Inquiries of the Ministry circulation through the mails of certain communist literature, a sample of which I am sending to him at this moment?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The answer is yes.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon City):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received the brief presented by the Canadian Teachers' Federation in February last, and can he say whether any action is being considered with respect to federal aid for education, UNESCO, and the other matters referred to therein?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part of the question is that the brief is still under consideration.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. McKay (Weyburn):: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether he is prepared to answer the question which I asked yesterday.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Since the increase made last spring to dependents of student veterans, the matter mentioned has been kept under consideration. It is not intended to recommend a parliamentary committee this session for the purposes stated by my hon. friend.



EXTRADITION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: On Tuesday, March 8, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) asked whether the government is negotiating with the government of the United States for a new treaty of extradition, and whether the principle of dual criminality will remain a part of the treaty.
The answer to the hon. member's question is that no such treaty is now being negotiated with the United States.

The Address-Mr. Low SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. D. F. Brown 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. Drew.
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I am
prompted to take up a few minutes of the time of the house at this stage, for two main reasons. The first of these is to be found in the last sentence of the third paragraph of the speech from the throne, which sentence reads as follows:
It is the view of my ministers that a steady advance toward the goal of social justice for all is an effective safeguard against the influence of subversive doctrines.
It would be most heartening, sir, to all of the people of this country if they could feel that these words in the speech from the throne were not only a dead statement of fact, but gave promise of substantial fulfilment. My second reason is related to the first one. It is to be found in the fact that over the last four years since I came into this House of Commons the government has been either bankrupt of sound ideas as to how to make that steady advance toward social justice for all, or, in the alternative, unwilling to take the time to consider and to discuss in this house the fundamental changes in the financial and economic approach which will surely be required before any substantial advances can be made toward social justice for all.
These, sir, are very serious times in which we live, times that require the most earnest and sincere inquiry after truth. But as I have sat in this house and listened to the debates over the period of four years during which I have been a member, I have often thought what a wonderful opportunity the Liberal party has really had. When one considers the number of years that they have held office, and the numerous opportunities they have had given to them to learn and to apply sound financial and economic policies, and when one also considers the number of thinking men that they have had in this house, to name only a few-the Slaghts, the McGeers, the Tuckers, and I was going to say the Sinnotts-


Mr. Irvine:: The Dunnings.


Solon Earl Low: -with their outstanding knowledge of the absurdities in our present financial system and the solutions to these absurdities; when one considers these things he is led to exclaim in utter amazement at the failure of the Liberal party to rise to the challenge of

present-day problems, and to meet them with courageous and effective action within the financial and economic fields.
For a good many years my family supported the Liberal party. It was because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but I should like to call the attention of hon. members to the fact that there is so much noise in the house it must be disconcerting to the hon. member who has the floor, and it must also be disconcerting to other hon. members who are trying to listen to him.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I deeply appreciate your efforts to keep order in the house. I am sure hon. members will be good enough to try to be quiet while the speeches are being made.
I was saying, sir, that for a good many years my family supported the Liberal party; but it was precisely because the Liberal party turned to the superficial treatment of symptoms instead of showing a disposition to get right down to and treat causes; and also because they turned to ridiculing anyone with courage enough to bring forward a new idea, that I departed from the traditional practice of those who went before me in our family. Since then, and since I came to this house in 1945, I have felt that my action was vindicated.
Year after year I have heard members of the Liberal party ridicule the social credit proposals in this house; but to this date, sir, not a single one of them has attempted to show in what respect the social credit proposals are fallacious, and why. To use one example, and of course it is only one of many -I use this one only because it just happens to be the last one-on Monday night the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. MacLean) spoke in this debate, and in referring to certain remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), he used these words, as reported at page 1242 of Hansard:
But the solution will not come about by the introduction and adoption of the peculiar and illogical ideas expressed by the member for Macleod and those associated with him.
He then proceeded to make some inane remarks in a most general and sweeping way, which indicated clearly to me, at any rate, that he did not know the first thing about social credit. To take just one example, sir, the hon. member said:
If money to carry on the government can be raised in any way besides taxing the people, then people need not work; and when we have reached that stage, all must starve. The social credit money will be of no use. as there will be no goods to purchase.

It is quite apparent, sir, that the hon. member did not get his ideas about social credit from a study of anything which anybody has said in this house, or out of it, as far as this party is concerned. I want to tell him that social credit is a scientific way of making it possible for men to work and to continue working so that they can live.


Mr. Johnston:: Can he understand that?


Solon Earl Low: I wonder if he can understand it? I would just remind him that, periodically, under his financial system men do not have a chance to work. They are thrown on breadlines, and they continue on breadlines because a stubborn government refuses to do anything about it.


Mr. Wylie:: He does not understand his own system.


Solon Earl Low: Just as the hon. member for Medicine Hat says, it is perfectly clear that the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria does not know anything about the financial system under which he lives and tries to carry on. All he needs to do is to ask the Minister of Finance right here in the house a simple question like this: Is it possible for the government to obtain money in any way besides taxing the people? I will guarantee he will get a far different answer from what he indicated would be the case. The hon. member could not have read what was said by Mr. Graham Towers before the committee on banking and commerce in 1939, or he would have seen Mr. Towers admits that the government can obtain all the money it desires for the distribution of the production of this country, without either borrowing or taking it from the people.


Charles Edward Johnston: Tell him who Graham Towers is; probably he does not know.


Solon Earl Low: Perhaps I should. Mr. Graham Towers is the governor of the Bank of Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: Did you get that over there?


Solon Earl Low: As Mr. Graham Towers has admitted, it is simply a question of policy, not of economic necessity.
In addition, when the hon. member says that social credit money would be of no use because there would be no goods to purchase, let me simply say to him that if the time ever comes in Canada when there are no goods to purchase, it will not be under a social credit economy. It would very likely be under the very policy that he and his colleagues attempt to support in this House of Commons. Under a social credit economy there always would be exactly enough purchasing power in the pockets of all the people to purchase the goods available-no more
The Address-Mr. Low and no less. The result would be that every single dollar of purchasing power in circulation would command a dollar's worth of goods.
I should dearly love to see a man like the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria, or anyone else who would like to try it, rise in the house and show us wherein our policies are fallacious, illogical or impossible. He will find our official proposals recorded in Hansard down through the years. I do not ask him to go back too far; he does not have to. On January 31, speaking in this very debate, 1 put on record what the social credit* financial proposals actually were. In the budget debate of last session I submitted to the house an alternative to the ball-and-chain budget of the Minister of Finance, and my proposals at that time contained the basic social credit financial proposals. There is no excuse whatsoever for the hon. member, or for any other member for that matter, not knowing what they are. Furthermore, if the hon. member would like to indulge in a little mental exercise he might turn to the questions in the speech made by my colleague the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) in the house on February 28; then let him stand up in this house in some future debate and answer those questions.


Mr. Blackmore:: Yes, or any of them.


Solon Earl Low: When he does he will show that he knows something about social credit- maybe.
I started to say that the Liberal party had had great opportunities-and they have. But they have not risen to those opportunities. I mentioned the Slaghts, the McGeers and the Tuckers. But the Slaghts, the McGeers and the Tuckers are gone from the house now. I am sure the first two were embittered because their profound arguments and warnings were not heeded by their colleagues. And Walter Tucker-what about him?


Mr. Maclnnis:: Yes, what about him?


Solon Earl Low: Well, Mr. Speaker, he used to be a great advocate of monetary reform within the Liberal party, in the days when he was in the house. As I recall it, he used to be a fair-minded man who was considered quite reliable. But it seems that when he became leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan he dropped any convictions he ever did have with regard to reform.


John Horne Blackmore: They have silenced him.


Solon Earl Low: It now appears that the hon. member has been completely tuckered out, so far as advocating financial reform is concerned.
But enough of that. Just let me say right now that until the government changes its

The Address-Mr. Low ways and adopts a new and scientific approach to financing the affairs of the country, it will never make sufficient advance toward the goal of social justice for all to which reference is made in the speech from the throne. And if hon. members continue to spend their time ridiculing social credit proposals instead of getting down to a study of them, they will never provide a safeguard against the influence of subversive doctrines so long as they live.
Let us for a moment take a look at the financial and money system of these fellows who run the government. It might be a good idea to remind them of the things they preach. They believe that before we can add to the national wealth we must go out to the money brokers, who have not anything, and borrow enough of our national currency or credit to complete or develop any one of our national resources and then pay interest to the money brokers for the use of our money. That is exactly what it means when the government authorizes an issue of bonds to raise new money.
We Canadians, therefore, are compelled to add to the national debt every time we wish to add to the national wealth. They call that sensible-the very people who ignorantly refer to social credit as funny money! I am reminded of a young fellow who really wanted to be tops in his class. So he would hang his shirt out on the clothesline at night, and, under cover of darkness, steal it for practice. That sounds foolish, I know; but it is not nearly as stupid and foolish as what the government of this country does when it raises capital by printing a bond which represents all the wealth of the country, taking that bond to an institution which has nothing, trading the bond for some credit created out of nothing by the outfit that has nothing, and then agreeing to pay interest in perpetuity to that institution for its beneficence in allowing us to use what is already ours. With this in mind when these Liberal wise men refer to Social Crediters as crazy money reformers, I am reminded of an incident which occurred at a mental institution. Two inmates stood watching a teamster unload a load of fertilizer. One inmate asked the teamster what he was doing, and the teamster replied, "I'm putting this manure on the strawberries." One inmate said to the other, "We put sugar on ours, and they call us crazy."
Here is another illustration. The wise men of our government believe it is sound practice to permit the chartered banks to create four billion dollars' worth of new money out of nothing and lend it to the government at $75 million in interest each year. But they will argue that if the Bank of 
Canada were ordered by parliament through the Department of Finance or through a finance commission to make the bookkeeping entries creating the same four billions out of the same kind of nothing, and by doing it save the taxpayers $75 million annually, it would be wild inflation. I wonder who is crazy?


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Solon Earl Low: Certainly it is nonsense. And that is just the kind of nonsense the hon. member believes in and advocates.


Mr. Sinclair:: No; he is for it.


Solon Earl Low: If the interruption was an expression of agreement, then I beg the hon. member's pardon and say that he is right and is deserving of being placed with the Slaghts and the McGeers.
Let me ask this: Is it craziness, or is it downright betrayal of a sacred trust, when the wise men in high positions in this country yield to the arguments of the chartered banks and their corporation bureaucrats that they are entitled to receive from the government $75 million every year until the end of time for having created four billions of dollars out of nothing?
By the end of world war II, chiefly as a result of that war and the way in which it was financed, Canada found herself with a national debt of over $16,000 million, on which the Canadian taxpayers are obliged to dig up in interest each year over $450 million. Evidently the bondholders have convinced our high financial advisers that it is reasonable for them to think that they have a moral right to a profit out of the war to an extent of more than $450 million a year. Let us remember that much of that $450 million is gathered in taxes from the boys who lent their lives without interest for the winning of the war.
Of course lives and limbs and eyes and blood of our heroes are not as important as dollars made out of nothing, at least to the people who run this country. What makes it more tragic is the fact that the posterity of those heroes will have to go on paying $450 million a year as tribute in perpetuity unless we get busy and do something about it, and that soon.
I wonder if in this debate some members of the government will get up and defend their sensible money system and show that the Social Credit one is crazy and unsound? There is nothing I would like better than that. I have often been amazed at the naivete of some of the defenders of our present oxcart,' Babylonian financial practices in this country. For many years some of us have

advocated the inserting of a call clause in the bonds issued by the government so that in peacetime the national debt could be called in and converted into bank deposits and the new money needed to distribute our production internally. I made such a suggestion during the budget debate last year. Three years ago the Social Credit government of the province of Alberta refunded their debt and inserted a call clause in every bond so that they could be called in and so that in due time the government could get out of debt. The $35,000 a year head of the Bank of Canada cried out in alarm with these words:
-but an optional redemption feature like that would enable the government to get rid of an interestbearing debt when a suitable occasion arises after the war.
Would that not be just too bad if the people of Canada should succeed in unloading the old man of the sea from their backs, the old man of the sea in the form of an interest burden of nearly half a billion dollars? Many of the government's supporters have been so naive as to argue that it is not in the interests of Canada to get rid of the national interest-bearing debt that has pyramided now to more than $16,000 million, mainly because the government has borrowed every cent of money the Canadian people use instead of ordering the Bank of Canada to create it for them free of interest. They say that it is not in the interests of Canada to get rid of it because the banks, insurance companies, trust companies and wealthy individuals need steady income. But when poor people, who are forced into breadlines by a government too stupid and stubborn to make what is physically possible financially possible, come to the government for help, the government bureaucrats say to them: "Only when you have used up all your savings and are desperately in need can we give you any help". In the light of that situation, let some of the government wise men get up and defend their subsidy of over $450 million a year out of taxpayers' money to banks, insurance companies, trust companies and wealthy individuals who have in their possession more than $16,000 million of unspent savings.
Social Crediters say that banks, like other business concerns, should be self-supporting. Let them charge for their services instead of expecting the government to subsidize them in the form of huge interest payments. Is that a crazy idea? If hon. members think so, let them get up in this debate and show that it is.
The financial policy persisted in by the Liberal government forces some of the minis-
The Address-Mr. Low ters to do some funny things-at least they would be funny if they were not so tragic. Here is one of them. Under thick delusion- that is about what it is-they send out armies of tax snoopers to exact the uttermost farthing they can from every person in the land from whom they think they can get it. The farmers of this country are driven to utter distraction by these armies of tax snoopers. For instance, they assess the poor waitress in the restaurant income tax on her wages, less her exemption, and then in addition they assess that poor waitress a straight ten per cent more on her wages for the tips she is supposed to get, whether she gets them or not.
Along with this so-called sound money system of the Liberals, and of course any others who support it, the government seems to be under the delusion that the only way they can get money is to tax it out of the people. As the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby) so well put it the other day, that is just like saying to the Imperial Oil Limited when they want to get gasoline that the only way they can get it is to drain it out of the gas tanks of the cars belonging to the people around this country. Imperial Oil Limited know better than that, and any schoolboy would know better than that.


Mr. Young:: Get it from the Alberta
government.


Solon Earl Low: You can bet your life they have got it. They have something better than they have in Saskatchewan or British Columbia- they have got it. Any schoolboy would know that if Imperial Oil Limited want to get oil they will have to dig down to the source of oil. Social Crediters claim that it is only reasonable that when the government need money when it is not wise to tax it out of the people, and there are times when that is so, they should go to the source of money, to where money is created, to the banks of this country. Only when they do go after it they should have gumption enough to have the Bank of Canada create what they need for the distribution of all our production and for the development of our resources and make it available to the people without exacting tribute by way of heavy annual interest charges that continue to grow decade after decade.
Then on the lighter side. Now I am thinking of two of the ministers over there, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). I am afraid they ha,re been guilty of playing fast and loose with other people's wives.


An hon. Member:: Wives?


Solon Earl Low: Wives, w-i-v-e-s. There are half a million other fellows in this country who think as I do. Let me tell them why. I am

The Address-Mr. Low urged to take these two ministers to court for alienating my wife's affections. Why? They have come into my home and they have taken out of my pocket so much each month and have handed it over to my wife as if I did not give her a sufficient monthly allowance.


An hon. Member:: Do you?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, I do. They call it family allowances, but in my case at any rate I would have to call it an alienation of affection fund. But seriously, these Liberals who go around the country belittling and ridiculing Social Credit, and who have not yet dared to get up in this house and debate our proposals when we can be present to defend them, advocate and stick to what they call a sound money system. Just how sound is their money? Under it the banks of this country can expand, which means stretch-


John Horne Blackmore: Like rubber.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, like rubber. -one dollar of primary deposit of gold into $84 of purchasing power by lending figures in a book to borrowers at interest. Some people will not believe that, because they will not take the trouble to study what is right in front of them.


John Horne Blackmore: In the bank acts.


Solon Earl Low: At that point, I wonder if you have ever heard of rubber money. I have heard of it so often from these people on the other side of the house. I wonder where you would go to find a better example than what I have just cited of rubber money that will stretch a long way.
There is in the library of parliament a book called the Canadian Banking System. Its author is James Holladay, professor of economics at the university of Alabama. The book was published by the Bankers Publishing Company of Boston and New York in 1938. Note that, by the Bankers Publishing Company. It contains a foreword by Mr. C. M. Short, economist and assistant secretary of the Canadian Bank of Commerce. At the end of the foreword Mr. Short says:
I am happy therefore, to have the opportunity of commending Doctor Holladay's book to all those who wish to acquire a knowledge of the development of the Canadian banking system and of the way in which it operates.
This, you see, is an unqualified endorsement of the work by a prominent Canadian banker. On pages 140 and 141 of that book you can find verification of what I have just said, namely, that the banks of this country can expand a primary deposit of one dollar of gold into $84 of currency and cheque-book money. This power, which the banks have under the sound money system

advocated by my friends opposite, makes it possible for the banks of Canada to bring on periods of boom and inflation. Then, when deflationary forces set in, such as shrinking of foreign markets, cessation of Canadians traveling abroad, and a number of such things, fear may strike into the hearts of bank managers across the country, and they may begin to call in loans that they have made. By this method they can cancel out of existence and destroy a very large part of the purchasing power of the people and bring on a depression. They did it in the period from 1929 to 1933, and they have done it as a prelude to every period of hard times that we have known since the present banking system was devised. Through their power to expand and contract credits almost at will, the banks of this country hold in their hands the power to not only control all the wealth of our country, but to destroy the people and their efforts completely. Yet the Liberals call that sound money.


John Horne Blackmore: And the government does not know what to do about it.


Solon Earl Low: Under Social Credit financial proposals this sort of boom and bust would be impossible. The amount of purchasing power under such a system would constantly be adjusted to exactly equal the production of the country, no more and no less. There could be no inflation or deflation of any serious magnitude under a Social Credit financial policy. This we can show to be a fact, and we are perfectly ready to do so whenever it suits the Liberals to get out and have us do so. In the light of that, I ask who has all this funny money? It appears that many people in high positions of trust and responsibility never learn anything from history. Many years ago Benjamin Franklin, that great old American, visited his friends in England, and Franklin had this to say to his friends:
Abundance reigned in the colonies and there was peace in all their borders. A more happy and prosperous population could not perhaps be found on the globe. In every home there was comfort. The people generally were highly moral and knowledge was extensively diffused.
His friends then asked Franklin how the colonies managed to collect enough taxes to build poorhouses, and how they handled the terrible burden and curse of taking care of the poor. In those days the streets of England were covered with vagabonds. Franklin answered:
We have no poorhouses in the colonies, and if we had we would have no one to put in them, as in the colonies there is not a single unemployed man, no poor and no vagabonds.
His English friends found it hard to understand this very unusual condition, because when their poorhouses and prisons became

too crowded England loaded these poor people on ships like cattle and sent them out of England. Those who survived the terrible trip in poverty and filth were dumped in the colonies. In those days England put her poor people in prison if they could not pay their debts.


John Horne Blackmore: Sound money ideas.


Solon Earl Low: When the people of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he accounted for the prosperity in the colonies this is what he replied:
It is because in the colonies we issue our own paper money. We call it colonial scrip, and we issue just enough to move all goods freely from the producers to the consumers and. as we create our own money, we control the purchasing power of money and have no interest to pay.
That is essentially the Social Credit idea. This information was brought to the attention of the English bankers who at once caused a bill to be passed in the English parliament forbidding the colonies to use their scrip and compelling them to use bankers' debt money for the first time in America. Franklin states that, within a year afterward, the towns of the colonies were crowded with unemployed because half the money of the colonies had been taken away from them under the bankers' sound money system. He declared that-
The colonies would gladly have borne the little insignificant tax on tea and other articles had it not been for the poverty among the colonies caused by the English bankers' influence in the parliament that had created the hatred for England and caused the war of the revolution.
Not long after John Twells, a noted English historian, wrote thus in reference to the colonial scrip used by the colonies:
This was the monetary system under which the American colonies prospered to such an extent that Burke said of them: "Nothing in the history of the world is like their progress."
It was a wise and beneficial system and its effects were most conducive to the happiness of the people. At the time Alexander Hamilton, in 1791, prevailed on congress to pass a bill granting a charter to a group of bankers in America for what they called the first bank of the United States, wise old Thomas Jefferson pleaded with President Washington to veto the bill. He spoke these words, which it appears many so-called wise men of this day have forgotten:
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of the currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake UP homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.


John Horne Blackmore: Just what has happened in Canada.
The Address-Mr. Low


Solon Earl Low: That prophecy has been fulfilled a good many times since Jefferson's day. And still there are many people who ought to be doing something about the situation, but who spend their time ridiculing those of us who are trying to think of the people and their welfare instead of power and position.
Right now this country is facing a very serious threat. There are $7 billion of purchasing power in the form of bank deposits, all of which represent loans to borrowers from the banks. Unsaleable surpluses of our production are beginning to appear. Some of our foreign markets are showing a disposition to slacken off. One of these days the banks will begin to call in their loans, and by their actions will destroy many hundreds of millions ' of dollars of our purchasing power just as they did in the years 1929 to 1933. They could bring on a depression that would make the hungry thirties look like a very pale and washed-out copy. That power is still in their hands. What is the government doing about it? What measures is it bringing forward as a cushion against depression? It is only government that can provide the protection the people need against another bust. It is because the Liberal government has done nothing but ridicule those of us who see the danger and advocate specific measures to meet the situation that I wish to move an amendment to the amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), that the amendment be amended by inserting between the word "address" and the word "we" the following:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have shown such studied indifference to the Social Credit financial proposals put before this house from time to time for bringing social security and freedom to every Canadian, and economic stability and prosperity to the country as a whole;
We also regret that Your Excellency's advisers have demonstrated such timorous diffidence in their failure to take up Social Crediters' oft-repeated challenge to debate in this house and show honest cause why the social credit proposals would not bring widespread security, happiness and contentment to the Canadian people;
We regret, further, that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to bring forward legislative and administrative provision for maintaining purchasing power at a level which would make possible the equitable distribution of our total production and thus cushion the Canadian economy against the onset of depression, therefore . . .


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that any financial proposals I might make to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) today would sound very dull and orthodox after hearing the very able speech delivered by the member for Peace River (Mr. Low). I must assure him that what he said certainly gives one food for thought.
1333	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. L. Gibson
I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Brown) and the seconder (Mr. Demers) ol the address in reply to the speech from the throne, not only to preserve the amenities in this debate but because I sincerely believe they made excellent speeches. I wish, too, to welcome to this house the new members. I think I speak for all the members of the house when I say to them that I believe they have made and will continue to make a worth-while contribution to the deliberations of this house.
I have been interested in this debate on the speech from the throne. All the speeches have consistently followed a pattern. All members have suggested to the Minister of Finance and the government that we should spend more but we should tax less. This pattern has been consistently followed on the government side of the house as well. It must be very difficult to be a minister of the crown. He has certain policies to advocate and, like the rest of us, he has constituents to whom those policies might not appeal. It must be difficult to be in a position of responsibility and make the decision as to where this money is going to be found.
I am going to follow the example of the other members. If we are going to have this gravy train arriving in April, I certainly want the people of Comox-Alberni to have a parlour car seat on it. It was interesting to hear a member suggest a day or two ago that a floor should be put under the price of silver foxes. If we are going to get into this skin game, as it were, I have a measure which I should like to suggest. I am sure the government would agree to the suggestion that we put a floor under political scalps, and that we put a floor under the majorities the members obtained in the 1945 general election. If it were possible to do that, I am sure the government would accept that suggestion.
Many protests have been received about this surplus. Speaking for myself, I cannot get very wrathy about it because it seems to me that, in times such as we have just come through, when the minister tells us he has approximately a twenty-five per cent surplus on his gross business, that is good business.
I do not think there is a businessman in the house who has gone through this period of prosperity in Canada who would not feel that was a fairly satisfactory year's operation, and that there was nothing wrong with providing a surplus against the vicissitudes of the years ahead. It must be remembered that during this past year we have depleted Canada's natural resources to a great extent. It seems to me that $600 million is not too much for us to have in reserve for the future.


There is another feature of this surplus which I like. When I discuss with the ministry provisions for certain necessary public works in Comox-Alberni, the government cannot plead poverty. Everyone knows that when you go to borrow money from a friend, he usually says he has not got it. In this case, I know the government is fairly wealthy. In the past, I might have been a little harsh with the Minister of Finance, but now I really feel I should congratulate him on the courage and wisdom of the plan he adopted last year for maintaining our tax rate. He was extremely unpopular. I never heard a man so abused without being killed. I must congratulate him on the way he has led Canada through our United States exchange difficulties. A great deal of credit should go to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) as well in this regard. Despite the screams we heard last year that there were no tomatoes and no lettuce, and how someone was short of French artichoke hearts, I have not seen many people suffering under the present policy.
Everyone has made suggestions as to how this budget should be arranged. I shall give the Minister of Finance a little help with the construction of it. I believe he should cut income taxes on low and medium incomes as much as he deems advisable. I am quite prepared to have the minister and his financial advisers ascertain what that shoulld be. If I do not think they have acted wisely, then I shall be in a position to criticize them when the budget is brought down.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Criticize him now.


John Lambert Gibson: I do not know what is in the budget.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: That does not matter; criticize him now.


John Lambert Gibson: Shakespeare had a phrase for that. He said zipper up thy lip, or something.
I believe the lowering of the income tax would make the government many friends. It would make us all very happy if the minister removed the tax on jewelry and soft drinks. These are discriminatory taxes. If he needs the revenue, let him get it from some other source which would distribute the burden on every business in Canada rather than on these two businesses.
There is another suggestion I should like to make to the Minister of Finance. It concerns small businesses. The particular provision I have in mind would not materially aid large businesses. I would suggest that any business in Canada be allowed the first thousand dollars tax free if that money were actually reinvested in the business. We are all well

aware of the constant demands on new or small businesses for capital. While such a provision would not materially aid large businesses, it would be of great benefit to small business concerns.


Mr. Thatcher:: Hear, hear.


John Lambert Gibson: I was not
referring to the hon. member for Moose Jaw. It seems to me that the larger business concerns in Canada are doing very well. As a matter of fact, I have been amazed that there have not been more protests from them, considering the very heavy burden of taxation they have been carrying. During this period of prosperity I believe they feel that they can carry the heavy tax burden. If they are to have this large volume of business, I think this is the time to get the money from them. If at a later date there is a business recession of any kind, perhaps they will have a much better argument to put before the Minister of Finance in asking for a cut in taxes.
I have heard it said, of course, that the high tax on large incomes was taking money away from necessary capital development and speculative risk in our country. My own opinion is that our present tax system actually encourages people to invest in enterprises of this type, such as mines, oil wells and that kind of thing, where they can make a capital gain. I feel that big business itself is not suffering unduly under the present tax situation.
I like the remark made by the new hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) when he referred to the grave problem which faces Canada in the form of an iron curtain, on one side of which there was the dollar sign and on the other side the pound sterling sign. I am quite certain that if this barrier were removed our people -and I certainly refer to my own people in Comox-Alberni-could be happy and prosperous. As hon. members may well know, we depend to a great degree on our export trade in fish and lumber. In examining the solution to this problem, I think it might be wise for us to think in reverse. When I think of the early development of this country in the construction of our railroads, the development of our mines and our steel plants, it seems to me that in those days we asked English capital to come here in the form of either goods or gold and gave share equities in our various enterprises. Now that the socialist government in Great Britain, in their wisdom, have seen fit to take over the coal mines, the railroads, housing in a great way and also the steel plants, if they are actually as anxious to do business with us in Canada as they say they are, and if they
10, 1949	1339
The Address-Mr. J. L. Gibson have no dollars, I would think they would be glad to offer their shares which they now own in their treasury and which I think would be quite acceptable to us.


John Ewen Sinclair: No profits, though.


John Lambert Gibson: There might not be any profits. But I would be hopeful that we would be careful not to get mixed up in any boot factories.


John Ewen Sinclair: Or tanneries.


John Lambert Gibson: Or tanneries or woollen mills and that sort of thing.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Let us stick to sawdust.


John Lambert Gibson: I think probably we could be careful about what shares we took. I think that Britain would be glad to take lumber, wheat, canned salmon and some of our minerals.


John Ewen Sinclair: And canned horse.


John Lambert Gibson: That is an extra delicacy for them. There is another thing that I should like to mention that we might accept from the British people, namely modern, fast, cargo vessels. I know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), as head of the Canadian maritime commission, would be the first to say that Canada has a great need of this type of equipment. In passing I must say that I should like to congratulate the Minister of Transport-not particularly on what the maritime commission has done, because I am not sure that they have done anything at all; but they have certainly been successful in resisting the blandishments of quite a number of pressure groups.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Senator Farris.


John Lambert Gibson: And they do not all come from the vested interests, as probably my friend would expect.


Rodney Young: The unemployed merchant marine.


John Lambert Gibson: During my career I have had about thirty jobs and I hope that I have reached the point where, if I happen to be a merchant sailor, I do not feel that I just must be a merchant sailor all the rest of my life. Like my hon. friend, I might get to be a member of parliament or something.


Rodney Young: Unfortunately, yes.


John Lambert Gibson: I agree with my hon. friend most heartily.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: They are not all side-hill gougers.


John Lambert Gibson: We got off the
side hill.

The Address-Mr. J. L. Gibson


William Duncan McKay Wylie: They are not all gougers on the side hill either.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


John Lambert Gibson: The shipbuilding interests in Canada would probably be greatly concerned if our government instituted such a policy. But it would seem to me that there are many skills around shipyards-such as electricians, carpenters, plumbers and all the various trades that are incorporated in a shipyard crew-that could be used. I am quite sure that our new minister of reconstruction (Mr. Winters) could divert these skills to his own particular problem now, the construction of housing.
As to this big peanut farm that the British government is developing in South Africa, I think probably we ought to look into that proposal. Canada is a great importer of vegetable oils, and if this particular scheme is a good one-and since it is sponsored by the socialist government, I am sure it must be on extremely sound lines-I think it should be looked into. I do not like to suggest it, but probably the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and myself might go down and look this over.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The hon. member has no socialist with him.


John Lambert Gibson: I should be glad to have the company of the hon. member for Moose Jaw. While his knowledge might not be of any value, certainly his charming presence would be.


Solon Earl Low: That was nicely put.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Peanuts for sale.


John Lambert Gibson: Actually I do not think there is any reason why we should confine our investments to Great Britain, necessarily. Great Britain has a large empire which certainly is capable of further development. Since Britain says she has no money to do this, I feel that Canada should step in and give them assistance in this regard. I quite realize that we cannot invest Canadian money in stocks and bonds and still use the same money with which to purchase from the United States all the luxuries that we may think we need. But at the same time I feel that we could probably float here a domestic prosperity loan which would make up the difference between the present net surplus we have on our international trade and the amount of money which we would wish to invest in these industries abroad. I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that as far as Canada is concerned, if our basic industries are prosperous and if the British government is actually seriously desirous of maintaining the present trade we have with them, I am 
sure that some means can be found or can be worked out which will make such a thing possible.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: It can, if the government will do something.


John Lambert Gibson: If this is done, our people can maintain a reasonable standard of living, something which is not possible if we ever again are forced to depend upon unemployment insurance or direct relief.


Mr. G. H. Stokes (Hastings South):: I enter this debate, Mr. Speaker, for one purpose only, and I do not propose to occupy the time of the house for more than five minutes. One particular phase of administration to which I should like to refer for a moment is the administration of the health and hospital assistance program by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
When the estimates providing for this program were before this house on June 30 last year, the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated, as recorded on page 6175 of Hansard:
Let no one minimize the importance of this program; for whatever one may say, it is a program of the greatest significance. My remarks now are made in the knowledge that hon. members are prepared to deal with the steps to be taken by parliament to ease the burden of human suffering caused by disease, and all in this house act in this matter of national health in a spirit of nonpolitical interest. Of that I have no doubt.
This statement from the minister of the department, that the approach to this problem was nonpolitical, was most gratifying, I am sure, to all members of this house and as well to the people of this country, who after all are paying the costs of the program and rightfully expect it to be administered independently of politics.
The minister, during his speech at that time, made clear the basis upon which the health assistance program was to be administered, when he stated, as recorded at page 6177 of Hansard:
The program we are launching today is one of great importance to the people of Canada. We are approaching our role in a spirit of collaboration with those jurisdictions in our country that have direct legal responsibility in the field of health.
Later on in the same debate the minister was asked the following question, as reported at page 6179 of Hansard:


Mr. Green:: May I ask a question? Who is to make the decision about where the help is to be given?
Is the dominion taking that responsibility?


Mr. Martin:: Oh, no.


Mr. Stephenson:: As I understand it, the grants will be made by the dominion to the provinces as a lump sum. A municipality desiring assistance will have to make application to the provincial government. The federal government does not intend to allocate any moneys to any particular hospitals.

That will be decided by the province. Is that right? In other words, where a particular municipality is asking for some assistance for a particular hospital- Mr. Martin:	They should write to the provincial
government.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: -the minister's position is that they should write to the provincial government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.
A review of the discussion clearly indicated that it was never the intention of this parliament, and I am sure was never the wish of the people of this country, that funds voted by this parliament to ease the burden of human suffering should be administered with an eye to the political future.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that has not been the case. I was amazed the other day to read this news report in the Trenton Daily Press under date of February 19 last:
The dominion government has granted the sum of $58,030 to the unfinished Trenton memorial hospital.
This was announced to the mayor and revealed to the public by Mr. William A. Fraser (a former Liberal M.P.) at the meeting of the Trenton Liberal association in the Orange hall last night.
The grant comes under the dominion hospitalization scheme recently inaugurated. Intelligence of the grant was conveyed to Mr. Fraser by telephone from Ottawa prior to the Liberal meeting.
The Hon. Paul Martin, Minister of National Health and Welfare, telephoned Mr. Fraser to inform him that the grant had been passed by the government.
Mayor Couch of Trenton was also in attendance at the Liberal association meeting, and addressing the gathering he stated, as reported in the press of the same date:
In all my many years in Trenton there has been no party that has contributed as much to the welfare of this community as the Liberal party.
"When the time comes," he said, referring to the coming federal election, "we will show our tangible appreciation."
Now I bring this matter to the attention of this house, Mr. Speaker, because I honestly believe that the majority of hon. members disapprove of such tactics as have been resorted to in this particular instance. The minister himself assured this house that the whole approach to this serious problem was on a nonpolitical basis, and that the dominion government, of which he is a responsible minister, would not make decisions as to where help would be given but that this matter would be administered by the respective provinces concerned.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, here is a case where the minister himself telephones a man, not on the hospital board, not a member of the municipal council, but a member of a Liberal party association and Liberal organizer for eastern central Ontario, holding a meeting that night in Trenton, and advises him a grant of $58,000 is to be made to the local hospital.
No one, I am sure, has any objections to this grant to the Trenton memorial hospital to assist in providing much needed hospital
The Address-Mr. Coldwell accommodation in that area. But I do protest about the injection of politics into the administration of this act, as has been the case in this instance.
Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that Liberalism in this country is marching towards its long appointed destination of oblivion, when a responsible minister of the crown, in this matter of national health, acts in a spirit of the rankest politics and uses his responsibility of office for political purposes?
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister, as the first citizen of this country, and as leader of this government, will at the earliest opportunity assure this house and the Canadian people that these tactics to which I have referred will be discontinued and discontinued at once.


Major James William Coldwell: First of all, I want to say a word about the subamendment which has just been moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). In the course of his speech the hon. member made many statements with which I think we in this group agree. The criticism he made of the financial system is in many respects the criticism which we ourselves have made for a number of years, but the remedy he suggests is one which we cannot accept.
I might say to him that the theory of social credit is not a theory with which I am unfamiliar. As a matter of fact I began to read the proposals of Major Douglas as soon as they were first issued in 1919 in a little periodical called "The New Age," which friends of mine used to send me from England. I think that for a number of years I read everything that was written by Major Douglas, such as his plan for the coal industry, his plan for Scotland, and his various other writings. The more I read the more I came to the conclusion that while financial reform was necessary, he was going about it at the wrong end; that it is not money that counts, but physical assets and goods. The physical assets and goods must precede the distribution of money; otherwise you have merely an inflationary process.


Solon Earl Low: We believe that.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say to them also that I have never been able to understand this: If they wish to end the control of the "big shots", as they call them, about which the hon. gentleman spoke this afternoon; if they wish to relieve this country of the tremendous burden of indebtedness-and we must be relieved of it-to the great banking and financial institutions, then the only way to do that is to own those financial institutions. Any issue of loans we then make through those publicly-owned institutions will be

The Address-Mr. Coldwell issues that we make to ourselves for ourselves, and for which eventually we pay ourselves. Hence we then benefit fully from all that we have.
It is not my intention to deal with the social credit amendment, more than to say a brief word about it. May I add that in getting these various theories before the house a useful purpose is served; from time to time we should engage in discussions of these matters, whether we agree or disagree with the theories propounded. We always try to get our own views before the house in order that they may be discussed and our proposals understood.
I did not rise this afternoon to discuss social credit, or even the proposals of my own party in regard to the economic situation. I have always hesitated to inject into the discussions in the house anything which might be of a personal nature. I do, however, wish to deal with a matter which affects me, and, through me, the party I happen to lead in the house.
On February 22 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) referred to some remarks which I had made in my speech on the address in reply-and which, incidentally, had no reference to the minister himself, but were a criticism of what I considered to be a change of attitude on the part of some of our Progressive Conservative friends. The minister said, as reported at page 785 of Hansard:
I think I know as well as anyone in the country who put the Anderson government in power. When the election was all over we had twenty-eight members; the Conservative party had twenty-four members; the Progressives had six members, and the independents had five members. At that time there was not any C.C.F. party.
There was a Progressive party, in which the present leader of the C.C.F. party took a very prominent part. He was the leader of the labour group in that party, and there was a farm leader as well. It is true that he did not contest the constituency in that election, but I know better than anyone else that the morning after the election was over the leaders of the Progressive party came to my office and asked me if I would accept their support in order to keep us in office, and we only needed their support. I said to them on that occasion : "We have been in power for twenty-four years. It might do us good to be out a little while. I have got tired of traveling up and down the province telling people who never have had any other kind of government"-because we have always been in power in Saskatchewan-"how good we are without anybody to compare us with." They said: "We think it would be a good thing for Saskatchewan anyway to keep the Liberal government in power rather than have a Conservative government. Have you any objection to our talking to the present leader of the C.C.F. party"? He was then the leader of the other group. I said: "No, not as far as I am concerned, but do not speak on my behalf; speak on your own." They came back inside of half an hour and they said: "There is no use talking to him because he is supporting Anderson."

Then the minister went on to say:
I do not think a gentleman who has gone through that experience should get up in this house and point to the Conservatives and say that they put in the party which conducted the Ku Klux Klan campaign. I am not so sure he did not put them in, but in any case I know who went out as the result of the understanding.
The same evening my attention was called to these remarks. I rose on a question of privilege and quoted from a letter I had received recently from Dr. Hugh MacLean, formerly of Regina. I should like to put on record what I said in part that night. I quote from Hansard of February 22:
A statement admitting the facts was given to the press by the minister in the form of a letter. Somewhere I have an original of that letter. The minister's statement this afternoon is absolutely incorrect for I was bitterly opposed to the Ku Klux Klan and its activities, as were many of my friends. As a matter of fact and record, my advice to the Progressive members was to remain independent and support all good legislation. They did not heed my advice.
Two days later the Minister of Agriculture rose on a question of privilege and requested an alteration in Hansard of his speech of February 22. At that time he said:
At page 785, line 18 of Hansard, second column, the words "the leaders" should read "one of the leaders," and in line 38 the word "they" should read "he."
When I saw this I realized that the minister was trying to reconcile his statement on Hansard with what I had read into the record from the letter of Dr. MacLean.
It so happens that Dr. MacLean receives Hansard, and five days later I received a letter from him in which he expressed amazement at the minister's statement. He goes on in his letter to outline what actually happened.


An hon. Member:: Who is Dr. MacLean?


Major James William Coldwell: He was a Regina physician, highly respected in the province. He was a Progressive candidate in that city in 1921. At the time of which I speak he was not a member of the Progressive executive but he was a well-known supporter of the Progressive party.
After this exchange in the house, one of the Liberal newspapers of western Canada, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix accused me of raising this issue, and the minister for taking part in the discussion, and expressed the hope that this would not be a matter for discussion in the next election. I too hope it will not. The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix says this:
But if Mr. Coldwell was unwise in calling up this reeking ghost, Mr. Gardiner, a minister of the crown, was equally ill-advised when he attempted to

breathe life into it, for the Liberal administration of those days was a rather tarnished jewel in the party crown.
It certainly was. That is the opinion of a good Liberal paper in Saskatchewan.
What actually happened? While I am not going to read all of this letter, if either the minister or the house would like me to table it I shall be only too glad to do so. Dr. MacLean's letter states in part:
The day following the election, about two o'clock in the afternoon, I received a telephone call from Mr. Gardiner in which he asked if I could call on him at his office in the legislative building, as he had something of importance to talk over with me.
I consented to go to see him.
Then he proceeds to outline what occurred. My name was mentioned as one who might be persuaded to persuade the Progressive and independent group in the house to support the present Minister of Agriculture and might possibly arrange that I join in a union government.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does it say who raised the question?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes-the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then he is wrong, as I shall demonstrate when you get through.


Major James William Coldwell: That you called Dr. Mac-Lean-that is raising the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; who raised it?


Major James William Coldwell: I am going to read-


James Garfield Gardiner: Who raised the question as to your being seen?


Major James William Coldwell: I will read from the letter that you wrote to the press.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have it here in front of me.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad, because I shall put it on the record. This is what he says:
I went immediately to Mr. Coldwell-


James Garfield Gardiner: There is another letter which did not go into the press.


Major James William Coldwell: -arriving at the school at recess time, and told him of the foregoing conversation with Premier Gardiner. Mr. Coldwell replied: "During the campaign I disagreed entirely with the Conservative leadership aligning itself with the Ku Klux Klan and all its activities, and so now I definitely feel that the elected Progressives should stand alone to support any and all good legislation brought forth before the house no matter under whose leadership the government should be. As for myself I wish to be entirely eliminated, whatever happens, from accepting any cabinet position from either Mr. Gardiner or Mr. Anderson, leader of the Conservative party.
May I just add I happen to know that Dr. MacLean kept a complete diary, and I have no doubt he wrote down his recollection
The Address-Mr. Coldwell of what happened. I am not going to read the rest of the letter, but it goes on to outline what subsequently occurred. For some time questions were asked at a number of meetings, some at this particular time, both of myself and of the minister, and the minister continually denied that I had been approached with regard to this matter. On February 22, 1933, after four of us had met, the minister, Dr. MacLean, and the gentleman who is now Senator Wood and myself-


James Garfield Gardiner: Dr. MacLean was not at that meeting.


Major James William Coldwell: That is my recollection of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: He was not at the meeting.
I can give my hon. friend the record.


Major James William Coldwell: In any event that is my recollection. I should like to read this letter dated Regina, February 22, 1933, addressed to the editor of the Regina Leader-Post.


Mr. MacNicol:: Written by whom?


Major James William Coldwell: Written by the Minister of Agriculture. It reads:
To the Editor,
Dear Sir:
The impression has gone abroad, through statements appearing in the press, and is being emphasized through questions asked and answers given in public meetings, that there is some misunderstanding regarding certain negotiations between Mr. Coldwell and myself in 1929 and again in 1932.
Mr. Coldwell and I met in Regina, Thursday, January 19, in company with two mutual friends. We agreed that we at no time discussed with one another-
Perfectly true.
-the possibility of his entering a Liberal government, but that the possibility of his being the representative of the Progressive groups in a government had been referred to on two occasions, once by me and once by a third party with my knowledge, although it would appear that this invitation when conveyed by the third party may have been ambiguous regarding the name and composition of the proposed government. We agreed that the facts regarding these two incidents should be given the public.
It was stated by Mr. Coldwell in an address in Regina that a certain professional gentleman had come to him direct from my office following the election of 1929 and made certain proposals. He named the gentleman to me, and I stated to Mr. Coldwell that I could not recall this gentleman being authorized by me to see him upon this particular mission, but if the gentleman stated it to be so, there could be no doubt about it. I saw the gentleman in question and after talking to him could remember the incident and shall now set down the particulars.
When the results of the election of 1929 were made known, it was evident that no party in the house had a majority, although the Liberals had the largest group. I therefore called in a number of men of Liberal and independent views to consult as to what should be done. Among them was the gentleman in question. After some discussion he was of the opinion that we should meet the legislature and let them decide how the government was to be formed.
1344	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Coldwell
When this conclusion was reached, we thought that some one who would have influence with the men in the house as well as outside who held Progressive or independent views should be seen and acquainted with our intentions. The gentleman in question suggested Mr. Coldwell, a member of the Progressive executive. I agreed, and he undertook to see him on the way down town.
This gentleman saw Mr. Coldwell for a few moments. He told Mr. Coldwell that he had met Mr. Gardiner that afternoon. They discussed the possibility of the Liberals and Progressives coming together to form a government before the house met in special session.
The gentleman in question is clear on two things, namely:	First, the government if formed would
have been a coalition and not a Liberal government, although he referred to such a coalition when speaking to Mr. Coldwell as a "re-organized government with Mr. Gardiner as leader"; second, the negotiations between Mr. Coldwell and myself, suggested by him were to have been between me, as leader of the Liberal party and Mr. Coldwell as an outstanding and representative Progressive.
The second incident when a similar thing was discussed was on or about February 18, 1932. A mutual friend had been discussing with both of us what would happen in case the present government were defeated on the floor of the house on a want of confidence motion. He was anxious that I should see Mr. Coldwell and state to him my point of view. Mr. Coldwell was confined to his home and I called upon him there by appointment.
I pointed out that if there were a sufficient number of government supporters who voted want of confidence to warrant the governor in concluding that a new government could carry on, an election would not be a necessity. Mr. Coldwell raised the question as to how such a government could be formed. I stated, that would depend upon who voted want of confidence. I suggested to Mr. Coldwell that if those outside the Liberal party desired representation of some one not in the house, it would be necessary for them to arrange for it. In the event of such a government being formed, I would have raised no objection to Mr. Coldwell being the representative of such group in the coalition government, although Mr. Coldwell does not think I said so at the time. In any event no understanding of this nature was arrived at between us, nor did Mr. Coldwell indicate his willingness to accept any proposals made.
It would be very easy for me to continue to state and prove that I at no time invited Mr. Coldwell into a Liberal government either directly or indirectly, and for Mr. Coldwell to continue to state that very definite representations had been made to him by leading Liberals. Both statements might be perfectly true, but their repetition gives them an importance which is altogether out of proportion with the issues for which we each stand, and inject feelings which we both desire to leave outside our discussions in the future. I trust that our supporters will accept this as the final word upon the matter.
Yours truly,
James G. Gardiner.
That letter was accompanied by a short note from myself reading;
I have read the above statement of Mr. Gardiner and agree that it is a fair and correct recital of what took place. I join with him in suggesting that the matter be dropped from future discussions.
May I say that I did not raise this the other evening. But what happened after that? I have the complete record of what happened after that. Failing to get any assurance from me, the minister approached the

secretary of the Progressive association, Mr. George Thorn. I have a very complete story of what happened on that occasion. The minister went to 202 Darke block, to Mr, Thorn's office, and asked for co-operation, which Mr. Thorn said he could not give. I am not going to give a recital of all that occurred, although I have it here. I just want to mention the fact that before the coalition government was formed I, together with the president of the Progressive association-


James Garfield Gardiner: That was formed by Mr. Anderson.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. At that time the president of the Progressive association was Mr. Charles Little. Mr. Thorn and I met the newly-elected Progressive and independent members to try to persuade them to retain their independence in the house. The only part of Mr. Thorn's letter that I shall read is that which affects me and which reads:
We proceeded to congratulate them, and when we had completed doing that, Carl Stewart-
He was subsequently minister of highways and I think he was wholly responsible for the wreck, if I may put it that way, of the Conservative party in that province. In the last election in 1945 he was the Liberal candidate in the Yorkton constituency.


James Garfield Gardiner: Independent Liberal.


Major James William Coldwell: I shall not read the description of Mr. Stewart which follows. Mr. Thorn's letter continues:
Mr. Stewart said, "now boys that you have congratulated us, we would appreciate you leaving, as when all is said and done, we are elected members and we wish to discuss our plans, and while we appreciate your assistance during the election, that is all behind now, and we don't need your assistance here."
The three of us immediately began to splutter, and the other members present at once began to assure us that they didn't want us to leave, the two exceptions being Taylor and Stewart.
By this time you had become quite annoyed, and you proceeded to give Carl Stewart one of the best dressings-down he ever had, and Carl sat and took it. He never said one word back and he never got any encouragement from any of the members to say one word.
I put that on the record together with one more quotation which deals again with the inference the minister gave that I had some association with the Ku Klux Klan. I quote from this letter as follows:


John Ritchie MacNicol: Who is that from?


Major James William Coldwell: From Mr. Thorn, former secretary of the Progressive association. The letter reads:
There was one thing I missed telling you when I wrote you the other day. In Gardiner's attack upon you, he claimed that you and the rest of the Pro-

gressives and independents supported the K.K.K.'s and the attack upon the Roman Catholic church.
This I can vouch for is absolutely untrue.
As a matter of fact, that was one of the matters that Gardiner brought up in his discussions with Little and myself.
That was a discussion at which I was not present.
He paid tribute to the straightforward and clean-cut campaigns of the Progressives and Independents. He assured me that he quite realized that we did not get behind the Conservatives in their campaign to vilify the Roman Catholics and to pep up the K.K.K. organization.


James Garfield Gardiner: The leader of the C.C.F. party is not suggesting that in my speech the other day I said that he supported the Ku Klux Klan?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I said was that they had assisted most successfully to put in a government that was supported by the Ku Klux Klan, and that I had my own idea of who put the government in.


Major James William Coldwell: The clear inference was that I was somewhat responsible.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say to the minister that I like to be generous, shall I say, with those whom I oppose. Speaking in this house two years ago, when something of this nature came up, I went out of my way to say that I appreciated what the minister's stand was at that time. He probably remembers my saying it.


James Garfield Gardiner: After I asked you to.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not remember your having asked me.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then we had better look up Hansard.


Major James William Coldwell: In any event, if you did ask me the question, I need not have replied in the manner in which I did reply. The inference in your remarks the other evening was that I was responsible. The letter continues:
He assured me that he quite realized that we did not get behind the Conservatives in their campaign to vilify the Roman Catholics and to pep up the K.K.K. organization. He said, "if you will follow my personal campaign through this last election, you will find that nowhere have I ever condemned a single plank in your platform, and nowhere have I ever attacked the Progressive movement as an organization, or its leaders." Later I cheeked on that and as nearly as I could ascertain it was the truth. His attitude at that time is,-
It should be "was".
*-of course, completely the reverse of his attitude now.
I have gone to some trouble to put the record right because, now or in the future,
29087-85*
The Address-Mr. Coldwell I do not want to have the minister's remarks interpreted as they can be interpreted, and I do not want my activities in regard to some of these things placed in a light that is altogether wrong. As I say, I owe it not only to myself but to the people with whom I am associated. I have never sought public preferment by devious means. I have never tried to advance myself in that way.
I had forgotten one thing which came back to me when I was looking through the press and getting information on these matters. We were approached in 1929. I was approached in 1932, and I ran across this article in the Regina Leader-Post of January 6, 1933. I will read the record as it appears in the newspaper:
J. G. Gardiner, leader of the Liberal party, advised the Leader-Post Thursday morning that he was awaiting a letter from Premier Anderson setting forth the position of the government in respect to the coalition proposals as decided at the recent government caucus. Following press dispatches concerning Premier Anderson's statements on the coalition question the premier wrote a letter to Mr. Gardiner advising him that the government's position would be decided at the caucus. To this letter Mr. Gardiner replied asking that if the government had any definite coalition offer to make, he would be pleased to receive it before January 12, the date for which the Liberal caucus was originally called.
My interpretation of that is, if I may use a phrase from Dickens, "Barkis is willing." There is the story. It may be threshing old straw, but when someone in the house endeavours to put on something that occurred in the past an interpretation which reflects some discredit, or makes a considerable difference in one's record in public life, I think it has to be cleared up. That was my purpose this afternoon. I regret having had to do it but I felt, no matter what the minister may say, that the plain inference from his words was an inference that no one could mistake. Then the change in Hansard the next day on a point of privilege, to make the statement that he had made previously conform to the paragraph from the letter that I read, indicated that he was probably going to have his speech printed and distributed. I was not going to allow him to place me under the' kind of cloud that I think people reading only the speech of the minister would have considered I was under, without my bringing some of these matters to the attention of the public through the official record of the house.
I have one last word. I hope that the minister and I, who no doubt will be engaged on opposite sides in the forthcoming federal campaign, will endeavour to stick to facts in regard to such things as we have been discussing this afternoon, and that we can meet the public of our province on a high level

The Address-Mr. Gardiner instead of descending to the kind of inference that was made the other evening. That, Mr. Speaker, was my purpose in rising this afternoon.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the C.C.F. group has just suggested, this is threshing old straw. I do not know that I would have been in a position to get up and say what I am going to say had it not been for the fact that someone behind me-I do not know who it was, because I did not notice at the time-whispered that this statement was going to be made this afternoon by the leader of the C.C.F. As a matter of fact, I was asked whether the member had made his speech, and I said that the leader of the C.C.F. had not spoken. Therefore I sent out and got the record as to this matter, and I have it on my desk.
The record is an old one which dates back, as the hon. member has suggested, to 1932, when he and I were leading opposing parties in the province of Saskatchewan, he leading the new C.C.F. party and I leading the Liberal party.


Major James William Coldwell: A little ahead of that.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is where I am starting the record, and my friend will understand in a moment why I am starting it there. I may say before proceeding to do that, however, that those who edit some of the papers in western Canada, and who have a reputation of being Liberal do not always see fit to support either the Liberal party or some of those who are in the Liberal party, for reasons which are best known to themselves. I am not going to discuss that this afternoon. The question whether the Liberal party of Saskatchewan of that day was a bright star in the jewels of the crown, or whether it was otherwise, was pretty well settled in 1934. The Liberal party, which was attacked at the time of this record, was satisfied to remain in opposition for five years. When the five years were up there was not a single supporter of the government elected, not only not a member of the government but not even a single supporter of it. They were all defeated. Every one who supported them in the province was defeated in addition to those who had been in the house. None of them were elected.


Major James William Coldwell: That does not deal with this issue.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was the answer which was given by the people of Saskatchewan to the kind of attack that was made in 1929.


Major James William Coldwell: In which I did not join.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will come to that. That was not the question under discussion at all in 1932. The question under discussion in 1932 is pretty well stated in the first two paragraphs of a statement that was put out by the president of the Conservative party in the province of Saskatchewan on November 8, 1932. It is headed:
Challenge to Coldwell made.
Asked to name any Conservative trying to buy him; reply issued.
A challenge to Alderman M. J. Coldwell, leader of the Farmer-Labour party, "To name any official of the Conservative party", who has at any time attempted to "buy" his support, was issued Monday by Dr. D. S. Johnstone, former provincial president of the Liberal-Conservative party.
This challenge came as a result of the report of a public meeting addressed by Mr. Coldwell, in which he is reported to have said that he could have sold himself to a political career with either Liberals or Conservatives.
If anyone is interested in reading the remainder of this interesting document, it is here. I have read it for the purpose of bringing out what caused all this controversy to which my friend has referred. The extract from which I have read is dated November 8, and on December 31, 1932, I was reported as follows:
J. G. Gardiner, leader of the Liberal opposition in the Saskatchewan legislature, in addressing a large audience at Soudum school, south of Wilcox, Thursday night, said that at no time either as leader of the government or leader of the party in opposition, had he invited Mr. Coldwell to take a cabinet position in a government. He stated that such a suggestion might have been made to Mr. Coldwell by some Liberal on the street or about the dinner table, but that Mr. Coldwell was flattering himself when he took such suggestions seriously.


Major James William Coldwell: Your letter indicates that the suggestion was made.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what we were talking about at the time. Mr. Coldwell repeated the statement that he had been invited into the government by myself. I challenged him to meet me and discuss the matter with me. When he came to meet me he had with him, not Dr. MacLean but Mr. Menzies. Now that is correct. He had Mr. Menzies with him and I was in my own office-


Major James William Coldwell: When this letter was written to the press it was shown to Dr. MacLean; that is the point.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will come to that. When they came to meet me in my office in the Northern Crown bank building, Mr. Wood who is now, as has been suggested, a senator, was with me. It was not by appointment. He just happened to be there when they came. In view of the fact Mr. Coldwell had a witness, I suggested that Mr. Wood remain. The four of us went into the inner office. The first thing I said to Mr. Coldwell when we got into the office-I am calling him Mr. MARCH 10, 1349
Coldwell because I am speaking of 1932 rather than of the moment-the first thing I said to him was, "I do not remember ever having discussed with you the question of your coming into a government." My memory of the statement made by Mr. Coldwell was to the effect that he did not think he ever had discussed the question, that it was done through a third party. The statement made on the platform was that it had been discussed with me.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think so.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes. I can read that from the record, but I am not going through it now. The statement was made that the discussion was with me, and then the second night that was corrected and it was said that it was through a third party coming from me.
I said I did not remember ever having discussed the question with him, and Mr. Cold-well agreed that we did not. I said, "Why did you say so the other night?" He said, "Well, I was mistaken; it was a third party who came and discussed it".


Major James William Coldwell: I wonder if I said that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I asked who the third party was, and the present leader of the C.C.F. group said it was Dr. MacLean. I said I would sign anything that Dr. MacLean would put in writing and we would publish it in the press if he would sign it. Mr. Coldwell looked at Mr. Menzies and then said, "I think that is fair enough." I said, "All right, who will go and get the statement?" Mr. Coldwell said, "I think you had better go and get it." I said, "All right". I put on my hat and coat, walked out of the office and went right over to Dr. MacLean's office, which was about two blocks away. I told him what had happened and he said, "Well, that is not correct; 1 did not go from you to Mr. Coldwell to ask him to come into a government."


John Ritchie MacNicol: That he did not what?


James Garfield Gardiner: "I did not go from you to Mr. Coldwell to ask him to come into a government; what 1 went for was to discuss with him the possibility of the Progressive party keeping the present Liberal government in power."


Major James William Coldwell: You have read what Dr. MacLean writes now?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will tell you what Dr. MacLean did write, too. I said to Dr. MacLean, "Do you mind sitting down at your desk and writing out just what did happen?" He sat down and wrote it out. He signed it and I signed it. I took it back to the office where the other three gentlemen were still waiting. I handed it to Mr. Coldwell and 1 said, "There it is, you sign it and we will put it in
The Address-Mr. Gardiner the paper tomorrow morning." Mr. Coldwell read it. In that letter there was the suggestion which I made the other day. After reading it, he said he wanted to think about it.
I said, "All right, I am going out to my farm and I will be out there for some time. I will leave the letter here and any time you are prepared to sign it, you can sign it."
The fact is that that letter never was signed. In order to settle the whole controversy and stop further discussion of it, I was asked to put in writing what was read to the house. It had very little to do with most of the things about which we were talking at the start, but it did settle the matter in the minds of a few people, more particularly Mr. Coldwell himself, and the matter was left there.
I have never brought the matter up since, except on occasions when my hon. friend has said he has again been invited into a political party as one of its leaders. On two or three occasions recently it has been stated that the leader of the C.C.F. party has been invited by prominent Liberals to come into the Liberal party.


Major James William Coldwell: You would not know.


James Garfield Gardiner: In reply to that I have said that both the president of the Conservative party and the leader of the Liberal party in the province knew that there had never been any discussion with him-


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes. There is nothing in the letter which indicates that. The letter was written for the purpose of indicating there had never been any discussion about my hon. friend going into a Liberal government; the letter says something about a coalition government.


Major James William Coldwell: Which Mr. Gardiner would
lead.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but I am quite prepared to leave with the people of Saskatchewan, or any other group, the question whether or not Mr. Gardiner would ever have gone into a coalition government anyone formed. That question has been very thoroughly threshed out in Saskatchewan. There were two or three long letters in between the letters to which reference has been made, and those were published. Those were letters written by Dr. Anderson to me and my replies to him. The outcome of the writing of those letters was that under no circumstances would we, the Liberals, enter into a coalition arrangement with the Anderson government in order to prevent the election of the C.C.F. party. In those letters I stated to Dr. Anderson, as I stated to the present leader of the C.C.F. party and to everyone else, that the

The Address-Mr. Gardiner Liberal party would not only defeat the Anderson government but would defeat the C.C.F. at the same time. We not only wiped out every supporter of the Anderson government but we saw to it that not more than five members of the C.C.F. party were elected. That was our reason for not supporting a coalition. That was the nature of the discussions. Everybody in Saskatchewan knows all about that. I am not at all concerned about anything that the leader of the C.C.F. party may put onto the record in order to try to prove to anybody that at any time I was ever in favour of a coalition government.
The story, as it has been told, is one which will bear repeating. The two men who were present on the occasion when we had the discussion and who saw the letter, which never was published, are both still alive and in prominent positions. Knowing them as I do, I am quite satisfied that they will agree with the story that I have told as to what did happen and I am sure that now even my friend agrees that Dr. MacLean was not present at that meeting.


Major James William Coldwell: He was present when the letter was finally drafted.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether he was present then.


Major James William Coldwell: I have a fairly good memory, and I do not recollect the minister walking out and bringing back a letter.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member will have it put in his memory again by seeing both Dr. MacLean and Mr. Menzies, because I met Dr. MacLean in his office all alone-


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, but the point is-


James Garfield Gardiner: -and it will be put in his
mind by Senator Wood in a few minutes, if he wishes me to get in touch with him.


Major James William Coldwell: But the letter the minister signed was agreed to be an accurate account of what happened. I will let that stand.


James Garfield Gardiner: An accurate account of some other things apart from what was in the first letter, I still repeat; and since my hon. friend wants the whole record, I might add that he was one of the first men given an important appointment by that government.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say that 1 was the chairman of the royal commission which inquired into the civil service of Saskatchewan. I was nominated by the independents and the man who approached me was Jacob Benson who remained independent. I was acceptable both to the ministerial representative and to the civil service. I acted as neutral chairman. If a chairman of a royal commission is a partisan appointment, then I can

understand some of the reports that royal commissions sometimes make.


James Garfield Gardiner: But the matter is not as simple as that.


Mr. Fleming:: A plague on both your houses.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said, my hon. friend was given one of the first important appointments, if not the first, that was made by the government formed by Dr. Anderson.


Major James William Coldwell: Chairman of a royal commission.


James Garfield Gardiner: Chairman of a royal commission to investigate the civil service and make a report as to what kind of civil service act we might have. He made that report. As a result of that report having been made, and the legislation which was drafted, a long list of government employees were removed from their employment before the act came into force; and many of those employees were within a few months of receiving their superannuation.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. But I stopped it before the report was presented.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am giving the whole story, and my hon. friend will agree with it when I have finished.


Major James William Coldwell: I stopped that.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend was chairman of the commission that brought in the report.


Major James William Coldwell: Afterwards I had no responsibility.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the floor of the house I moved that the legislation based on the report be brought into effect that day, and I was voted down in the house.


An hon. Member:: It must have been a good report.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the bringing down of it was delayed for some weeks.


Major James William Coldwell: That was not my fault.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not saying that it was the hon. member's fault.


An hon. Member:: Why put it on the record?


James Garfield Gardiner: In order to indicate the whole story.


Mr. Knowles:: The minister is trying to get away from the subject.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend was chairman of the commission that brought down the report?


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: When I moved the motion to which I have just referred, and did not receive the support of the co-operative government side, my hon. friend announced-if not publicly, then to some people privately- that he was not in agreement with what the government were doing.


Major James William Coldwell: As to firing civil servants, I was not.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not about firing. They set the date at which the act was to come into effect far enough ahead so that the civil servants could be moved out in the meantime, and then the act could come into effect.


Major James William Coldwell: I agree with the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was the point at which my hon. friend decided against the Anderson government.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: And it was after that that he and I had our discussions on other matters.


Major James William Coldwell: Just once.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just once?


Major James William Coldwell: At the minister's request.


James Garfield Gardiner: We met seven times.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: Once in my house and once in your house.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: My memory is still fairly good.


Major James William Coldwell: That was the time that I called for the little book the hon. member was going to lend me, the Soviet Primer by a man called Ilin.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. And when my hon. friend came to get that little book he brought along a publication of Norman Thomas, socialist candidate for president of the United States.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, that is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: And he told me that in that publication I would find the theories which he himself was coming to believe in-state socialism, which he now supports.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: If we want to get down to conversations, I can give my hon. friend some more with regard to that. I read all the books as my hon. friend brought them to me, but they did not convince me that state socialism was right.


An hon. Member:: Read them again.
10. 1949	1349
The Address-Mr. Gardiner


James Garfield Gardiner: I want to repeat that we had seven meetings; and when we had the seventh one I came to the conclusion that I have held ever since, namely, that my hon. friend had made up his mind that for certain reasons he was going to be a socialist.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no, not going to be.


James Garfield Gardiner: I also came to the conclusion that as far as 1 was concerned I was not going to waste any more time trying to convince him to be a Liberal. Since that time I have been expending my energies in trying to convince other people who are more likely to be converted than is my hon. friend. I want to repeat what I said in reply to a question asked me in a meeting during the last provincial campaign. I was asked whether it was not true that two communists supported me in the last election. I replied that I did not know. I said that I have served a great many years trying to convince people that they ought to vote for me as a Liberal but that I had never spent any time trying to convince people that they should not vote for me. I said that, as a matter of fact, I would even accept a vote from the leader of the C.C.F. party or from the premier of Saskatchewan, if they saw fit to vote for me. I said that I would not object to that. But that would not mean that I agreed with either of them in anything that they happened to think. I said that I do not agree with many of the things that the communists think, but that some of them may have voted for me.


Donald MacInnis: The minister did not say he did not want their support.


James Garfield Gardiner: Having said that and having put on the record what I think is a full report of the little incident, I hope that my hon. friend and I can forget the matter and go on about our business.


Major James William Coldwell: All right.


Mr. Patrick H. Ashby (Edmonton East):: At
this time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to introduce a matter of far greater importance to the people of Canada than party politics. I refer to ham sandwiches. Since my rather rambling speech on Thursday, February 24, I have watched in cafes and restaurants individuals who have purchased ham sandwiches. If hon. members will do as I did, and just watch these individuals, they will notice that they all do the same thing.


Donald MacInnis: Eat.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: The first thing they will do is carefully lift up the bread to see if there is any such thing as ham in it. They lift it up carefully because the morsel of ham substitute is so small that they may drop it and

The Address-Mr. Ashby lose it entirely. They open up the ham sandwich because they possess only one sense which can indicate whether there is any such thing as ham in it. Their sense of taste does not register; there is not enough ham in it to enable them to taste it. There is not enough in it to enable them even to smell it. The only way they can determine what they have received is to look at it very carefully.
Hon. members will notice that the next thing they do is to look around for a bottle of ketchup, chile sauce or something of that sort. Then they smear the bread with this concoction, close it up and consume it. When I see people doing that in this country of abundance I say to myself, if we start them young enough we can actually get people to eat dry bread, because there is no butter on the sandwiches today. We can get people even to shout for any substitute we like, as we have witnessed in the case of margarine. When people will shout for an artificial substitute rather than the genuine article it is time that we did something about it.
I might point out that I have been asked by many hon. members, and by many others throughout the city, when I was going to get those hogs of mine butchered and the bristles scraped off. Therefore I shall attend to that urgent matter immediately. It will be recalled that I had reached to within a few moments of my allotted time when the house adjourned; therefore it will be necessary for me briefly to review the circumstances which caused this delay.
I had called at a store in the good city of Edmonton for the purpose of purchasing a hog-scraper, which is a small tool the price of which is but a few cents. Hon. members will recall that the proprietor of the store, when he heard me mention the word "hogscraper", nearly had an apoplectic fit, because he made only a few cents profit on a dozen of them, and kept these cheap tools only as a convenience to his customers. He had ordered these early in July in preparation for the fall of the year when the odd customer would drop in for one of these small implements. But he did not get his hogscrapers. Instead he received a form from an official of the department here in Ottawa to fill out.


An hon. Member:: Hurry up and get that old sow in the hot water.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: You must get the tools ready first. I do not want to get into hot water myself. He received this form, filled it out and mailed it. But he did not get his hogscrapers. Instead he received the letter which I hold in my hand, and from which

I was quoting at the time the house adjourned. I shall quote from it again:
It is noted that the end users are stated to be butchers ... No letter of essentiality from the end users has been furnished, as required as per instructions on the reverse side of the application under paragraph three.
That letter was from a bureaucrat. They insisted, and continued to insist, that this letter of essentiality from those who scrape the bristles off deceased hogs be sent. You can imagine this storekeeper driving through the country, calling at farmhouses and asking the farmer if he intended to butcher a hog or two in the fall; and if so, would he mind hunting up the equipment to see if all was there, and if perhaps his children, playing with the hogscraper during the past year, had lost it, and if he would require one; and, if he did, to please write out a letter of essentiality stating that it was essential that the bristles of hogs be scraped off their hides before those hogs were fit for human consumption. Yet, that is what they insisted upon. Let me continue with the letter:
If this equipment is required for sale to your customers over a period of time . . .
That is, if people came to a store to purchase something from time to time. Mind you, this is from a bureaucrat asking the storekeeper a question whether people came to his store to buy something from time to time. That is perfectly true.
If this equipment is required for sale to your customers over a period of time it would be necessary to establish an allotment. Therefore, we would require further information from you and for this purpose I am enclosing the following.
He lists a whole stack of forms which have to be filled out. I did not bring these forms down with me, Mr. Speaker, because I did not want to have to pay for excess baggage. They are listed as follows:
1.	Letter of instructions.
As soon as I saw that, the thought came to me, who are these individuals to instruct the people who are the only authority in a democratic country? Yet, this is what the letter says:
1.	Letter of instructions.
2.	One set C.G. Ill forms.
3.	One set C.G. 109 forms.
When the information that is required is furnished, your application will be dealt with further.
Heil the bureaucrat! Let me read the remarks that the storekeeper entered oh this letter. They are as follows:
Ridiculous! These things sell but for a few cents. Nine sheets of forms to fill out. What an idiotic waste of paper. My time is surely of some value other than writing this damn rot.

However, he filled them out to the best of his ability. He had to study these rules and regulations very carefully. At this point I should give an example of some of these bureaucratic babblings. Tomorrow, after this is printed in Hansard, in order to fully appreciate it, before having any food, that is, on an empty stomach, the reader should take a good drink of vodka and then read it, and he will find himself in a padded cell within a few hours. I quote:
The maximum price which a manufacturer may charge to any class of purchaser for any packaged cosmetic priced under the general maximum price regulation shall be the maximum price established under the general price regulation for sales of such packaged cosmetics by him to a purchaser of the same class.
If that is not a bureaucratic regulation extraordinary, just read it tomorrow in Hansard and see. I have been giving a sample of these bureaucratic babblings. Let us remember that it was in July that this man tried to accommodate his customers and sent for a few dozen of these hogscrapers.
On September 8, however, he finally wrote them a polite letter in which he said:
Dear Sirs:
Re hogscrapers
We have read your letter of August 25, and also forms C-G 109 and 111, but regret we see little to help us.
You ask for a letter of essentiality, when each customer spends only a few cents for a hogscraper. Surely it is an absurdity.
We can simply assert that we have no hogscrapers on hand, we have them on order for several months,
. . and we sell about six dozen per annum. They will come in one delivery, and possibly by express. Yours truly,
He sent the letter on, but he did not get his hogscrapers. He waited until September 25, when he again wrote.


An hon. Member:: What year?


Patrick Harvey Ashby: That was 1948. He calls attention to the various officials and says:
On August 17 last we applied for six dozen hogscrapers on the various forms-
Which he mentions. Then he continues:
But you still insist on letters of essentiality. On September 8 we applied for an allotment on C.G. Ill . . . We sell these at a few cents each . . . prompt action requested, please.
But he did not get his hogscrapers. The last I saw of the poor fellow was when he handed me this blue form I now hold in my hand, and said, "Look at this; this is what they want to know now." I read it to you:
Could this equipment be imported for temporary use and then returned?
Foiled by officialdom, blocked by bureaucracy, I have not been able to get these hogs slaughtered nor the bristles scraped off their
The Address-Mr. Ashby hides-because I did not get my hogscrapers, either. But I can assure the hon. members of this house and the anxiously awaiting public that, when the agricultural estimates are brought down, I will ring the curtain up and bring the hindquarters of these hogs to the forefront as never before in parliamentary history.
I am not attacking the civil service.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: I am not attacking civil and obedient servants of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: Keep quiet, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: I am not attacking any civil and obedient servant. Perhaps I might illustrate what I mean in this way. My ancestors never kept any record of where they came from originally, nor of where they originally landed on the British isles. So far as I can gather it was before Magna Carta. It may have been, however, that my ancestors were from Norway. It is assumed they came from Scandinavian countries. It may be that one of my ancestors was driven from Norway by an irate fisherwoman who probably heaved a garbage can lid at him as a parting gesture; for my family crest appears to bear on it something which resembles the lid of a garbage can, on which is emblazoned the open-mouthed skull of a dead codfish, and crossed ham-bones-which would seem to indicate that the family was very fond of seafood and juicy sugar-cured ham.
There is this fact, however, which I should bring out, one which is of the utmost importance today. Ever since that time the Ashby family has handed down this thought from generation to generation-one which too many of us have forgotten. It is the thought that under no circumstances should we ever destroy an institution established by our forefathers. Remove the abuses-yes; attack all these abuses which will inevitably be introduced by those of evil intent; but never under any circumstances whatever must we allow these institutions to be destroyed.
When I refer to a civil servant I am reminded of our royal family. And when I think of our royal family, the greatest servants any people on this earth ever had, I wonder how many of us could recite the identical words uttered either by His Gracious Majesty the King or by Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth. Is there any member in the house who could stand here, or could stand anywhere else, and state
1352	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Ashby definitely the words either of them has uttered? I doubt if any of us could. Yet many of us could recite the words uttered over the radio about soap, or some other product. I remember Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth speaking over the radio, saying something like this, "I pledge my life to the service of our people."
We hear people condemning our institutions. We hear people saying, "What is the good of this old Senate? Look at the old crocks who are in there." Yet, the Senate and the House of Lords are institutions established for a purpose. That purpose may have been forgotten by this time. But they were set up for us by our forefathers. We note that they are under attack today; they are being undermined by abuses introduced into these institutions by political parties.
It is the abuse of the civil service I am attacking today.


John Horne Blackmore: The uncivil part.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: Those who are civil and obedient servants of the people are the most valuable persons in the country. They are the individuals who have made a special study of methods, and who know how to bring about any result desired by the people, if given a free hand.
I might add that all through history, whenever these institutions established by our forefathers have been undermined and have begun to decay, the countries of which they have formed a part have also decayed. And so would Canada and this great British commonwealth of nations decay.
It is our duty as individuals to attack all the abuses in these institutions we can recognize, no matter where they may be. If we can do that we will save this Christian civilization which we and our ancestors have endeavoured to establish. And so, it is all this abuse, and all this interference with genuine business by incompetent and artificial government employees, and all this abuse of institutions and of power-because these bureaucrats do not know how to use power; they know only how to abuse it-about which I am speaking. All of these abuses as well as this false, this perfidious, this inhuman, this despicable method of obtaining revenue which we call taxation; this unnatural and artificial diet of spam and spork instead of the genuine meats we can produce in great abundance; all this cheap and flashy jewelry you see for sale in stores, made of glittering glass, bright tin and so on; all this shoddy cloth that is sold for clothing-I am told that there is anywhere from ten to ninety per cent of old worn-out underwear shredded and woven into the clothing we buy today-the poorest type of cloth that has ever been turned out in the fMr. Ashby.]

past hundred years and that is being sold at three or four times its value; all this hypocritical, and I do not think I am wrong in so calling it, lying political oratory; all these beer parlours and government black market liquor stores; all these sensational magazines and movies depicting unnatural family life and living; all these things have been sown by the political parties in power and under the care of the political party cabinet, all these artificial, counterfeit and contemptuous things have grown up, and developed, have branched out, have blossomed forth and gone to seed like sow-thistles and stinkweed in a field of what would otherwise be the finest wheat, crowding out the good, distorting and polluting the natural God-given thoughts of our young people with false ideas and unnatural beliefs, confusing the people generally, and resulting in all the misery we see about us, in the wholesale arguments we hear, in the shoutings of men and screamings of abused women, in raucous laughter, in drunkenness, in divorces, in murder and suicides, in thiev-ings and robbery, in violence and filthy slums, in human garbage and ending up, periodically, in wars and wholesale slaughterings of our finest youths and the destruction of what we call our Christian civilization we and our ancestors have endeavoured to build up in past centuries. All this, I say, is the result of maladministration, of evil administration; and the political party which has held the reins of government each time, until it has brought about a depression, was the Liberal party. What a record of crime that is to be placed upon our Canadian records for ever. I should like to have the job of erecting a statue to commemorate the prime ministers who have held office during the past 25 or 30 years, for that is when most of the damage was done. I would employ the greatest sculptor living in the world today and I would have the image carved in the finest clay. I would place it out here on the lawn in the most prominent place so that the first shower that would come along would make of it the true image it really was. Have hon. members ever seen mud that has been rained upon?
I said that I would give hon. members of this house a few details of the methods by which we can abolish taxation, and I shall do that now if I have the time. The method which I am sure would bring about the desired result and of which perhaps I am more in favour than any other; the method which would revive an old custom of the British people and one which I am sure would be approved of by millions of people throughout the country, particularly in Ontario, which province would benefit most of all from an influx of tourists; the method which would immediately solve our problem of a

shortage of United States dollars would be to place the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet in stocks out here on the lawn between the hours of ten-thirty a.m. and two-thirty p.m. until some method other than taxation was discovered by them or their deputies.
I will guarantee that within thirty days all taxation would be abolished.
Taxation is simply one of many methods of obtaining revenue as there are many methods of transportation. The taxing of money from the people is not the only method, any more than driving in a horse-drawn buggy is the only method of transportation. It would not matter what method I or anyone else might suggest, there would be those who would object. If I said that the automobile provided the best means of transportation today I suppose a dozen men would jump up and produce statistics showing the numbers that had been killed or the accidents that had taken place in an effort to refute this method.
Taxation is not the only method and before I am through I shall give some alternate methods. Another method we could use to abolish taxation would be for all religious leaders who believe in the sanctity of the family and the home to denounce all those engaged in taxing the people. Taxing is not a native British method nor is it a Christian method; it is an alien method, a communist method. According to the communist manifesto it is an essential method used to force people to become absolutely dependent upon those who through trickery and deceit have gained control over them.
Taxation is a false and erroneous belief among many people. Another false and erroneous belief is that held by those who collect the taxes, by those who are employed directly or indirectly by the department of taxation, that if people are paid by the officials of the Department of National Revenue to commit an offence or injustice against their fellow Christians, the responsibility for the crime rests upon the institution, upon the department, upon the government or upon the bureau and not upon the individual who commits the offence. This is false for each individual is responsible. I do not blame the hired criminal. I do not blame those who break bad laws so much as I blame those who make bad laws.
There are other methods. I have had people tell me that you cannot get away from taxation, that you must pay taxes, but my reply is: "If you believe that taxation is necessary, you pay taxes, but do not impose your will upon me and force me to pay them". In my speech on February 24 I said that the key to the whole situation was personal 29087-864
The Address-Mr. Ashby responsibility. Another method to abolish taxation would be to have recorded on every ballot paper on which people vote the name of the individual with his or her address on the ballot paper, and explain that those who vote for the political party which imposes taxes shall pay the taxes, and those who did not vote for that political party shall be exempt from paying taxes.


An hon. Member:: That is the only chance you have to get into power.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: There is, of course, an excuse for taxation. Should there be too much money in circulation, then it would be necessary to remove some of it. This money need not and should never be removed from those engaged in productive work, but it can be taken from where money accumulates in the greatest quantity. That is simple enough.
Here is a substitute for taxation. Three kinds of money are used to finance any large undertaking such as war. The first is what we call bank credit money. This is money created by the banking institutions which create all true dollars. A dollar is a unit of account as a mile is a unit of distance, as a bushel is a unit of measure, and as a quart is more than you can get out of a beer bottle. By law no one else is allowed to create these true dollars, which is as it should be, for no one knows more about the grocery business than the grocer, or more about farming than the farmer, or more about banking than the banker himself. Few institutions that we have can show such an outstanding record of honesty and trustworthiness as those employed in the institutions known as banks. Most of the national debt accumulated during the past two wars consists of bank credit money only. This money or bank credit is bought by the government from the banking institutions in return for interest-bearing government securities. The people are taxed to pay the interest on those securities held by the banking institutions. That is one form of money which is used to finance war.
Secondly there are the people's savings. The second kind of money used is the savings of the people which the government also buys in return for interest-bearing savings bonds. Only a fraction of this kind of money is used to finance wars; I think about one-fifth. Most of this money is bank credit money which has come into the possession of the people, and on which the people are paying interest by taxation. When the government buys this money from the people's savings the people are paying double interest on it, first to the banking institutions which created it, and secondly to the people who have saved it.
1354	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Church
The third kind of money is what I call confiscated money. It is that kind of money known as taxes. This is money, most of which is confiscated from the hard-earned wages of those who do productive work, and who are least able to afford the loss. No interest-bearing government bonds are given in return for this kind of money. It is simply and purely legalized robbery. What is the solution? It is simple enough. No other kind of money is used, or ever has been used, to finance any such undertakings as war. What is the solution? It is for all members of all governments, municipal, provincial and federal, who are loyal to the people, who place their faith and trust in us, to insist on the people being given an interest-bearing government bond for every dollar taxed from them, whether directly or indirectly; for all three kinds of money buy identically the same kind and quantity of goods or services.
The striking thing about it is that, like so many of our democratic institutions, all of which were originally established to serve the people, the functions of the banking institutions have been abused and reversed, and instead of bank credit money being used to pay interest to the people on money confiscated from them by a ruthless and despotic bureaucracy the people are forced to pay interest in money they cannot create, to the very institutions that can and do create it.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, for three or four minutes tonight, I wish to refer to one proposal, and that is the Bretton Woods-Dumbarton Oaks principle. I shall not take up very much time, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to remind the house that I was the only member on these benches who was opposed to the Bretton Woods-Dumbarton Oaks-Lord Keynes principles because I believed they abandoned the traditional policy of the party. Ever since the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding, this party had a tradition for dealing with our best customer, the motherland. I believe the abandonment of it was a fatal mistake by those on our side of the house, as it was a traditional policy of the Conservative party.
At that time we had before us the prime ministers of New Zealand and Australia, Mr. Curtin and Mr. Fraser, both of whom addressed this house from the seat now occupied by the Clerk. These men made a proposition which was to be studied in London at a meeting with Mr. Attlee before
[Mr. Ashby.)

Geneva or Havana. This was back in December of 1946. Canada opposed it. I was opposed to the policy of the Liberal government of the day and opposed Bretton Woods strongly. I said it would lead us into disaster if we abandoned our best customer, the motherland. For that reason, I supported our friends on the extreme left in their proposal, and I believe I was right. I still think I am right. I might say that it was very difficult for me to be present on that particular day, owing to certain conditions. I supported the traditional policy of preferential trade of our party from time immemorial. It was founded by the two Liberal statesmen I named. I believe the abandonment of it got us into this dollar emergency which led almost to the destruction of the British empire. As you know, the policy of Mr. Attlee, and Canada made no objection to it, was to scuttle and quit and haul down the flag on the seven seas, when I raised here these matters of defence, trade and migration within the empire.
I regret very much that this dollar policy has been forced on this country by the present government. One of the gravest mistakes we ever made as a House of Commons was made in January, 1947. I remember Mr. Curtin and Mr. Fraser were in London at the time and wanted a meeting with Canada before the Geneva and Havana meetings in February, 1947. I asked in the house here about it, from February to July, but we were told not a word about it until late in November 1947, when this austerity policy was announced. Our party threw over its tradition and supported the dollar austerity program, abandoned preferential trade, which leaves us dependent upon Washington not only for trade and migration, but for defence. I believe a fatal mistake was made by those who were in the house on our side at that time.
(Translation) :


Mr. Benoit Michaud (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it appears presumptuous to speak at this stage of the debate on the address in reply. However, most members know the reason which made it impossible for me to make my remarks earlier.
About the speech from the throne, I have only a brief comment to make. I was pleased to note the government's intention to amend the Family Allowances Act so as to eliminate the decreasing rate after the fifth child. The house will no doubt recall that on June 19, 1947, I brought up the matter in this house and discussed it at length.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was then in his seat. He

listened to me sympathetically and promised that my remarks would be earnestly considered. I learned later that the officials of his department actually did consider the matter.
Other members have since made similar representations and I am happy to find today that the government have seen fit to amend the law in accordance with the remarks I then made.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot emulate the humorous vein of the member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby). I listened to him with a great deal of interest and, although I do not agree with most of the things he said,
I enjoyed his speech. The possible exception to this was the derogatory remarks he made, obviously with reference to the member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King). I feel that I must take strong objection to those remarks.
I have not his exact words before me, but I recall he mentioned he would like to hire the services of a great sculptor and have a statue of the hon. gentleman carved in clay. Then he would have it exposed on the lawn where the rain might do its work on it. I am sure that most of the members resented those remarks as much as I did. Even the political opponents of the hon. member for Glengarry have always recognized him as an outstanding Canadian who served his country under exceptionally difficult and trying circumstances. I am confident that his name will be written in history for centuries after his demise. His name will be remembered a great many years after the names of most of us, including the member for Edmonton East, have passed into oblivion. I feel confident that when the hon. member reads in Hansard the remarks he has made he will be sorry for what he has said and will regret having said it.
My main reason for speaking today, after being confined to the hospital for a period of four months, is the fact that a serious problem has arisen affecting a large number of farmers in my native province of New Brunswick, as well as the province of Prince Edward Island. It is the old problem of the marketing of our large crop of potatoes. During the course of the session of 1947 I did, on two occasions, deal with that particular problem.
Every once in a while our large potato growers are faced with a very serious situation. Unlike the grain growers of the west, it is not a drought which threatens them. It is not a rainstorm, a windstorm, a hailstorm, locusts or any such ordinary calamity. Paradoxically as it may sound, the threat which menaces our farmers is none other than what we are accustomed to call a bumper
10, 1949	1355
The Address-Mr. Michaud crop. When kind Providence gratifies our farmers with a bounteous crop, it turns out to be a curse rather than a blessing. If the crop is average or below average, there is no problem. Marketing takes place in an ordinary and satisfactory manner. If the crop happens to be good, let us say ten per cent or even five per cent above average, then we face serious difficulties.
At this point, may I emphasize the fact that the trouble does not arise because we plant too many acres. Our acreage does not vary much from year to year. As a matter of fact, in 1948 our acreage was smaller than in the years 1943 to 1946 inclusive, and it was only slightly larger than in the year 1947. The whole trouble comes because in certain years, on account of climatic conditions, the yield is particularly good.


Donald MacInnis: The Lord has been favourable.


Benoît Michaud: That is right. I need not stress the point that potatoes do not keep from year to year. We all know that. They require frost-proof storage facilities, and whenever there is a surplus crop, the storage problem becomes particularly acute in the fall, with the result that prices slump below the cost of production. Even if there were sufficient storage facilities, the surplus in itself would constitute a problem which would inevitably force prices down. Under such conditions our farmers are obliged to sell somewhat as people do in a bankruptcy sale or a fire sale. In such cases, of course, consumers generally get their potatoes at a price below the cost of production. I know for a fact that this has been the case, to a great extent, as far as the 1946 and the 1948 crops are concerned.
I think it is only fair that I should at this moment point out the fact that the potato growers of the maritime provinces are rendering a great service to the consumers of Ontario and Quebec, two provinces which do not produce enough for themselves and which depend to a considerable extent on purchases from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. If these two provinces were to stop selling on the upper Canadian market, I dare say that the price of potatoes in central Canada would just about double. Because of favourable soil and climatic conditions we can produce more economically-and the figures are there to prove it-than Ontario and Quebec. Thus we are in a position to force the price of potatoes down to what we consider a reasonable level. I presume the grain growers of the west also feel that they perform a similar service to the rest of Canada with regard to the production of

The Address-Mr. Michaud grain. In consideration of this service which they are rendering, the western farmers have secured advantages in the form of marketing and other legislation. With these policies I am in full agreement. But I take the view that our potato growers, who are doing such a great service to Ontario and Quebec, should be given more protection in the form of adequate marketing legislation.
In all fairness I must point out that, as to the crops of 1946 and 1948, our farmers have received some sort of protection under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Although the support given has not been quite sufficient, in my opinion, it has helped considerably in both years, as otherwise prices would have fallen considerably lower and our farmers would have lost a good deal more than they actually did. As I commented at the time in a statement to the press-that was about three months ago, I believe-the guarantee of $1.15 per hundred pounds on April 1 is too small and too late. But perhaps it was difficult to do better under present circumstances.
I attended a meeting here in the month of September, when representatives of the producers from the various provinces made representations to the agricultural prices support board. The New Brunswick farmers claimed that it cost them seventy-two cents per bushel at harvest time, and that they should be getting that much for their product. The Prince Edward Island farmers and the Quebec farmers claimed that they could not get along with that amount, but that they needed at least ninety cents per bushel. The guaranteed price which has been set, considering the shrinkage and the storage, is quite a bit lower than even the moderate price of seventy-two cents per bushel submitted by the New Brunswick farmers.
As I said before, although I have not been able to keep in close touch with the big producers along the St. John river, I have been informed right along that the price received by farmers most of the time has been in the vicinity of one cent a pound or sixty cents per bushel, which is a good deal less than the cost of production. Judging from the quotations on the Montreal market at the present time, I am inclined to think that our farmers along the St. John river are not getting much more than they were two or three months ago.
I understand that this support act expires this year. The assistance we have received for the two years referred to was under that act. I do not believe there is any other legislation besides that to justify any support price. What is the government planning to do, if anything, when this legislation expires? I can only judge from statements made by the

Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). The latest that has come to my attention on this point is one which appeared in the Canadian press on December 8. The dispatch reads in part as follows:
Addressing the final session of the dominion-provincial agricultural conference, he-
That is, the Minister of Agriculture.
-told the delegates, representing provincial departments of agriculture, he was not prepared to say whether the dominion would enact marketing legislation at the forthcoming session of parliament.
I should like to know, as early as possible, what the Minister of Agriculture and the government have in mind as to this marketing legislation. The farmers in my constituency are of course greatly interested in any decision of the government along that line.
At the Liberal convention that was held in the first week of August, in outlining what he considered a national program for Canada the Minister of Agriculture advocated the setting up of a potato board for the benefit of the maritime farmers. Unfortunately I have not the text of his statement to the press at the time, but I distinctly remember reading about it. Naturally I was greatly pleased with the statement. I should be greatly obliged to him if he would inform the house, and through the house the farmers interested, just what are the government's plans on this matter.
Some hon. members of this house are likely aware of the potato price support policy in some of the states of our neighbours to the south. This price support policy has proved to be exceedingly expensive for the crop years 1946 and 1948, and I would suggest nothing of the kind for this country. We just cannot afford it. As a matter of fact, the United States are contemplating reducing by one-third their present support prices. I feel however that this government can bring about orderly and satisfactory marketing without cost to the taxpayers of this country, except the cost of administration. Such a policy could be made possible, provided, one, that consumers be made to pay a fair price, and, two, that acreage be confined to proper proportions. I suggest that all of this could be achieved through federal legislation alone.
There is no question that the federal government has full jurisdiction as regards foreign trade. The federal government could set a minimum price for all potatoes exported out of the country, whether seed or table stock. This would eliminate the often-heard complaint that dealers are cutting one another's throats in quoting prices to foreign purchasers, thus causing considerable losses to the farmer. It would also appear that this parliament has jurisdiction over interprovincial trade. All the provincial marketing acts which I have come across specify definitely

that they apply only to trade within the provinces. On this constitutional question there are not many authorities as to whether this parliament has jurisdiction to regulate interprovincial trade, trade flowing from one province to another. I have looked up the " Canadian Abridgment," a digest of cases, on this point. I hold in my hand volume XI, constitutional law being dealt with at page 432. In the well-known case of Citizens Insurance Company against Parson I find this significant quotation:
Construing therefore the words "regulation of trade and commerce" (which come within federal jurisdiction) by the various aids to their interpretation above suggested, they would include political arrangements in regard to trade requiring the sanction of parliament, regulation of trade in matters of interprovincial concern, and it may be that they would include general regulation of trade affecting the whole dominion.
In another case at page 437 of the same volume, the Grain Marketing Act, 1931, this significant passage in the judgment of the privy council appears:
Held, the Saskatchewan Grain Marketing Act, 1931, was ultra vires, since in its true nature and character it was legislation enacted with the object of controlling the export of grain from Saskatchewan to other provinces and foreign countries, and it was, therefore, an interference with the dominion parliament's exclusive powers over the "regulation of trade and commerce."
It would appear from these two decisions that the federal government has jurisdiction in the matter of inter provincial trade. I have not had time to look into the wheat board act, but what I am advocating resembles the wheat board act, which has not yet been declared to be ultra vires of this parliament. In any event, if there should be any question about the jurisdiction of this parliament, the opinion of the Department of Justice could be sought, or the matter could be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada; and if it should be deemed necessary to have provincial concurrent legislation I am sure that the province of New Brunswick at least would agree to the passing of any such concurrent legislation.
In view of the fact that Quebec and Ontario are not self-sufficient in this particular commodity, potatoes, and that they must get a considerable portion of their supplies from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, if proper restrictions were imposed on the movement of potatoes from one province into another an effective floor price could be maintained in the same manner as, at the present time, an effective floor price is maintained on eggs, bacon and beef, because of our sales to Great Britain. If, for example, this parliament should pass legislation setting a minimum price for potatoes grown in one province and sold in another,
The Address-Mr. Michaud then the price of all potatoes grown in Quebec and Ontario would immediately rise to that minimum floor level. The main problem in this whole scheme, which I now suggest to the government, would be to regulate properly the movement of potatoes from the maritimes into upper Canada. I think it could be done quite easily, however.
Statistics are available to show how many carlots of maritime potatoes are exported out of the country, and into the other provinces. Incidentally, the marketing scheme which I am advocating need not be concerned with anything less than carlots moved by rail. Any small quantities moved otherwise between the boundary of Quebec and New Brunswick would not amount to much and could not possibly disturb the scheme as a whole.
With statistics available, it is easy to determine what the maritime provinces should grow for export, and here I mean export into the other provinces as well as outside of Canada. I have those statistics in front of me but I do not feel like placing them on Hansard because they would not add anything further to the debate.
Farmers would be invited to join the marketing plan proposed by the government under this potato board, or whatever marketing agency may be set up. On the basis of their past performances, the growers would be asked to apply for a quota, so many bushels for export purposes. Since those who did not choose to come under the marketing scheme would not be allowed to market outside their province, until those coming under the scheme had marketed the whole of their quota, practically all potato growers would apply to market through the government agency. If the farmers applied for a quota corresponding to their past performances, it would just about correspond to our over-all requirements. Those who applied for too large a quota could be held to their average year, if they wanted to market through the government agency. In any event, a fair and equitable formula could be worked out in order to bring the sum total of all individual quotas to the over-all quota requirements for the maritime provinces.
All this marketing would be on a voluntary basis, and every farmer at seeding time would be given a quota for which he would be assured of a minimum price. If he chose to grow more, it would be at his own peril, and he could only market the surplus, if and when the national quota determined by the board had been completely disposed of. I do not feel like going into details as to how this marketing could be carried out. I discussed it with the farmers of my constituency
1358	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Michaud on many occasions, and the suggestions which I am now offering have come mostly from them.
The government marketing agency could very advantageously replace wholesale dealers in potatoes, with the result that farmers would get a slightly higher return for their potatoes. Coupons would be issued to farmers for the amount of their quota. These coupons would have to be surrendered to the potato inspectors at the time of shipment, and then forwarded by the inspectors to the government marketing agency. In this manner every one would be held to his quota. The floor price should advance throughout the season to compensate for storage and shrinkage. Marketing could also be arranged so as to give every farmer an opportunity to sell gradually throughout the marketing period. In my opinion there should be no great difficulty in connection with the setting up of a marketing scheme of this nature.
Practically every other farm product has some sort of minimum price guaranty. The potato grower is just about the only one who has not had adequate protection for his product. From the standpoint of importance, the potato crop comes fourth after wheat, barley and oats. The large potato growers, who are responsible for the very reasonable price at which this vegetable sells, are highly specialized farmers. They derive at least 90 per cent of their income from the growing of potatoes. When the market goes bad, it means a disastrous disturbance in their economy. The fact that they may recoup some of their losses in a good year is not satisfactory. It is very seldom that the benefits of a good year will balance the losses of a poor year. Potato growers, like other farmers, and the majority of wage-earners, want stability. Not very long ago the Canadian federation of agriculture made representations to the government with a view to assuring stability of prices for farm products. I do not know that any special representations were made as regards potatoes, but I do know that those farmers want stability in the worst way; and I do hope that before this session is over the government will do something to protect that particular group of farmers.
In conclusion, I wish to inform the minister and his officials that I am at their disposal to discuss with them all the different phases of this particular problem. I realize that this subject does not interest a great many members of the house, but I would feel remiss in my duty if I had not brought it to the attention of the house and the minister at the first opportunity offered to me in the course of this session.


(Translation):


Mr. Real Caouette (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, those who have followed with attention the masterly speech delivered this afternoon by the leader of this group (Mr. Low) are unanimous in recognizing the high standard of his address, in addition to the logic and the great value of social credit. We should avail ourselves of the unique opportunity we have of implementing that doctrine in Canada without any delay, during the present session.
I should like to deal briefly tonight with certain attacks directed against social credit supporters in Canada, especially those of the province of Quebec. Violent attacks have been directed in the past and are directed today by some people against social credit and its leaders in the province of Quebec; it is claimed that social credit might be communistic, socialistic or that it might represent a certain "philosophy of the stomach", or in other words that it is quite a materialistic movement.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the house tonight about a study that was made ten years ago not by myself or by any member of this group, but, at the request of their excellencies the bishops of Canada, by a commission of nine theologians, called upon to study the social credit doctrine in comparison with the church's social doctrine. It was not required to consider whether a social credit political party or a political movement of the Union of Electors could be recommended to the Canadian people, but merely to study the monetary theory of social credit.
The commission was composed of the following eminent religious personalities: Chairman: Rev. Father Joseph P. Archam-bault, S.J.; Mgr. Wilfred LeBon, D.P.; Rev. Canons Cyrille Gagnon and J. Alfred Chamberland, Reverends Philippe Perrier, Arthur Deschenes, Jean-Baptiste Desrosiers,
P.S.S., and Charles-Omer Garant, and Rev. Father Louis Chagnon, S.J. It is to be noted that, in the meantime, Rev. Charles-Omer Garant has become Mgr. Garant, Auxiliary Bishop of Quebec. The commission itself decides upon its field of study:
(A)	The question is not at all the economic or political aspect, that is the theory's merits from the economical point of view and the practical application to a country of the social credit system. The commission's members do not claim any competency in these matters and, besides, the church is not called upon to express an opinion on questions concerning which, as Pope Pius XI said, "it lacks appropriate means and competency".
(Quadr. anno.)

It is not the member for Pontiac who said or wrote that. Here then is a commission of nine theologians which determines for itself its field of study.
(B)	Nor is it a matter of approving that doctrine on behalf of the church because in the social and political spheres, the church never submitted a definite technical system which, incidentally, is not part of its functions.
(C)	The sole question under consideration is this: Is the social credit doctrine, in its basic principles, tainted with socialism or communism, which doctrines are condemned by the church; must it therefore be considered by Catholics as a doctrine they cannot accept, and still less propagate?
(D)	The state referred to in the present report is considered, in abstracto, independently of any contingencies involved.
The commission then gives a definition of socialism.
2.	The commission defines socialism and points out the characteristic features of this doctrine, in the light of Quadragesimo anno:
(a)	materialism;
(b)	class struggles;
(c)	elimination of private property;
(d)	control of economic life by the state without regard for personal freedom and initiative.
Such is the definition of socialism given by the church.
3.	The commission then expressed in the form of propositions the essential principles of social credit.
The purpose of the monetary doctrine of social credit is to give each and every member of society the economic freedom and security which they have a right to expect from the economic and social body. To this end instead of bringing down production to the level of purchasing power by the destruction of useful goods or the restriction of labour, social credit wishes to raise purchasing power up to the capacity of production of useful goods.
To this end, social credit suggests-these are the commission's words, Mr. Speaker:
1.	The state must recover control of the volume and issue of money and credit and exercise this control through an independent commission entrusted with all necessary authority.
2.	The material resources of the nation, expressed in terms of production, represent the basis of money and credit.
3.	At all times the issue of money and credit must correspond to the level of production so that a sound balance may be maintained between production and consumption. This balance is ensured, at least in part, through a discount rate which would vary of course with the fluctuations of production.
4.	The present economic system, thanks to the many discoveries and inventions that favour it, produces an undreamed-of amount of goods. At the same time it reduces employment level and causes permanent unemployment. A considerable part of the population is therefore deprived of all purchasing power with which to provide for itself goods created for it and not for any individuals or groups of individuals.
In order that all might share the cultural heritage bequeathed by their predecessors, Social Credit suggests a dividend the amount of which is to be determined by the mass of goods to be consumed.
The Address-Mr. Caouette This dividend shall be given to each citizen, as such, whether he has other sources of income or not.
Let us consider whether there are traces of socialism in such proposals.
Ad lam: This proposal does not appear to contain any socialist basic idea and is not therefore contrary to the social doctrine of the church. The allegation is based on the following quotations from the encyclical letter Quadragesimo anno.
The Pope said: "There are certain kinds of wealth about which it may rightly be held that they should be reserved to the community when they may confer such economic power that they cannot be left in the hands of private persons without danger for the common good."
Further on we may read:	"The most striking
thing today is not only the concentration of wealth but also the accumulation or enormous power, of a discretionary economic power in the hands of a small number of men who ordinarily are not the proprietors but only the trustees and guarantors of the capital which they administer as they deem fit.
"This power is especially considerable among those who being the holders and absolute masters of money manage credit and grant it as they see fit. Thus, they distribute the blood to the economic body whose life they hold in their hands to such an extent that without their consent no one can breathe."
Mr. Speaker, when we hear the flamboyant speeches of certain French-Canadian members from Quebec sitting in this house or in the Quebec legislature attacking social credit, suggesting that social credit could be tainted with communism or socialism, I believe, that those politicians or other people who deliver such attacks against social credit are simply being dishonest with society, with the members of the social credit party and with themselves when they talk against social credit as they are doing.
Mr. Speaker, on a recent visit to the Quebec district I heard speeches by some provincial representatives, members of the clique of Mr. Duplessis, the premier of Quebec. At that time, Mr. Maurice Bellemare, of Champlain, attacked Social Crediters, social credit and the leader of the Union of Electors, claiming Social Crediters to be apostates. He mentioned, as an instance, the case of a certain group in Three Rivers who abjured the catholic faith to join a new Christian faith around Cap de la Madeleine. And so, because four or five people decide to take this attitude, certain provincial members of Quebec consider it appropriate or intelligent to connect them with the social credit doctrine, in spite of the fact that the majority of Social Crediters in Quebec are true catholics. Well, Mr. Speaker, some members have made this very unfair statement to help the Union Nationale win an election in the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, what I have

The Address-Mr. Caouette just mentioned happened recently in the constituency of Levis.
Mr. Speaker, Social Credit members cannot be insulted forever and criticized for their theory as at present, because their philosophy is consistent with the social doctrine of the church. Either social credit is good or it is not; if it is not, it should be condemned, but if it is not condemned therefore it is good. People should cease calling us communists and socialists in the province of Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. I do not contend that social credit as a political movement or party is perfect. I am not speaking of the political movement, but of the social credit doctrine.
This is the kind of propaganda that is being directed against the social credit theory. During provincial elections, for instance, provincial politicians said: "The Social Credit party may be good, but in the federal and not in the provincial sphere; in the provincial field, only the Union Nationale is worthwhile, all other parties are no good. It might be a good idea to enter candidates in a federal campaign, since Social Credit advocates monetary reform, which is within the jurisdiction of the dominion government. In Alberta the Social Credit party has not been able so far to put its theory into effect, so it will not be any better in the province of Quebec. Therefore, you are wasting your time in the provincial field. Why not try the federal sphere? You might do better there. Others claim that social credit may be commendable in theory but that the movement does not have good leaders. The leaders of the Social Credit party are hypocrites, they are dangerous, they are demagogues with revolutionary tendencies; they stir up class hatred, the newspaper Vers Demain spreads the seeds of revolution, etc".
Mr. Speaker, the best way to kill a movement is to destroy those who are at its head. Deprive the Canadian government of its leaders, and straightway the country will be without government; do away with those who are in command, and any movement will cease to exist; without its captain, any ship will surely go off its course. Therefore, the leaders of the social credit movement are assailed on all sides. Its opponents claim that although the social credit philosophy may be good in itself, its leaders are rather questionable.
Mr. Speaker, we certainly have no intention of asking our Liberal friends in the province of Quebec to begin spreading the doctrine of social credit among our people. We shall certainly not ask our antagonists to propagate the social credit theory because if we did so, they would, judging from the tactics they have used up to the present, soon label us communists. We have our own way of spreading social credit and we shall keep to our own methods; we shall use them for wide-scale propaganda in the provinces and in the country at large.
Since the social credit philosophy has not been censured and, in fact, stands above reproof, and since it is tainted neither by communism nor socialism, we are in a very good position and shall carry on as we have done so far. However, I would ask our opponents, if they have any conscience whatever, to end their treacherous attacks and to stop calling us socialists and communists when they know very well that Social Crediters are as good if not better Christians than they are themselves.
A little further on, the board of nine theologians takes the trouble to answer various objections that might be raised by my hon. friends. If they want to obtain those tracts, I would advise them to write to l'Ecole sociale populaire, Montreal. That tract sells for 3 cents a unit, 20 cents a dozen, $1.50 a hundred and $12 a thousand. Therefore, it might be purchased by the thousand and distributed among the Liberals in this country; after reading it they would possibly have a better notion of what Social Credit is. Now, let us look over the objections. Here is the first one-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: The pamphlets should also be distributed to the supporters of the Union Nationale.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, my hon. friend is right; they should be distributed to the supporters of the Union Nationale.
Here is the first objection:
The control of currency and credit necessarily implies the control of production to the extent of the socialization of the latter.
I shall quote the commission's answer. The following statement is not from me but from the commission of nine theologians.
The control of currency and credit does not take away from individuals and private institutions the property of the implements of work and of production even though it might imply a certain degree

of indirect control of that production. Such indirect control which, normally at least, must be exercised for the public weal, does not involve any socialistic character, no more than the reasonable control of production by the banks could necessarily be said to imply liberal individualism.
Second objection:
The dividend is an incentive to laziness.
I doubt if a single one of my friends opposite has ever considered that the national dividend would inevitably lead to laziness. That is the thought and explanation of the commission, which, incidentally, are the same as ours.
Answer:
The state does not manufacture money and credit at will but according to the requirements indicated in the statistics of production which is intimately related to the labour of men. Some may attempt yet to remain idle. But the dividend will not always be sufficient to provide a living. Even if at the outset, the dividend proves sufficient to fill the gap between production and consumption, its stability will require a continuous increase in production due to an equivalent increase in labour.
And, incidentally, whether it be labour provided by man or machinery and progress, it is labour just the same.
Third objection:
The dividend, and even the discount, it is said, deprives the labourer of his salary and the producer of his profit.
Answer:
That could be true more or less, and always indirectly, if in fact there were no gap between production and consumption. But Social Credit is based precisely on this gap which is a purely economical and technical consideration. Thus, the system cannot be condemned on behalf of the social doctrine of the church. Besides, a gap seems to exist in fact between the production cost in certain fields, fisheries, hunting, natural resources of the soil, etc., and the consumption price.
Mr. Speaker, it is rightly claimed that there is a difference between production and purchasing power because dominion statistics show that production now amounts to $15,350 million against a purchasing power of about $9 billion. That is what we ask, that the difference between production and the purchasing power be distributed equally in the shape of dividends, among every Canadian, from the cradle to the grave.
Let that difference be represented by purchasing power in the hands of the people, and that production would be within their reach.
One does not need to have an unusually brilliant mind to understand that it is but logical and quite in order to issue money in proportion to production.
We hear about money being based on nothing but gold. Representatives of mining companies asked me last year what I thought of gold. I do not suggest, as some do, that
The Address-Mr. Caouette the price of gold should be raised by $3 or $4 an ounce, but I should like the government to allow the free marketing of gold; mining companies could then sell their gold for $60 or $70 an ounce instead of having to operate at a loss as do some mining companies in my district. That would create more work and enable the owners of small mines to develop their properties faster and come into production as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to do all he can in order to keep the gold market absolutely free, so that mines may sell their gold at a better price. When they can operate at a profit, they can pay better wages.
And now, Mr. Speaker, there is another point to which I wish to call the government's attention. Following a request by mining companies, we have in our district an intensive immigration movement. These immigrants, to date, take the place of our Canadians, of our family heads and I happen to have here the particulars concerning the case of Mr. Michel Lacasse, of Duparquet. A few months ago, Mr. Lacasse sent me a letter telling me that there was no work at the Duparquet mine, operated by Consolidated Beattie Mines Ltd. It was said, he explained, that about fifteen men were fired. Mr. Lacasse, who has two children, then claimed unemployment insurance benefits. After he had waited for a month, he was told to go to Rouyn, 35 miles away, to work at the Senator Rouyn Ltd. mine.
Of course Mr. Lacasse did not wish to leave his family under the circumstances. He informed the unemployment insurance commission that he was willing to accept any job in his home town but a Hull civil servant, Mr. Auger, told him that, since he was turning down a job 35 miles away, the commission could no longer allow him any benefits. Mr. Lacasse writes:
Herewith all the documents I have received in this matter. You will thus have all the particulars. Included is their last letter advising me that I had lost all rights to unemployment insurance.
I was laid off by the Duparquet Mines. We were about fifteen men and immigrants took our place.
I have here a list of the mines in my constituency that have brought in immigrants, or D.P.'s as we call them. I find that the Consolidated Beattie Mines Ltd. accepted and gave work to 40 D.P.'s from Europe. Moreover, I see that there are still 25 immigrants to come to Duparquet. Since June, 1948, this same company has submitted another request for 40 more labourers from Europe, who have not yet arrived.

The Address-Mr. Caouette Mr. Speaker, I am not against D.P.'s nor against immigrants. They probably are perfect gentlemen, good catholics and I have met many of them. I must protest energetically and vehemently against the government allowing mining companies in Abitibi and the northwestern part of the province to instigate such irrational immigration which only serves to cause anxiety to our Canadian families in the district. We have unemployed men in Val d'Or, Malartic, Rouyn, Noranda and Duparquet. We have unemployed men in all cities of the district.
We have in the province a government that for the past two or three years has been clamouring for provincial autonomy. I inquired if provincial authorities had ever protested against this immigration to the province of Quebec, especially in the northern districts. The federal government informed me that the provincial government offered no objection. The latter never said a word against this immigration. And yet the matter of labour does not come within the purview of the federal government only. It is the duty of the province of Quebec to protest energetically to those mining companies in order to prevent them from hiring foreign labour when so many men are available here for this work.


Paul-Émile Côté: On a question of privilege, I challenge the hon. member to mention a single case where foreign labour brought to this country under the authority of the Department of Labour has prevented Canadians speaking French or any other language from keeping their positions in any locality whatever.
The day before yesterday, I made a statement in the house and I abide by what I said at that time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, I may say that he should have a strict inquiry held not only at the Consolidated Beattie Mines Ltd., but also at the Noranda Mines Ltd., which has to date given employment to 303 immigrants. Seventy-two more are to come, and the Noranda mining company has put in an application for an additional number of one hundred.
Besides that, we have the East Sullivan Mines Ltd. owned by Mr. Pierre Beauchemin. The president, Mr. Beauchemin, recently admitted to me, during a conversation we had on the train, that French Canadians were not suited for mining work, and that it was necessary to bring displaced persons from Europe for underground work in the mines. 
Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour that the displaced persons from Europe are depriving our Canadian workers of employment. The mining companies that have applied for D.P. labour are letting our own people go without work.
The European displaced persons are protected by a labour contract, which provides that the mining companies will employ them for one year. They are thus assured of keeping their jobs for a year. At the end of that period they can be dismissed and replaced by Canadians, but until then nothing can be done. The people I represent in this house have protested and still make representations to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and to his parliamentary assistant.


Paul-Émile Côté: Will the hon. member allow a further interruption? Whenever a company applies to the Department of Labour for manpower, our officials immediately inquire from the national employment service whether its offices located in the province where the industry is operating are able to supply the labour required. Only after the employment offices in and out of the province concerned have stated they cannot fill the order does the department apply for manpower from the European reservoir.
If my hon. friend knows workers who claim they are ready to replace these immigrants, he should tell them to apply to the employment service. That is the best suggestion I can make.


David Réal Caouette: I understand the explanations of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cote, Verdun), but that is not the point. I am not blaming the Minister of Labour or his parliamentary assistant, or the provincial ministers of labour, but the mining companies that hire the workers. If the hon. member will take the trouble of inquiring from the employment offices in Val d'Or as elsewhere, he will see that they receive applications all day long. Workers come in every day requesting jobs in mines, but there is no place for them. Men from the East Sullivan mine have recently been fired. The hon. member asked me to mention names. I will take note of his request and give him a list early next week, together with supporting evidence. However, the Minister of Labour cannot compel a mining company employing a European displaced person to fire that man because, under the contract, it has to keep him on for a year. I understand that at the end of the year he can be replaced, but during the contract year neither the parliamentary assis-

tant to the Minister of Labour nor the minister himself can remove a displaced person. Under the contract, it is impossible to do so. Therefore, the D.P. cannot be replaced by a Canadian.
Still, I bring this matter to the attention of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour and I hope that the activities of the mining concerns operating in the northern part of my constituency of Pontiac will be fully investigated; I refer to Canadian Malartic Gold Mines, Consolidated Beattie Mines Limited, Consolidated Central Cadillac Mines Limited, East Malartic Mine Limited, East Sullivan Mines Limited, Golden Mani-tou Mines Limited, Lamaque Gold Mine Limited, Malartic Gold Fields Limited, O'Brien Gold Mines Limited, Perron Gold Mines Limited, Sullivan Consolidated Mines Limited, Noranda Mines Limited, etc. All these mining concerns already have D.P.'s on their staff and will employ more of this labour; since June 1948, they have even asked the Canadian government to supply them with more such manpower.
I shall now discuss another matter. A while ago, I mentioned production and purchasing power. I pointed out that our annual production is now valued at $15 billion but that the yearly national revenue amounts to barely $9 billion. It may be noted that $11 billion include salaries paid employees of various departments, civil servants, etc., as well as taxes. However, for every $100 earned, $20 must go towards income tax, which reduces our purchasing power to $80 out of $100. Thus, these things being considered, the national income amounts to approximately $9 billion. There is therefore a difference of $6 billion between this country's total production and its purchasing power. And yet there are still people who inveigh against communism, who declare that communism is a dangerous thing. Even the leader of the Quebec provincial government, Mr. Duplessis, has been heard to cry out that communism "is a hideous face that appears in this very country and which must be chased out at all cost." Well, Mr. Speaker, when the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was at the head of the Ontario government, he was unable to stem the rising tide in Toronto. Toronto is the haunt of Canada's leading communists and certain districts have given as many as 40,000 communist votes during elections. And what about the prime minister of the province of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, who has never been able to stem the rising tide of communism in the province of Quebec. Well, I maintain that better means will have to be taken than those presently employed by the gov-
The Address-Mr. Caouette ernment. Since the present leader of the government feels unable to halt the forward march of communism in Canada, I say to them that as long as the difference between total production and total purchasing power is not distributed among the people of Canada, communism will go on rising and making progress in this country. I insist upon the fact that the only way to prevent it from doing so is to provide for a fairer and more equitable distribution of the country's wealth. To this end, it is absolutely necessary to establish a system whereby the difference between total production and total purchasing power can be distributed among all the citizens of Canada. Therefore I say that if this is not done, communism will certainly take root in Canada and the only ones responsible for this situation will be the ministers of the present government, the Liberal members of parliament and others on this side of the house who accept the government's policies. There is no other alternative but to help our fellow-countrymen and to make the country's wealth serve the people so that every individual will have the self-respect to which a human being is entitled. There is only one way of achieving this end and that is to make money once again serve human beings and to provide them with the social and economic security to which each and every one of our citizens is entitled and to prevent cartels and those who control the nation's economy from controlling our lives as they have done so far.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope that when the budget is brought down, the special luxury tax will be abolished by the government.
A strange suicide has lately taken place in Pembroke. The hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) says; "That is no fault of ours". It may be no fault of ours, but it is certainly the fault of taxation, let there be no mistake about that. A tax is not an incentive, but the contrary. Anybody who has taxes to pay is always looking about for a means of escape. That was what Mr. Simpson was telling Mr. R. Roger Smith, who lives on Dorchester street in Montreal, in a letter he wrote to him on 21st January last:
(Text):
So far I haven't questioned the right of a government to levy a tax but, as you evidently understand, I do question their method of doing their collection by forced labour.
All I can do, therefore, is to press for a decision on the constitutionality of the law under which I am charged. This is too big a decision for a police magistrate to deal with, so all he can do is convict me for violating the law, which he has done. Sentence will be passed next Thursday.
1364	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McLure
I do not know how long it will be before the next step is taken. I have some time yet before I must decide on the exact move. But I intend to push it to the limit.
And Mr. George J. Simpson went to the limit with regard to that tax. He died fighting it.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I suggest that a national flag be adopted during this session so that Canada may have a distinctive flag which would be the fulfilment of one of our ambitions and which would allow us to be recognized as a nation throughout the world.
(Text):


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Having waited for some time to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I might say that, if I could start off in the high gear achieved by the speaker who has just taken his seat, it would not take me long to get through with my remarks. But having waited to say a few words in this debate, it being one of the most important ones of the session, I am glad to have this opportunity now. This debate gives to all hon. members on either side of the house the opportunity to speak for the district which they represent in this parliament of Canada. For that reason it is one of the most important debates of the House of Commons, if not the most important one.
I was rather surprised when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who himself spoke in this debate for half of a labourer's day, was anxious at the opening of the debate to give it what we might term "the back door run" or to get rid of it in a couple of days. We have, however, listened to the great number of speeches which have been made. Many of the ministers have spoken, and some of them for the second time. It must, therefore, be an interesting debate to them. I can fully realize why the Prime Minister is anxious to have this debate shortened. An election is in the offing, and it would be well if the government could avoid criticism from the floor of the house with regard to their maladministration for the past four years.
When beginning his remarks, it is customary for a member to pay compliments and offer congratulations to those who have taken part in this debate. But as they have all received numerous congratulations, any adjectives that I might have to offer would be only a matter of repetition of what has been said by those who have spoken before me.
I will, however, say "amen" to all the congratulations that have been heaped on the mover and seconder, and on the other speakers.


There are, however, two or three congratulations I should like to add. I am sorry that the Speaker himself has left the chamber. I intended to congratulate him on being able to hold his honourable position in view of reports circulating after the close of the house on June 30 to the effect that he was slated for some cabinet position, and in view of the shuffle that took place while we were at home. I might say that the cabinet was nearly all gone over. We now find ourselves wondering, when we come in here, just who is who, and what cabinet minister administers which portfolio.
At this time I should also like to congratulate the Prime Minister even though he is not here in the house just at the moment. I wish to congratulate him on attaining the highest position in the House of Commons although he has been a member of parliament for only a short time. He deserves those congratulations and I am glad to extend them. At the same time I sympathize with him, as do many others, in having bequeathed to him the leadership of an extremely sick party at the present time.
I might also congratulate my hon. leader, but he has been congratulated by everybody, even the Prime Minister; he was congratulated by all the speakers on our side of the house and by many on the other side. I will say this to him by way of congratulation. To this house "He came a hero strong his race to run." He has also received the hearty congratulations conveyed in the winning by his party of three by-elections since he became leader.
The speech from the throne is a governmental document prepared by the cabinet ministers and then placed in the hands of His Excellency by his constitutional advisers. Hence any remarks by way of criticism made by any member of parliament in this debate are not in any way directed toward His Excellency, either in person or in private or public life. One can therefore speak at almost any length and on any subject, as long as one uses the common parliamentary language.
As one views the speech from the throne one finds that it is similar to others which have come before this parliament from time to time. I might say it is, more than anything else, a detour from the real issues confronting the people, and which the people of Canada thought that we should have at this session of parliament. No doubt it was designed to lure my leader away from the course that he might take. However, he was not to be lured away. He took his own course, followed it, and won his spurs in his first speech in this House of Commons.

If time permits I shall say something on freights and freight rates; but something has arisen in the legislature in Prince Edward Island, which is in session at the present time, which almost bars me from doing that. When speaking on the address in the legislature of Prince Edward Island on February 23 last, the premier of Prince Edward Island said this:
The dissenting seven provinces of Canada are making a strong impression. I think we are beating them right now.
He was referring to the powers that be who had increased the freight rates. He continued:
We have held up increases already granted and I do not think the railroads will be allowed to charge the exorbitant rates that they have been asking for.
Therefore the premier of Prince Edward Island, when speaking for the seven provinces, said more than I would have said if I were speaking on the freight rates. However, there is one thing on which I should like to say a few words, namely, transportation. Transportation and freight rates, ferry auto charges and the Maritime Freight Rates Act of 1927 seem to be so interwoven that when one speaks on any of these subjects they all lead into that of transportation. Some newspapers, also many members of parliament and others, continue to make reference to the Maritime Freight Rates Act of 1927 as a subsidy or a charity handout to the maritime provinces. It is unfortunate that such misinformation extends even into the sittings of the railway committee of the House of Commons, and it is very harmful indeed.
The maritime provinces have suffered from the ever-increasing unconstitutional injustices in connection with the operation of the Intercolonial railway, which is perhaps the most important part of Canada's constitution. The report of the Duncan commission in 1926 discloses this injustice. The Maritime Freight Rates Act of 1927 is an admission of it, and the action of the federal government, partially to offset the unconstitutional injustice by paying both railways an amount which reduced their charges in accordance with the act, is also an admission of the injustice. The amount that has been paid is only a fraction of the amount of the unconstitutional overcharge to the maritime provinces. Here let me mention this fact in connection with the freight rates act. When the railways were amalgamated freight rates were greatly increased across Canada. Taking 100 as the basis on which freight rates were established, the average increase in the maritime provinces was 92 per cent, while 55 per cent was the average increase across the rest of
The Address-Mr. McLure Canada. When the Duncan commission studied this matter they found that this was an unconstitutional injustice to the maritime provinces. On that basis they made a recommendation that brought into effect the Maritime Freight Rates Act of 1927, and our rate of 92 per cent was reduced to equal the average rate of the rest of Canada. Consequently almost 20 per cent was paid to the two railways for the freight that they had carried.
I bring this to the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, in order that it may not be referred to as a subsidy or a handout. It is an effort to alleviate the injustice which had been imposed on the maritime provinces by reason of the overcharge of freight rates from the time of the amalgamation of the roads up to 1927. There is still a large amount owing to the maritime provinces for the years that they suffered these high rates as compared with the rest of Canada. That amount should be paid either in dollars and cents or in extra public works, which are long overdue in the maritime provinces. The way that they could start to pay it at this time would be by giving us some public works such as the bridge at Canso, the building of the Chignecto canal and, last but not least, giving Prince Edward Island a railway connection and living up to the terms of our going into confederation by treating the water which separates Prince Edward Island from the mainland as a bridge and not as part of the railway on which we are charged, which is against the terms of 1873, when we entered into confederation.
Time will not permit me to go into all the details of the maritime rates, but I wish to say that there is a better feeling in the maritime provinces now that we are to have a tenth province, another maritime province, which will help us, and make four provinces to fight for their maritime rights. For years we have been endeavouring to push our claims with the federal authorities, but we have been more or less discouraged. Some of the cabinet ministers have called us yappers because we were always talking about our freight claims and so forth. However, it does not matter what they term us; we are out for our rights and we are going to get them. If we do not get them from a Liberal government, we are sure that we shall get them from the Progressive Conservative government.
I want to deal with transportation in my own province, because this is the great problem faced by our farmers, fishermen, importers and exporters. This is the problem with which they have to deal, because we are not a manufacturing community. Our endeavours are more or less those of agriculture.
1386	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McLure Sixty-five per cent of our people earn their livelihood from the land.
Fishing is our next largest industry. Freight rates offered our farmers, and means of transportation, are the all-important question with us. In the wintertime, from November until May, we have only one means of transportation, that of the Borden-Tormentine ferry. In the summertime we have the Wood Island-Cariboo route. Both of these, taken together, handle the service fairly well. However, we still want more service by way of transportation.
For instance, we are discriminated against because trucks are not allowed to travel free on the new ferry, using the Borden-Tormentine route. They are still being charged a rate, contrary to the terms under which we entered confederation. The heavy charges for the freight carried, as well as for the trucks, is by no means a satisfactory condition, so far as truck traffic by way of the ferry is concerned. Some slight reduction was made by the board of transport commissioners after their sitting at Charlottetown. While they had no jurisdiction over water rates, they did go down there and make some slight adjustment. When they got there they learned that they had no jurisdiction over water rates. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) state in the house the other day that he knew that the board of transport commissioners had no right whatsoever to set freight rates for water carriage between any provinces, or between any province and any other British territory. This matter has been under discussion for some time, and I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister endorse my views in that connection-views which were in accordance with the terms of confederation.
The unfair part of the situation in connection with trucks is that while the ferry had no right to make a charge, according to our contract, they are nevertheless making a certain charge. They should carry the load free. I notice that some of the motor trucks are enclosed. The freight does not require handling, and in most instances those who are in charge never see it; nevertheless the weight is recorded, along with the weight of the truck, following which a rate somewhat lower than that of 1945 is charged.
That rate is charged for a certain class of goods including potatoes, turnips, hay and farmers' livestock. But supposing a farmer kills his hogs or his beef cattle, and wishes to take them across, he must pay the highest l.c.l. rate. However, if they are shipped as livestock they go at the lower rate. This is not the fault of the operators of the boat; they are just living up to the regulations.


Truck operators find the men on the boat most courteous; but they must live up to the orders sent to them by the Canadian National Railways or by the Department of Transport-or both of them. These charges are made on dressed beef or pork because they are not considered products of the farm. How they come to that conclusion, I do not know.
Farmers should have a preferred rate on all those things. Then, if a farmer is bringing back a load, according to the regulations freight traveling from Tormentine to Borden is charged at the highest rate. I have reference to coal, Nova Scotia apples, lumber and many things the people of Prince Edward Island must buy from the other provinces. A change in these rates would benefit our farmers and our people generally in the maritimes.
As hon. members know, the car ferry Abegweit is the boat on that run, and she has been giving excellent service. However, that boat is not able to handle all the traffic. Consequently we are hoping to have a new boat on the Wood Island-Cariboo route when it opens in the spring.
I understand a delegation was here in Ottawa interviewing the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and placing before him the suggestion that we should have a new ferry within the next year. I do not know how successful they were. They could not have been very successful. One suggestion they made was that they themselves would build the new boat if their subsidy was increased by $50,000 and guaranteed for a period of ten years. I do not believe either proposition was successful, because when the delegation returned to Charlottetown the news items did not contain any glamorous report as to the way they had been received.
I understand the Abegweit was built to carry out the terms of confederation. For that purpose the ferry system was inaugurated by the Borden government. While the car ferry is handed over to the Canadian National Railways, and while the railways are the greatest users of the boat, at the same time they use it as a connecting link between the Prince Edward Island railway and the railways in the other provinces.
What we should have is a free rate across the water for all our products, both outgoing and incoming. Why should the Canadian National Railways, who at the present time are the subcontractors of this boat, exclude any other method of shipping goods, such as the use of trucks? They could dispense with the truck opposition by placing a high rate on the transportation of the truck and on the freight it carries. Both these proce-

dures are unconstitutional and, according to the terms of 1873, an injustice to Prince Edward Island.
I am not going to say much more about transportation, but I should like to pay attention to another detour in the speech from the throne. The Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand), as the lord of Canada's post office business-and I wish he were in the house tonight to hear this-announced a net balance of profits of some $10 million. The figure given is $9,827,491. Like many others I am proud to see the Post Office Department piling up profits over the years. It is really a grand thing. However, the 33 J per cent wartime emergency tax on letter postage must have played a considerable part in piling up these surpluses, yet the Postmaster General has said that there will be no reduction in this tax. I am not arguing that it should be reduced, as I would rather see the Postmaster General use the money to give his rural mail couriers a chance to live by being paid sufficient for rendering the best service of any civil servants in Canada.
The mail couriers in my province, and I imagine the same remarks will apply to all provinces, are doing a wonderful work. They are wonderful men. They have to work almost every day in the year and are on the job through rain or shine. It has been brought to my attention that the department is rather niggardly with these mail couriers, and I should like to cite one case.
A few days ago the mail courier on a good route was offered the magnificent sum of six and a half cents per day to operate an extension of the route to the university near Charlottetown. This extension was to serve some 300 students and the staff and help at the university. The mail courier was quite ready to do the work for thirty or thirty-five cents per day, but all they would offer was six and a half cents per day and therefore the extension was not put into effect and the people at the university must continue to go after their own mail.
We have been promised from time to time that the problems of the mail couriers in Canada would be gone into thoroughly by this House of Commons and that adjustments would be made whereby these men would have some hope that after securing the necessary equipment their contract would be permitted to run for more than four years. At the present time the contract can be abolished if someone bids $1.50 or $2 lower. That is very discouraging. These men have no safeguard. All they have to do is their work, and they are doing it.
The Address-Mr. McLure
At the present time the department is offering mail contracts to veterans, and I am glad to see that being done. However, these contracts are being offered to veterans in receipt of small pensions and the suggestion is being made that perhaps they can bid a little lower than others and apply their pensions to what they receive. That is what I take objection to. Why should a veteran be asked to apply his small pension in order that a contract may be let below the regular contract price?
A short time ago a mail route in Queens county was advertised and tenders were asked for. It was stipulated that the tenderer must have a half-ton truck for mail delivery during the spring, summer and autumn and a snowmobile for the wintertime. They might just as well have added that he should have a small Moth plane equipped with special parachutes. A man could not tender for that contract unless he had a half-ton truck and could assure the department that he would have a snowmobile for the winter. The total equipment there would cost from $4,000 to $5,000, and yet the contract would be for only four years with no assurance beyond that. I do not know how many tenders were received but when the estimates of the department come down we will surely find out how many tenders have been put in for contracts on this basis. There are other matters in connection with mail service that I should like to deal with but we will have an opportunity to do this when the estimates are brought down.
In the few minutes I have left I should like to say a few words about a topic that has been discussed fairly well-taxation. In my province the burden, the annoyance and the perfect nonsense of taxation in connection with collecting and making out the forms falls most heavily upon the farmers. The farmers are quite willing to pay a legitimate tax but they are rebellious over being hounded by these inspectors or snoopers or whatever they are called. This whole thing is causing great concern to the farmers and labouring people.
Toward the close of the last session we made the great mistake of voting $19 million for the Department of National Revenue to cover temporary employees. I understand that that was largely to cover the employment of an army of tax collectors, many of whom were hired to spy on the farmers, labourers and small businessmen. They were armed with authority to go to the different dealers in the constituency to ask for information about their neighbours. The farmers in our province held a series of meetings to protest against the income tax form and the
i368

The Address-Mr. McLure manner in which they are being hounded by the officials of this department.
A few days ago the income tax branch at Ottawa sued the president of the farmers' federation of Prince Edward Island. The courthouse was crowded when the trial started and when the prosecuting lawyer started to question the witness he used a form of question which it was impossible for the witness to answer. For instance, he was asking him what he had to eat for his Christmas dinner six years ago. He also asked such foolish questions as whether they had extra turkey for Thanksgiving. He refused to answer because he could not answer such questions, and then the prosecuting lawyer said: "If you do not confess to this charge that is laid against you I will withdraw it and bring in four charges more serious against you." I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) whether he considers that is justice in law.
There is another matter on which I am compelled to say something, although it has been mentioned so often now that I understand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is going to abolish some of the taxes in his next budget. We have a tax on soft drinks and chocolate bars. I believe every member of parliament has received thousands of requests for the abolition of these taxes. It is a heavy tax; 40 per cent is very high indeed. I have a letter on my desk from one man complaining about it. He says that it caused him so much worry that he did less business and had to lay off a staff of some twenty men. It is cutting down on employment. On the one hand we have the generosity of the governmept, of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who goes around and hands out the family allowances to the children. On the other hand we have the Minister of Finance coming around the corner and snatching it all from the little ones.
There is one form of taxation that has caused us a great deal of worry in my section of the country, the taxation on furs and conservation fur farming. Under the former Minister of Finance the Liberal party seemed determined to put fur farming off the map, and the former Minister of Finance almost did so. Now that he has left, however, we hope that the new minister will look into the matter and study it from a sane and honest point of view. For example, the government imposed a tax of 25 per cent, called a processing tax, on the raw skins. There was not very much objection to that although it made an ordinary garment, even though the tax was imposed in process, cost all the way from $10 to $150 more than it should have. After that tax had been in force for a 
year the fur merchants and fur farmers of Canada got after the Minister of Finance, and he stated that he would reduce the tax. He reduced the tax from 25 per cent to 15 per cent on the processing, but what did he do then? He had a real bludgeon behind him and he went to work. He reduced the tax to 10 per cent on the processing, and then on the finished article he imposed a tax of 8 per cent, which meant that the 25 per cent tax was increased from 2 per cent on the lowest grade of furs to 45 per cent on the best grade of furs. This heavy tax has put hundreds of concerns out of business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: I must remind the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon my leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), moved that the Progressive Conservative amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding certain words. There are three very pertinent sections to that amendment. I propose to refer to them briefly this time. The first of the three important sections is:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have shown such studied indifference to the Social Credit financial proposals put before this house from time to time for bringing social security and freedom to every Canadian, and economic stability and prosperity to the country as a whole.
The second section reads:
We also regret that Your Excellency's advisers have demonstrated such timorous diffidence in their failure to take up Social Crediters' oft-repeated challenge to debate in this house and show honest cause why the Social Credit proposals would not bring widespread security, happiness and contentment to the Canadian people.
The third section of the Social Credit amendment reads:
We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to bring forward legislative and administrative provision for maintaining purchasing power at a level which would make possible the equitable distribution of our total production and thus cushion the Canadian economy against the onset of depression.
We proposed that amendment because of the fact that we are vitally concerned that the government should take the necessary action in order to guarantee stability of the Canadian economy, and to prevent a recurrence of a depression such as that which occurred between the two wars, and which was so devastating in character. We are fearful that, unless concrete action is taken to stabilize the Canadian economy, it will give rise to further encouragement to certain elements within our nation so that they- and I have no hesitation in naming them, the communists-may further their attempt,

as I stated the other day, to undermine the very foundation upon which democracy rests.
Already the Canadian communists are becoming more vociferous in their advocacy of outright treason. It is becoming more obvious day by day that they are anticipating certain conditions, conditions in which they know the maggots of communism flourish.
I am greatly agitated about this matter; I am greatly agitated about the extent to which subversive elements within the nation are being permitted to use the mails of the country by which to disseminate the treasonable propaganda which they are now disseminating throughout the nation. I have already had occasion to inquire from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) as to just what course of action the government contemplate taking in order to stop this. I tried to state this afternoon that, in my opinion, they were using the mails to defraud. Some may say that is an exaggeration, but I say their purpose is to defraud us of our freedom, to defraud us of our nation. Moreover, that section of the Criminal Code states that it is a criminal offence to use the mails to deceive. If deception were ever practised within this country it is now being practised on a widespread scale by the communist forces who are pleased to call themselves Labour-Progressives.
Mr. Speaker, within my constituency a communist hive has recently come to light. I have received two copies of a circular from two very indignant residents of the town of Sylvan Lake. They came in this form, unwrapped, through the mail. The contents of it are largely devoted to the north Atlantic security pact, which I do not propose discussing at this moment. For those who are gullible enough to believe it, it states that the signing of the pact will change the cold war into a shooting war. That is what they are telling the people of my constituency. Then it is said we are doing all that we are doing in connection with defence measures within this country behind a smoke screen, as they are pleased to call it, against Russian aggression. They come right out and use this expression:
This is the modern hitlerite big lie.
Mr. Speaker, that reminds me of the type of propaganda these people put out in 1940 in their manifesto and which led directly to the action which the government took in outlawing the party. One may ask me, are you in favour of outlawing them? At the moment my attitude is this: If a skunk is raiding my chicken coop, I do not want to chase him down a hole and then have to dig him out. I would rather leave him on the surface where I can shoot him.
The Address-Mr. Shaw This circular proceeds to point out that the oil development in my own province, the building of the Alaska highway and the building of air bases in the city of Edmonton, are all part of this scheme of Canadian aggression. As I say, it is almost pitiful when you stop to realize that this is being put in the hands of the people throughout that district. The pamphlet then refers to a number of things to which I shall not refer, with the exception of this remark. It says:
It is a lie that Canada's independence is threatened by the soviet union. The soviet union in its thirty-one years of existence has not destroyed the independence of any nation.
I remind them of Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and so on.
The people who receive the pamphlet are urged to write to me requesting that I vote against the signing of the north Atlantic security pact. I think I can probably save them the time of writing by putting the matter on record as I have, uttering words of outright condemnation of the policies they are advocating and the methods they are employing in an effort to disseminate this propaganda.
An editorial appeared in the Edmonton Bulletin on March 4, entitled "The Age of Tolerance." I think it is very significant and so important that I should put it on the record. It is a brief one, and reads as follows: The communist leaders of the United States, following the example of communist leaders in France, Italy and England have announced with defiant clarity that if Russia attacks their respective countries they will side with Russia. It seems to be an amazing thing that people can say such things and stay out of jail.
Incidentally, I would say that Tim Buck said as much in that questionnaire in Liberty magazine, I think it was, last November. If his statement is analysed, I think it will be found he said the same thing, but in a cunning, sly, communist way.
Continuing to quote from the editorial, I read:
These vicious statements indicate, of course, what communism in the democratic countries really means. It means plain and unadulterated subservience to Russia. It means that communists, quite definitely and frankly, put Russia first.
Once upon a time, in a rougher and more manly age, statements of this kind were designated as treason. But this, of course, is the age of tolerance. We have graduated beyond the point of letting people say and think what they like. Today, they can do as they like, including cutting the throats of their own country with impunity.
The amazing thing is that, with all this namby-pamby deference to that kind of freedom, which is only unbridled licence, the communists and their leftist friends still howl to high heaven about the "intolerance" of the democracies.
If anyone ventures to resent the blatant propaganda of leftists and suggests that traitors be muzzled, there is at once a scream about the narrow bigotry of anti-reds and a wild protest about the stifling of freedom. It seems to many that our smug
1370	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Shaw
complacency in the face of such repeated threats indicates nothing so much as the urgent need for a psychiatric examination.
In leaving that, Mr. Speaker, I think two things are extremely important: First, as I said earlier, we should endeavour to seek out every means of applying whatever measures we can to remove the conditions in which communism is bred and in which it develops. Secondly, I have come to the conclusion that some action should be taken to prevent the dissemination throughout the length and breadth of this country of the type of propaganda to which I have referred.


Solon Earl Low: A treasonable type.


Frederick Davis Shaw: A very treasonable type of propaganda.
Coming back to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting to me to observe that, since it was moved very few of the speakers who have participated in this debate have chosen to deal with the amendment as such. I am not going to suggest for one moment that hon. members opposite refrained from dealing with the contents of that amendment because they did not know anything about social credit. Deep down in their souls they know they cannot refute the principles which we have advanced over a period of fourteen years in this house. They are not prepared to stand up during this debate and refute them if they can. When they are traipsing about the country I think it would be the better part of wisdom for them not to tell the people they do not understand social credit, because I am satisfied the people will immediately conclude they are not telling the truth.
During the course of the debate this afternoon, the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) made a short reference to social credit. I refer to it only for the purpose of making a correction. He observed that he had read Major Douglas' books; and, if I understood him correctly, he stated he did not agree with his principles as a solution of our economic problems because it is not money that counts but goods. I believe that is what he said. I want to emphasize, for the benefit of this house, that we have never at any time argued that money counts and not goods. In his book "Warning Democracy" Major Douglas stated this:
Looked at from this point of view, money is simply a ticket. A railway ticket is, in the truest sense, a limited form of money and differs only from any other sort of money in that the owner of it only believes, and is only justified in believing, that he will receive in return for it a particular form of service, i.e., transportation.
I want to read one other paragraph from another book of his, "Credit Power and Democracy", in which he states, as we have always stated-
[Mr. Shaw.j


An hon. Member:: What page?


Frederick Davis Shaw: These quotations are from the "Douglas Manual", and they are taken from his various publications. Major Douglas states:
Money is only a mechanism by means of which we deal with things-it has no properties except those we choose to give to it. A phrase such as "There is no money in the country with which to do such and so" means simply nothing, unless we are also saying "The goods and services required to do this thing do not exist and cannot be produced, therefore it is useless to create the money equivalent of them."
Further on he says:
For instance, it is simply childish to say that a country has no money for social betterment, or for any other purpose, when it has the skill, the men and the material and plant to create that betterment. The banks or the treasury can create the money in five minutes, and are doing it every day, and have been doing it for centuries.


John Horne Blackmore: One would think that an intelligent man could understand that.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I quote that excerpt just in answer to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and to stress the point, as I said a moment ago, that we have not emphasized that it is money that counts but rather goods.
In the next few moments I should like to go back a few years, and it is not for the purpose that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) found it necessary to go back sixteen years today. I think he went back sixteen years, if I heard him correctly-


James Garfield Gardiner: Twenty years.


Frederick Davis Shaw: -to try to cover up some of the tracks he left in the sandhills of Saskatchewan when he was premier of that province. I am going back for quite another purpose. I might also say in passing that I think it is rather unfortunate that one should still have to cover up his tracks sixteen years after he made them.
We go back to 1930, Mr. Speaker, and I am doing it for this reason. When it comes to assessing political parties and what they stand for, it is often necessary to go back and examine some of the records. In 1930 the Conservative party was unfortunate enough to have taken over the reins of government in this Dominion of Canada. I say "unfortunate enough" because of the policies which the Liberals had pursued for some nine years prior to that time, and because of the conditions which had developed in the country by 1930 because of the pursuance of those policies. I remember our Conservative friends coming in in 1930 and if I remember it correctly their battlecry was: We will blast our way into the markets

of the world. They did some blasting all right; but if history indicates anything at all, to me it indicates that they practically blasted us off the face of the earth as a consequence of their policies.


An hon. Member:: And themselves also.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes. Somebody interjects, and themselves also.
By 1930, in spite of the fact that a depression was anticipated-in fact, that we were moving headlong into that depression-there was absolutely no breakdown whatsoever in Canadian production. The Canada Year Book for 1937 indicates that for those years 1931, 1932, and 1933 Canada's productive capacity was greater than it ever had been before. In fact, we had more houses and more goods of all kinds than we had had prior to that time. Yet the Conservatives were pleased to tell us that we were headed into a depression. Almost overnight 50 per cent of the purchasing power of this nation disappeared. Almost overnight the wheels of industry started to slow down and men were dumped out on their heads. Because of the fact that their right to eat seemed to be contingent upon their ability to procure remunerative employment, they experienced great difficulty in providing for themselves and for their dependents. Obviously, for the conditions which existed, the Conservatives of that day laid the entire blame upon overproduction within our nation. They no doubt saw the piling up of huge surpluses. But they seemed to fail to see at the same time three-quarters of a million unemployed and almost another million living on a substandard level. Their battlecry was: We are going to blast our way into the markets of the world. What actually happened, Mr. Speaker, between 1930 and 1935?
The Conservative party kept in operation all of the trade agreements which had been in effect up to that time. They also entered into a comprehensive preferential agreement with the United Kingdom. They also for the first time entered into a formal agreement with New Zealand, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and the Irish Free State. Moreover, they entered into a trade treaty of broad scope with France. They entered into a commercial arrangement securing most-favourednation treatment from Germany. They also engineered an arrangement in order to secure most-favoured-nation treatment from Austria and Brazil. They also drew up a comprehensive agreement with Poland. In spite of those agreements, and in spite of the fact that they utilized a good deal of energy in an effort to blast their way into the markets of the world, a condition of tragedy continued to prevail within our own nation.
The Address-Mr. Shaw
In the first place, they seemed to forget that many of these surpluses were not real surpluses in any sense of the word. We had a great demand in Canada for surpluses, but unfortunately there was not an effective demand. By 1935 we find that we had 259,918 families on relief within this nation; the number of individuals totalled 1,229,935. That was by the spring of 1935-February, to be exact. After all, that was supposed to be two years beyond the depth of the depression. In spite of the fact that certain definite refunding operations took place during that time, we find that the debt jumped from $2,544 million approximately to over $3,205 million; and the interest paid during that same period of time amounted to approximately $673 million. So not only did we have a vast army of unemployed within the country and a vast number of people living on a substandard level, but hand in hand with that condition debts were piled up.
What was our export picture during that time? The Conservative party from 1930 until 1935, after entering into these export agreements, did export during the eleven months prior to the end of February, 1934, $527,391,000 worth of goods. At the same time they imported $386,279,000 worth. In other words, they managed to get rid of $141,112,000 worth of our production for which no goods were brought back to the country in return. In fact, the records indicate that they even exported some of their imports in order to try to solve the problem. I believe that $5,585,000 worth of goods that had been imported were exported during the same period of time.
For the eleven months just preceding the budget of 1935, exports exceeded imports by $133,867,000. Their policy of exporting was working, but the weakness in the whole thing was that they were absolutely refusing to bring back into the country or import goods in return for those which they exported. They knew that if Canadians could not purchase our entire Canadian production, there was no conceivable chance for the Canadian people to buy goods which were brought into Canada in exchange for goods which were exported.
I have already emphasized that we had no effective market within our country. When I try to assess the Conservative picture at the present time these are questions which come to my mind and which I hope the members of the Progressive Conservative party will endeavour to answer at least before an election. We are interested in the condemnation of the vast number of 142,000 orders in council. I am very much opposed to government by order in council, but at the

The Address-Mr. Shaw same time if anyone thinks that reducing the number of orders in council that a government passes will in itself solve the economic disabilities which inflict the country, then definitely he has another think coming. I should like to hear from the Progressive Conservatives whether or not they consider recessions and depressions inevitable. I should like to know whether they consider that poverty in the midst of plenty is an unavoidable consequence of recessions or depressions. I should like to know whether they agree that it is a sound policy to export from a country more than that country imports. I might interject at this point that when you do that you simply reduce the standard of living of the Canadian people.
I should like to know from them whether they consider that man's right to live is dependent entirely upon remunerative employment. Incidentally, I might also direct these questions to those across the way on the Liberal benches. I should like to know whether or not both Liberals and Conservatives consider that debt and interest are legacies which are bound to accrue as a consequence of the development of any nation. This is a most deplorable thing. As one goes back over the years since confederation, one wonders at the great development that has taken place in this country, but one also considers the absurdity that during that development a debt of approximately $16 billion has been piled on the shoulders of the Canadian people, a debt load carrying interest charges somewhere in the neighbourhood of $450 million a year. If a businessman were to pursue the same policies that the government pursues in connection with financing, that businessman would not last very long.
I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why it should be any different so far as the government is concerned. I said a moment ago that I am not satisfied, and the Canadian people are not satisfied, merely to have the Liberals and Conservatives fighting over this question whether there shall or shall not be orders in council. I am not satisfied to hear them merely arguing whether there should be this many civil servants or that many. I am inclined to believe that we must go considerably deeper than that. I would emphasize the fact that if we are assured by both Liberals and Conservatives that depressions are not inevitable; that poverty in the midst of plenty is not inevitable; that man's right to live is not dependent entirely upon his right to find remunerative employment; if they can assure us that debt and interest must not be inevitable legacies accruing to us as a result of developing this great nation of ours: then we and the Canadian people
[Mr. Shaw.l
will commence to understand at least just-what hope does lie in either of these parties.
We have already put ourselves on record as being in the main opposed to the policies advocated by the C.C.F. I am speaking for myself when I say that I am always very fearful that-and I am not going to say that all socialists are communists, although I will say I can never forget that all communists are socialists-into any organization, political or otherwise, men of evil purposes are bound to worm their way. 1 do not think there is any organization which can claim to be free from that. When I find advocated policies which I, at least, feel take you on the road toward communism, then I am just a bit afraid that, if we are carried so far, the wrong man will take the reins and we shall be plunged into the morass from which we shall not be able to extricate ourselves.
I am not going to occupy very much more of the time of the house, Mr. Speaker. We feel that this amendment of ours, very clearly explained by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) this afternoon, taken in conjunction with his budget speech of last year, offers to hon. members sound and concrete proposals for the stabilizing of our economy, the establishment of prosperity within our nation, and the bringing of security, happiness and contentment to our Canadian people. We urge all hon. members to give it their consideration.


Mr. G. R. Pear Ices (Nanaimo):: The amendment which has been moved by the leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Drew) and the subamendment which is now being considered as moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) indicate that there is some lack of confidence in the present administration. A good deal of evidence has been produced in the one hundred or more speeches which have been made during this debate, which would give abundant proof of that suggestion. Tonight I wish to indicate one other small and particular point in which I feel that there is justification for questioning the wisdom of the present government in that particular.
1 am going to deal with one point which concerns a great many men in a very personal way. In the speech from the throne reference is made to the fact that some legislation will be introduced regarding the administration of the armed forces of the crown. On February 4, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) indicated that there was to be a change in the old traditional policy of paying prize money to the men of the Royal Canadian Navy, and he elaborated on that point in a statement which he made on February 18, when he explained the policy which the present government

proposes to follow, a policy which breaks with all naval tradition, a policy which I suggest oreaks faith with many a gallant lad who joined the Royal Canadian Navy at the commencement of the war.
I wish to take a few moments just to trace the history of this prize money, how it became part of naval tradition, how it is a century-old custom under which sailors have received a certain bounty, a certain grant of money to augment the pay which they received.
It was first introduced in the reign of Henry VIII. At that time the various ports of the United Kingdom were expected to produce a quota of warships and their crews. When the war was over His Majesty divided up among these ports the money which had accrued from the sale of the prizes which had been captured during the naval engagements. Certain changes and modifications were brought in during the reign of Charles II, when it was decided that there were different conditions under which captures were made. There were certain ships taken when they were in port; others were captured on the high seas. A distinction was made there. Certain rights, or droits, as they were called then, of the admiralty, or droits of the crown, were made under that decision. Those rights going to the lord high admiral were used for the purpose of developing the fleet.
The rights which became the prerogative of the crown were divided up after the campaign was over among the seamen who had fought at sea. It was an act of grace; but it was an act which was followed down through the centuries, starting at the time of King Charles II.
Then, during the reign of William IV, the lord high admiral surrendered his rights to the exchequer-that is, moneys which arose from the capture of ships actually in port. But the rights to the crown from ships captured at sea still remained the prerogative of the crown; and the crown in those days still divided up that money among the sailors who were sailing in the fleet during the campaign.
So it went on, right down to Nelson's day. In Nelson's time one might say an evil practice crept in, because most of the prizes captured were captured by the light ships of the navy-the frigates and cruisers. Anyone who will read any of the "lives" of Lord Nelson will see how he complained against certain of his captains who spent most of their time chasing merchantmen of the enemy rather than perhaps engaging in battle. There was a tendency to do that. And as a counterbalance to that, the prize
The Address-Mr. Pearkes bounty, known as blood money, was introduced. This was paid to the ships of the line. When they sank an enemy ship the crew of the ship engaged in that battle received a certain amount of money, according to the size of the ship sunk and according to the number of the crew on the vessel. This was frequently referred to as blood money.
However, changes have taken place and, as the years have gone by, blood money has been discontinued. But prize money was paid after the first world war. Large sums of prize money were paid then, because the Germans had their merchantmen on the seven seas, and our ships were able to capture a large number of them. At the conclusion of the second world war the amount of money available for prize moneys was not nearly as large as that at the conclusion of the first world war, simply because the Germans had brought their ships into their own ports, and the majority of those still on the high seas were scuttled.
However, last November in the British House of Commons a prize bill was introduced. An estimate had been made by the lords of the admiralty as to the amount of money which would be available from the prizes which had been captured. That money was divided among the nations of the commonwealth which had fleets on the seas; and because the air force had taken part and assisted in many of those captures, a certain proportion was allocated to the Royal Air Force-the exchequer still keeping its one-third. And when I say that it kept its one-third, it was decided as a rather arbitrary arrangement that the exchequer, according to the tradition of the old droits of the admiralty, should keep one-third of the moneys to go into the consolidated revenue fund.
There was considerable debate in the British House of Commons as to the method in which the prize moneys would be divided among the air force and the various ratings of the navy. A decision was reached, in so far as the amount of money available for the United Kingdom services was concerned. This decision appeared in British Hansard of November 12, at page 863, in a speech made by Mr. John Dugdale upon moving second reading of the prize bill. Mr. Dugdale, parliamentary and financial secretary to the admiralty, said on that occasion:
It is the intention of the government that all naval officers and ratings, marine officers and other ranks and also merchant seamen who served in the navy under T-124-
T-124, I might explain, was a special type of enlistment of men serving in the armed merchantmen who came under certain special regulations of discipline. Some Canadians

The Address-Mr. Pearkes belief that they would be entitled to such moneys? I do not care how small the amount is; it is the principle behind the question. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton) is trying, and rightly so, to build up the services of the country. Active recruiting campaigns have been carried on for the last twelve months. I venture to say that many members on all sides of the house-I know I have-have taken part in these campaigns.
I have urged the young men of the country to get into the armed forces. But such action as has been taken in this case is not encouragement. It is a petty, cheap, despicable business of taking a few dollars from men who gave so much during the war and putting them into certain funds when we believe that these funds are well endowed, when we know that there are large balances in them. Surely the government can rise above such petty cheese-paring practices and give these sailors the money which is their due, and to which they are entitled.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr.   SI Laurent@: In spite of indications today, I hope that the debate on the address will be concluded tomorrow. . If it is, we shall then proceed with the resolution for the introduction of a bill to extend certain emergency powers. I should like to remind hon. members that there are certain measures which, if not renewed, will expire on the 27th of March. I think it should be regarded as the responsibility of the house to express itself as to whether or not they should be renewed, and not allow them to lapse by default. There is not very much time left. There is sufficient time to deal with them in an orderly manner if it is the desire of hon. members that they be dealt with in that fashion, but I think we shall have to move tomorrow, even if this debate is not concluded by the end of the sitting then, to proceed with the emergency legislation from and after Monday the 14th.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on February 22, 1949.

Friday, March 11, 1949