1949-02-22

NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of the following member, viz:
Of Renaud Chapdelaine, Esquire, for the electoral district of Nicolet-Yamaska.



RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to answer the question asked me yesterday by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) about religious persecutions in eastern Europe.
During the past few weeks, Mr. Speaker, this house and the country as a whole have watched with deepening concern what appears to be a systematic campaign of religious persecution in all the satellite states of eastern Europe, but particularly in Hungary where within a short space of time the heads of three branches of the Christian church, the Roman Catholic, the Calvinist and the Lutheran, have either been sentenced to severe punishment or driven into exile. More recent persecutions in Bulgaria seem to be following the same pattern.
The government of Canada has already indicated in the most positive terms and in language clear beyond all possibility of mistake, its abhorrence of this systematic persecution. In a statement on New Year's day I said that the increasingly brutal persecutions of religious. leaders in countries behind the iron curtain have shocked all civilized people. These views were reiterated and strengthened on February 2 by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of more recent developments, I now wish to reaffirm the position of the Canadian government.
Immediately after the arrest of Cardinal Mindszenty, Primate of Hungary, the Canadian government, as a signatory of the peace treaty, asked our diplomatic representatives
in a number of European capitals and Washington to secure all the available information and to report any steps that might be anticipated on the part of the governments to which they were accredited. Careful study was given also to official intelligence from other sources and to press reports.
This was followed, as the house will recall from the statement made on February 2 by the Secretary of the State of External Affairs, by a communication to the Hungarian government, through the Hungarian minister in Washington, protesting strongly against a policy of repression and religious persecution which appeared to destroy religious freedom in Hungary and appeared also to violate obligations to secure the enjoyment of human rights, including freedom of religious worship, to which Hungary was pledged under the treaty of peace of 1947.
In this message, particular reference was made to the arrest not only of Cardinal Mindszenty, but also of the senior bishop of the Lutheran church in Hungary, and to the flight into exile, under force of persecution, of the senior bishop of the Calvinist church in Hungary.
It seems clear from these incidents that all religious faiths were involved and that a general attack was being launched on the fundamental freedoms of human society. Fresh emphasis was given to the repressive character of these arrests by the conditions under which the trial of Cardinal Mindszenty was conducted. It can hardly be said that these proceedings bear any resemblance to what we understand by a "fair trial". From official sources in which we have confidence, we learn, for example, the following facts about the conduct of this case.
The trial which involved seven persons and four different charges, including capital charges, was concluded in three days. No witnesses were called for the defence. The counsel for the prosecution made no attempt to establish his case but confined himself for the most part to enlarging on the political fairness of the trial. The counsel for the defence put no case for the defence and did not contest easily refutable statements made by the counsel for the prosecution; and the material evidence consisted of statements taken outside the court before the trial. It may be added that no representatives of non-communist governments were permitted

Religious Persecution
to attend the trial. We are informed also that the representative of the government of Australia attempted to visit Budapest for this purpose, but though a visa was promised op six occasions, it was not forthcoming.
Meanwhile the government is continuing to seek the views of like-minded governments, signatory to the treaty, on the character and desirability of any further action that may be taken jointly or independently. It has been suggested, for example, that the treaty of peace be invoked. Unfortunately, the procedures which are immediately available under the treaty of peace all depend for their effectiveness on the co-operation of the soviet government. Since the U.S.S.R. not only supports but even encourages governments which it can influence in their hostility to religion, it is not likely to give the other signatories to the peace treaties much assistance in putting a halt to religious persecution in eastern Europe. It may be, however, that the signatories to the treaties, even without the support of the soviet union, could, through joint representation based on these provisions of these treaties, have some influence upon the governments which are responsible for these acts.
Provision is also made in the treaty for a procedure leading to the establishment of a commission of three to act in regard to any dispute arising out of the execution or interpretation of the treaty. The majority decision, of this commission would be binding on the parties to the dispute.
If this procedure were used, the obstruction of the U.S.S.R. to action under it could not become effective until efforts were made to give effect to the decisions of the commission.
A further possibility that has received some public notice is that the matter be referred to the United Nations; because it would seem obvious that the spirit of repression and persecution that pervades the events under review is clearly not in keeping with the charter of the United Nations or the declaration of human rights.
In any case it is the view of the government that a state which fails to carry out its treaty obligations in letter and spirit cannot expect to be supported in its application for admission to the United Nations; and indeed might expect formally to be condemned by the world organization.
But, Mr. Speaker, in examining these or any other suggestions that may be made, the government's course will be guided by considerations that are more significant than tactics or gestures. While giving the fullest expression to our profound abhorrence of religious persecution, however it may be disguised, we shall seek to take only such action

as appears to offer a reasonable prospect of promoting the principles in which we believe and at the same time of ameliorating the situation with which we are faced in the communist countries.
The events in Hungary have, as hon. members know, been followed by similar action on the part of the Bulgarian government. On February 10 that government issued its indictment of fifteen Protestant leaders in that country, charging them with espionage and other crimes.
The government has instructed the Canadian charge d'affaires in Prague to apply for visas to visit Hungary and Roumania in order that he may make inquiries on the spot and report to the government. Canada is not a signatory to the Bulgarian treaty, but, in any joint action that may be considered advisable, this country would find no difficulty in associating itself with such action. The principles of religious freedom and fundamental human rights are not confined to the articles of a peace treaty.
The clear and common sense conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is that the cases of each church, each bishop, or each group of religious leaders, are horrifying incidents in what appears to be a grand design, a calculated policy of persecution, aimed not perhaps at the immediate extermination of the Christian communions, but at their ultimate subjugation and servitude. By its nature and its dogma, Marxist communism must secure the total obedience of its subjects and cannot tolerate the free speculations of the human spirit and conscience.
A plain recital of a few only of the incidents in this process reveals the pattern of persecution which is swiftly being drawn over the unhappy Christians of these lands. We are already familiar with the fate in Hungary of leaders of three different churches; and I have mentioned the indictments on February 10 by the Bulgarian government of fifteen Protestant leaders in that country. It is noteworthy that while these clergymen, all members of the United Evangelical church in Bulgaria, were apparently arrested some months ago, no indictment was made until this late date.
In Poland some twenty-six priests have been detained and eight arrested for having read a pastoral letter from their bishop in which the anti-religious actions of government officials were severely criticized.
In Czechoslovakia towards the end of last year two members of the Greek Catholic church were tried for alleged espionage activities, and early this month a new campaign was started against the church.
In Roumania in December, 1948, the Roumanian Uniate church, a branch of the Roman Catholic church, was practically extinguished

by government decree and its property confiscated.
It cannot be expected, I am sorry to say, that the tale is ended. From the Baltic to the frontiers of Greece the ceaseless pressure to impose a total communist pattern goes forward. The middle way of life, the only way broad enough to contain in peace and tolerance all creeds and all faiths, is being steadily cast aside, and nowhere is this clearer than in the realm of religious belief. There is no quick or simple solution: the problem is too vast and too many-sided. Old in essence, it is here new in form, and it has the ruthlessness of new things.
The government will continue to use whatever means are available to support every effort to assert the principles of religious and political liberty and to restore their practice.



MOTION TO CHANGE HOURS OF EVENING SITTINGS TO 7.30-10.30 DURING DEBATE ON ADDRESS

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the order for
motions, and as arranged yesterday by the house, by unanimous consent, I ask now that consideration be given to the proposal I made yesterday calling for evening sittings from 7.30 to 10.30 during the period of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Perhaps to keep the record clear I should point out that after I offered my amendment yesterday to the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) made what I regarded as a reasonable request, namely, that the amendment stand over until today. A few minutes later, on a question of privilege, I pointed out that it was not possible to permit the amendment to stand over without forcing the holding over of the main motion, thus preventing debate yesterday on the address. With that in mind I said this, as reported at page 720 of Hansard:
If the house will give its undertaking that we shall consider the matter tomorrow as a substantive motion, I am willing to withdraw the amendment. We can hardly let both the motion and the amendment stand over, because that would prevent the house from going on with the address today. If the house will give that assurance, I shall be glad to let this matter stand for consideration and decision by the house on a free vote at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
Not only was that offer made as a proper gesture, both to the leader of the opposition and to the Prime Minister, but the silence of the house at that point gave unanimous consent to the procedure suggested. Therefore I ask for consideration of that matter in the form of a substantive motion, moved by
House of Commons
myself and seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), as follows:
That, except on Wednesdays, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair at six o'clock p.m. until seven-thirty, and shall adjourn the house at ten-thirty p.m., without question put, until consideration of the speech from the throne is disposed of.
That wording is precisely the wording I gave yesterday, with one exception. Where the words "said speech" appeared yesterday, I have put in the words "speech from the throne".


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding yesterday that it seemed to be the desire of the house to have this matter held over until today for consideration. I said yesterday that members of the government did not wish to express any views, but that they would have no objection to this experiment being made during the period of the debate on the address, if it seemed to be the desire of the house to make such an experiment.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is my duty to call the attention of the house to the fact that normally this motion would be out of order, but I believe I have to take into consideration what happened yesterday and what has just been read by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I would call the attention of hon. members to standing order 12, paragraph 107, at page 53 of Beauchesne's Third Edition. It reads:
In all matters of doubt, the Speaker will consider attentively the opinion of members of experience, or sometimes, instead of expressing his opinion on either side, may ask instructions from the house or reserve his decision on the point in discussion, or suggest that the house may, if it think proper, dispense with the rule in a particular case. In doubtful cases, he will be largely guided by circumstances.
I believe I should put the question to the house. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member have leave to present his motion?


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker,
before this motion is dealt with I wish to make one or two comments. Unfortunately I was unable to be here yesterday to take part in the debate, if one could call it a debate. This question of hours of sittings of the house is one which has engaged the attention of hon. members on all sides of the house for some considerable time.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I should first ask if hon.
members are willing to give the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre leave to present his motion. If leave is granted, the hon. member for Peel may then discuss the motion.

House of Commons
Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member have leave to present his motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please
say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And leave having been granted:


Gordon Graydon: As I was saying, many efforts have been made by members on all sides of the house to bring about some reform with respect to the time of house sittings. I think there is general agreement that some reform is desirable and that a decision in the matter must be made.
On June 25, 1947, I made a suggestion which I think had the support of many hon. members in all parts of the house. My suggestion was that we should sit continuously from one o'clock in the afternoon until seven o'clock at night. That suggestion was thrown out toward the end of the session so that we could deal with it and with other related problems at the next session. I think some twenty-seven different suggestions were made about changing the procedure and rules of the house.
As Your Honour knows, last year we set up a small but informal committee in an effort to iron out some of the difficulties which were bothering hon. members and which should be ironed out if there was to be unanimity as to the method of carrying on the business of the house. While some of us at that time were not in agreement with the original suggestion of seven to ten o'clock instead of eight to eleven, the view seemed to prevail that if we could not get something better, we might take that suggestion as it was.
Now the suggestion of the motion before us is seven-thirty to ten-thirty.
I am still of the opinion that this house should appoint a small committee, not to deal with all the ramifications of rules and house procedure, because again the discussions would go on until the end of the session, but to deal only with this question of house sittings. I hope that that will meet with the approval of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It should not take more than a day or two. Let us do this in the proper way. The committee could then come back

to the House of Commons with something which would meet with general approval.
Certainly the present hours are too long. Hon. members cannot be expected to sit here year in and year out until eleven o'clock at night, when they start their work at nine in the morning. I think we would be regarded by the public as a sensible assembly if we changed the hours so that they would be more humane and tolerable to the average member. The committee could be set up at once, and perhaps before the end of this week we could arrive at some decision. It may be a decision for seven-thirty to ten-thirty, but I am not so sure that those hours meet with general approval. I suggest the immediate appointment of such a committee.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word in this connection. Certain rules and regulations are now in effect, and there is a recommendation by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) that they be amended. We had the leader of his party (Mr. Drew) speaking for two hours and five minutes on two occasions when there is a forty minute limit on speeches. We who come from the far west and the maritimes are entitled to some consideration. If we are to amend the rules, then with all due deference I suggest that all the rules should be enforced, and that a member should not be allowed two hours and five minutes to apologize for blocking dominion-provincial agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to move an amendment to the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is now an amendment to the motion.


Mr. Lockhart:: Why all this quibbling over half an hour?


Mr. Ferguson:: You are squandering the public's money.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I move, in amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras), that the house sit from ten o'clock to one o'clock, and from three o'clock to six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but I must say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley that I cannot accept his amendment. If the hon. member will read the rules of the house he will realize that an amendment must be worded so as to delete or add certain words at the end of the main motion. Unfortunately the amendment of the hon. gentleman does not do that.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, before we vote on the motion, I wonder if the government has anything to say on the question of setting up a committee to study this matter.


Mr. SI. Laurent:: The government has no objection to a committee of members being constituted to investigate and recommend what they think might better suit the convenience of hon. members. If the whips choose to discuss it and wish to have a motion brought forward, I shall be glad to consider it and put it before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That could be done while this experiment is being made.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: It is
obvious that there are various ideas as to what should be done about the hours of sitting of the house. I believe a suggestion was made last session by our own group that the house sit from two until six in the afternoon, and from eight until ten in the evening. That would not reduce the number of hours of sitting, and we could get through the same amount of work as we do now. We are not pressing that at this time, I am merely citing it to illustrate what I said to begin with, that various suggestions have been made, and [DOT] it seems to me they ought to be considered by a committee. I hope that the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will support the idea of having a small committee of the house set up to bring in a recommendation which would resolve the various suggestions into one that will be acceptable to the members of the house.


Mr. John T. Hackett (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I find that everybody is consulting his own convenience. While I am always ready to meet the convenience of others, it may be well for each of us to consider the propriety of engaging the House of Commons in a trial of this kind. The lives of most of us are fixed. We have habits, we have engagements, and vve have appointments. To undo them for the purpose of ascertaining what effect it will have upon our digestive organs to rush through a meal, which is generally late, for the next ten days, seems to me, with great respect, out of keeping with the dignity of the house, and with the practice of this deliberative assembly. If it is thought desirable to amend the rules, let us name a committee for that purpose, and let us amend them in an orderly and accepted way.
It seems to me we are asked to adopt a method of reaching a conclusion which is devoid of the precision and finality that should be characteristic of decisions of a body of this kind. I suggest that we do not depart from parliamentary practice. For a long time members have felt that the hours of sitting are long, but the sessions are long, too. I, for one, certainly do not wish to vote for a prolongation of the session. If curtailment of the hours brings about prolongation of the session, I do not think many members will 28087-49
House of Commons
support such a suggestion. We are asked to make an experiment to determine whether or not we should meet in the evening at half past seven instead of eight. Most of us work in our rooms until the dinner hour, seven o'clock; then we dine and come back here at eight. I am totally against a change in the order of our lives for two or three weeks. I believe that if a change is to be made it should be made after discussion, and after the pleasure of the majority has been ascertained by a committee.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Once the question has been put, no member may rise. Those who are in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are against the motion will please say nay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest a standing vote?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Those who are in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are against the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will realize that it is the duty of the Speaker to call for the yeas and nays, and I gave as my opinion that the yeas had it. If hon. members want a recorded vote, they know the procedure that must be followed; they must rise.
And some hon. members having risen;


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.



MAIL CONTRACTS


Hon. Ernest Bertrand (Postmaster General) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Mail Contracts Supplemental Payments Act to make supplemental payments authorized under the said act applicable to renewal contracts.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Timmins (Parkdale):: On the
first day of the session, January 26, I gave notice of a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply; it appears on page iii of the Votes and Proceedings of January 26. On February 9 the question was passed as an order for return. I have never seen the return, and I ask the minister when I may have an answer to my question of January 26.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I shall be glad to look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR DOMINION-PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a statement made by the premier of British Columbia in the legislature on February 11, to the effect that the housing situation was causing him deep concern, and that he was prepared to attend a dominion-provincial-municipal conference to discuss low-rental housing projects? Will the government call

such a conference, and have any steps been already taken to that end?


Robert Henry Winters: I wish to thank the
hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I have not seen the particular statement to which he refers, but I did have discussions in a general way with the premier of British Columbia when he was down here recently, and since his return I have had correspondence from him on the subject of housing.
With respect to the matter of a conference, the government is of the opinion that at the present time more progress can be made by discussing with each province or municipality its own particular problems on their merits; and as the Prime Minister said in Toronto on Saturday, the government stands ready at all times to discuss this problem with any provincial government in an effort to work out satisfactory long-term arrangements among the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion.



PROJECT IN ALBERTA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, which was asked on Friday last in his absence. In view of the foreclosure proceedings by the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company of Calgary, Alberta, against home owners who have houses under construction by the Bow River Construction Company, will the government see to it that these veterans, and some civilians, will not lose their financial equity in their property as a result of these foreclosures?


Mr. Howe:: Order paper.


Robert Henry Winters: I understood this
question was to have been placed on the order paper. I have been looking for it to appear there.



SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. C. I. Merritt (Vancouver-Burrard):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Why were not ward maids and kitchen helpers in Shaughnessy hospital granted the benefit of the recent civil service pay increase?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The hon. member kindly gave me notice of this question. I would say that the 29087-491
Inquiries of the Ministry employees of whom he speaks are paid on the prevailing rate basis. In other words, the wages bear a direct relationship to the rate existing for that type of employee elsewhere in the particular city affected. The matter of prevailing rates, not only in Vancouver but elsewhere, throughout our institutions, is frequently under review as such rates change in the employment field. In the particular instance of Vancouver, these rates are at present under review.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say what progress has been made in the installation of slide detector fences and other safety devices on the Canadian National railway lines in British Columbia, and what are the plans for future installations?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The Canadian National Railways are installing at the present time block signals west of Kamloops, in conjunction with which they are to install three different types of slide detector fences for test purposes.
Last November the director of engineering of the board of transport commissioners made an inspection trip from Kamloops west, accompanied by members of the railway brotherhoods, and discussed other locations for the installation of slide detector fences, which will be given consideration as soon as the necessary block signals are installed and the efficiency of the slide detector fences is studied. The block signals are necessary as a first installation for the operation of slide detector fences.
I might add that, since the inspection trip referred to, I have received letters from several of the brotherhoods expressing satisfaction and appreciation at being included in the inspection party.



SUCCESSION DUTIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister indicate whether his department contemplates the opening of a succession duty office at Barrie, Ontario?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: We have no intention at the present time of opening any such office.

Inquiries of the Ministry FRUIT



PLIGHT OF BERRY GROWERS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA -QUESTION AS TO POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Cruickshank: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has his attention been called to the plight of the berry growers in the Fraser valley and in the whole of British Columbia? If so, will an announcement be made of the action to be taken?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Last spring we guaranteed the cost of the barrels and packing baskets which are used in British Columbia for the packing of SO2 berries, which is a particular variety of berry used for making jam. These berries were packed and placed in barrels. We have been attempting to find a market for them. We have found a market for part of them in Ireland. We hope to find a market for still more of them, and until we have completed our efforts in connection with the marketing of them we have nothing further to announce in the way of policy.



QUESTION RESPECTING SMALL FRUIT CROPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the policy of the government to encourage the tearing up of small fruit and other productive crops in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government in relation to these matters is to give the fullest possible information to those who are engaged in them. Then we think we can leave it to their own good judgment to decide whether they will continue to produce one product or another. That is the general policy, and I think it applies to all products.



MICHEL LUCIEN SEIGNEUR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources. Is Michel Lucien Seigneur in Canada, and if so, where?


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources):: My officials inform me that the man in question is in Canada, in the city of Montreal, where he has been for some two or three years. I might say further that information about this man has come to us very recently, and we are making further investigations.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Assiniboia):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it 'the intention of the government to destroy any part of the 1948 potato crop? Will the minister state government policy in regard to this commodity?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Assiniboia was kind enough to send me a copy of these two questions. The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is as follows: The objective of the plan in effect is to encourage the sale at a reasonable price of the graded product which usually goes to market, without encouraging an effort to market what has usually been fed to livestock.



TEXTILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I apologize for not having given him notice. Have the Canadian authorities notified or intimated to the British government or the British textile officials that the tariff on British cotton or rayon goods will be reimposed in the near future?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: No.



TORONTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, who addressed the young men's board of trade in Toronto last week. As a member of the government will he use his good offices to try to secure for us in the Toronto district a steam suburban service?


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be glad to take the question as notice.



DOMINION ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: In
view of the statement reported in the press as to the announcement of the Minister of

Fisheries that there is likely to be an election this fall, can the Prime Minister or any other member of the government tell us if it could not be held in June?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: Will the Minister of Public Works indicate when tenders will be called for a public building at Pine Falls?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: I cannot say offhand. I shall have to look up the record, and then I will inform the hon. member.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister arising out of a motion for the production of certain papers connected with the national capital planning scheme. The Prime Minister said he would communicate with the chairman of the committee and would let the house know at an early day the attitude of the chairman as ti the production not only of the plan of Mr. Greber but also of the recommendations of the committee.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As promised, I did communicate with the chairman of the federal district commission. It will be their recommendation that the preliminary report of Mr. Greber be made public. I have seen, in galley form, some part of the printing, and I believe it will be a document of substantial size.
I was informed by the chairman that in spite of the recommendation that its production be expedited as much as possible, it might take five or six weeks to have it ready for tabling in the two languages. It is still being considered by the national capital planning committee, and will go from there to the federal district commission, which is to hold a meeting about the middle of March. After it is considered by the federal district commission it will be forwarded to the government. I have asked that every endeavour be made to make the delay as brief as possible.
Inquiries of the Ministry TELEVISION



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: In leading periodicals in the United States cuts are being shown of the hooking up of several hundred television stations. Will the appropriate minister be making a statement soon as to what Canada is doing in this regard?


William Earl Rowe: A royal commission.


James Joseph McCann: The matter of television is being given consideration. In the near future the government will make an announcement of policy in that regard.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	,
Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Will he consider exempting from income tax the cost to diabetics of insulin, needles and other supplies necessary for their treatment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall give consideration to that question- along with several hundred others I have received in recent weeks.



REQUEST FOR AID FROM CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, which is prompted by the statement he made this afternoon about religious persecution behind the iron curtain, and also by the grave plight of the brave people of Greece, whom some of us saw there recently. Is the government giving consideration to the sending of material aid in the form of food, bedding, lumber and clothing to Greece, to help those people who are having such a difficult time in the face of communist invasion today?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, there is no project before the government at the present time for the relief of the people of Greece. There has been no request in that respect. These matters usually go through the agency of the United Nations.

The Address-Mr. Herridge
On the orders of the day:


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I should like to ask a supplementary question respecting aid to Greece-


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I think you should recommend some form of amplifiers to be used by those who speak in the house, or else have hon. members who cannot hear go to a doctor and have their ears looked after.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is possible for Canada to make a gift to Greece in recognition of the services rendered by that country to us and to the world in general. Must we rely on the recommendation of the United Nations?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Let us send some
margarine.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 21, 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, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, to continue my saga of the Canadian portion of the Columbia river basin, may I point out that international problems respecting waters used within the Columbia river basin are subject to the provisions of two treaties signed between the governments of the United States, and of Great Britain on behalf of Canada. These are dated 1846 and 1909. The treaty of Washington of 1846 established the international boundary between Canada and the United States west of the Rocky mountains. Article II contains a provision with respect to navigation of the main stream of the Columbia river below the boundary of British Columbia.
I had intended to deal with certain aspects of article II of the Washington treaty, but as my time is limited I shall have to leave that for another occasion. Article IX of the boundary waters treaty of 1909 provides for the founding of the international joint commission, to be composed of Canadian and American representatives. That treaty was signed, and the commission came into being under the sponsorship of the late Theodore Roosevelt, who was then President of the 
United States, and under the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was then Prime Minister of Canada.
I believe most hon. members recognize the fact that the international joint commission is a venture that has borne good fruit, and has stood as a lesson to the world in common sense and good will between nations. The international joint commission established its procedure on February 2, 1912. As a result of that it is now composed of three Canadians and three Americans, with a chairman acting for each section. The respective chairmen take the chair when the commission sits in the United States or in Canada.
The Canadian members at the present time are the Hon. Allison Glen and the Hon. George Spence. There is at present one vacancy. The commission has conducted many investigations and I have read with great interest many of its findings. I attended several of its hearings and am much impressed with the work it has done.
In 1941 the United States authorities applied for approval of certain levels of water that were going to be occasioned by the building of the Grand Coulee dam. That was after the dam was built, and I intend to have something more to say about that on a later occasion. The government of the United States and the government of Canada in 1944 agreed upon a reference to the commission with regard to the Columbia river. The Prime Minister of this country tabled that reference in this house on March 9, 1944. I should like to quote the first paragraph of the reference because it deals in brief with the instructions to the commission with respect to the Columbia basin investigation. That paragraph reads:
In order to determine whether a greater use than is now being made of the waters of the Columbia river system would be feasible and advantageous, the governments of the United States and Canada have agreed to refer the matter to the International joint commission for investigation and' report pursuant to article IX of the convention concerning boundary waters between the United States and Canada, signed January 11, 1909.
Later the same day the Prime Minister made a statement concerning this reference to the commission, which was a most important reference in so far as the people of the southeastern interior of British Columbia are concerned. The Prime Minister said:
The report of the international joint commission will not be binding on the governments concerned, but it is likely that the investigations of the commission will result in suggestions and recommendations which will be carried into effect by joint action of the two governments.
Pursuant to that reference the international Columbia river engineering board was appointed, composed of four members, two
77S

of whom represent Canada. The Canadian members are V. Meek, controller dominion water and power bureau, and F. G. Good-speed, assistant chief engineer, public works of Canada. In addition to this board, the Columbia river engineering and the Okanagan engineering committees were appointed, the Canadian members being C. E. Webb, chief engineer, dominion water power bureau, Vancouver, and M. K. Morton, district engineer of public works, Vancouver.
Immediately after the reference was tabled a full scale investigation was ordered and is now proceeding. This includes aerial photography, geodetic surveys, topographical mapping, bathymetric surveys, reconnaissance surveys, geological and damsite investigations, hydrological studies, climatology, soil surveys, survey of forest resources, mineral resources, fisheries problems and recreational resources.
I understand that the estimated cost of this survey to Canada will be approximately $700,000. The entire investigation will disclose the water power resources which in that part of the country are not now being utilized because of a lack of effective control and agreement. After the investigation is completed it is hoped that public hearings will be held at various points throughout the area particularly concerned, so that the points of view of the people and of all interests can be heard. I may say for your information that public hearings were held in various parts of Canada prior to the actual commencement of the technical investigation in connection with the St. Lawrence waterway. Recently I read in both the United States and Canadian press of proposals which had been made in the United States with regard to the building of a crib dam on the Arrow lakes for the storage of water. We all know that these are only suggestions or proposals but many people in my constituency and in the adjoining constituency are confused because they think that something is going to develop immediately as a result of these suggestions. We all know that nothing will be done until the joint international commission has report-sd, and that anything done then will be the result of joint action between the United States and Canada. I have here a copy of the Congressional Record which contains a resolution presented to congress on January 24 by Senator Mitchell. In view of the fact that my time is running out I should like to place this resolution on Hansard for the information of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreeable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Address-Mr. Herridge


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is from the Columbia basin commission on the United States side of the line and reads:
Resolved by the Columbia basin commission that it hereby requests the international joint commission to direct its international board of engineers to give priority to studies and report on the storage of water in Arrow lakes. British Columbia, so that the commission may decide the amount of storage it will approve there, and if such report be favourable, that the Bonneville power administration and the United States, and the proper governmental agency of British Columbia and Canada, then proceed to negotiate for an agreement or agreements for building a storage dam at the outlet of Arrow lakes to impound 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 acre-feet of water, whereby British Columbia will receive an estimated annual revenue of $2,500,000 to $3,500,000 and the power plants at Grand Coulee dam and Bonneville will be enabled to produce an additional 500,000 to 700,000 kilowatts of prime power during the winter months, so that said dam may be built at as early a date as feasible, possibly by the winter of 1951-1952; and be it further resolved, that the commission urge the state legislature, the members of congress from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, the governors of said states, and the president of the United States, to join in the above request to the American members of the international joint commission and the premier of British Columbia and the Prime Minister of Canada to join in the above request to the Canadian members of the international joint commission in the hope that the threatened electrical catastrophe to the Pacific northwest during the next five years may be averted, and that, instead, both the United States and Canada may have increased development and prosperity and a stronger national defence.
This resolution indicates the interest taken by Americans in proposed developments in Canada.
I have three or four suggestions to make before concluding what I have to say today. My first suggestion is in connection with the vacancy that exists on the international joint commission. In view of the fact that some of the major decisions of that commission will concern the province of British Columbia and particularly the Columbia river basin within that province, I suggest that the present vacancy be filled by the appointment of some one resident in British Columbia who is conversant with the opportunities that are presented in the development of this basin.
My second suggestion is that consideration should be given by this government to the development of the water resources in the basin under public ownership in co-operation with the government of British Columbia. I am recommending the establishment of a Canadian Columbia river basin authority, and in support of that proposal I should like to quote from the minutes of a committee of congress which sat in 1933-34 to consider this question and which reported with respect to the United States portion of the Columbia river basin as follows:
We believe in private enterprise-in the expectancy of rewards for honest endeavour, labour, initiative and daring-in the things that have made
776	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge
America great. But some things are too big for private enterprise, and the Columbia river is one of these.
I trust that this suggestion will receive serious consideration. A most favourable situation exists with regard to the public development of the main stem of the Columbia because there is little private interest investment to consider in connection with the development of the potential 2,900,000 horsepower.
Up to date all the proposals in connection with the development of water storage and power have come from the United States side of the line; nothing has happened so far as our government is concerned. The United States are leading us in this direction. I have in my hand the Christian Science Monitor for January 24,1949, which contains this headline:
Truman Orders Columbia Valley Authority Plans
That is in connection with the United States side of the line. Farmer organizations such as the Grange, trade unions and co-operative societies are all backing the establishment of a Columbia river authority, but on this side our government remains dormant. I should like to quote again from the Christian Science Monitor of February 14 which contains the following report:
It would be extremely dogmatic to assert that a river could not be developed except by a valley authority modeled after TVA. But it is irrefutable that, despite the long years of effort by our other resource development and construction agencies, and the millions of dollars of expenditures, the Tennessee is the only river that has been completely harnessed and controlled in the interests of the people.
I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that members of all parties in the house would support public ownership and public development of power in an area such as this, if they appreciated the success of T.V.A.
My third suggestion is that, after this investigation is completed, the question of the development of the Columbia river basin should be referred to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters to study and report on the use of power resources in the basin. A similar committee was established by congress to study and report to congress on the great possibilities in the United States portion of the Columbia river basin. The people of the Columbia river basin, which includes East Kootenay, West Kootenay, Yale, and a portion of the riding represented by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), are greatly concerned in the development of the basin. They are anxious to see the establishment of the pulp and paper industry. They are concerned about secondary industries; they are concerned about the development of power for irrigation in the Okanagan district.
As a result of the interest of the people of these areas, and their understanding of the


importance of the question, I have received a large number of letters suggesting that it is time for the people to hold a conference which will include representatives of all types of organizations. I suggest that farm organizations, co-operative organizations, trade unions, boards of trade, women's institutes, rod and gun clubs, municipal councils, irrigation associations, and tourist camp operators should hold a conference in the near future in order to co-ordinate their ideas, and in order to be in a position to present them effectively to the commission and to the government. I suggest that it would be wise for the co-operative organizations of the area to take the lead because they represent the larger number of people. The people do not want the policies for the development of this area determined by directors of companies who reside in Montreal and New York. They want them determined by the co-operation of the federal government, the provincial government, and the people of the area. In any development financiers and industrialists, naturally enough, must first consider profits; engineers must consider kilowatts, technical details, location and structures. It is the primary duty of the members of this house to be concerned about the welfare of the people as a whole, and to see that these developments are carried on for their greater benefit, and to their advantage.
My fourth suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is that the Columbia river basin is rich in history and rich in possibilities for the taking of an excellent documentary film by the national film board. I believe if democracy is to function satisfactorily people must be involved in the administration of their own affairs. I believe further that governments of all kinds should do more to inform the people about the development of the country. Dry official reports and scanty newspaper articles are not sufficient. In my opinion all educational authorities should co-operate to present the facts concerning Canada in such a form as to stimulate interest, understanding, and pride in national, provincial, regional and local developments. I think that the national film board could make a great contribution towards arousing the interest of the youth of our country by undertaking a documentary film covering the development of the Columbia river basin. I offer that as a positive suggestion towards offsetting the forces of fascism and communism about which many people in Canada are concerned at this time, because I do not believe those forces can be overcome by verbal blasts or merely talking about them. I believe they are going to be overcome by interesting the people, and particularly the young people of the country,

in the co-operative development of the resources of the nation by federal, provincial and municipal governments.
I have endeavoured in the time available to present to the house some information concerning the Canadian portion of the Columbia river basin, and I have endeavoured to advance certain suggestions. I trust that many members of the house, and the government, will give serious consideration to my proposals. In my opinion a solution cannot be found to our problems by merely emphasizing our rights, but I do believe that we can achieve great things in the development of this basin if all the interests concerned, federal, provincial, municipal, corporate, cooperative, and private, are willing to accept their full share of responsibility. What an opportunity the development of the Columbia river basin, almost unknown to the majority of the Canadian people, offers for the democratic meshing of all these interests.
The residents of the Columbia river basin do not intend to be silent spectators in the coming drama of development but understanding and active members of the cast playing their parts with purpose, and in harmony, to the benefit of all, and to the benefit of Canada.
Right Hon. J, G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):	Mr. Speaker, it will be four
weeks tomorrow since the house opened, and it is almost four weeks since the address in reply to the speech from the throne was moved. I want to take your minus uack to that time, and express my appreciation of the addresses made by the mover and seconder on that occasion, and also express appreciation of the very effective manner in which the new leaders who have taken their places in the house presented their opinions on that occasion.
The discussion which is before us at the present moment is based upon the amendment to the amendment which was moved by the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell). I wish to read that amendment in order to bring its context back to the memory of the members of the house. On page 95 of Hansard I find the following:
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) I move:
"That the following words be Inserted in the amendment between the word 'address' and the word 'we': We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provisions for the orderly marketing of our natural products, and for their exchange for goods needed in Canada, and for the elimination of speculation in foodstuffs.
We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for national health insurance."
I do not intend to say anything this afternoon about the latter part of the amendment
The Address-Mr. Gardiner to the amendment, but I take for granted that the first part of the amendment to the amendment has to do with policies associated with the marketing of natural products, and in particular the products of the farm. For that reason it is my intention to deal with the subject for some little time in the hope that I can remove some of the misunderstandings that we appear to have with regard to our present position in relation to trade.
Six years of war have intervened between now and the time when a very important action took place which has come back into effect since the war, and which many of us appear to have forgotten. The trade of Great Britain during the century preceding the present one was built up under a policy of free trade. I do not think I am stating something which is not fully understood on all sides of the house when I say that policy was advocated by what came to be known as the leaders of liberalism in those islands. The policy of free trade was continued until 1932, and there are some reasons why it was changed at that time.
Before going on to speak of those changes, it is a matter of record that although Liberal leaders in Great Britain first advocated policies of free trade, those policies later were taken up by the leaders of the opposition party, known as the union party, and advocated as persistently and consistently by that party as by the Liberal party. But in the early twenties a group came into being in Britain who did not believe in those policies. As a result of the experiences Britain and other countries had undergone during the war through which the nations of the world had just passed, they thought a great deal more could be accomplished by controls, by agreements and by quotas than through free trade. They were able to press their arguments with such force that two elections were contested in Britain within a period of about eighteen months. One was held in late 1929 or early 1930 and the other in 1931, and after the second election the representation was such that it became necessary to form a coalition government composed of Conservatives, Labour members and Liberals. The Liberals who entered that government undertook in due course to forget the policies they had advocated for a hundred years, and agreed that for the time being some other action was required in order to build up the trade of Great Britain and balance her position as compared with that of other nations.
They did not take that action without considerable pressure, much of which came from Canada and Australia. As a matter of fact I believe four of the great dominions of the British commonwealth undertook to see to it
778

The Address-Mr. Gardiner that the policies of Great Britain were entirely changed so that we should have a very wide preference in the British market. Those who were pressing for this change made one or two appearances in Britain during the period I have mentioned, when those two elections were held; and after returning from the first visit the then Prime Minister of Canada, the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, impressed on this house the thought that there were no longer any free markets in the world. He went so far as to say that it was very difficult to find markets at all, and that it was becoming more and more difficult to trade even with one another and maintain our prosperity. As a matter of fact he said that "where there were markets thirty years before there were no markets now and that where there were markets even ten years before there were no markets now."
Not only was that said by the leader of the government of that day; it was taken up also by the then leader of the C.C.F. party, Mr. Woodsworth, who agreed with Mr. Bennett. In fact Mr. Woodsworth thought Mr. Bennett had not gone far enough, and said there were no markets to be found anywhere. Well, certain policies were built upon those ideas which prevailed not only in this country but also to some extent across the seas, and I have here the legislation passed by this house on that occasion, which by the way is still in existence. Before reading from it, however, I want to read just one sentence from an article which was prepared by Mr. Bennett, dated December 2, 1930, replying to a statement made by Mr. Thomas in Great Britain, who said the policy being advocated by Canada and Australia and some other countries was humbug. Replying to that statement Mr. Bennett said:
I have declared on several occasions my willingness to favourably consider a quota system as a competitive method to that of tariffs for securing a preferred position for empire wheat in the United Kingdom.
Then in 1932 this house adopted legislation known as:
An Act respecting a certain trade agreement between His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom.
Article 1 in the schedule to that act reads: His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom undertake that orders shall be made in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, which will ensure the continuance after the 15th November, 1932, of entry free of duty into the United Kingdom of goods consigned from any part of the British empire and grown, produced or manufactured in Canada which by virtue of that act are now free of duty subject, however, to the reservations set forth in schedule A appended hereto.
Schedule A provides:
As regards eggs, poultry, butter, cheese and other milk products, free entry for Canadian produce will
(Mr. Gardiner.]
be continued for three years certain. His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, however, reserve to themselves the right, after the expiration of three years, if they consider it necessary in the interests of the United Kingdom producer to do so, to review the basis of preference so far as relates to the articles above enumerated and, after notifying His Majesty's government in Canada either to impose a preferential duty on Canadian produce whilst maintaining preferential margins, or-
This is the important part.
-in consultation with the Canadian government to bring such produce within any system which may be put into operation for the quantitative regulation of supplies from all sources in the United Kingdom market.
In that regard I want to call attention to the fact that in the first place the government of Canada insisted on having the free market in Great Britain for food products and some other items brought to an end, and then insisted on certain preferences for our own products in that market. In return for obtaining consideration in that market they agreed that it was quite right and proper for the British government to quota the imports coming to that market from any country in the world, including the countries of the commonwealth.
Let us examine for a moment what that meant. My first experience with that provision was in 1936. When I came to Ottawa as Minister of Agriculture I thought my main task in a federal government would be to promote the marketing of farm products, at the same time promoting their production in order that we might take advantage of the greatest possible share of the markets of the world that were available to us at that time.
I went to Britain in 1936 as part of the delegation that was going to deal with the provisions in that act. At the time when the British government was empowered by the act of 1932 to substitute quotas for tariffs as suggested by the late Mr. Bennett in 1930 and to apply them to the different countries which supplied their food, they took as the basis the quantity which we had sent into that market in 1935. They said that what Poland sent in 1935 should be the basis of consideration for that country; that what Denmark had sent in 1935 should be the basis of consideration in so far as that country was concerned; and that what Canada had sent in 1935 should likewise be the basis upon which our quantities were to be established.
If the operation had taken place exactly as planned, it would have resulted in our taking certain quantities in connection with bacon. The quantity which was discussed at great length was 160 million pounds, that being the quantity they understood we could produce because of what we produced in the preceding year. Then they said, "Why, you only sent over between six and seven thousand head

of cattle in the preceding year." When we spoke of a number approximating 60,000 head, we were unable to get them to write that figure into the quota.
The same condition existed in connection with our cheese. The quantity of cheese we had been sending over was very much less than we had sent over around the beginning of the century. We had hopes of increasing our cheese production. When we went to Britain to set down the quota in connection with cheese, we were unable to obtain quantities greater than those I have been mentioning to the house. This took place in 1936. Finally, we did succeed in having the British government give us an undertaking they would not check us further until we reached 280 million pounds of bacon; that they would not check us further until we got up to approximately 60,000 head of cattle, nor would they check us further with regard to our cheese production until we had reached 60 million pounds. The British government insisted, however, upon a very definite understanding that this food would be forthcoming. It was said that since they had given away opportunities of obtaining their food in a free market at the cheapest possible price, and since Britain had only 7 per cent of her population engaged in farming, the British government must be in the position of being assured of the quantities of food that would be forthcoming from the different countries of the world. We, being a federation, were unable to give that assurance.
As a new country, we offered this argument: We said that was all very well for some of the old world countries whose farm lands were fully occupied and who were producing to the limit. We said a new country such as Canada must have an opportunity of expanding, that tying us down to quotas of that sort would not give us that opportunity. In the years between that year and the war, we were successful in increasing our production considerably and thus placing much greater quantities of meat and dairy products upon the British market than in 1935. We had almost reached a point in that connection when further checks might have been made had war not broken out, but war came.
When the war came we transferred over from a policy of quotas established by agreement from year to year between governments to a policy of entering into a bilateral agreement to deliver to Britain certain quantities of food. I submit to this house, Mr. Speaker, there is not very much difference in principle between the two. There is not very much difference between being required to go to London every year and work out the amount of our quota, and sitting down from year to
29087-50J
The Address-Mr. Gardiner year and making a bilateral agreement such as we made during the war years.
I cite these facts, Mr. Speaker, in order to place in the minds of the members of this house the fact that some people who are very critical today of quotas, and very critical of bilateral contracts, were responsible for the creation of the conditions under which we have been working from 1932 to the present. In 1940, the first year of the war, this question came up when we were in Britain. I was there representing the agricultural people of this country and insisting that we had already produced over 300 million pounds of bacon in surplus in one year. I felt we could deliver to Britain over 400 million pounds of bacon in a year. I was told by the British government we had to accept one of two things: Either we could sell Britain 380 million pounds of bacon at the same price as we obtained the year before or we could sell that country 445 million pounds of bacon for the same amount of money; in other words, at a lower- price per unit. In order to keep our product in the market we sold it at the lower price which reauired a reduction in the price of bacon going to Britain, as I remember it, of approximately 11 shillings as compared with the price obtained the preceding year.
There is another fact I think we ought to remember at this time in connection with this matter. While our price was lower for the second year, our price for the preceding year had been higher than the United States price for hogs by from three to five cents a pound. I, as well as others, considered the British were quite justified in coming back the second year and requesting the product from Canada at a lower price in view of the fact that the cost of feed had gone down very materially because we had no market for our grain at that time. This lack of markets for grain was caused by the war.
To come back to the point I was making, the question came up as to whether we would prefer a better price for our bacon than was being offered or whether we would prefer to have a long-time agreement which would carry on for some years after the war. I suggested that, if anyone was prepared to discuss that question with us, we were prepared to discuss it. The discussion stopped right there. The next day we were told that the 1932 agreements and the quotas arranged in 1936-37-those quotas applied to the European countries and the commonwealth countries-would come back into force after the war. We would have to be prepared and the other countries would have to be prepared to meet a situation which would be created by the fact we had changed our policies in relation to trade, not only throughout the
780	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gardiner empire but throughout the world, by means of what took place between 1932 and 1936-37. It was clearly indicated we should be prepared, therefore, when the war was over, to meet a situation which had been created by the agreements made in former years.
Someone may say, but you have had a Liberal government since 1935 and you have not done away with that legislation. The question is obvious and the answer is just as obvious. There is not a free market in Britain as there was prior to 1932. There is not any free market because a protective market was forced upon the people of that country to a degree, or they were argued into it by their own leaders both in the economic field and in politics. Those new leaders convinced them of the effectiveness of new theories. Since that time, as every hon. member knows, the old Liberal idea of basing your prosperity upon trade has not held the same place in Great Britain or anywhere else that it held prior to the making of the 1932 agreements. If there have been any difficulties which have arisen as a result of the change, these difficulties no doubt have been brought about by the fact that there has been a change from free trade to preferences. The benefits of free trade cannot be re-established except by the British.
May I point out just for a moment what that means to us now? When we met to discuss the possible marketing of farm products in Great Britain from the time the turn came in the war in 1943 and 1944 down to the end, on every occasion, no matter what government was in power in Britain, the fact that was emphasized was that we were getting back nearer and nearer to the position where it would be necessary for us to come under these old arrangements which had been made previously, and therefore we had better start to govern ourselves accordingly. We did govern ourselves accordingly. We took 10,000,000 acres of land out of wheat production in this country in the early part of the war. We put that land into the production of livestock and livestock products. In the last two years of the war, and in the year immediately following the war, we put the greater part of those 10,000,000 acres back into wheat and we took the grain for human consumption rather than for the production of livestock. Therefore, we have changed over twice since the beginning of the war; first from the production of wheat into the production of livestock, and then back from the production of livestock into the production of wheat.
There are one or two questions which have been discussed in this debate, one by the new member from Nova Scotia. He comes from a constituency which is more concerned about it than any other constituency in Canada with


one possible exception. I refer to the question having to do with apples. Let me take you back to the discussions which took place while this legislation was going through the house. What was the statement that was made at that time? The statement was that if you had the 10 per cent preference in the British market for Canadian apples over all other apples you would get $1 a barrel more for your apples in Nova Scotia. On that occasion the leader of the house rose in his place and pointed his finger at our grand old friend who is now in the other place-Admiral Duff. He said to him, "Are you going to vote against a piece of legislation which promises your people down in Nova Scotia $1 a barrel more for their apples and more for their fish?" I do not know what our friend said under his breath, but what he said in the house as printed in Hansard was, "It won't mean a cent to us." And when we look back at it now we wonder who was right, the man who said that by following a policy of that kind you would get $1 a barrel more for your apples or the man who said that you would not get a cent as a result of that policy. In other words, knowing him as I do know him, I would conclude that the admiral thought' much farther ahead than that, and agreed that we would lose a great deal by it. Well, what did happen?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The war came.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says, "The war came." Well, a lot of things happened before the war came. As a matter of fact what happened over in Britain was that because of the higher price which they could obtain for apples by having the 10 per cent duty on them they planted more trees than there are in British Columbia and Nova Scotia put together. When you go to Britain now you can get apples off these trees. These trees started to produce in the middle of the war, and they are producing now. When I was over there the last time I do not recall sitting down to a single table where I could not get applesauce.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not a spoonful of that, Mr. Speaker, came from the Annapolis valley or the Okanagan valley.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It came from European countries.


James Garfield Gardiner: The greater part of it came from trees which were planted in Britain itself, and these apples are grown there because of the line of policy which was followed back in the years of which I speak.
I wanted to say that much with regard to the policy itself in order to suggest to my hon. friends that it is not just as simple a thing

as some people think. When we start to talk not only to European countries but to Britain about the benefits of trade they point out to us very readily that the old plans which they had followed for many years have been done away with as a result of some things which more or less had been forced upon them in the thirties, and which have continued ever since in spite of anything this government could do.
In reading the speech which was delivered the other day by the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) in support of his amendment, I was surprised to find this in it, as reported at page 93 of Hansard:
Before the war Canada was in a happy position. We were able to sell commodities in the British market and elsewhere and to receive payment in funds that we could use in order to purchase goods in the United States or anywhere else. As we all know, the liquidation of British overseas investments during the war, and the impoverishment of other one-time customers of our country, have made it impossible for us to continue trading on this basis . . .
I have sat in this house now, Mr. Speaker, along with the leader of the C.C.F. party, for fourteen sessions, I think, and I have not listened to him in a single session without hearing him telling us about the terrible conditions we had in Canada in the thirties just before the war, and appealing to the people of this country to support the C.C.F. party and socialism in order to avoid getting back into the condition that we had in the thirties. In this speech he told us what fine conditions we had prior to the war, what a very favourable position we had. My hon. friends shake their heads. Apparently they do not fully understand the English language, and I shall read it to them again. Here is what he said:
Before the war Canada was in a happy position. We were able to sell commodities in the British market and elsewhere and to receive payment in funds that we could use in order to purchase goods in the United States or anywhere else.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: He was speaking about exchange.


James Garfield Gardiner: We were able to get funds for the few commodities that we could sell, but we were able to sell only a fraction of what we were able to produce in surplus at that time; therefore we were all suffering because of the conditions then existing. It was not because of exchange. When you have an exchange that is favourable you can sell, somewhere in the world at some favourable price, all the commodities that you can produce; but when you cannot sell the commodities that you produce at a price which will make production possible, or the cost of production possible, then you have not favourable exchange conditions, no matter what you might think about it.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner
This matter of exchange is sometimes taken a little too seriously. Dollars are only a medium of exchange, and should only be utilized as a medium of exchange. When they are utilized as a medium of exchange, and your conditions are as good as they were described here, then you can sell all the commodities that you produce for the commodities you desire to get from other countries.
I wanted to say that in order to call attention to the fact that conditions back before the war were not good. We did not have the kind of markets which we had hoped to have. We were not in as good a position as we had been in during the years prior to the doing away with the conditions of a free market in Great Britain, and we were all suffering as a result of it. But in spite of that fact, because we had in power a party which believes in trade-and, I might say, up until very recently the only party in the House of Commons, the only national party in this country, that believed in trade as a means of bringing about prosperity-we did increase our trade in the late thirties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I suppose in order to convince my hon. friends I shall have to read them something from their leaders at the time. But I do not need to read it; I quoted it a few moments ago. One leader said in the house in 1935, "No free markets in the world; no markets in the world"; and the other leader gets up in the house and says that he agrees with him that that was the wisest thing he ever said in the House of Commons-that there are not any markets in the world.


William Earl Rowe: Free.


James Garfield Gardiner: He said both. He said both free and otherwise.


William Earl Rowe: You are taking advantage of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: We came into office in 1935, just after those two speeches were made. And what happened?


William Earl Rowe: Lost them all.


James Garfield Gardiner: We increased by 50 per cent the trade of this country in the four years preceding the war. Not only did we increase it by 50 per cent, but we cut down unemployment greatly by the fact that we did bring about increased trade.
And now, as we look back over it, what do we find? We find, I say, that no country has prosperity without trade. This country was able greatly to increase its trade during the war-not in a way which was altogether helpful; nevertheless we did increase our trade, and from the economic point of view it was most helpful.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
I should like to point out what happened in the period about which I have been speaking. During the war our exports rose from $929 million to $3,449 million. Our imports rose from $751 million to $1,760 million; and our trade from $1,675 million to $4,200 million.


An hon. Member:: War materials.
'.Mr. Gardiner: What I wish to say about that, in reply to the hon. member over here who interrupted-yes, it was war materials; yes, it was farm products, increased by some 40 per cent in quantity over what they had been previously. Those war materials, those agricultural products brought a sufficient amount of wealth to this country, in the form of dollars, to permit of our being able to buy many of the things which in the years preceding the war we had not been able to buy at all-and to buy them even at increased cost.
So anxious were we to buy, and so able were we to buy, that we had to have restrictions placed upon the importation of goods into this country. We had to have restrictions placed upon what men could buy, in order that we could ship out quantities of these materials which were so necessary for the prosecution of the war.


An hon. Member:: We were giving it away.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let us see what happened.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: You did not get
rid of all your apple sauce, did you?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have pointed out that we improved our trade position under a Liberal government before the war, and that we improved our trade position under a Liberal government during the war. What about the condition since the war?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: All due to the war.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says .it is all due to the war. Our trade has leveled out in peace.


An hon. Member:: You started it.


James Garfield Gardiner: We did not start the war. Liberalism was brought into the world for the purpose of making war impossible. And if liberalism were established in every country of the world there would not be any war. Why would there not be? Liberalism exists for the purpose of encouraging greater and greater production of the necessities of life, and freer and freer exchange.
I say that if people could get all the food they require, all the clothing they require, and all the shelter they require without fighting for it, there would not be any war in the world. But when you find policies such as

those brought into effect in 1932, the world over, when leaders of almost every nation in the world started to shout that they must provide themselves with all the necessities of life, within their own boundaries-then, of course, in those conditions, you get war. Of course you get war under a policy of national self-sufficiency. That is the antithesis of liberalism.
When this country found itself with a Liberal government in power at the beginning of the last war, we immediately went to the country. We asked this question: "Do you want a government which does not believe in war to direct its activities during war?" I remember my hon. friends sitting across the floor of the house saying, "You have a leader who has been a man of peace. He has been known as a man of peace. A man of peace cannot run a war". I was sitting back here, in a seat behind the one in which I now sit, and to my right. I rose on that occasion and said something that I shall repeat today:	"Mr. Speaker, in a country
like this, where we all believe in peace, the kind of leader we require in wartime, in order to lead our people as they ought to be led, is a leader who does not believe in war. And the one party in which you can get a man of that type is the Liberal party, and that man is the leader of the Liberal party".
I do not go as far, however, as some of our friends who sit on the other side of the house, in suggesting that even if war had been forced upon us we should not fight at all. Our leader said that we should get out and fight it.
Then, when the war was over, what did they do? They said, "You have had the best wartime leader this country has ever had." So, under a man who could be the best peacetime leader and the best wartime leader, things were prosperous in the country as a result of his activities.
Since the war was over, what has happened? Our trade has levelled out in peace. Our exports in 1947 were valued at $2-8 billion, or three times as much as they were in 1939. Our imports in 1947 were $2-6 billion, or a little more than three times what they were in 1939. Our total trade in 1947 was $5-4 billion, or $1-2 billion higher than it was in the middle of the war when we had all these wartime products about which the hon. member has spoken.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: To what extent were
increased prices responsible for that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Increased prices would be responsible for some of it. But I think the people of this country learned back in 1930 that it was better to have a government that

could keep prices up than to have one that put them down.
The other night the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) said that in the last two and a quarter years, since the wheat agreement has been signed with Great Britain, the farmers had lost $2 billion. He said that we had lost about $540 million on wheat sold to the British government. Then he went on to argue that, because of wheat prices being low, the prices of other farm commodities were low, too; and that because we had lost $540 million on wheat we had lost $2 billion on all farm products in Canada.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Since 1942.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says it is true.


James Arthur Ross: Since 1942.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has said it is true.


William Earl Rowe: No, he did not; he said, "Since 1942."


James Garfield Gardiner: We did not have a wheat agreement in 1942.


William Earl Rowe: He said 1942.


James Garfield Gardiner: Our wheat agreement was made in 1946.


James Arthur Ross: I do not think the minister should put words in my mouth. I said, "Since 1942." This government took over the entire control of wheat in Canada in 1943.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the minister that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


William Earl Rowe: The minister was sticking closer to the facts before his time was up.


James Garfield Gardiner: I stick close to the facts all the time. There is nothing harder for a Tory to take than good old Liberal facts. Let us take a look at these agricultural figures. It does not make any difference whether we take 1942, 1946 or any other year, they are better now than they ever were before. In 1926-29 under a Liberal government-


An hon. Member:: Away back there?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will get up to the present soon enough for some people. In 1926-29 the average gross income of farmers was $970-5 million. That was the highest average we had ever had up to that time.


James Arthur Ross: Is that the gross?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. That was the highest average we ever had until we got a Liberal government back in again. In 1931-35 the average was $450 million.


An hon. Member:: Shame.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner


James Garfield Gardiner: In 1931-35 it was less than half the $970 million; it was about $450 million. In 1936-40 it was up 50 per cent on an annual average, when it reached $675 million, from the average level in the preceding five years.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Is it not a fact that in 1937 under the Liberal administration there were approximately 1,000,000 people on relief?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the exact figures for 1937 but I will call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that we had been in power only for one year.


An hon. Member:: Two years.


James Garfield Gardiner: We came in in October, 1935 and of course we had not got things back in quite as good shape in fourteen months as we were able to do a little later. But we did get unemployment down. In 1941-45 the average annual gross cash farm income was $1,400 million. My hon. friends will say that that was during the war, but since the war, in 1946-48, the average was $2,270 million. In other words, back in 1942 it was $1,400 million and in 1946-48 it averaged $2,270 million. In 1948 it is $2,835 million, twice what it was in 1942. Is my hon. friend the member for Souris going to say that by increasing the gross returns from farm products from $1,400 million to $2,800 million the farmer has lost by that process?


James Arthur Ross: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: He has been making more money than he ever made before. Let us look at the net income. The net income rose from a low of $387 million in 1938 to a high of $1,226 million in 1944 during the war and $1,742 million in 1948. Five hundred million of that was due to the fact that there have been increases in farm returns, and a greater part of the $500 million is due to the fact that we had the British-Canadian wheat agreements and made a twenty-cent payment on crops during that year which went into the pockets of many farmers at a time when they needed it more than at any other time. The remainder went into the pockets of farmers across Canada.
I do not think a policy of that kind is bad for the farmer. There is one other thing I I want to say. It is with reference to a statement made last night by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). The leader of the opposition called attention to certain figures in an effort to prove that this government is centralizing control.


An hon. Member:: He did prove it.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend says "he did prove it". In that regard may I call this to your attention. I have sat here for four

The Address-Mr. Gardiner weeks. I rose to my feet on one previous occasion but for the remainder of the time I have been listening. In all the listening that I have been able to do I have not heard a single member of the Progressive Conservative party, and more particularly the leader of the opposition, get up on the floor of this house and quote one single Conservative in the whole history of the Dominion of Canada who ever favoured provincial rights.
Not only have they not been able to quote any member of the Conservative party who has favoured provincial rights, they have been continuously quoting leaders of the Liberal party who have favoured provincial rights. When anyone on this side of the house wanted to quote anyone who was against provincial rights he had to quote one of the leaders of the Conservative party. As a matter of fact, the leader of the opposition has not even been able to quote himself in the past.


Mr. Casselman:: Contentious matters by courtesy of overtime.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have given the same courtesy to everyone over there. I am taking full advantage of the courtesy, it is true.


Arza Clair Casselman: Time.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: Reference was made by the leader of the opposition to the agricultural legislation that is before the house. I am not going to discuss that now because I would be out of order just as the leader of the opposition was out of order in discussing it, since it is a matter already before the house. When that is being dealt with I am going to read to the house the act governing natural products marketing which the leader of the opposition passed when he was in Toronto. Every provision that we have in our act he had in the act that he passed there.
The other afternoon the leader of the opposition went on to state that in 1939 the dominion government collected $468 million in taxes, the provincial governments collected $172 million, and the municipal governments $274 million. He then went on to say: The dominion government collected 51-2 per cent of all taxes, provincial governments collected 18-8 per cent, and municipal governments collected 30 per cent.
Then he went on to say that that, condition had changed, that the federal government is now collecting the taxes. I recall to the memory of the house the fact that when the leader of the opposition was speaking during the first part of this debate he called attention to a statement that had been made by the former Prime Minister, the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King), who 
had once said that the authority who spends the money ought to collect it.


An hon. Member:: Correct.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that is right. The leader of the opposition went on to state that the dominion government collected $2,452 million; the provincial governments, $398 million; and the municipal governments, $346 million. Then he goes on to say that the dominion government collected 76-7 per cent of the taxes, the provincial governments collected 12-5 per cent of the taxes, and the municipal governments collected 10-8 per cent of the taxes. If he had just left it at that we might have been misled by it, but he had not yet made his argument, Mr. Speaker. The argument he wanted to make, the argument he wanted to ring in, was that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had made a statement the other day which, under the circumstances that he was quoting, was a criticism of the Minister of Finance of that day. He said that, in spite of all that had been said, instead of a lesser sum $240 million is being paid by the federal government to the provincial governments; but if you take the $240 million you will find that it is 10 per cent of all the money he was talking about that had been collected by the federal treasury. If you add the 10 per cent to the 12-5 per cent it brings you up to over 20 per cent that is being expended by the provinces. In other words, instead of collecting 18 per cent and spending 18 per cent of all the money collected they were getting over 20 per cent of all the money collected, $240 million of it being handed to them by the federal authorities.
I do not understand the argument of my hon. friend when he says that is centralizing control. That is not centralizing control.


William Earl Rowe: Centralizing taxation.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is centralizing criticism. When my hon. friend stands up in the house and says that the income tax is too high-


An hon. Member:: Isn't it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Out in my province I know why it is too high. I used to be provincial treasurer of that province. When I was provincial treasurer we had an income tax and we collected it. The federal government had an income tax and our rate was the same as theirs. Therefore we collected the same amount of money through our income tax as they collected through theirs. What I want to say to my C.C.F. friends when they talk about the income tax being too high is that the quickest way for us to reduce what we collect is to turn back to Saskatchewan the responsibility for collecting their own income

tax, and then we will only be collecting half as much. That is where a large part of the money came from with which to pay Saskatchewan's share of the $240 million that is being talked about.
Under the system that is being followed now it is ti-ue that we centralize criticism upon the federal government, but when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) gets up and says that is centralizing government in Canada, I say to him that what we are actually doing is allowing the provincial governments to spend enough money to make themselves popular and keep themselves in power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that the minister would wish to be corrected in an error he has made. What I pointed out was that if all the provinces had been taking payment they would be receiving $240 million; but neither Ontario nor Quebec, which won very satisfactory elections last year, is drawing any money from the dominion government.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was not any way of my finding that out from what was said yesterday, because it is not in here. Whether he said all the provinces or whether he said seven of the provinces-


Douglas Charles Abbott: He said seven.


James Garfield Gardiner: -what he does say is that $240 million was paid out of money collected by the federal government. On that basis every argument I have used is sound, no matter whether it went to seven or to nine provinces. That is all I want to say with regard to my friends of the official opposition.
There is one further statement to which I want to call attention. It was made by the leader of the C.C.F. party. I repeat that I have been in this house for fourteen sessions, and I have heard this statement made so often that I think it should be corrected. It is to be found at page SO of Hansard. The leader of the C.C.F. party says:
I have lived in western Canada long enough to remember the vicious campaign which was carried on in my province in 1929, 1930 and 1935, largely in the interests of my hon. friends of the Conservative party who sit to my immediate right. I remember how people were persuaded to go into post offices to ask for bilingual money order applications, envelopes and so on, to send down to Ottawa, protesting against the printing being in both French and English.
I call attention to the fact that reference was made to the part taken in that campaign by the Conservative party of that day. What I want to say is that I was the individual who was on the other end of the campaign, and
The Address-Mr. Gardiner 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.


An hon. Member:: Thank God.


James Garfield Gardiner: 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, one of 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 had 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". He came back inside of half an hour and said: "There is no use talking to him because he is supporting Anderson". 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. At that time we fought battles on behalf of minorities. The Liberal party has always fought the battles of minorities. I venture to say there is not another party in Canada that can maintain that all the way through the picture they have stood for the rights of minorities. The Liberal party is the party of provincial rights. The Liberal party is the party of minority rights. I think my hon. friend missed my remark a while ago. He cannot even quote himself, from anything said previous to a few months ago, in support of provincial rights.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner


Gordon Graydon: That is not what you said before.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I would not include this last month, because at every opportunity he has got up and shouted provincial rights. I am trying to tell you that your party never stood for provincial rights. The Liberal party is still the provincial rights party; and if the people of Canada repeat the mistake they made on two previous occasions and listen to that kind of appeal they will get the same results they got before, and at the end of five years we will come back again with a larger majority than ever. But the people of Canada are not going to do that. They made that mistake twice, and that is enough; and whether the election is held on the 31st day of June or at any other time it will be held,
I am sure this government will come back to power.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I wonder if the minister would permit a question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: This is not meant to be facetious, but in view of the statement the minister made in the house two or three weeks ago, that when the throne speech debate came along he would make a statement to the house in regard to what he accomplished in Great Britain, I wonder if he could not say something today about the future of our markets for agricultural products, in view of these Polish and Danish agreements.


James Garfield Gardiner: I could still speak on the main motion. I do not know that I will, but there will be a discussion of that question as we go along. I mentioned it today. I pointed out to this house that because of the 1932 agreement the Polish and Danish agreements still stand. Those people were given quotas under that agreement, and as soon as they can fill those quotas Britain will accept the food. We are in our present difficult position because of the 1932 agreement, which provided for quotas. Our bacon quota, as indicated at that time, was 160,000,000 pounds, and that is what is in our agreement now. Our quota at that time was about 60,000,000 pounds of cheese, and it is 50,000,000 pounds in the agreement today. If we had permitted such a quota to be written in at that time we would have had a market for about six thousand head of cattle, but we do not have cattle in the agreement at the present time. We are sending our cattle to the United States; and incidentally I point out to some of my hon. friends that we are not getting as much for our cattle now as we were before we opened that market.


Mr. C. C. Miller (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, it is always refreshing to listen to a speech by the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). That is so particularly this session, because the two occasions on which the right hon. gentleman has made speeches have been the only occasions on which hon. members opposite have had a chance to do any drum-beating.
When the right hon. gentleman started reading from some of the statutes enacted in previous parliaments by previous governments I wondered what it was all leading up to. It seemed to me he was trying to lay the foundation for charging sins of commission or omission to some other government in order to explain away the failure of the present administration to accomplish what they had always promised they would do. He tells us that they inherited a system of quotas which to some extent handicapped them in their negotiations. Perhaps that is so. The minister tried also to suggest to this house that there was no difference between a quota arrangement and an agreement. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this house that the difference between these two arrangements is that under a quota system it is a matter of voluntary deliveries, while under an agreement of necessity there must be compulsory deliveries on the part of the farmers.
Not only did the minister do a bit of drumbeating; he also indicated that possibly in the not too distant future the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) might be called upon to cross the floor and become head of the government of this country, as happened in 1930. We all recall that in its first session the Bennett administration was condemned for all the ills which were created at that time by a world-wide financial collapse, which took place in 1929 and 1930 while the Liberal administration was in power. Apparently the government at that time was glad to let the Conservative party take over, pick up the scattered threads and shattered business and try to get the country back into shape before the Liberals again were fortunate enough to take office and, through the recuperative measures taken by the Bennett administration, enjoy some of the prosperity about which the minister has been speaking. That is not the point, however, Mr. Speaker. What alarms me is that by inference the minister today has hinted to this house and to the country that we are in the same relative position as in those disastrous years of 1929 and 1930; and I presume he is warning this house and the country that before too long this

party agairt may be called to come to the rescue of Canada and take up the burden of office.
Before going further I should like to humbly join with other hon. members who have congratulated the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I always watch with a great deal of interest, as I am sure all hon. members do, the first efforts of an hon. member who moves or seconds the address. In this instance I believe the hon. member who seconded the address was making his maiden effort in the house and, as I have done on previous occasions, I want particularly to congratulate him. I should like to join also in the courtesies that have been extended to the new members, and to welcome them to their seats in this house. At the same time I want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the leader of the opposition upon their elevation to places not only of great honour but also of great responsibility in connection with the affairs of this country.
In the course of my remarks I intend to refer to several items, not only one. The first item to which I want to refer is the matter of the Trans-Canada highway. I suggest there is nothing much more urgent to this country and its people than the construction of such a highway; and I am fearful lest the immediate commencement of that project may get bogged down in dealings between provinces and municipalities as to who shall pay the cost. It seems to me that for the purpose of defence alone a highway from one end of this country to the other should be a matter of great concern to this government, particularly to the Department of National Defence. I know there are certain negotiations taking place between the governments of the various provinces and this government at the present moment. It is alarming, however, to see press reports to the effect that no assurance has been given by this government to any of the provinces that the dominion government is seized with the importance of proceeding with that construction immediately.
The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. MacKinnon) has suggested that probably the dominion government would be willing to pay up to 50 per cent of the cost of the highway. We have not time to haggle about who is going to pay for this road. It has to be built, if only for the sake of the defence of this country, as I said a moment ago. Today a vast amount of army equipment is mechanized and must move across this country by roads. I suggest to the government that, when negotiations take place relative to the Trans-Canada highway, they should not be negotiations between this government and the provinces, but that this government should first
The Address-Mr. Miller establish a highways commission. The highways commission, backed by this government, would then pick the route for the Trans-Canada highway.


Mr. Martin:: What about consultation with the provinces?


Calvert Charlton Miller: You could have consultation with the provinces. I would say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that if the government proceed with the negotiations with the provinces in the manner they are now doing, instead of through a highways commission as I suggest, they will find that the province of Manitoba, for instance, may want the road to take a northern route, while the province of Saskatchewan may want a southern route. If one province wants the road in the north and another province wants it in the south, you will have a fine system of highways.
As hon. members know, whenever the government undertakes construction of a road, all the municipalities and small districts want the road to go through their part of the country. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) will recall only too well the difficulty into which his Manitoba government got recently in connection with a highway coming up from the United States border to the city of Winnipeg. There was a delay of at least a year because the factions on each side of the Red river pleaded with the government to route the new highway through their respective territories. The same thing is taking place in every province in western Canada today.
Twenty-two years ago, when I was the secretary of the Portage la Prairie board of trade, plans were made to build a road from north to south through central Manitoba. It has not been built yet. I say that is what will happen to the Trans-Canada highway. Every municipality wants the road to go through its part of the country; every little town wants it to go through its thoroughfare. The city of Portage la Prairie is just as bad as the others, because we want the Trans-Canada highway to go through the city of Portage la Prairie. If this situation prevails, it will take years for the Trans-Canada highway to cross Canada. I maintain it is desperately important that construction of that highway commence immediately. The only way in which that can be accomplished is for the dominion government to establish a highways commission to choose a route for the highway.


An hon. Member:: Is that not centralization and bureaucracy?
788	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Miller


William Earl Rowe: If it is, you ought to be able to do it.


Calvert Charlton Miller: There is a right way and a wrong way of doing everything. There is a right way and a wrong way of doing what I am suggesting. You can do it by bureaucracy if you like, but the important thing at the moment is that this government make up its mind to do something.
There are other reasons why the Trans-Canada highway is important. I want to emphasize one of those reasons, and that is that there is no excuse for making Canadians who wish to cross Canada from east to west go through the United States in order to do so. As Canadians we are entitled to a Canadian road, and I maintain it is the duty of this government to see that we have it. My final reason for requesting the immediate construction of the Trans-Canada highway is that it would be of great help to the tourist industry, which brings thousands of people and thousands of United States dollars to this country.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.
Calvert Charlton Miller: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess at six o'clock I had just finished my remarks with respect to the Trans-Canada highway. It is my hope and my wish that the government will proceed with their plans to complete that highway as expeditiously as I finished my remarks.
I now wish to say something about education. I am not unmindful of the fact that under section 93 of the British North America Act education comes exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, but I wish to point out to the government a situation with has arisen in many of the school districts of this country and particularly in western Canada. Many of the school districts now find themselves faced with the problem of old-fashioned, out-of-date, unhealthy, unsafe schools at a time when not only are materials hard to get to reconstruct the schools but also the financial ability to do so is scarcely within the limits of the municipalities or the towns or cities. This was brought forcibly to my attention recently when an old school in my home city of Portage la Prairie, which was constructed in the early eighties, was condemned by the architects of the provincial government and by architects brought in by the school board to examine the edifice. It is true that it is an old school, but the problem which faces the school district of Portage la Prairie is to 

The Address-Mr. Miller and so on, in the country. I repeat that to a large extent the present condition is the fault of the government. In my view it would be most dangerous, if not unwise, at the present time to take off rental controls; I should not like to see that done.
Hon. members of the C.C.F. party have made a great play in the debate in urging that we roll back the prices to the 1946 level. They recommend that with the same abandon that they would recommend that we all get together and sing Roll Out the Barrel. But if we consider wdiat that means, we find ourselves getting into some difficulty.
So far as I am concerned, personally, I would support anything in the house that would be the means of bringing down the cost of living, or of seeing that the people who are suffering from the high cost of living would have some relief. But before supporting any such thing I would want to be at least reasonably sure that the remedy suggested is a sound one.
The C.C.F. have made no effort in the house, either in this or in any other debate during the three years I have been here, to show anything to justify their contention that we should roll back the prices to the 1946 level. What would happen? The very day we rolled back the prices to the 1946 level we would find that merchants, large and small, in this country would have terrific stocks of goods on their shelves. Those stocks would be on hand, right from the manufacturers, through the wholesalers and jobbers and down to the retailers. Surely no government, C.C.F. or any other kind-if there ever was a C.C.F. government in Canada-could say that today we are going to tell a man who has on his shelves goods worth $10,000 that tomorrow those same goods would be worth only $5,000 because we are rolling back the prices to the 1946 level, and since that time the price has gone up twice as high.
If the government took that action, without making compensation to the manufacturers, merchants and others, it would certainly ruin all the small merchants and would likely ruin most of the big ones. If the government did not say, "You have to do it without compensation", and were prepared to give compensation, then I suggest no government this country has ever known could ever finance such a colossal scheme as would be involved in giving compensation to merchants, manufacturers and wholesalers for the goods they might have on their shelves. Until that can be explained to us, I will suggest that the Canadian economy cannot stand the process which is involved in the slogan of rolling back the prices to 1946. It would cost a great many millions of dollars, and certainly much more than our economy could stand.

How could we roll back the prices to the 1946 level when our economy is so tightly tied to that of the United States? Are we going to be able to reduce the standard of living in Canada below that of the United States? I suggest our people would not stand for that for one moment. In fact, they took with only the barest of good will-if one could call it good will-the austerity program already in force in Canada today, without any further differentiation between our standard of living and that of people in the United States.
I say this, too, that if the government were to begin to control prices, or to put price controls on again and make them retroactive, or if they were put on today without being made retroactive, it would kill the initiative to produce, and we would have less goods than we ever had. That was the story when controls were on, of necessity, during the war. It meant that we had less and less goods. And, what is more, we had goods of poorer quality as time went on.
If we rolled back the prices to the 1946 level we would create in this country a wave of blackmarketing which would mean that those whom hon. members to my left, the C.C.F., dislike so much, the people with wealth, could go on the black market and get what they wanted, while those of us who are not so fortunate as to have such a good supply of this world's goods would have to take what we could get.
We would have established a black market, and would have perhaps thousands of additional government officers going around the country trying to enforce unenforceable laws. We would have increased payrolls in the dominion government, and an increased civil service, thus offsetting any advantage which, it is urged, we might have if such a course were followed.
What is more, if we were going to control prices, and roll them back to the 1946 level, I suggest that of necessity we would have to have a most rigid control of wages in this country. And I have not heard many C.C.F.'ers-I believe I did hear one of them one day-I have not heard many socialists say they would be willing to have any control of wages. Their argument is that wages are not high enough. You cannot control the prices of things unless you can control those things which go together to make the price. What would happen in the long run is simply this-


Mr. Gillis:: Wages are controlled now, are they not?


Calvert Charlton Miller: What would happen in the long run is this, that we would have labour con-

trol. One thing would lead to the other. One control would make it necessary to protect somebody else, and it would lead in an unmistakable and uncontrollable chain to the complete and absolute control of our entire economy by the government of this country -which I maintain and gather is the whole wish and object of the socialist party sitting to our left.
Before taking his seat, perhaps owing to the promptings of hon. members in other parts of the house, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) waxed-


Mr. Grant:: He does not need promptings.


Calvert Charlton Miller: No, he does not need much. Just wind him up, and he makes a pretty good speech. But I noticed one thing about his speech which I should like to mention. I must say he was no piker. He used an expression which was not comparable with the five cent speech about which we used to hear so much. He talked about the sum of $240 million, which, he suggested, this government was good enough to turn over to the provinces to make sure that those provincial governments might keep their people happy and enable them to stay in power. I think that is quite an admission from a minister of the crown; and it is only coincidental that most of the governments of the provinces in Canada at that time were of the Liberal persuasion.


William Earl Rowe: They paid only half of it, though.


Calvert Charlton Miller: In closing I should like to say a few words about our system of commerce. There are many people nowadays who advocate a change in our commercial system. I am one of those not particularly close to the commercial life of this country; but I believe that under the British system of trading and commerce which has grown up over the centuries we have developed perhaps one of the greatest over-all commercial systems the world has ever seen.
For over a period of many centuries we have developed that system by the process of trial and error. Trading nations and trading concerns of the world have learned, at their own expense, when they have made mistakes and then corrected those mistakes. As I say, from the days of the early queens and kings of England we have developed a sound and solid system of trading and commerce which we should not lightly throw overboard or cast aside, adopting in place of it something which has not been proved at all, which has been advocated by the socialists of this and other countries, something which may in the long run prove to be not nearly as beneficial to the community and particularly to Canadians as a whole as those who so fervently believe in it contend.
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
The question that we have to decide in this particular debate is one of confidence or lack of confidence in the government. I have no trouble in taking my stand with my leader and intimating to you and to the house that I intend to vote for the amendment moved by my leader.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. MacKinnon) is not in the house tonight as he is the minister responsible for immigration and I intend to deal with at least one phase of that matter. I told him I was going to speak today and I asked him in fairness to be here. However I see present the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who may be even more deeply involved in this matter than the Minister of Mines and Resources.
I have had occasion in the past to quarrel with the policy of this government in the matter of immigration, yet I want to say that most of the things to which I objected have been cleared up. But I have another deep and bitter quarrel which arises as a result of recent events whereby there have been allowed to come into Canada men who actively assisted the nazi forces during the war. They did not assist them in the sense that they were conscripted. I know that there were many reasonably innocent people who were conscripted into the nazi forces, who were given the alternative of entering those forces or being shot, but who deserted to our side at the first available opportunity.
The men about whom I am going to speak willingly supported nazism to the detriment of the allied cause. I am referring now to order in council 4233 passed on September 22, 1948.
The first man is Julien Gaudens Labedan, alias Armand Berard, French citizen of French race, aged 35 years, married, interior decorator and cabinet maker, in Canada without status and applying for legal landing. The evidence shows the alien named effected temporary entry to Canada in July, 1946 under the name of Armand Berard, using an ordre de France to facilitate his departure from that country as a political refugee.
I notice the minister has entered the chamber and I welcome his arrival.
Following the arrival of this man in Canada he accepted employment with the firm of N. G. Vali-quette Limited, Montreal. He was examined by board of inquiry at Montreal in March, 1947, rejected and ordered to be deported as failing to comply with the provisions of the occupational, passport and contract labour regulations.
I stress the words "rejected and ordered to be deported" because, if newspaper accounts are true, responsible ministers of the crown have attempted to blame their own civil servants for having kept this person in

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart Canada. I intend to deal with those statements more fully later on. This man is wanted badly by the French government. He was condemned to death and public degradation by a court of that country.
The second man whom I have on my list is:
Georges Benoit Montel, alias Gaston Ringeval, French citizen of French race, aged 49 years, married, medical doctor and surgeon by profession, in Canada without status and applying for legal landing. The evidence shows the alien named effected temporary entry to Canada in September, 1946. as a visitor under the name of Gaston Ringeval, using a passport issued in that name which he claims he obtained in France to facilitate his departure from that country as a political refugee. He was examined by board of inquiry at Montreal on February 12, 1947, rejected and ordered to be deported as failing to comply with the provisions of the continuous journey, occupational and passport regulations. The record indicates that the alien has been attached to the staff of Laval university but that he now has employment available with Sorel hospital.
I would add that this man was accused and found guilty of treason in France. It is extraordinary to know that these men who have been found guilty of treason have found a haven in this country. I know of Germans who for long years fought Hitlerism and nazism and who have been trying to join relatives in this country. But they cannot come here because they are German nationals. Apparently, however, had they been supporters of nazism they would have been welcomed by elements in this government. I know of one Ukrainian woman who cannot come to blood relatives in this country because she suffers from trachoma. This is a disease of the eyes and apparently it is considered to be contagious in Canada, but we still allow those who have the diseased minds of fascists to come and seek refuge in Canada.
The third name on my list is:
Andre Charles Emmanuel Boussat, alias Alfred Bordes, French citizen of French race, aged 45 years, medical doctor and surgeon by profession, in Canada without status and applying for legal landing. The evidence shows the alien named effected temporary entry to Canada in July, 1946, under the name of Alfred Bordes, using a passport issued in that name which he claims he obtained in France to facilitate his departure from that country as a political refugee. He was examined by board of inquiry at Montreal in April, 1947, rejected and ordered to be deported-
I stress those words.
-as failing to comply with the provisions of the continuous journey, occupational and passport regulations. The record indicates he is employed by J. Edde Limited of Montreal, importers of pharmaceutical products.
And now Jean Louis Hue. Apparently he is one of the smaller fry because he is wanted by the French authorities only on charges of interfering with national defence. Some three weeks ago I placed on the order paper a motion for the production of certain papers.

The motion was passed by the house but I still have not received those papers. Perhaps that is not a great loss for I am certain that by the time I do get them they will be so emasculated that they will be of little value.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: On a point of order, I ask Your Honour to request the hon. member to withdraw the statement he has made that papers ordered to be brought down to this house will be emasculated before they are produced.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his statement.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: In view of the fact that I have not received the papers I withdraw the remark. I shall bear it in mind, however. I hope the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is not going to interject.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member has withdrawn that remark?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I said that I withdrew the remark that I made.


An hon. Member:: Period.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I said it quite clearly. My charge is that apparently the government is allowing known supporters of nazism to enter and stay in Canada. I realize that there are those who will immediately cry out that in saying that I am taking the part of the communists. I refuse to keep quiet because words of mine may be deliberately misconstrued as those of a communist sympathizer. Anyone who attempts to place such a misconstruction on them is either a knave or a fool, and in all probability both. I, together with other members of my party, have opposed communists long before some members of this house even knew that they existed. The pity is that communists use the same words as do the staunchest believers in democracy, but they do so for their own ends. The pity of it is that communists fasten on to obvious wrongs and social injustices, not with a determination to correct those wrongs, but for their own purposes.
Perhaps I may be permitted to quote from a speech made by Mr. Justice Douglas of the United States Supreme Court last Friday in Los Angeles. Part of what he said is as follows:
We must restore integrity to our own political tactics by putting an end to the shameful practice of branding as a communist everyone who espouses a liberal reform or promotes a program for the underprivileged.
Of course, it may be said that the sources of my information are communist-inspired. I shall give them to the house. The sources of my information are newspaper reports,

and certain discussions I have had with those who wrote those reports. The newspapers concerned are the Montreal Herald-I doubt if it is under the domination of communists- the Montreal Standard and the Vancouver Sun. These are all good examples of capitalist journals in this country. I have another authority, and an even better one. My authority is Colonel Romans Petit, who is president of the national federation of maquis. A word about the maquis might be in order. The maquis are men who gave back to France her soul during the war. They are the men who gave back to France her honour after the betrayal of Vichy. They are the men who died, not only to free France from nazi persecution, but also to enable us to live in Canada as free men and women. The men of the maquis are heroes whose names will be remembered wherever there are free men. Colonel Romans Petit has the distinction and the honour not only of being a member of the Distinguished Service Order but also of being president of the national federation of maquis, a commander of the legion of honour, and a companion of the liberation. He wrote to us in response to a communication which was sent to him by my leader, the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), after we had discussed the matter. We asked for information about Montel, Boussat, Hue and Labedan. This is the answer which we received; it has been translated. It is sent from Paris, and the date is February 16, 1949. It reads:
Replying to your letter of the 11th instant which I did not receive until today, owing to a mistake in the address, I hasten to advise you that I immediately got in touch with various persons capable of supplying you with the information you seek. With more particular reference to Doctor Montel, who was chief of the militia in Haute Savoie. I am asking one of my friends, well placed by reason of his position, to provide you with all exact documents, to communicate to you directly the main points of the charges laid against Montel.
I will add that personally in my capacity as leader of the maquis in Haute Savoie I suffered from the anti-national activity of this Frenchman, and we are happy to know that there are to be found in that great friendly country that is Canada men such as you to defend French prestige, and consequently the laws of honour.
The Be-nonvilles and fellow travellers hampered all our efforts in our struggle to save the country, and for that reason we deem them unworthy of your hospitality.
Then there are these brief dossiers:
Jules Labedan, bom 1/6/1913 at Gimont (Gers), domiciled at St. Gaudens, was sentenced to death at Toulouse 10/2/45 for treason.
Andre Boussat, born 20/10/1906 at Belves (Lot et Garonne), domiciled at Villeneuve sur Lot (Physician), was the subject of a warrant for arrest issued the 12/2/45 by the Court of Justice of Agen. He was member of militia No. G 44 2650.
Jean Louis Hue, commissioner of woods and forests, militiaman, was the subject of a warrant for arrest issued in Toulouse.
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
Then I found today that another fish had come into the net. I asked the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. MacKinnon) if he knew whether or not Michel Lucien Seigneur was in Canada, and the answer was: "Yes, he is here." The information I have on Seigneur is as follows:
Michel Lucien Seigneur, bom 22/1/1907 in the Somme, physician, ex-inspector of the Waffen SS at Limoges-
That is, the blackshirts.
-deputy departmental chief of the militia at Poitiers, sentenced to death by the court of justice of Poitiers.	.
Then Colonel Romans Petit goes on:
We know that in Canada a certain opinion looks upon all resisters as communists, whereas I set store by my personal documentation; since I was in command of three very important departments, l'Ain, le Haut Jura and la Haute Savoie, there were only 15 per cent in our ranks. Personally, I was the object of very sharp attacks on the part of communists, after the liberation. It suffices to state that our testimony is influenced by no political consideration. We take our stand not merely from the viewpoint of French interests but also from the viewpoint of humanity. We cannot forget that the militiamen resorted to inhuman means towards all our people who fell into their hands.
We believe that you are in possession of a few depositions with reference to Bernonville. On behalf of all our resister comrades, I thank you, Mr. Member. and assure you of our deep consideration.
That is signed by Colonel Romans Petit, D.S.O., president of the national federation of maquis, commander of the legion of honour, companion of the liberation. There is one part which I think I might repeat and paraphrase. It is:
We take our stand not merely from the viewpoint of Canadian interests, but also from the viewpoint of humanity.
I repeat that I oppose with equal vehemence the entry of fascists and communists into Canada, but since only fascist collaborators appear to be coming here I shall devote myself to them. Yesterday I listened with some interest to the address of the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew). He spent much of his time dealing with communism, and the menace and the perils of communism. I had hoped that he might have had time to spare a word about the menace and perils of fascism, but apparently not. I assume that he is aware of what has happened. I know that the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has taken an interest in this matter, and I would have thought that perhaps he had discussed it with his chief. I do not know whether he has or not, but in any event I know that the leader of the opposition has been questioned in press conferences as to his attitude concerning de Bernonville, and perhaps others, and his answer, to the best of my belief, has been "No comment". "No comment" is not good enough comment

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart from one who is the head of a party which has pretensions to being a national party.
I ask the hon. gentleman to make his stand amply clear before this debate is finished. I said earlier that avowed fascists were entering Canada. There was a case which came to my attention, that of one Karol Murin, who apparently came here last September. Recently he has been in Winnipeg, and while there he permitted himself to be interviewed by reporters. He bragged of the fact that he had been the secretary of Dr. Tiso. I shall remind the house who Dr. Tiso was. Dr. Tiso was the puppet dictator appointed by Hitler in Czechoslovakia who was eventually hanged for his crimes by the Benes government.
This man told the reporters that under Hitler Slovakia had had six years of independence from 1939 to 1945. I think that is a man whom the minister could well afford to investigate a little further. Now on February 8, 1949, I asked a question of the minister as to where Count Jacques de Ber-nonville was. He told me, and I asked a supplementary question which was:
Is the minister aware that this man is a traitor, and that he betrayed allied soldiers to the gestapo?
There was no answer. No answer was necessary, because in his answer to my original question the minister gave me all I wanted to know, and in this case I assumed silence meant assent. The next day on a question of privilege the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) rose and stated that he was one of two counsel who had been appointed to act on behalf of de Bernonville; and he went on to say:
... I strongly resent the untrue and unfounded statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) . . .
As a matter of fact I had been very factual, as I shall prove later. The hon. member also went on to say he was convinced not only of de Bernonville's innocence but also of the assistance he had rendered our soldiers during the war. I think the most significant thing then was not the statement of the hon. gentleman but the applause coming from the Tory benches which greeted it. One of us is wrong. Either the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay is right or I am right, and I am prepared to leave it to the judgment of the house.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, this is the background of de Bernonville; I shall give it in greater detail later. He was said to be instrumental in setting up in France a gestapo organization to rout out those who remained loyal to the allied cause during the German occupation. Many executions of those working for an allied victory resulted

from his efforts, according to information from France. During the North African campaign de Bernonville undertook to work for the German cause there. Again he established gestapo units to gather information among the French behind Rommel's lines. After the defeat of Rommel, de Bernonville escaped to France. This time the Germans made him military commandant of the Lyons area, a post that would go only to one of the most tried and true supporters of the nazi cause. His special task was to set up a counter-resistance police to combat the French maquis. In this he was concerned particularly with identifying British and other allied officers who dropped into France by parachute to aid the resistance movement. His work resulted in the death of many of these allied soldiers, it was said. This information came out during the Toulouse trial at which de Bernonville was convicted in absentia.
This man de Bernonville came to Canada in 1946, as did all those others I have mentioned. He was ordered deported, and the order was to take effect on October 6 or October 7. Then counsel appeared for de Bernonville, one Mr. Bernard Bourdon, K.C., who secured a writ of habeas corpus. The situation now, of course, is that de Bernonville is free; and I direct the attention of hon. members to a statement by the presiding judge, which I think is somewhat out of order:
The court ordered the count liberated immediately and said it was directing authorities at Ottawa to grant him asylum in Canada along with his family.
That is an amazing statement, and in it I think the judge went far beyond the bounds of propriety. However, to revert to Mr. Bourdon, according to the Montreal Standard of September 4 last he said:
de Bernonville is here as a political refugee, and there can be no deportation for a political crime.
What a pity Mr. Laval did not know that some years ago. Instead of going to Spain, from whence he was returned to France, he could have come to Canada where he might have obtained refuge as a political criminal. Later on Mr. Bourdon said:
Since I took over this case many important people have displayed an interest in it.
I am quite sure they have, but I should like to know who those important people are. How tremendously important and powerful they must be to be able to induce the government to upset the laws of Canada, to some extent, and allow in those who on many grounds are not eligible to enter this country. They must be tremendously important people. I remember last year when seven unhappy Jews were deported from this country
79S

because they had come in illegally. I spoke to the then minister about their case. I knew they had violated the law. I was afraid they might have to be deported, but I wanted to see if there were any grounds for clemency in their cases, in view of what they had suffered. The then minister said no; that if we should allow them to stay we would establish a precedent. That precedent had been established; I suppose the minister knew that all these fascists were here, but he deported those Jews who apparently had no very important friends.
On whose behalf was Mr. Bourdon acting? On behalf of de Bernonville, of course, but there is another character in the picture, a Mr. Jean Bonnel, of 4450 St. Denis street, Montreal. I am told that Mr. Bourdon was acting on his instructions. Now Mr. Bonnel is not a Canadian citizen but to the best of my knowledge is still a citizen of France. On October 16 of last year he was quoted in this way:
Bonnel says he is one of the main sources of aid to refugees from France accused of wartime collaboration.
And about the men with whom I am going to deal he said:
They are heroes of France. Instead of sending them to their deaths we should kiss their feet.
This seems a very odd citizen to have in our midst; but let me deal right now with this suggestion that if we returned these people we would be sending them to their deaths. The French ambassador has already disproved that in a press conference; and in addition Maurice Ribbet, batonniere of the Paris bar, while in Montreal for the meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, declared:
They can't shoot him if he returns home. Legally he is entitled to a new trial.
So they will not be shot if they return; they will be tried again, and tried in the courts of a country which is still a democratic nation. Then Bonnel goes on to say that he is one of the main sources of aid to collaborators. I wonder if the minister is aware of this. Is it possible, I wonder, that we have an underground railway into Canada by means of which these collaborators are being smuggled into this country? I know the department cannot possibly keep watch at every point on the border, but there are some of these people in this country, and they have been smuggled in. It is time the country knew how this is done. Then Bonnel said:
The four are not the only ones here. I could name you twenty living in Montreal. I have one working for me now. There was another here in this office this morning, a man under sentence of death with no passport at all. Nearly all the rest are here under false passports-naturally.
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
Then he went on:
I will do everything to keep de Bernonville from being delivered to the present government of France, a government of cretins, assassins and bandits.
Now I think we can place this man Bonnel pretty accurately. Hon. members of this house will know how to judge those words, because there are very few of us who have not experienced the gracious hospitality of the representatives of France in Ottawa. If the minister has not done so already I hope he will make a point of investigating this man Bonnel to ascertain how he got here, what his record is and how, if what he says is true, he is bringing these people into Canada.
But I have another witness, though I am the first to admit that he is scarcely an asset to the democratic cause. I refer to Mayor Houde of Montreal, who said of de Bernonville:
Other members of his family, themselves under arrest in France, are day by day escaping to Canada to join him, one by one at the risk of their lives.
I would be the last to place any credence in what Mayor Houde says; nevertheless where there is smoke there may be some fire. This is another matter I think the minister might investigate. Mayor Houde made these remarks in a press release:
Twenty other refugees will be in the same tragic situation as the Count de Bernonville and will be deported also within the next few days. This iniquity should be unmasked. At the present time we are taking steps to see that this project is not executed.
I think we must admit that the steps taken have been, at least, adequate up to date. Then speaking of the deportation of de Bernonville, Mayor Houde said:
This crying injustice-we can call it this infamy- cannot pass in silence.
Just a few more words about Mayor Houde. At one time I think he was leader of the Conservative party in Quebec. I know that at page 2402 of Hansard for 1940, Mr. R. B. Hanson of the Conservative party placed on record a statement attributed to Mayor Houde in connection with national registration, as follows:
I do not myself believe that I am held to conform to the said law, and I have no intention of so doing, and I ask the population not to conform, knowing full well what I am doing presently and to what I expose myself.
It exposed him to a concentration camp. I can well understand how a man behind bars for hampering the war effort could feel such a close relationship for a nazi collaborationist. Obviously, birds of a feather are going to flock together.


Mr. Pouliot:: What about those who collaborated with Russia?

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I have no time for either of them. Had the hon. member been in his place earlier, he would have heard that. I have heard further that the same Mayor Houde may be a Conservative candidate in the next general election. I should like to be enlightened about that. I wonder if it is for that reason the leader of the Conservative party has had nothing to say about this matter? After all, is the entry of known enemies to the democratic cause into Canada a matter of political strategy, of vote-getting?
If that is so, I can imagine how fascinated the father and mother of a boy who died overseas would be to know that he perhaps died at the hands of those who are getting succour in Canada. I can imagine how intrigued the widow would be who lost her husband overseas when she realized that these men perhaps had killed her husband and are now receiving sanctuary in Canada. It may be held that those who died are not important, but to allow fascist collaborators into this country is a betrayal of the memory of those who died fighting fascism.
I am going to deal in detail with de Bernon-ville. The first man whose statement I am going to quote is one Maurice Nedey, who was called one of the most remarkable figures of the resistance in a citation by General Charles de Gaulle, then provisional president of France, in August, 1945. Nedey received the Croix de Guerre 1939 avec Etoile de Vermeil for his wartime activities, as well as the Medaille de la Resistance Francaise and the British King's Medal "for courage in the cause of freedom".
The citation accompanying the Croix de Guerre award said:
Resisting from the first hour, he aided in the summer of 1943 the responsible Bureau des Operations Aeriens for the Saone et Loire.
He carried out numerous missions, both of a liaison nature and transporting arms. Constantly in the breach, he always endeavoured to reorganize parachuting services despite the gestapo's search for him. Arrested June 20, 1944, he was cruelly tortured, but did not deliver anything to the enemy on the organization to which he belonged.
He was one of the most remarkable figures of the resistance.
He received the King's Medal from the British government in November, 1946, from the hands of Alfred Duff-Cooper, British Ambassador to France, in a ceremony at Paris. The citation accompanying the British award said of Nedey:
(He) was the head of a leading resistance group in the Saone et Loire department of France. He organized several successful engagements against German patrols who tried to capture the material sent. Monsieur Nedey was arrested in July, 1944-
(Mr. Pouliot.l
I believe there is an error in the date, and that it should be June.
__and horribly tortured. He was deported . . . and
was recently repatriated to France.
I should like to read a statement made under oath and certified by X. Limal, an officer of the civil courts of France at Chalon-sur-Saone, dated October 25, 1948. This is the statement:
Nedey was arrested by Vichy police on June 20, 1944, during a secret mission from d'Allerey to Paris-l'Hopital. He was with M. Picard, liaison agent (Cote d'Or and Saone et Loire areas) for the Bureau des Operations Aeriens. The latter made good his escape.
Nedey was picked up near Chagny by the Group Mobile de la Reserve, but tried to make a break for it. He was recaptured some time later after a wild chase through vineyards-and after having swallowed two pieces of paper containing the messages which were the object of his mission.
May I interrupt my remarks here to say that if I do not have time during the forty minutes allotted to me to put all I know upon the record, I shall speak not only on the subamendment but on the amendment and, if necessary, on the main motion. Here is Nedey's statement:
After having been slapped and insulted, they brought me to the Hotel Moderne at Chalon-sur-Saone, which was headquarters of the Milice. On the night of my arrival the commander, de Bernon-ville, was absent. They tied my feet with electric wire, after having handcuffed me. and permitted me to lie down on the floor of the guard room. The adjutant ordered a strict surveillance.
I remembered then that a few days earlier members of the GRM (Groupe Mobile de la Reserve) had wanted to join the maquis. While the others slept, I asked my guard to take me to the washroom and I attempted to speak to him, telling him he had taken the wrong path; that everything was over for the Vichyites and that it would be better for him to help me to escape. I guaranteed he would have nothing to fear in accompanying me.
He told me he had two children and the reprisals would be terrible. I assured him real friends would care for them and they would want for nothing. He did not accept my proposition, but as I had confided in him I made him swear not to divulge our conversation to anyone.
The next morning, June 21. about eight o'clock the commander, de Bernonville. arrived and his subordinates informed him of my capture. My guard of the previous night gave a renort to the commander, divulging our conversation, on the grounds of attempted bribery of an official. They made me sign this document of my guilt. I could see my case was getting worse, but it was useless to deny the evidence.
After that, they brought me to a large room at the back of the hotel and de Bernonville sat down behind his desk which was in a corner. They cleared the tables and chairs and made me strip.
Present, in addition to de Bernonville were: the adjutant; a militiaman who had arrested me the day before; a man named Poitoux, who was killed a few days later by the maquis of St. Gengoux to atone for the tortures he had inflicted previously on many patriots; a militia lieutenant named Gelin, subsequently condemned to 20 years forced labour, and a GMR lieutenant named Delienne condemned to 10 years forced labour as a result of depositions

I made against them when I returned from Buchen-wald; and a civilian whose name is unknown to me.
De Bernonville, seated behind his desk, did not sully or tire himself to torture me; he merely gave the orders and led the course of interrogation. These orders were as follows: "Question him", "make him talk", "talk", "stop", "continue", "it's to your interest to talk and tell us all", "I am in a hurry and have no time to waste". All the staff I mentioned above rivalled each other in cruelty.
(Delienne and Gelin, according to another statement by Nedey, "saved their necks" at their subsequent trials "by explaining they had only obeyed de Bernonville's orders." The latter, they said, did not tolerate any laxity on their part in the fight against the maquisards.)
They spat on me, hit me with their fists, kicked me in the stomach. I warded off the blows as much as I could but one of them lashed me with a whip across the stomach and I thought I would vomit out my guts. I dropped to the floor time after time but they immediately made me get on my feet again by kicking me in the sides.
They stood in a circle and pushed me from one to the other. I began to realize I could not stand this for long. Then I got a tremendous blow which broke my lower jaw and I spat out bits of teeth broken by the shock.
De Bernonville demanded, in effect, the whereabouts of the maquis, the names of high-ranking officers, the location of arms depots, the passwords for various parachute districts, the dates of para-chutings, the location of the radio transmitter, the whereabouts of hidden British parachutists and the source of our orders.
I swore I knew nothing of these things, that the resistance organization was highly decentralized and that, to tell the truth, he had a mistaken idea of the organization of the resistance, and I could not tell him lies in order to satisfy him by swearing to things I knew nothing about.
If he had known I was in charge of the co-ordination of several maquis in our region, twelve parachuting fields, arms depots, a radio transmitter and two landing fields, I ask myself what fate would have been reserved for all the organization of our district.
Having been completely unsuccessful in the interrogation, he commanded my torturers to use electricity on me. They took a wire, which they spliced, attaching half to my handcuffs and pricking me with the other half, thus causing burns to my right arm and to the entire right side of my body and to my legs.
This process of torture was the most unbearable that I suffered during that unhappy year. It gave you the feeling of a knife turning in your breast, close to the heart. I curled up like a worm, crying out like a madman.
To keep me from moving, they passed a chair under my arm, blocking me against the wall. They gagged me to keep the noise from the neighbours. I was suffocating. For moments they would stop and prod me with questions, warning "Talk or we go on."
De Bernonville was impassive. I begged him to have pity and I recited prayers. I could stand no more and I could see my moral and physical forces diminishing. I was in utter turmoil.
In my innermost thoughts, I asked heaven for the strength not to denounce my comrades. Fortunately, I fixed this aim in mind; I didn't mind dying, provided it could be right away. I tried to stop breathing to suffocate myself, but nature was too strong. How I wanted to faint in order not to see or feel.
The adjutant took his revolver, loaded it and told me he would count to ten, promising to kill me if I didn't speak. But these threats were not carried out.
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
These various tortures lasted all day with three-quarters of an hour of rest at noon and ended at seven o'clock at night. Then de Bernonville made me sign an admission which I had not even read I was so exhausted.
At night, when interrogation had been completed, de Bernonville told me I was a traitor and that it was a disgrace to work for England, that I had chosen my destiny badly and that, instead of having to face a firing squad, my fate would have been more glorious in working for the marshal, for France.
He told me that the June 6 landings on the shores of Normandy had been repulsed and, according to latest news, the enemy had been thrown back into the sea.
Amongst the enemy, of course, were a great number of Canadians.
He lectured me, saying the English, through their propaganda, had lost many young men like myself, and that if I were intelligent I would confide in him and he would do something for me.
I had the strength to reply that, since he called himself a true Frenchman, he should promise me at once not to turn me over to the Germans and I would undertake only to serve my penalty from the French. He acquiesced to my request, promising he would not deliver me to the boches. They took me then to prison, lodging me in a cell on the French side with French guards.
During the first night, I was sick many times. I was swollen, the skin of my thighs was in small cubes. I was unable to sit or lie down and I began to suffer terribly from my burns.
The guard of the French jail, M. Claustre, later said he had never seen a man in worse state enter the prison. He took it on his own responsibility the next morning to send for the prison doctor and to have me removed to hospital.
I could no longer open my mouth because of the fracture. My hands were completely dead and insensible. For a time it was even thought I would go mad.
On June 22, around six o'clock in the evening, I heard a guttural voice at the door of my cell and a militiaman turned me over to the gestapo, despite the promises of de Bernonville.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: May I
finish this sentence? That is all I ask:
The Germans took me to gestapo headquarters.
where I underwent a severe questioning with blows from a thick rubber strap. I must admit this questioning (by the Germans) was easier to undergo than by the milice.
I shall continue this later.
(Translation):


Mr. P. E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, it is fortunate for hon. members who support national unity that only the members of the C.C.F. party, fellow-travellers of communists in this country, approved the speech just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart).
Besides giving us the opportunity to hear panegyrics or interesting criticisms of the government, the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne enables

The Address-Mr. Gagnon most likely often reach an agreement if it came to applying the sanctions to others, but that they would reserve the right to avoid them individually. In short, a single vote, be it cast by England, the United States, the U.S.S.R., China or France, can bring about the collapse of the whole machinery. The only wars prevented, the only aggressions repressed would, in the last analysis, be those of small states. On the other hand, the great powers would retain complete freedom. As can be seen, the Dumbarton plan has some value only inasmuch as the co-operation between the great powers can continue after the war, just as it has been maintained during the hostilities. Then peace would be assured. But if the great powers no longer agree, we may expect the worst happenings, the worst catastrophes.
Such is, Mr. Speaker, the predicament in which we find ourselves. Our foreign policy 'which until now has been patterned on that of London now seems to copy that of Washington. Perhaps should I say it is dictated by Washington. From the way our leaders behave, you would think we were born to be forever in the tow of someone.
When, to appear as important as our powerful neighbour, neutrality is claimed to be impossible, is it not forgetting that history has proven this a fallacy? What of the examples, in the last war, of such countries as Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland? The august words from the sermon on the mount "Blessed are the peacemakers" should be carved on the entrance of all legislative buildings in the world.
We do not want any more wars, nor do we want to be buried again under taxes as we have been before and after the war of 1939. It is too great a burden for the poor, the lowly, the mass of the people. They are tired of handing over part of their pay check to these gentlemen in Ottawa. They are weary of the endless fuss and forms inflicted on them by dominion government civil servants.
The Department of National Revenue has behaved and still behaves revoltingly toward the taxpayers of the country. Worthy fathers are deprived of the very part of their earnings they require to educate their children, to supply them with medical care, to build a house and buy all the commodities essential to anyone's happiness. In my constituency, the salaries of some workers have been iniquitously garnisheed. Employers, merchants, small grocers are, if at all possible, stripped of their smallest profits while goods are squandered. The people are living in a reign of terror. They are wondering whether tomorrow National Revenue inspectors will not invade their homes to relieve them of the few dollars they have left.
I submit that when the state levies such heavy taxes on the small incomes and savings of its subjects, it is laying hands on something

that does not belong to it. The income tax act is anti-social, criminal both in origin and purpose. It is with such measures that unrest is created among the people, that elections are lost and that socialist and communist propaganda is fostered. To those responsible for Canada's destinies, I wish to say: Some day, you will have to account for your administration. Take care, for if ever our economic system is overthrown by a revolutionary movement on account of your accumulated mistakes, you will be among the first who will have to answer at the bar.
When taxes are too heavy, they have disastrous effects on savings. Now, as savings are absolutely necessary to make up the capital which fosters trade and industry, it follows that if they are discouraged, the original source of all undertakings is dangerously dried up. As His Holiness Pope Pius XII said to the members of the international congress of public finance:
For the sake of human conscience, do not destroy morals from the top. Refrain from legislation which, in spite of its brilliant technique, offends and hurts the people's appreciation of equity and inequity, or take small account of its vital strength, its rightful desire to reap the fruits of its own labour, its concern for domestic security, all of which considerations should come first and not last in the mind of the legislator.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was amazed the other day when those who disagree with him on centralization stated that the federal government is making the most of circumstances, and creates them if necessary in order to seize provincial rights as well as revenues. If it is prepared to forgo rent control, to leave to someone else a problem it has created but failed to solve, if the government is that careful not to encroach upon the powers given to the provinces by our constitution, why then, rather than announce in the speech from the throne the setting-up of a royal commission to look into the activities of certain bodies related to certain aspects of our national life, radio broadcasting for example, does it not withdraw from that field?
With the setting up of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission in 1932, the central government entered the field of education, which was explicitly allotted to the provinces. Through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, they monopolize the waves, they secure the air, the better to drown the private radio stations.
In the report of the special committee instituted to inquire into the setting up of a Canadian broadcasting system, it is said that

the evidence has confirmed the opinion of the committee as to "the great importance and advantages of an appropriate and well regulated broadcasting system for the whole of Canada as an instrument of education, guidance, religious and ordinary teaching, etc." And further on: "Our committee recommends moreover the establishment of a certain number of stations of 100 watts or less, operating on divided channels, located where it will be necessary for: (c) the needs of education." If the government are sincere when they protest that they are not centralists, then let them return to the provinces the rights of which they have deprived them. Let them refrain from violating, at every opportunity, the clauses of the British North America Act and let them mind what is exclusively their business.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to add to my contribution to this debate, for the benefit of all concerned and with all due respect for my friends the newspapermen, a denial of the rumour which has been circulating from time to time in certain newspapers to the effect that I am about to change my political affiliations. Elected as an Independent, I shall remain so as long as it will please my electors, the very nice people of Chicoutimi.


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, when I rise to speak in this house and see you discharging your duties in a manner so dignified, a whole world of memories come to my mind. It is a pleasure to see the young pupil of the Seminaire de Quebec, sprightly then as now, whom I met later as member for St. Mary in the legislature and who today so tactfully presides over our meetings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear! Hear!


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the speech the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) has just delivered. I shall not attempt to dissect it although, as a physician, I should be prompted to do So. Rather have I chosen to dwell only on a single point of the speech from the throne, that relating to the national health plan initiated last year by the government and which is receiving support in all the provinces. Coming on top of provincial legislation, it is a plan which, to the great benefit of our people, has made possible the facilities now available in Canada in this field.
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
I shall deal with only one paragraph of the speech from the throne, because 1 wish to confine my remarks to the government's action in making certain sums available to the provinces for the conservation of national health. I wish to single out a special aspect of that general health program, and draw it to the attention of the house, the press and the public at large. The problem, whose importance federal and provincial authorities cannot fail to appreciate, must be solved fully and at once. Untiring and detailed efforts should be made to solve the problem, regardless of political advantages or disadvantages which might result, taking into account only the common welfare, in the conservation of our human resources.
In this respect my remarks will evince these same feelings and I hope that the house will keep that in mind to the end of my speech.
Think of all the politicians of every rank and political creed who have used human resources to foster their personal interests and those of their party. How many have failed and forgotten their promises!
The true politician prefers action to speechmaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Gauthier: In a talk he gave before the Montreal rotary club on February 8 last, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) tackled the problem of mental hygiene with determination; he suited the action to the word.
The statistical picture he drew of the heavy toll which mental deficiency or nervous disturbances levy on mankind ought to make all our people think twice. If we add to this the incalculable risks resulting from background and heredity, we must admit that for those who are free from political worries and realize what a heavy responsibility rests upon them as well as upon our leaders, it becomes an imperative duty to solve this problem.
Here are some of the figures supplied by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his talk before the Montreal rotary club on February 8.
In the course of a lifetime, one person out of ten suffers from emotional trouble of some sort; moreover, one out of ten needs hospitalization or psychiatric treatment.
The various degrees of mental illness range from mere emotional trouble to complete dis ruption of the intellectual faculty. Con-

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier sidered from this angle, mental and nervous diseases produce more sick people than cancer, poliomyelitis and tuberculosis. There are in the hospitals giving treatment for these diseases just as many patients as there are patients being treated elsewhere for any other illness, except tuberculosis. We have had as many as 50,000 people suffering from mental or nervous diseases in the hospitals of this country. During the five years following 1930, the number of such cases increased in Canada by 26 per cent.
Was this due to the depression? I cannot say for I did not carry my investigation far enough to say so definitely, but in any event, this increase occurred during the depression. However, during the five years that followed, the increase was reduced by one half and, from 1940 to 1946, it came down to 9 per cent, which is 2 per cent more than the general increase in population. A rather dismal picture, as you can readily see.
In clinics and in dispensaries where the public is admitted physicians report that four out of ten patients suffer from emotional or nervous disturbances.
It must not be forgotten-and it is here that the problem becomes most acute-that along with the generally recognized forms of mental ailments, there are the related problems of juvenile delinquency, drug addiction, chronic alcoholism, pathological disregard of law, suicide and divorce. Anybody who has any knowledge of these problems at all will recognize that this list reveals a serious condition in the emotional syndrome and perversion of the social sense.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that I frequently quote from the discussion by the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare. I must say that even though he is no doctor, he displays uncommon knowledge of the present situation and moves with amazing ease through the maze of statistics and tables that show the mental nervous ailments in this country. He is to be congratulated most warmly on this account.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Gauthier: We have seen
that mental ailments follow an alternately ascending and descending cycle. It is therefore easy to realize that a campaign, a crusade, against mental diseases is imperative in order to prevent the ascending cycle which is bound to reappear, should we not have a well
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) .1
planned policy or should we not be sufficiently aware of our responsibilities. The cost of operation of our mental hospitals is over $26 million a year; that is twice what it was in 1930. There are in Canada 43 such institutions with a capacity of from 300 to 6,000 patients.
The health policy prepared by the federal government on May 14, 1948 is a highly Canadian gesture. The grants to the provinces will, I hope, give a stimulus to the general health protection campaign which has already been launched. May I express the hope-and I call the minister's attention to this matter-that these grants will be put to good use without any thought of political expediency or political favours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Gauthier: I, with many
others, would be very disappointed if Canadians were forced to realize that their money is being used to protect the political advantages of one party or other, as has too often been the case in the enforcement of certain social statutes whose costs are partly paid by the dominion government and partly by the provincial governments. I have heard much talk in this house about abolishing the means test. Do not worry about it. In my province, it often disappears automatically, depending on the political colour.
However, I must pay a tribute to Mr. Forest, the chairman of the old age pensions commission in Quebec who, every time I sought to have a wrong righted, showed himself quite willing to make the necessary investigation and remedy the wrongs done by an over-zealous inspector. But I do not wish to wander too far away from the purpose I had in mind at the start. I note in the minister's lecture, from which I am drawing freely, that this year my province is to receive at least $1,140,000 as subsidies for the preservation of mental health. Subsidies for the building of hospitals have already been approved by the federal minister of health, thus making 2,400 new beds available to the public without forgetting that other projects for an additional 3,000 beds are now being considered.
I have here a list, supplied to me by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, showing the subsidies that will be given to the province of Quebec.
First, a subsidy for the building of hospitals has been granted to the Mont Providence

medical-pedagogical institute, at Riviere des Prairies. That project relates to the building of a 1,269-bed hospital for children suffering from curable mental diseases. Under this project, the dominion subsidy would amount to $1,498,277.20.
There is another subsidy for mental hygiene. Two projects connected with the Quebec mental hygiene subsidy are now in the minister's office. One of them concerns the Psychological Institute of Three Rivers.
I may also mention subsidies for the fight against tuberculosis. On February 14, 1949, the following projects had been approved for the province of Quebec.
Project No. 1: Establishment of a new laboratory at the new St. Joseph de Montreal sanatorium. Amount provided, $50,630.
Projects Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5: Each of these projects relates to the purchase of a mobile diagnosis clinic for the purpose of making X-ray examinations in various constituencies.
I have the right to appreciate the advantages and the efficiency of this proposition because, as a doctor, I know that if it is worthwhile to build large hospitals to care for mental and tuberculosis cases, it is above all necessary to give to preventive medicine all the required attention. Indeed if we forget about prevention in the treatment of these diseases, whether mental or nervous, whether of tubercular, arthritic or other origin, sanatoriums must of necessity be provided, because cases increase rapidly.
As to the B.C.G. vaccine against tuberculosis, I understand that often doctors do not take an innovation for granted. You probably remember the fight which took place when Pasteur put on the market his anti-rabic serum and when Dr. Roux introduced his antidiphtheric serum.
I know that many doctors have perhaps not paid the required attention to the B.C.G. vaccine but I believe the people appreciate this vaccine and that vaccination, as far as prevention is concerned, will bring relief to babies who, some day, will grow up and thus be protected against tuberculosis.
I also congratulate the hon. minister for providing grants that will allow doctors to carry on research work on B.C.G. vaccination.
Project 9 provides a grant for the purchase of scientific apparatus for the Sacred Heart hospital of Cartierville. The project, amounting to $57,636.80, was approved on January 10th.
29087-51J
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
There is another project similar to that of the Gaspe sanatorium for which the government is to provide a grant of $94,788.03.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I must underline the fact that the hon. minister will have to pay particular attention to the spending of those grants of the federal government to the provinces.
Although I do not wish to impute ill intent to any of the provincial governments, I feel my misgivings are not altogether groundless for I know from experience that too often while federal grants for the building of provincial hospitals were indeed used for that purpose, at the same time they served the interests of friends of the government who were awarded contracts without tenders being called.
I read in Le Soleil of February 10th of this year that streptomycin is to be distributed free in the Quebec sanatoriums.
I congratulate the minister. Foremost tuberculosis specialists recognize that although not a cure-all streptomycin is yet the most efficacious drug for the treatment of tuberculosis. I have seen patients at the Mont Joli sanatorium whose recovery has amazed great specialists, including Drs. Couillard and Herman Gauthier.
I congratulate the minister who has made streptomycin available free of charge and I hope that it will be used advisedly.
I now come to a critical point, Mr. Speaker. I spoke a moment ago of mental hygiene and of prevention. As far as the prevention of mental diseases is concerned, I must say that all provincial authorities and temperance societies-I need not mention them by name because they are known to hon. members- will have to launch a very active campaign to stem the tide of alcoholism, which spreads night and day in the province of Quebec, to the full knowledge of the attorney general of the province.
I am dealing with a moral rather than a political matter.
I am not doing so to discredit my province, to sling mud in her face, as some of our opponents will claim after having heard or read my speech, but because I know that human assets are endangered and that mental diseases, nervous disturbances and those ailments due to heredity and atavism will keep on increasing if we continue to keep a portion
804	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier of our people in a state of drunkenness, as is done at the present time in my province.
It is startling to read, in the report of the Sacred Heart leagues of Montreal, how many liquor stores, grills, restaurants and hotels operate with so-called permits that carry no number, or else, in the name of that famous tolerance to which some people in Quebec are so partial, they serve liquor to all and sundry. I have traveled all over my province long enough to see with my own eyes beer and hard liquor served to children of 13, 14, 15 and 16 years of age. As proof of my assertions, I refer the house to the report of the Sacred Heart leagues. Their campaign, however, has not been carried far enough; they ought to pursue their patriotic efforts, even in the face of retaliation. I urge our own Cercle Lacordaire and the Cercle Jeanne-d'Arc as well as the St. John the Baptist Society and all other influential groups to put an end to this infamous tolerance shown intoxicating liquor in my province. I even maintain, Mr. Speaker, that alcoholism can, more than any other evil, spread the havoc caused among our people by mental deficiency and nervous disturbances.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Mr, Gauthier (Porlneuf):: In support of this contention I will quote some eminently qualified authorities. Here is what a French specialist says: You will note that I am not quoting a Canadian one since I have no wish of being accused of choosing the best in order to plead the case of our young people.
Dr. Monin, who was secretary of the comity of hygiene, in France-this goes back to pre-1900 days-says this:
The truest word ever uttered on this subject remains perhaps that of Bucknill: "The drunkard drinks because he is insane. He is insane because he drinks."
Dr. Monin adds:
Alcohol is a major factor in criminality. The investigations carried out by Mr. Yvernes show that the first principle violated by the drunk man is the respect of officials. Then come insults to policemen, destruction of trees, plants, fences, gross indecency, assault and battery, seditious cries, conditional threats, manslaughter through criminal negligence, arson . . .
A tenth of all murders result from bar-room brawls. Of one hundred divorces granted in Denmark twenty-four are granted on grounds of drunkenness (Magnus Hiiss).
Dr. Monin says further on:
In the corner of each brain, used to say Moreau (of Tours), madness lies dormant: the main thing is not to bring it to life.
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) .1
And to show you, Mr. Speaker, that alcohol is a powerful destroying agent, it affects even the bees. As a matter of fact, the bees that feed on a plant on which a few drops of alcohol have been poured become indolent, lazy and, as we say today, go on a sit-down strike and stop producing honey. I tell you all this to show the damage alcohol can cause even to animals. Mr. Speaker, I have given numerous testimonials of experts of renown on the damage caused by alcohol. The research of eminent physiologists all show- and this is for those who claim that alcohol is a necessary stimulant-that even the purest alcohol cannot be a useful source of strength, for it is extremely injurious to the protoplasma. It therefore diminishes and exhausts productivity, despite misleading appearance of exhilaration, and the disappearance of fatigue, which might lead one to believe that new strength is achieved. Alcohol thus promptly consumes our reserve energy and lowers our physical and mental activity. Therefore, to repeat the words of Koppe "to use alcohol is to abuse of it". It soon ends by dulling the intellect of the one who is weak enough to be attracted by its deadly mirage.
And now, bearing in mind the grants that the minister of national health is about to give my province for the building of hospitals, especially those for persons suffering from mental or nervous disorders, I ask him how can such grants be expected to serve a useful purpose, if people continue to dull the minds of our population, especially of our youth?
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I have no political aim in speaking thus. But as a doctor I would ask everybody-to use a term often used here-to rise as one man, to arouse public opinion and to order the authorities in my province to stop showing such a lack of seriousness which would surely end by the population of my province being thrown into an unavoidable state of mental weakness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Gauthier: Of course it is preferable that the sale of spirituous liquors be controlled if liquor stores are absolutely necessary, but it should not be made a political question for the purpose of swelling electoral funds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Gauthier: And if there is an occasion when the manpower question should be discussed, it is surely when the danger of alcohol with regard to mental and nervous diseases, to say nothing of tuberculosis, is being pointed out. Indeed, many eminent British physicians have shown that, in the case of tavern frequenters, the larger number of tuberculosis victims were among the waiters rather than among the patrons, because, as everyone knows, those places are often quite contaminated through the lack of cleanliness.
More can be said, Mr. Speaker. I have mentioned tolerance, which I have called "accursed tolerance". As a matter of fact, there are "flying bars", not to say "rolling bars". That, in my opinion, is going rather far in generalizing the sale of liquor among young people. I have not seen that myself, but it has been observed by Father Arsenault of St. Camille, who wrote to I'Action Catholique on May 17, 1948, a letter in which he mentions the "rolling bars" which are seen everywhere.
I want it to be understood that I am speaking not as the member for Portneuf, but as a physician anxious to protect our manpower, the Canadian youth and the people at large against those who are not thoughtful enough to be conscious of their responsibility.
It will surely be said that I am flinging mud at my province, that I am throwing discredit on it, but it should not be forgotten that Quebec is not the only province which consumes alcoholic beverages. Ontario also is consuming some. As a matter of fact, I have here figures from the Toronto Daily Star of June 26, 1947, where one can read the following headlines: Third of Canada Booze Down Ontario Throats.
I will give you comparative figures for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec: "Spirits", the strongest spirits-


An hon. Member:: And often the best-


Pierre Gauthier: The spirits * which are sought in the bottom of a bottle and evaporate so rapidly. I quote:
Ontario, 2,661,034 gallons; Quebec, 2,014,039 gallons.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Well, the situation is better in Quebec.


Pierre Gauthier: The cost of this liquor in Ontario was $58,471,888, and in Quebec, $46,268,384. All this to poison our youth and that of Ontario.
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier


Mr. Lalonde:: It is worse than war.


Mr. Langlois:: Yes, and they talk about
taxes.


Pierre Gauthier: Yes, and they talk about taxes. I could give you, for wine and beer, figures which are very similar in both provinces.
(Text):
The other day the hon. member for Stan-stead (Mr. Hackett) spoke about prejudices having been stirred up in the by-election in Nicolet-Yamaska. I have always thought that the stirring up of prejudices in any election works both ways. For the benefit of my English colleagues, I shall cite an example. Do you know what those who do not favour the Prime Minister's policies are saying in order to get the favour of the public? During the by-election in Nicolet-Yamaska one man spoke at Gentilly in broad English accents in order to mock the Prime Minister. Do you know why? Because in Quebec they are trying to depreciate the Prime Minister by making the population believe he is English through and through. It works both ways.


Gordon Graydon: Do not blame me; he is part Irish.
Mr.-Gauthier (Portneuf): We have been accused of furthering prejudices. Every time the Prime Minister's name is mentioned, it is pronounced "Louis Stephen St. Laurent". The purpose of this is to make the people believe he is more English than French.
I have the shorthand notes of a speech in which the speaker said that Mr. St. Laurent was no more a French-Canadian than the leader of the opposition. It was admitted he was a great lawyer in good standing. It was said he was earning over $60,000 a year before coming to this house. Your friends said that. They said he was born of an English mother; that he was born in an English county and educated in English institutions. It was said that he graduated from McGill. Your friends said those things during the course of the Nicolet-Yamaska by-election. They were trying to depreciate the Prime Minister and make the population believe he is too much of an Englishman to be supported by French-Canadians in Quebec.
My last word, Mr. Speaker, is a word of warning to everyone in this house who wants to say a few words about communism. I would especially ask the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), who made a good speech on communism yesterday, and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), to remember
806	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier that what they said is not in line with what the attorney general of Quebec wishes, because the other day he gave a warning to the press. He asked the press not to speak of communism because they were giving communists too much publicity. He would rather have the chance to put a padlock on some communist school or place of propaganda every time there is a general election or by-election. That is what the padlock law is used for in Quebec. There are still many communist schools in Quebec. They still exist in Quebec in spite of the padlock law. The padlock law should not be used as a means of political advantage for anybody.
If we want to stop communism let us know something about it. I was in the house in 1937 and I made a speech on communism. I spoke about the organization of communist cells and I saw many hon. members with broad smiles on their faces twelve years ago because I was afraid of communism. The danger that was near at that time is now here. We will not combat communism with a padlock law which is used only for political purposes. We do not combat communism in that way. It is not economic conditions which give birth to communism. It is because our aconomic and philosophical programs have forgotten something, namely, that man is made in the' image of God, his creator." They have used man as an economic tool, forgetting his intellect, his soul and his heart. That is the trouble with our generation. If you want to know more I ask you to read the book "Communism and Conscience of the West" by Monsignor Sheen, and the "Philosophy of Religion" by the same author. If you read those books you will find many clear explanations of what is the trouble with our civilization. Let us not throw stones at each other about communism. Let us not state that communism has spread during the Liberal administration in our country. Communism is not due to any economic condition. It is used as an occasion to spread communism. The source of communism is religious. They have replaced Christianity itself with the communist religion. They have replaced the apostle with the pictures of Stalin, Molotov and all the others. They have tried to put inside the soul, the heart and the mind of the Russians that very communist religion. Believe me, it will not last forever. As Monsignor Sheen said, some day religion will come back to earth and communism will iisappear. But if we want communism to disappear, let us first know something about it. Let us go back to the right way. Let us not try to throw stones at each other. Let us try to enact laws which will prevent communism from having any part in the admin-

istration of our economic and social life. That is the only way to stop it.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I shall not comment particularly on the remarks made in English by the last speaker, although I followed them with considerable interest. The matter with which he dealt is an important one, and it behooves all of us to attempt to learn something more of the situation as it exists in Canada.
I shall endeavour to avoid repetition as much as possible and attempt to make my few remarks a reflection of the opinions and sentiments which are expressed by the persons who live within the riding I represent, the riding of Lincoln. I feel that that is the honest endeavour of practically all hon. members. Sometimes prejudices arise, but for the most part that is the honest intention of most hon. members who speak on the address.
First I wish to say that I associate myself with every word uttered by my leader on this subject that was covered in the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. My leader outlined to this house in as clear terms as it could possibly be outlined the menace that communism is to this country. He outlined its origin, dating back a long time, and the unjust and unfair practices which are being followed to try to stamp out our way of life.
In my own district some of the larger and more influential unions had become dominated, as is true in many other places, by persons holding communistic views. I am glad to say that in my own area one by one the larger union groups are gradually throwing off the domination which has been so prevalent in the last three or four years. That is true in other areas too. I can truthfully say that in the larger union groups in my district employer and employee are now sitting down and discussing their problems with a fuller understanding than was ever accomplished during the time when those communistically inclined were in charge of these union groups. Having said that much about this influence that is rampant throughout the country, the influence of an ideology which is ruining the greater part of Europe, I should like now to turn to a more specific reflection of the views held by my own people respecting subjects which come closer to us.
My people are asking when there may be relief from taxes such as the gas tax-and I am referring to fuel gas-the tax on electricity, on radio, on telephones, the 25 per cent luxury tax which is so unfair when applied against young couples who are starting out in life together. Then, we have the travel tax which has caused considerable

comment in my area. Many people have spoken to me about it. That was an effort during the war to raise revenue and, at the same time, to curtail travel. We have a travel bureau here in Ottawa which is spending large sums of money trying to induce people to travel while, at the same time, we have this large tax imposed upon travel, having the effect of curtailing it, as it was curtailed during the years of war.
It seems to me that this is most inconsistent, and it is certainly viewed in that way by many people in my constituency who have spoken to me in the matter. Then we come down to the heavy income tax schedules. As must have been expected, reference is often made to the odd billion or more of surplus floating around in the hands of the government; and it is considered that at this time it is most unfair to take that amount of money away from the people.
Only a week or two ago one point in particular was brought forcibly to my attention.
I refer to it at this time because in it there is reference to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) who, I am sorry to say, is not in his seat. A few days ago I was in conversation with a chap who is in the permanent air force, and he proceeded to lodge some of his complaints, and to give his reasons for them. I should think it would be most interesting if the Minister of National Defence at this time when, if all reports are true, enlistments are not very encouraging, could have listened to the story told to me by this younger brother in a family which has a most enviable military record in the service of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
The young man told me that, as I recall it, at the airport in Ottawa his group were addressed not long ago by the Minister of National Defence. I was told by the young man the minister had said that he was doing his best to do away with the income tax as it affected young men in the permanent air force.
Following that speech the young man returned to his home and, while there, told of the minister's address to the permanent force. In that same home were two other brothers who had served overseas with distinction. One of them had been shot down, although fortunately he had escaped serious injury. Those two brothers who had served in the Royal Canadian Air Force proceeded to place before their younger brother the true picture, and to tell him what he might expect.
If the minister continues to promote enlistments among those younger men who are becoming eligible for enlistment, men who may have older brothers who have had
The Address-Mr. Lockhart experience in the forces, he will find that his problem is a difficult one. The younger brother told me that his brothers had told him what they had been told overseas with respect to housing-that every man was to have a job and a house to live in when he got home. The younger brother told me however that one of his older brothers was still without a home, despite the fact that he had been slightly injured overseas. A pension of $12.50 had been awarded him. He was boarded six times within a year and a half, at the conclusion of which his pension had been reduced to $2.50.
That is the sort of thing these young men are talking about; and I say the minister must cure some of the evils before he can expect to get the response for which he is hoping in respect of enlistments in the permanent forces.
At the same time I was told that one of the brothers had served nearly five years in a heavy artillery unit of the army. The claim is now made that he is not pensionable, owing to the discovery by some medical doctors of what is alleged to be a pre-enlistment condition. This ex-soldier is faced with the necessity of having to fight for his rights to obtain some type of pension.
These are the things which the younger men, those who would be eligible for enlistment, are complaining about. They have learned a good deal from their older brothers who have had experience. Then, I am asked about the setting up of the committee on veterans affairs. These veterans cannot understand why the government does not recognize the many problems which should be considered at this time. I should hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) would give some opportunity for a general review of the many problems connected with veterans affairs.
Then finally, Mr. Speaker, we come to the question of housing. It was almost pathetic to hear what this young man had to say in that regard. He spoke of a soldier boy with one child who had tried to get one of the wartime houses.
I called upon what is now the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at least a dozen times on behalf of a chap who is living in one room with one child up on the third story. I do not blame the local administrator, because he is just a chief clerk who is doing the best he can. He told me that he could not give that man a house unless he had at least two children. It seems too bad that a young man with only one child cannot be provided with one of these wartime houses when he was told overseas in most emphatic terms that the housing problem would be taken care of for him when he got home.
808	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Lockhart
In this particular case I told the young man to go down to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to get one of the one hundred and two houses that had been built on what we call the Westchester avenue cut. He took my advice and made application for a house, but he could not get one because he is a pieceworker and was not considered to have employment of a permanent nature. These houses are rented at $42 per month, but before he could get one he would have to be engaged in the category of employment that would make him practically an annual asset. I could not believe it, but I checked and found that it was practically true.
I submit that the government is not doing its duty to the returned man. Aside from the inconsistencies that have developed in pension rights and the like, the first duty of the government is to provide them with homes.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is developing something in the constituency of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) to which I strongly object. A couple of weeks ago I saw a development that has been started outside of Niagara Falls, at a point which seemed to me to be miles from civilization. I would say that about one hundred houses have been erected all cut from the one die; there is not a particle of difference in any one of them. They are small homes on forty-foot lots. Apparently Central Mortgage is still adhering to the forty-foot lot.
The roadways are made up of a few loads of stone scattered over the mud. I saw a mother with one child of two holding her hand and another baby in a go-cart having to take a most circuitous route in order to get to the main road. She had to walk three-quarters of a mile at least. I say that that kind of thing is not good enough for our returned men. I hope the Minister of Labour will check this up and I shall be glad to give him all the information I have.
It is time that something was done that would have a better influence for good among the men who fought for us during the past war. If the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) would listen to some of these stories-I am sure many hon. members have heard similar stories-he would understand why his enlistment program has not reached the point that many of us thought it would.
I come now to another matter which I should like to impress upon the government. The other day an hon. member referred to unemployment in Vancouver. Our socialist friends to the left were complaining bitterly about the many thousands of unemployed. There is one thing I should like to lay defi-


nitely on the doorstep of the government. I know just what transpired. During the war people were coaxed, and I say that advisedly, to leave small villages and rural areas to move into urban centres in order to produce munitions. Houses were built for them. In my own city some six or seven hundred so-called wartime houses were erected.
When the war ended those people refused to move back to the farm. The result is that we are short of butter, bacon and cheese and we hear the agitation for margarine. The wheel goes around and around. The government has fallen down in this matter. If it could induce people to move into the larger centres like Vancouver, Hamilton, Toronto and Montreal and provide them with housing, it is the government's responsibility when they have control of everything else to see that those people move back to the environment from which they came. That may be a broad statement to make, but the municipalities should not be imposed upon without some consideration and help.
It is not fair to try to coax masses of people into urban centres and then leave them there to be a direct responsibility of the municipalities. I strongly condemn the government for its failure in this respect. We are bringing in people with an agricultural turn of mind to go onto these vacant farms. There are many vacant houses out in the wide open spaces. Even in my own thickly populated area there are many houses available on the back concessions. These places are being occupied by displaced persons and other people who have been brought in.
I asked a question today about television, but I had a brush-off. That may be all right, as we are used to it, but I want to say a word more about this matter. Somebody has said that unemployment is growing. I am not so sure it is not, but I notice that the United States government is laying a cable to link fourteen major cities from New York to St. Louis in a television network. I read in this publication that there are more than 300 applications. As a matter of fact, it says that perhaps 400 are pending. There is a very interesting picture in one of the magazines. An enthusiastic purveyor of ice cream, soft drinks, sandwiches, candy, and so forth, has installed a television hook-up right in his place of business. The picture shows upwards of seventy-five children sitting in an orderly fashion drinking soft drinks, Coca-Cola, and drinks of that kind, others eating ice cream cones, and all apparently watching the television pictures that are being thrown on the screen. The man was interviewed as to why he did this, and he said that he was convinced that we have to do something to keep the children off the streets.

I suggest that, if the country to the south of us is going after television in a big way, it is time for the government to make some announcement and let the people know whether we are or are not interested in this most enticing development, perhaps one of the greatest that this country has ever seen. I am told that at the present time there are 16,000 receiving sets being made per week in the United States. I have talked to radio men in my own home city, and they say that they are cancelling orders for radios simply because they think the public are beginning to feel that television is just about to break. They do not want to buy machines that may become obsolete in a very short time.
I mention this matter to the government because it is a common topic among many people, and I say it is high time that the government paid a little more attention to it. I can assure the government that it is a very moot question in my own particular area because we are close to the border. There are many views that one might express, but I said at the outset that I was attempting to reflect in a small way some of the things that appear to be worrying people in my own constituency. My people say that while they put up with controls without much protest during the war, four years afterwards they find that there is a great army of snoopers, as my leader called them, and that is what a lot of them are. They feel that it is about time something was done to curtail that type of thing, and to reduce the cost of government, especially when we have floating around in the hands of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), as I said before, an odd billion or more which has been taken from the people unjustly. In attempting to show some reason why their circumstances are not just as they ought to be, I have pointed out that they are given the brush-off by controllers, by men in high places not responsible to parliament. I say it is high time that the government assumed their responsibility to a greater extent than they have.


Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I must confess that I intend to discuss a number of subjects in view of the latitude given to hon. members in this debate. I intend to discuss matters pertaining particularly to my own constituency and, as a matter of fact, to the people of Canada as a whole. The speech from the throne was disappointing in many ways, at least to me. One way in which it is disappointing is the fact that no mention was made of irrigation. Not one word was said about supplying water on our western plains.
I have spoken in every debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne
The Address-Mr. Wylie since I have been in the house, and I offer no apology for again devoting my time to a further discussion of the possibilities of irrigation for southeastern Alberta. The development or irrigation perhaps means more to the city of Medicine Hat than to any other community in Canada.
I must congratulate the mover of the address, the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown). When he finished his speech I felt that I knew Essex West, and that I knew Windsor. Some members may think that it is bad taste to always discuss the problems of one's own constituency, but until those problems are solved I think that we are forced to do so. While I shall not attempt to duplicate what the hon. member for Essex West said, I shall certainly do the best I can to give the members of the house a few details about my constituency. Speaking of irrigation, I must mention at the outset that in my constituency we have some irrigation projects and we have areas which it is impossible to irrigate. First of all I want to mention the Taber area south and west of Medicine Hat. It is one of the best areas in western Canada, and the farmers specialize in the growing of sugar beets and many other field crops. A new factory is being built at Taber which will take care of the production in that district by 1950. They go in for diversified farming, raising stock and feeding them on the pulp from the sugar beets. In driving through the district surrounding Medicine Hat, and on west, one cannot help noticing the difference in the climate as soon as you get to an irrigation district. The air is entirely different; you think you are in a different climate.
Then we have the eastern irrigation district at Brooks, the largest in Canada, where they have 170,000 acres under irrigation. That is "where water works wonders." I think that is a wonderful slogan, and it certainly is true. They do not have a sugar beet factory in that area but go in for the raising of many other crops. Just to mention a few, they raise canning crops, field vegetables, root crops, vegetable seeds, tree and small fruits, field crops and many others. I might also mention that the Canadian championship for barley was won by Mr. Thomas E. Brown, who comes from Cassils. Many other records also could be mentioned coming from the eastern irrigation district, but I need not take time to do so. In passing, however, I think I should mention the pheasant shooting in that area. The Brooks area without a doubt is one of the finest pheasant-hunting districts in Canada. Sportsmen come all the way from eastern Canada to shoot pheasants there.
As you go further west you come to the western irrigation district at Strathmore,

The Address-Mr. Wylie which comes down to Cluny and Gleichen, another prosperous area through which it is a pleasure to drive. That was especially so last summer, when they had wonderful crops in that district, just showing what irrigation can do for a country. The rainfall seems to become more abundant as water is spread over the land and more trees are planted.
The residents of southern Alberta have been marking time for many years waiting for irrigation. We have two projects that affect Medicine Hat in particular; the St. Mary-Milk river project and the Bow river development project, which is more familiarly known as the Canada Land and Irrigation project. Before discussing irrigation further, I want to say that, after listening to the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) this afternoon, it seems to me it should not be necessary for me to take up any time in this house discussing this subject. After all he told us about what the Liberals had done-


An hon. Member:: Twenty-five years ago.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Perhaps it was twenty-five years ago, because we have discussed irrigation for twenty-five years, and if we leave the present Liberal government in power we will be discussing it for another twenty-five years. After listening to that speech this afternoon one would think the Liberals had done almost everything necessary to satisfy every community in western Canada. Certainly they have forgotten many parts of the west.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Particularly Moose Jaw.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We are not just sure where
that is. The speech of the minister this afternoon would lead one to believe that all the farmers were satisfied and that no one had any complaints. That is not the case. In southeastern Alberta, where we need irrigation, the farmers have plenty on their minds. I want to refer for a moment to the Meek report, published back in 1942, which made this finding:
That Canada should construct at an early date the necessary irrigation works to protect by beneficial use its share of the St. Mary and Milk rivers.
I realize the government has made a start on a dam there, but it is a long way from completion and we in that area will not consider that project finished until we have water from that dam running through the city of Medicine Hat. The report goes on:
That there is tributary to the St. Mary and Milk rivers a larger area of good irrigable land than can be irrigated by the total water available from Canada's share of these rivers supplemented by waters of the Belly and Waterton rivers.


That upon the completion of the ultimate development a total of 345,000 acres would be available for post-war settlement and for the re-establishment of many farmers at present on submarginal lands.
How true that is. A short time ago I said that residents of that area have been marking time for many years waiting for the government to do something in the way of irrigation. Today we have many farmers who are ready and willing to settle on irrigated land. Then let me read another section of the report:
That with irrigation, soil and climatic conditions in southern Alberta are highly favourable for the production of livestock and for growing forage crops, sugar beets, com, and a wide variety of specialty crops.
That the stabilized agriculture and increased production resulting from further irrigation development in southern Alberta would provide for permanent home building, for a higher standard of living, and for improved social advantages and educational facilities.
I think we all realize that is the case. It must be remembered there is never adequate moisture to assure even a good grain crop in the dry areas of southeastern Alberta. The annual average precipitation in that area is 12-70 inches. The average rainfall for the two vital growing months of July and August is only 2-8 inches. Root crops require a great deal more moisture than grain. Further factual data is available to show that the land with which we are concerned is rich in protein-giving elements and capable of greater production if properly irrigated than the irrigated lands in many other parts of the west. I think that is a well-known fact.
In the years in which we have some rain, I could not say sufficient rain, we can grow crops. We can grow wheat in that area with less moisture than is needed in many parts of western Canada. I might add to that by saying that the wheat in that area is of better quality than in many parts of the west. In that area we also have from a minimum of ninety days to as high as one hundred and forty days wholly free from frost, and that is another matter which must be taken into consideration when planning for irrigation.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Minister of Agriculture takes credit for that.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Perhaps he does, but when he goes out west I do not think he is so hot that he stops the frost. Irrigation would bring diversified agriculture, which is so essential to any community's prosperity. It would cushion the shock of any business recession which we hear so many people predicting is now on its way. It would reduce the cost of living by providing products now imported over long hauls. After listening to some of the discussions on freight rates, I think that

is a very important point. Many of these products could be produced right at home.
It would give stability by establishing new enterprises which were not so dependent on generally prosperous business conditions throughout the country. It is wasteful and shortsighted economics to allow these southeastern lands to remain undeveloped. It was Herbert Hoover who once said:
Every drop of water that runs to the sea without rendering a commercial return is a public waste.
I think that is a statement of which the Minister of Agriculture should take note, especially after the speech he made this afternoon. There are several good reasons why the government should give serious consideration to completing the Bow river extension with as little delay as possible.
The provincial government completed the agreement between the province and The Canada Land and Irrigation Company over various lands in the area affected. The main ditch has been completed over its entire course to Redcliff. A lot of people do not realize that fact when irrigation projects are oeing discussed. It will cost less to complete that project than to complete any other project in western Canada under consideration at the present time.
On motion of Mr. Wylie the debate was adjourned.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. This afternoon I was quite unavoidably absent when the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) spoke. I am told he gave a typically inaccurate account of certain events which transpired when his government was defeated at the polls in Saskatchewan in 1929. I understand he charged that I supported the entry into a coalition government of the Progressive and independent members of the legislature under the late Dr. Anderson.
Privilege-Mr. Coldwell
Not only did I not support it, but I opposed it vehemently and strenuously because I disagreed with the type of campaign conducted by Dr. Anderson and his friends. The Progressive party was disbanded when two of its elected representatives entered the government against my advice and that of the other members of the executive. I immediately assisted in the formation of labour and farmer groups which culminated in the C.C.F. party in 1932.
By one of those coincidences that sometimes occur, I received a letter last Wednesday from Dr. Hugh MacLean, a very respected citizen of Regina, now retired and living in Los Angeles, in which he reminds me of the true and quite different story. He speaks of a certain person, who shall be nameless. He says:
-the henchman who approached me when I wrote him (the present Minister of Agriculture) that he would have to retract his statement in which he denies that anyone had gone to you at his request after the election of 1929 and offered you a position in his government if you could prevail upon the progressives to support him. I insisted that his statement to the press would have to satisfy me and you, else I would tell the whole story.
The 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.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Graydon: May I ask the acting leader of the government what the order of business will be for tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: Wednesday, February 23, 1949