1949-02-25

UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. On Wednesday last, answers were tabled to a question I had asked about unemployment and public works. Part 3 of the question-it is reported at page 818 of Hansard-was as follows:
What is the estimated number of workers who could be employed on such projects within (a) one month; (b) six months; (c) one year?
The minister gave the estimated number who could be employed at the site itself as 17,000 skilled and unskilled workers in six months, and only 5,000 in one year. Since the second figure is so much smaller than the first, I should like to ask the minister if it was a typographical error, or if the government's program actually calls for fewer jobs in one year than in six months, which I cannot believe.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The figures in part 3(a) of the answer were compiled for statistical purposes on the basis that all contracts would be let at the same time, but in actual practice it is expected that they will be staggered or spaced as the economy requires.

On the orders of the day:


Major James William Coldwell: The
Minister of Reconstruction and Supply has been out of the chamber; I thought he was returning to his seat, and I wanted to ask a supplementary question. I shall put the question now, in any event. I have totalled the figures given in answer to my question about unemployment, and I get this result: skilled workers, 14,500; unskilled, 10,000; off-the-site, 15,700, totalling 40,200. This figure seems to be wrong, having in mind the statement attributed to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) at Vancouver. The minister is reported to have said there were 50,000 unemployed in the Vancouver area alone.
Righl Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): There is something wrong with the answer.



PASSPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: On
February 11, as reported at page 470 of Hansard, I asked a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and he promised to give a further answer. Is the minister ready to do so today?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 

FREE TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I wish to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement made by the premier of Prince Edward Island in the legislature of that province the night before last, and reported in the press, that if Canada so desires she may have free trade with the United States, will the minister indicate whether there is any foundation for this statement, and whether the government is making any move in that direction?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I would not be in a position to say whether there is any foundation for it. There is no foundation known to me.


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but I do not see him in his seat at the moment. I notice that the premier of Prince Edward Island made an announcement a day or so ago in Charlottetown to the effect that
[Mr. Pearson.)

after the next election we would have complete free trade with the United States. I wonder if the minister is prepared to make a statement on this point.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: He will have my support on it.


Thomas Langton Church: Free trade with the United States would make a Lazarus out of the country that Laurier professed to have made a nation.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, arising out of the statement yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the effect that, out of the moneys of the farmers held by the wheat board, 20 cents a bushel will be payable on all crops harvested from 1945 to 1948, and that these payments will be made shortly. Will the farmers receiving this 20 cents a bushel have to regard the amount they receive as income for 1949, irrespective of the year in which the wheat was grown and sold to the wheat board?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The answer is yes; it will be regarded as income for the year in which the payment is made.


John George Diefenbaker: Then the government will get back most of it in taxes.


Mr. Wright:: May I ask a supplementary question? In 1946, when the five-year contract was entered into, the government gave a definite undertaking that the participation certificates would be chargeable back to the year in which the crop was grown and the income was earned. Why are the interim payments not on the same basis?


James Joseph McCann: In view of the varying
opinions in the matter, I shall make a statement on Monday as to the exact position. The answer I gave to the member for Lake Centre represented the decision as I understood it.


Mr. Quelch:: I should like to ask a question supplementary to those asked by the members for Lake Centre and Melfort. It has been the practice for the farmer to refer back his wheat board payment to the year in which the wheat was grown. Will he be permitted to continue to do that?


James Joseph McCann: I shall include the answer to that question in Monday's statement.



BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon City):: Will the Minister of Transport say whether the Bell Telephone Company has recently applied to the board of transport commissioners for permission to increase its rates?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The answer is no.



INQUIRY AS TO ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS ON EASTERN SOFT WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant):: In view of the statement yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the initial price paid western wheat producers will be increased to $1.75 per bushel for the entire period from August 1, 1945 to July 31, 1950, I should like to ask whether eastern farmers will receive any further payments for wheat sold between September, 1944, and June 18, 1948, during which time eastern soft wheat was handled by the wheat board.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Eastern soft wheat was never pooled. An appropriate price was set for the wheat, and full settlement has been paid to the grower for each separate crop year.



SHARE OF SMALL FLOUR MILLS IN EXPORT TRADE IN WHEAT FLOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Burton (Humboldt):: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicate to the house what provision his department has made to ensure to the small flour mills a fair share of the export trade in flour?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker, has no control over the distribution of the export trade in wheat flour. Each flour mill sells its product in the domestic market or the foreign market as it sees fit. It is a matter of individual enterprise.	.



CANADIAN PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce at an early date make a statement to the house setting
Inquiries of the Ministry forth the Canadian products that are now in surplus supply, adequate supply and short supply in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall endeavour to do so.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I want to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works with regard to a wage increase for women cleaners in federal public buildings. Is it not possible for a change to be made, in the case of these employees, from prevailing rates to a status which will make it possible for them to receive increases at the same time as other government employees, instead of always being a year or two behind?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: At the outset I may say that many hon. members have brought this question to the attention of the Minister of Public Works. The last one was the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor), and not long ago it was raised by the two hon. members for Ottawa. The first question is whether consideration is being given to a wage increase for women cleaners. Last April their wages were increased to a rate of 64 cents per hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In Winnipeg their rate is 50 cents per hour.


Alphonse Fournier: That may be; I am
speaking of the rates paid in Ottawa. There is pending before the Department of Labour another application for revision. I understand the procedure is for the Department of Public Works to submit to the Department of Labour a request for the revision of these salaries, to come into effect April 1. The rate is not the same all over the country; they are paid according to the prevailing rates in their localities. Actually we have made an application to the Department of Labour for revision.
As to the second question, that is a matter of government policy which has not been considered. If it is considered and a decision reached, I shall inform the house.



DAILY RATE EMPLOYEES


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I rise on a question of privilege. May I express the hope that the announcement made to this house on March 24, 1948, concerning wage and pay increases for
906	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry employees of this House of Commons, may yet be implemented in full with respect to the daily rate employees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that this is not a question of privilege. The purpose of a question of privilege is to protect the privileges of the members of the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I worded my question in that fashion because I know it is not a question to be directed to the government. I merely express the hope that Your Honour will make a statement within a few days.



VEGETABLE OILS

[Stage Direction]
QUESTION AS TO REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: I am told that last week all restrictions on vegetable oils in Canada were removed by order in council. Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce care to make a statement as to why this was made necessary?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Vegetable oils were formerly under international allocation. During a period of short supply an international board fixed the allocation for each country. To carry out our obligations to the international board it was necessary to regulate the export and import of vegetable oils. About two or three weeks ago the allocation of vegetable oils was discontinued. Parliament has not given the Department of Trade and Commerce authority to regulate imports or exports, except in order to carry out an international agreement or to carry out a support price policy of this government. Since our legal authority lapsed with the discontinuance of allocation of oils and fats, we have lifted export and import regulations, as we were bound to do.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY COLLECTION OF TOLLS AT ENTRANCE TO PARK AREA   USE OF PARK HIGHWAY BY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Matthews (Kootenay East):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources. In the event of the Kicking Horse pass route being chosen for the trans-Canada highway, will the collection of tolls at the east and west entrances to the park be discontinued? Will 

commercial vehicles be permitted to use this highway?


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I did not hear the first part
of the question, Mr. Speaker. May I look at the question in Hansard and answer it later?



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Garfield Case (Grey North):: Will
the Prime Minister indicate what progress, if any, has been made towards the establishment of a national divorce court for the benefit of the one province which has none?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not care to go beyond saying that the government does not intend to introduce any legislation with respect to divorce.



QUESTION AS TO CANADA'S PARTICIPATION IN AIRLIFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: About two weeks ago I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Canada would join Great Britain, the United States and Australia in the airlift into Berlin. Has he any statement to make about it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I remember that the hon.
member did ask that question, Mr. Speaker. This question of the Berlin airlift is now before the United Nations for consideration. Efforts are being made by the security council to arrive at a solution of the problem by way of raising the blockade of Berlin. This would make the airlift unnecessary. I had hoped the results of those discussions before the security council would be available before I answered that question, so that the answer would be more illuminating. The report of the security council subcommittee to the full security council has just been completed. Pending consideration of this matter by the security council, I would prefer to postpone answering the question, if that is agreeable to the hon. member.


Thomas Langton Church: I wanted to say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that unless Canada takes part in the airlift into Berlin the western powers will lose command of the seas.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 24, 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.
(Translation):
Mr. David Gourd (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you for the faultless manner in which you have discharged your important duties during the four years of our twentieth parliament.
I am glad of this opportunity to renew my congratulations to the Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent who, after assuming the leadership of the great Liberal party, undertook to everyone's satisfaction the heavy responsibilities of governing the country as prime minister. All who are anxious to ensure the prosperity and future of this country rejoiced on seeing such great responsibilities entrusted to a man so able to assume them. Fortunately, the great majority of the people appreciate the importance of responsible leaders who wish to preserve the people's freedom while guaranteeing its economic security and stability. I join my distinguished colleagues in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. members for Essex West (Mr. Brown) and for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Demers).
At this session, the house will discuss several important matters and take decisions of far-reaching consequences.
As far as the speech from the throne is concerned, I wish to draw to the attention of the government a few points which I believe to be of the utmost importance for the constituency I represent, as well as for the country at large.
First, I was greatly pleased, Mr. Speaker, to learn of the government's intention of supplementing the present Family Allowances Act, which we owe to the cabinet of our illustrious former prime minister. The hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) showed once again, in putting forth that legislation, that he has a profound understanding of social justice. Since this legislation has proved effective, it should now be stripped of as many restrictions as possible. I congratulate the government on its proposal in this respect.
The Address-Mr. D. Gourd
Obviously, estimated budget expenditures are thus increased, but can a state spend more wisely than by providing for its human heritage?
In troubled times such as ours when so many false, destructive and subversive ideas are spread throughout the world, steps should be taken to ensure that future generations will be physically, intellectually and morally sound. The best Canadians we can hope for are still those who are taught, on their mother's lap, to love Canada. For them, moral values are part and parcel of their family heritage. In planning first of all for them, we plan for the future.
It is in the newer regions especially, such as Chapleau county which I am privileged to represent, that the benefits of this Family Allowances Act are more easily observed. The families of settlers and pioneers of that district, who pride themselves on having lived in this country for three centuries, whose forebears cleared uninhabited tracts of land and who, in their turn, are now building an entirely new country, are quite deserving of some encouragement by the government in carrying out the superhuman task of pushing the frontiers of civilization beyond their present limits and of making new wealth accessible to all.
I pay tribute to those builders, to those fathers and mothers who are rearing strong and healthy children to help us face an uncertain future.
May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to again submit to this house how important it is, in my estimation, in order to co-ordinate good will and to maintain peace, that a country such as Canada be represented at the Vatican, stronghold of Christianity and a moral force so necessary at all times.
I also submit that the official recognition of a distinctive national flag would answer the wish of a great majority of Canadians. I am happy to congratulate also the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) for his excellent remarks. I join him in thanking the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) for the adoption of legislation so useful to humanity.
In a constituency as new as the one I have the honour of representing, we already have a sanatorium, and a new hospital now nearing completion. Similar facilities exist in Val d'Or, in the constituency next to mine.
To show the usefulness of this act to our people, let me give an example. A few days ago I received a letter of thanks from the
908	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. D. Gourd chairman of the board of the Macamic sanatorium, Mr. Jacques Bouchard, acknowledging the receipt of a $256,680 grant to his institution.
Since the second hospital to which I referred has not yet been completed, I do not know what portion of the grant it will receive, but I am nevertheless convinced that it will be a fair share.
Mr. Speaker, before dealing more particularly with my constituency, I wish to suggest that measures should be taken for the relief of low-income taxpayers. I am convinced that if all incomes lower than $2,500 were exempt from taxation, the economic prosperity of this country would become more and more stabilized.
Ever since the victory of our armies, allied to those of other nations, that is to say for more than four years, we have experienced wonderful prosperity, as a result of the wise administration of our government. Once more, our national balance-sheet shows a considerable surplus. Through the competence and ability of our minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) Canada has secured a financial position which is one of the soundest in the world. I therefore suggest that the tax burden which Canadian citizens have to bear should now be lightened.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) for his vision and ability in building a branch line from Barraute towards Kiask falls. I must again mention the important reports prepared by Mr. Keith Ralston, C.N.R. engineer, on the natural resources of that district. I must recall too the many resolutions passed by the boards of trade and other organizations in my constituency asking that this railway line be extended over a further eleven miles, so that it may reach Cedar rapids at Kiask falls. Navigation would then be possible over a stretch of about sixty miles north of these rapids.
At the time I discussed this matter at length, on March 6, 1947, this line was only in the blueprint stage. Today it is being completed and results already apparent, particularly at Bachelor lake, are an incentive for the building of this line on the 11 mile stretch I have mentioned and, before long, for its extension to Chibougamau.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the house to a rather extraordinary fact in northern Quebec and Ontario. Our provincial highways reach the boundaries, or [Mr. Gourd (Chapleau).l

nearly, whilst the Ontario roads are 50 miles remote from our boundaries, a stretch that has never been built. There has been so much talk about unity that it seems unbelievable that such conditions exist and that our communication system should not be more efficient.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is not always easy for the dominion government to obtain the co-operation of the provincial governments. However, I urge the federal authorities to do everything in their power to open up the 50 miles of road which I have mentioned and to build a highway connecting my district with northern Ontario. Those two areas have several things in common and the relations of their citizens will consolidate their common interests, wipe out their disagreements and strengthen unity between the two provinces.
I would also suggest that the necessary steps be taken so that the trans-Canada highway may have approximately the following layout; going east from Cochrane, running somewhat parallel to the C.N.R. tracks, passing through La Reine and crossing my constituency to Mont Laurier. Such a layout would greatly reduce the distance between Montreal and Cochrane.
In plotting the highway in that manner, the present roads could be used for the greater part of the way, which would save time in building the highway. The layout would be advantageous to tourists who could take one road going north and another one coming south, thus making a loop.
I should like to stress the fact that the present highway, leaving the Manitoba boundary at 35 miles from Kenora and passing through Fort William, Kapuskasing, Cochrane and Ottawa, is 1,390 miles long. I would also point out that the highway from Point Fortune in the province of Quebec to the New Brunswick boundary, near Edmund-ston, covers a distance of 388 miles. That means a total of 1,778 miles from the Manitoba to the New Brunswick boundary. The present highway is located in Ontario to the extent of 75 per cent. If my proposal were carried out, the road starting at Kenora would still pass through Fort William, Hearst, Kapuskasing and Cochrane. It would cover a distance of 894 miles in Ontario. From Cochrane, it would head for La Reine in the province of Quebec and thence through La Sarre, Louvicourt, Mont Laurier, Montreal and so on until it reached the New Brunswick boundary. The highway would then cover a distance

of 828 miles in the province of Quebec. The present road stretches over 1,778 miles while the alternative I suggest would be only 1,722 miles long. Not only would the latter be 56 miles shorter, but it would be more evenly distributed between Ontario and Quebec.
Since the dominion government will pay half the cost incurred in building the trans-Canada highway, I suggest that a joint committee, consisting of dominion government representatives and of delegates from the provinces concerned, be authorized to act on this matter.
Before I resume my seat, I would like to draw the attention of the house to a problem of great importance to the farmers of my constituency. I would like to voice, for the benefit of all members, the protests of my constituents against any measure designed to promote the free sale of margarine.
There are not a few people in this country who claim that the farmers have been reaping profits during the last few years. If such arguments are to be used to justify the free marketing of margarine, I wish to state in reply that the present situation of the farmers, in general, is not very profitable and that it would be economically unsound to increase their difficulties by forcing a drop in the price of butter and by making it harder for them to sell their product. At the very least, legislation is necessary to preclude margarine from being sold with the same colouring as that of butter.
I wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that in my constituency of Chap-leau there are a great many Indians. It would be advisable to build a special school in order that they may be trained and educated, so that they may t?.ke an active part in our public affairs and contribute to the development of our vast region.
I also suggest the establishment by the federal government of an experimental farm in northwestern Quebec. The great expanse of fine, cultivated land of which we are the proud owners and the constant advances made in the clearing of land mean that this farm would be of great service to our farmers and settlers.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it to be my duty, in order that justice and truth may prevail, to correct the statements made in this house by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Caouette) on February the 1st last.
I must say that I do not intend to match insult with insult. I have far too much respect for the house to stoop to that. The respect I have for myself, for my electors and for the
The Address-Mr. D. Gourd mandate which they have given me, prevents me from doing so. I will therefore restrict myself to stating the actual truth.
I have always thought that we are elected to serve the best interests of all but especially those of our constituents. I was therefore quite surprised when the member for Pontiac took me to task for having secured a post office for his constituents of Val d'Or. I shall not deny the part I played in this matter. I have also helped to secure grants for the mines located in the constituency of Pontiac and elsewhere. I am sure that the farmers of his constituency or of my own do not bear me ill will for having thus helped the development of the district, because this makes it easier for them to market their products. I may add that, for my part, I shall always be happy to see colleagues of mine in this house do a service to my constituents.
The member for Pontiac saw fit to add that nothing was being done in the Chapleau constituency. I must say in this connection that I am prepared to let my electors, who have witnessed my efforts during the last four years, be the judges in this matter.
The member for Pontiac also referred to a meeting which was held at Senneterre on January 14. As he was not present, and since he has to rely on inaccurate secondhand information, I may say that at that meeting three matters were discussed. The first related to the refund of tax overpayments on electricity. I have requested my constituents to send me all documents and details pertaining to that matter, and the hon. member for Pontiac may be assured that as soon as I receive them I will give the matter the attention I always devote to matters which concern my constituency. The second point had to do with the opening of a school for Indians. I have dealt with that question in my present speech and I am requesting the establishment of such a school. At the said meeting I informed the people of Senneterre that I was in favour of that project, but that in my opinion before deciding on a site for that school the department should have a survey made so that the most suitable site might be chosen. In so doing, I was following a policy which is that of the Liberal party as well as my own, and which consists in avoiding wholesale promises not meant to be kept. Whenever I have made a promise to my constituents, I have kept it.
The third matter discussed was the building of a post office. The postal revenue at Senneterre is $7,800. The department cannot build a post office when revenue from such a
910	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Brooks source is less than $10,000. The member lor Pontiac should know it. This I have explained to my electors of Senneterre. I also told them that Val d'Or had secured its post office because the revenue there was $45,000. On the other hand, La Sarre, whose post office yields over $16,000, can expect to obtain one also.
The member lor Pontiac is blaming me because I said that a member must use tact. I submit that tact and politeness are qualities all ol us should strive to acquire.
That hon. member has said that I had boasted that I did not have to be a member ol parliament to make a living. Mr. Speaker, what I said is that I am not in politics to make money but only to help all I can towards the development ol northwestern Quebec. I have been in that part ol the country lor 37 years; I saw the first tree that was lelled there, the first ploughing, the first crop, the first train, and I am indeed happy to have witnessed the extraordinary development that has taken place in Abitibi. When I think that there were only about ten people when I first got there and that Chapleau now has a population ol 75,000, I am as proud as if it were a personal achievement. There is no doubt that a member ol parliament would make more money by staying home to look alter his business, but I am amply rewarded by the knowledge that I contribute to the development ol my constituency ol Chapleau, ol my province and ol my country.
(Text):


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, belore entering into a discussion ol the matters contained in the speech from the throne, I wish to add my congratulations to those which have already been expressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and to the other cabinet ministers who have been appointed since the last session of the house.
I also wish to extend congratulations to my leader (Mr. Drew) and express my pride and pleasure in his appointment as the head of the Progressive Conservative party. I am sure that all hon. members, no matter what their politics, have realized that the leader of the Progressive Conservative party is not only a man who has already gone far but one who is going to go much farther in the history of this dominion of ours.
During the debate on the speech from the throne an opportunity is given to hon. members, as representatives of the people, to discuss the country's conditions generally, and to present to parliament the views of


their own constituencies and the needs of the country as they see them. I shall only touch on a few of these this afternoon since there will be many other opportunities to bring up these matters.
We have already discussed the question of bringing Newfoundland into confederation. No objection has been taken by any member in this party. All members of the Progressive Conservative party are pleased indeed to welcome this new province to confederation. As a matter of fact I doubt if there are many members in the House of Commons opposed to their coming in. We did object to the manner in which their joining was being brought about. However, that matter has been discussed fully, and I do not intend to weary the house by discussing it again at this time.
We in the maritime provinces are particularly proud to welcome this new province. We have much in common with the people of Newfoundland. They are our near neighbour; their people are much the same as our people; their basic industries are much the same as ours. That is, they get their living from the sea, the forests and the mines. Those of us in the three little provinces by the sea are pleased indeed to welcome another sister.
May I express the hope that this new maritime province will not have to travel as hard a road as have the three provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island since the time they joined confederation. As was said in the house a few days ago, this matter of bringing Newfoundland into the fold is the fulfilment of the dream of confederation as expressed many years ago by Sir John A. Macdonald. It is the uniting of two great countries of the British commonwealth of nations. I was pleased indeed to hear the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette)-who, unfortunately, is not in his seat this afternoon-make his eloquent appeal for unity within this country. He stated that a united Canada is one of the great essentials, so far as the future prosperity of the country is concerned. He went on to say that a united commonwealth and empire is also a great essential, not only for the future welfare of this country but for the future peace of the world.
This is no idle dream, Mr. Speaker. History has proved in two great wars just how necessary the British commonwealth is to the welfare of the world. It is true that in the house we often hear in speeches, questions asked of the ministry or through notices of motions placed on the order paper, state-

ments which might seem to weaken those ties which bind together the different members of the commonwealth. However, I have been in the house now for fourteen years and have learned to pay very little attention to such statements.
The great problem agitating the minds of the people of Canada, as well as those of other freedom-loving countries today, is security for the future. I have said that the British commonwealth of nations is one of the requisites for the procurement and maintenance of peace in the world. In the war of 1914-18 the British commonwealth stood as a bulwark preserving the liberties of freedom-loving people. We did not lose sight of the fact that our great neighbour to the south played an important part in that war. But, as has been said on many occasions, the war did not commence in 1917; it commenced in 1914. And if we had had to wait for a year or so, until the United States came in, I doubt very much what position the world would have been in by that time.
Then, the second great world war from 1939 to 1945 did not begin after Pearl Harbor. It began in 1939; and had it not been for the British commonwealth at that time one might wonder in what position the world would be today. In saying these things I am not in any way belittling the great part played by the United States. But the point I would emphasize is that it is essential and necessary that this great organization, this British commonwealth of nations which, on two occasions, has preserved the freedom and peace of the world, continue to keep itself as strong as possible.
We had hoped that after the last war, when so many nations had fought for the preservation of peace, and after so many had perished in those countries which had been overrun, the United Nations would have been the source to which we might turn for the preservation of peace and for the future security of the world. But, as was stated only a few days ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), it is unreasonable and would be unreasoning if today we were to depend upon and place our hopes in the United Nations. We must remember what has happened. Fifty nations met at San Francisco; but the ink was hardly dry on the signatures of many of their representatives before trouble arose in different parts of the world, and particularly trouble with one of those great nations which, we all admit, had played a magnificent part in the war of 1939-45.
It became necessary therefore, in order to preserve peace and security, for the freedom-
The Address-Mr. Brooks loving peoples of the world to look around for the purpose of forming some other pact, or arriving at some other solution. The speech from the throne mentions the north Atlantic pact. Let me say at the outset that I and, I am satisfied, all hon. members in the house and all others interested in the preservation of the peace of the world, are in favour of the north Atlantic pact. We realize of course the difficulties involved in bringing this pact to a successful conclusion, and the difficulty of bringing all nations within its sphere. First of all, those countries in Europe which were devastated and torn by war must be put on their feet; they are not in a position today to bear the great burdens they would have to bear in the event of future hostilities. Countries such as France, Belgium, Holland and other European countries, all of which suffered devastation, must be placed in a position where they can bear their share of the burden. Then, nations such as the Scandinavian group must be brought into the pact; and we recognize the great difficulty involved in this procedure. Perhaps we do not realize as clearly as we should the difficulty this presents to smaller countries such as Norway. They have terrific problems to solve. In Canada we do not find it hard to decide on which side we would place our strength. But for a little country like Norway, situated on the very border of one of those nations from which we expect our chief trouble, the difficulty is most acute. We must respect the stand taken by this small nation within the last few weeks.
We realize, too, the difficulty confronting a country such as Eire. I am not concerned with nor am I competent to discuss the internal politics of that country. It would seem to me, however, that the salvation of a country like Eire, in the event of trouble, would depend upon an agreement such as the north Atlantic pact. This country feels that it is impossible for it to enter such a pact until certain internal arrangements have been made. I simply mention these things to show how difficult the problems are that are involved in bringing about security in the world.
The other day the minister, when speaking about security, praised the airlift, but he mentioned something which caught my attention at that time. He said it represented a paradox. The paradox was that young men who had fought in the last war, who had carried bombs to Berlin for the destruction of that city, today were using the same bombers to carry food for the preservation of the people of the same city. The thought that struck me was that not all the young men and not all the bombers are being used for this purpose. I have wondered why it is that
912	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Brooks Canadian bombers and Canadian young men have not been employed to assist Great Britain and the United States in the task. We are told that the maintaining of the sections of Berlin occupied by Great Britain, France, and the United States is very essential as far as the future preservation of peace is concerned. If it is so essential it seems to me it is another paradox that we in Canada are not bearing our full share in carrying that burden.
In the speech from the throne there is a section which is of great interest to the people of Canada, and which I think will be of particular interest to the people of the maritime provinces. It reads:
You will be asked to approve, subject to the approval of the United States authorities, the agreement concluded in 1941 for the development of navigation and power in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin.
That is the St. Lawrence waterway. I listened to the speech of the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Brown), and may I at this time congratulate him on a very excellent effort. In his speech he pointed out the great benefit that the St. Lawrence waterway would be to certain parts of Canada and the United States. He pointed out that the dream, not only of people of the present day, but of people of Canada and the United States for a great many years, has been that grain and products shipped at the head of the lakes might be conveyed by water right through to the sea. He also spoke about the merchandise that could be moved from Montreal, Toronto and other parts of Canada into the great central areas of the North American continent. That is something which will be of great benefit to those sections of Canada, but there are certain parts of the dominion, as there are certain sections of the United States, which are not going to benefit very materially from the development of the St. Lawrence waterway.
In the three maritime provinces we feel that it will not be of very much, if any, benefit to us. In saying that I am not intimating that we are not in favour of anything that will assist in the development of our great country as a whole, or that is for the benefit of other sections of the Dominion of Canada. History will disprove that. We have always borne our full share of the development of all parts of Canada. Our money and our people have helped to develop them. We have helped to develop the great railways that cross the country. Some three or four hundred million dollars have been spent by Canada in the development of canals in Ontario and other parts of the nation. We helped to build the Hudson Bay railway, which has never been,


and never will be, of any benefit to the people of the maritime provinces.
Therefore I say we are not opposed to anything which is for the benefit of the whole. I think there are certain ways in which the St. Lawrence waterway can be of benefit to the maritime provinces. Perhaps we might get cheaper feed for our farmers inasmuch as it would be conveyed by water all the way from the west. The way in which the most benefit would be derived would be, I believe, from the development of the Chignecto canal. In this house on previous occasions I have mentioned the development of the Chignecto canal. I want to say to hon. members that, while it is a very old subject, while it has been discussed since long before the days of confederation, it is still a very burning question in our provinces.
This afternoon it is not necessary for me to weary the house with the history of the Chignecto canal. It is sufficient to say that by its construction over 400 miles will be eliminated from the water route of ships traveling from the St. Lawrence river to Saint John, Digby, and other ports on the bay of Fundy.
As far as coastal service is concerned, it would help to shorten the distance for ships wishing to trade with Boston, New York, and ports of the New England states. The gypsum that we produce in the region of the bay of Fundy could be shipped through the Chignecto canal to the central part of Canada, and that industry would benefit greatly. The construction of the canal would benefit our lumbering industry, our fishing industry, and practically every other industry in our provinces.
There is another benefit which I think might be derived from the construction of a canal. I refer to the great iron finds in Labrador. Now that Newfoundland is coming into confederation the Hollinger-Hanna concessions in Labrador and Quebec are to be developed. A railway is to be built from the mines to Seven Islands, a port on the St. Lawrence river. There is no doubt that the New England states will expect much of the ore to be shipped to Boston, New York and other places in the New England states. I repeat that by constructing the Chignecto canal you will link the bay of Fundy with the St. Lawrence waterway, and over 400 miles, as can be seen from this map, will be saved in transporting iron ore from the port of Seven Islands to different points in the United States.
I hope that, when the question of the St. Lawrence waterway is being discussed, members of the house will bear in mind that, as we will be called upon to help to pay for the

development of the St. Lawrence waterway, we should be given some consideration as far as the development of the Chignecto canal is concerned, for it is something that was promised to the people of the maritime provinces many years ago.
There is another point about the development of the Chignecto canal. I am not an engineer, but I have been told that through the construction of the Chignecto canal hydro power can also be developed. The maritime provinces need hydro power. As a matter of fact, our people are starving for electrical power. One of the main reasons why we have no comparable industry in that section of the nation is the fact that we have not cheap power. I hope that consideration will be given to that side of the question when the matter is being discussed. Just a few days ago I read that locations were being sought in Canada for some four hundred factories from Great Britain. A few of these may be coming to the maritime provinces; I do not know of any, but I believe one or two have come to Nova Scotia. If four or five hundred industries from the old country are to be located in Canada, certainly we should have some of them down on the eastern coast. As a matter of fact if these English companies, or any other companies, wish to export goods overseas, what better place would there be to establish factories than down in the provinces by the sea?
There is another development on which I want to say a few words; that is the Passa-maquoddy project. Last summer I saw an article in the newspapers saying this matter was being discussed again, that it was being brought up in the United States by Senator Brewster of Maine, and I wrote to the Department of External Affairs about it. Many years ago, I think in 1920, an engineer named Cooper first thought of developing power by harnessing the tides. Millions of dollars were spent at that time; as a matter of fact I believe Mr. Cooper spent some $300,000 of his own money. As hon. members know, tides in the bay of Fundy rise sometimes as high as 40 feet. In Passamaquoddy bay and Penobscot bay in Maine the tides are very high, and Mr. Cooper's idea was to use these two bays for the development of power by letting the water out of one and holding it in the other to form a head, and vice versa. This project was not very popular in New Brunswick when it was first introduced, because at that time it was said that it would be injurious to the fisheries of that province. Since that time the matter has been thoroughly investigated, however, and I believe the fear that it might injure our fisheries has been proved groundless. So
The Address-Mr. Brooks I hope the Canadian government will give this matter serious consideration. It is being investigated at the present time by a commission, and if it is found practicable I hope the government will take whatever steps may be necessary to carry it out.
Much has been said during this debate on the question of taxes. I am not going to make any extended remarks, but I believe we in New Brunswick are paying the highest taxes anywhere on the North American continent. I might mention taxes on tobacco, for instance, as a result of which we pay 39 cents for a package of cigarettes which costs 35 cents in Ottawa and other parts of Canada. The gasoline tax in New Brunswick is higher than anywhere in Canada, and I believe higher than anywhere on this continent.
A day or so ago I was interested to learn that the farmers were to receive some consideration in the matter of basic herds. I think this is a step in the right direction. The previous ruling was that if a basic herd was sold or slaughtered in a single year the proceeds were looked upon as income and the owner of the herd had to pay the full income tax. There is another question that is very closely associated with that of the basic herds, and that is of great interest to the farmers of New Brunswick. Most of them have woodlots. They go out and cut lumber or pulpwood, sometimes completing their cutting all in one year or sometimes extending it over a period of years. As we all know it takes thirty or forty years for a tree to grow. If these farmers sell all the lumber off their farms in one year the proceeds have been taken as income for that particular year, and they have had to pay the full income tax on it. This is the same principle as the basic herd, and when the minister is giving consideration to these income tax reforms I hope he will consider this matter of lumber cut by farmers. In this connection, if the house will bear with me I should like to read a resolution offered at the convention of farmers and dairymen held at Fredericton in January of this year, as follows:
Whereas the farmers owning woodlots and cutting therefrom have no allowance made them for the annual growth when being assessed income tax;
And whereas they are assessed in full for all stumpage value received over and above original investment;
And whereas this has the effect of discouraging continued ownership of farmers' woodlots due to the fact that he has to pay tax to the extent indicated in the foregoing. In fact, in many cases, this taxation is the reason for farmers selling and moving off their farms;
And whereas it is in the interest of the country as a whole to offer every encouragement to farmers to stay upon their farms and continue to produce food for Canadian consumption and export;
Now therefore be it resolved that this farmers' and dairymen's convention in session assembled do

The Address-Mr. Brooks recommend that farmers be allowed a reasonable stumpage value for logs, pulpwood, etc., cut on their lots deductible from tax notwithstanding write-offs which may have been previously made with a view of encouraging the farmer to stay upon his farm;
And further resolved that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the Minister of Agriculture of New Brunswick with a request that he take immediate action with the Department of Finance at Ottawa with a view of having its provisions implemented at the first opportunity.
I hope the Minister of National Revenue will take this matter into consideration also, because the situation is very unfair and should be corrected at once. While I am dealing with taxes I must say that I consider our young people are being taxed much too heavily. We often say, "Oh, he is a young, unmarried man with a fairly good salary; he can afford to pay a high tax". These young men are trying to build up their incomes. They hope to get money with which to get married and build homes, but with the taxes they have to pay it is impossible for them to build up their bank accounts for these purposes. That is a very bad thing for the country, and it also has the effect of driving these young men out of Canada. We suffer from this in New Brunswick to a great extent, and I am satisfied that one of the great reasons for our young people leaving the country is the heavy taxation imposed upon them. So I would hope the minister might be able to increase the exemption allowed our young people.
I see that my time is fast slipping by, but I should like to say just a few words in connection with veterans affairs. On numerous occasions I have recommended that a standing committee on veterans affairs be set up by this house, and I take this opportunity of repeating that recommendation. I know of no committee which would have a more beneficial effect. We have a number of standing committees of this house, and I have been a member of many of them in the past fourteen years. Some of these committees never meet, and some of them meet once or twice a year. If there were a veterans affairs committee, it would meet very often.
Upon looking at the record, I find that the first veterans affairs committee met in 1916. From 1916 until shortly before the last war, there were thirteen veterans affairs committees. Since the last war, there have been five such committees, making a total of eighteen committees in the past thirty-two or thirty-three years. When these veterans affairs committees meet, they meet almost daily. During the last session, no committee was busier than the veterans affairs committee. If that committee were sitting today, many problems could be considered by it.
I will not take the time to enumerate those

problems, but the veterans consider that committee as their forum. It is a place to which they can come and present their grievances to sympathetic ears. I do ask that the veterans affairs committee be again set up.
While I am mentioning veterans affairs, Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay a tribute to a gentleman who passed away a few days ago. I refer to the late John Herwig, who was the secretary of the Canadian legion. The returned men of this country have lost a great advocate in the death of this man. For many years, Mr. Herwig has fought and worked on behalf of the veterans of this country and, on many occasions, he appeared before the veterans affairs committee. Since other opportunities will be afforded for speaking of veterans affairs, Mr. Speaker, I shall have more to say on that subject at a later time.
I should like now to say a few words about conservation. A few moments ago I spoke of the woodlots of the farmers in my own province. The lumbering interests of this country are becoming very much concerned, and I think rightly so, about a situation which is developing in the depletion of our forests. In my own province there has been a great need for conservation for many years. The financial position of the province does not permit the province to undertake it. It is time the federal government gave some assistance. I was pleased to see some mention of conservation in the speech from the throne. The time has come when the federal government should assist the small provinces, or assist all the provinces for that matter, in their conservation problems.
Some people may say the federal government has no interest in this matter, except in the northern parts of the dominion. The federal government has an interest, however, because these lumbering areas provide employment for many of our people. In places where there is little manufacturing, as in the province of New Brunswick, the lumbering industry is the greatest industry we have. I was very much surprised to read in the February issue of a publication issued by the Canadian Forestry Association that there are very few Canadian films which can be used to educate the people on forest conservation. This article reads as follows:
Motion pictures as an aid to forestry education are an important medium employed by the Canadian Forestry Association. During 1948, Canadian Forestry Association's own motion picture and lecture tours, its film libraries and co-operative tours recorded an attendance in all Canadian provinces of 400,000 men, women and youths, French and English.
It is regrettable to report that all the major motion pictures, in the 1948 program, dealing with forest management, forest protection, soil erosion, water and wild life were purchased by Canadian Forestry Association in the United States and adapted (and

translated for Quebec) in Canada. The principal producer of forest conservation films on this continent is the United States Department of Agriculture.
This article goes on to say that this is one field in which our Canadian film board could very properly take a prominent part. The production of films on conservation to educate our people would be of great assistance. The article also says that, so far as the association's program for this year is concerned, they must again depend on the United States for films.
My time has run out, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to say a word about crippled persons. The member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) made an eloquent plea on their behalf the other day. It was gratifying to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) say that approximately $500,000 had been set aside to aid crippled children. There are other cripples, Mr. Speaker, who are not children. I refer to those young men and young women whom we see in every town and village across the country who have suffered from some incurable disease and who are forced to drag their bodies along on crutches. As was pointed out last night, these people receive no assistance. They are not old enough to receive the old age pension, and they are not blind. They are helpless, however. I have received letters from some of my own constituents about this matter. I do hope this parliament will consider helping these people. There is no more deserving class of people in this country, to my way of thinking.


Mr. Arthur Williams (Ontario):: During the time at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I intend to direct my remarks to just two subjects which are only briefly mentioned in the speech from the throne. These two subjects are health and housing. As I looked very carefully through the speech from the throne, I noticed that it dealt with some thirty-nine items. Of the thirty-nine items only two referred to health and housing. Housing was referred to in just twenty-six words and health was referred to in forty-four. I was disappointed that the speech from the throne should be so sparse in its reference to these two important matters.
Two of the most pressing problems of the nation at the present time are health and housing. These are the two things that weigh most heavily on the people of this country. It is true the people are concerned about prices, and in the speech from the throne there is a very brief reference to the question of prices. It is to the effect that present controls will be continued. Some time was spent on that question when the resolution concerning it was before the house, so it is
The Address-Mr. Williams not necessary to refer to it again. I hope some serious attention will be paid to these two particular questions. On the question of health itself, may I say that it was with a great deal of interest and some degree of pleasure that I listened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) when he addressed the house. The hon. gentleman made an effective speech and clearly outlined the steps that are being taken in those particular fields. But the fields are extremely limited. To me the minister was just describing the skeleton of a health program. After all the years that Canada has been a country, I think it is about time that we had something more than a skeleton and that we began to put flesh on it.
It is true that what the government is doing is highly commendable. With the exception of one who wished to indulge in carping criticism, nobody would offer any word of condemnation of the government's activities in connection with cancer, for instance. It is most desirable that something concrete and effective should be done to deal with that scourge. In her speech my colleague the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) referred to the seriousness of arthritis. I agree entirely with what she said. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), who just sat down, referred to the condition in which incurables find themselves. During this session most members of parliament have received a circular letter from the head office of the incurables association in Calgary. We have also received letters from our constituents who are suffering from "polio" and other diseases. It is necessary that concrete steps should be taken by the government to remove these people from the position of being a burden of responsibility on other members of their family. Instead of these unfortunate sufferers feeling that they were dependent upon other members of their family-though the latter gladly accept the responsibility- and being obliged to endure not only the suffering occasioned by these diseases but also the embarrassment of being dependent on other members of the family, many of whom cannot stand the strain, I think it would be commendable if the government undertook responsibility for them.
All these things are highly commendable. But if they were all done, there still would remain just a skeleton of a health program. I sometimes wonder whether people who are in positions of authority in this country really know a great deal about a health program -and I am not thinking now merely of members of the federal government but of other people too. Some of us have had the fortunate experience of living in a country with a complete health program. The Minister of
816	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Williams
Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is one of them, and I know other gentlemen in this house who have had that great advantage. I am sure that every one of them would agree with me that such a health program provides not only for the things that the Minister of National Health and Welfare says this present government is providing for, but for all the other things that so many hundreds of thousands of our people in Canada have not the opportunity of enjoying. All kinds of sicknesses and illnesses are still being. endured by the people of this country because of the fact that they are not able to afford medical attention. They just sit down and continue to suffer. In this connection I should like to quote the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he introduced in this house on May 14 of last year what was then described as a national health program. As reported at page 3935 of Hansard, the right hon. gentleman said:
No doubt it will seem to hon. members that in presenting this health program to parliament the government is pursuing a policy which over the years will involve the expenditure oi considerable sums of money. That is apparent. But what these expenditures may mean in the preservation of health, in the saving of human life, to say nothing of the lessening of human suffering and misery and not infrequently despair, is beyond calculation.
For all the years before this statement was made by the right hon. gentleman-and even since it was made-the people have continued to endure this "human suffering and misery and not infrequently despair" merely because we still have only the skeleton of a health program; there is no flesh on it.
A moment or two ago I expressed wonder whether the responsible people of this country knew much about health programs. I have noticed on their part a great tendency always to enlist the assistance, advice and professional experience of people who are termed "experts". Through the years shoals of information have been compiled on this subject. Yet the most effective steps toward the introduction of the best health plan that was ever introduced and devised were taken when people who were not experts, who were not professionals, undertook to do the work. Sometimes I think we can get so bogged down with expert and professional opinion that we are not able to see the wood for trees.
In matters of health we have before our eyes in Great Britain the most magnificent exhibition on the part of a government that can be found anywhere in the world. Hon. gentlemen in this house have had occasion to know at first hand about such a program. The Prime Minister knows about it for he went to England quite recently. Other hon. gentlemen know about it; they went later as [Mr. Williams l
a delegation from this parliament to the old country, including even the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), who the other day spoke so scathingly about Britain. When these gentlemen landed in England, about the first thing that happened was that they were given a little yellow card. On that yellow card the instructions were printed. They did not have to be in the country any length of time; they did not have to be contributors to the plan. Irrespective of where you come from or what ailment may befall you while you are in the old country, or what accident may occur to you, without any other concern, consideration or requirement, that yellow card provides you with complete health, medical and hospital facilities.
Last Friday when I spoke in this house on the resolution dealing with price control I referred to the fact that the people of Britain were getting something for their taxes; that they were paying four shillings and eleven pence for this huge social program which the people are getting in Britain. All they paid was a paltry four shillings and eleven pence or $1.25 of their pay, for their whole social security plan. Of this amount eight pence halfpenny, or seventeen cents a person was taken for the health plan.


Mr. Mitchell:: A week.


Arthur Henry Williams: Yes, a week, about $35 a year, to get everything that the medical and hospital profession can possibly give them. You get the doctor without any further charge. I have heard some people say that you have to take the doctor that you are ordered to take. That is just so much political bunkum. That is said in this country deliberately to gain a mean political advantage at the expense of a tremendously worthwhile project in the old country. You do not have to take the doctor that anybody recommends. You take the doctor you want; and if you are over sixteen years of age, and perchance your mother and father have one doctor and you want another doctor, under the plan you are perfectly entitled to your choice. There is no compulsion about it.
Another interesting thing about the whole plan, despite the fact that here in Canada we are told that you must join it, is that there is no such thing as "must" about it. You can join it or stay out of it, whichever you like; but it is such a wonderful thing that practically all of the 48,000,000 people in Britain, are members of it, even the Tories.
I am very proud of one fact, namely, that the man who is responsible for the administration of the health program in the old country is an associate of mine. He and I worked in the same pit back in the old

country, Ni Bevan. Please do not spell that N-y-e. An hon. member to my left, who is a member of the Social Credit party, is always correcting hon. gentlemen. On two occasions I have heard him correct the pronunciation of hon. members and yesterday I noticed that he tried to correct the spelling of a particular place in his riding. I follow his example in this respect and say please spell the name N-i. That is the way Ni spells it himself, so I would say that he is right. He and I worked in the same pit, and when all this fuss was being publicized in the Canadian papers about the introduction, or the contemplated introduction, of the health plan in the old country, I wrote to Ni and asked him if he would kindly send me a copy of his proposed bill in order that I could understand what it was all about, and Ni wrote back to me and said: "You don't want a copy of the bill, Arthur; just think of the Tredegar medical aid society." The Tredegar medical aid society is an organization which was started many years ago not by experts, not by professionals, but by a bunch of miners. Back home we call them colliers. They are the chaps who dig the coal for one shilling and two pence a ton, which the capitalists sell for sixteen shillings a ton. These miners got together. The coal companies, although they were tremendously wealthy, did not provide health plans, did not provide hospitals, did not provide any medical facilities, and the miners, in their desperation, got together and started to hammer out a program for themselves. I shall never forget one Saturday afternoon back in our town hall, after we had gone through the laborious and sometimes tedious process of fashioning this thing. This Saturday afternoon we came to the point of putting it in action. The first job was to select a secretary of the medical committee and we got the secretary. We employed doctors; we bought a hospital, the Tredegar cottage hospital. We set up what we called surgeries, which was a place as big as this chamber. In the centre was the dispensing room where all the medicine, pills, bandages and the rest of it were stored. Along each side of the room were the private offices of the doctors. If I wanted to see Dr. Davis I would go along the corridor where his office was and walk in and tell him what was the trouble. He would give me the prescription and I would go to this dispensing room in the centre of the building, put my prescription in through the window and get my medicine and it did not cost me one single cent beyond the four pence in the pound, the eight cents in the pound, which was deducted from my wages each week.
The Address-Mr. Williams
If our children met with accidents on the road, they went to the hospital, and they were treated without any further bother about payment of doctors or hospital bills. It was all set up by a bunch of miners, just ordinary people. If miners, or a group of workers anywhere, can fashion a plan of that kind out of their extremely limited resources, what wonderful possibilities there are for the government of this country, with the wonderful resources of the nation at its disposal. What a wonderful and thrilling thing it could do too to take this burden of human suffering and oftentimes despair from the shoulders of the people. I do not know whether it will be done. I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) were in the house this afternoon. I would not care if nobody was in this chamber but the minister. If I could talk to him, and plead with him, if necessary, to set an example of that kind of thing, I am as certain as I stand here this Friday afternoon that if he set aside a block of money out of his $30 million and said to me, "Set up that example of a health and hospital plan in your riding," I could guarantee that in five years the thing would be selfsupporting. But you must have the resources to start with, and I do wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare would do it.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Henry Williams: Don't indulge in these jeering laughs, particularly you Tories, because you have in Ontario a government that is not doing the very thing that you say this government ought to do.


An hon. Member:: They are trying to do it.


Arthur Henry Williams: Don't tell me that, because I hold in my hand a copy of the bill which was introduced by the minister of health for the province of Ontario, and it is not worth the paper on which it is written. So you do not know anything about it; and, if you are possessed of the intelligence that I think you have, you will keep quiet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Arthur Henry Williams: Anyone, if he likes, can see this bill of Dr. Vivian, former Ontario minister of health. I could easily describe it. However, I have only forty minutes in which to speak, and I want to talk about housing. I do not wish to waste my time describing something which, after all, is really no good.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I thought you were asking this government to do it.


Arthur Henry Williams: Oh, sit down, sit down.
I was at the convention of the Canadian Congress of Labour held last October and sat through twelve sittings throughout the week.
918	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Williams I found people at that convention doing exactly the same thing as I see the Tories doing here. Up there we called them communists; down here we call them Progressive Conservatives.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Well, I will not
bother rising to a point of order on such absolute nonsense as that.


Arthur Henry Williams: There you are. He just says, "I will not bother to rise to a point of order, because it is nonsense"-but he rises, nevertheless.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And it was nonsense, nevertheless.


Mr. Irvine:: That brought him up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I at least have been brought up.


Arthur Henry Williams: Then, as to housing, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in his speech, following the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), made reference to the 278,000 houses that had been built. I do not believe the Prime Minister intended to leave the impression that this government had been responsible for the building of 278,000 housing units.
On the very evening of the day this session opened, January 26, in the C.B.C. broadcast called News Roundup, a gentleman to whom I shall refer later used that same figure of 278,000, but left the impression-at least what he said was possible of this construction-that the private enterprise organization he represented was responsible for the building of those 278,000 houses.
In case there is any impression of that kind prevailing, let me point out just what has been accomplished by both public and private enterprise. While it is true that, including conversions, 278,000 units have been built, all the government has built or provided from 1945 until December of 1948 is 24,763 units. These were provided through the medium of veterans housing, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Veterans Land Act, and armed services married quarters. In other words, the government, with the national resources of the country behind it, has furnished an average of about 6,000 units per year. I cannot bring myself to believe that it is proud of that accomplishment. I am certain it would want to do better than that; and it can do much better if it will step into the picture boldly.
Why is it that when we ask why we do not have more houses built we are always told there is a shortage of materials or a shortage of labour? That is not true; it just is not true. Because while the claim has been made that there have been shortages of both
fMr. Williams.]

labour and materials, the fact remains that all kinds of materials and plenty of labour have been diverted into other channels, such as the building of theatres, pool rooms and the like.
In the city of Toronto-and perhaps it would be useful if hon. members sitting to my right would remember this about that city-in 1947 the sum of $16,500,000 was spent on construction; but of that huge sum only $1,250,000 was spent on housing. Surely this gives an answer to those who say that there have been shortages of materials and labour, when they see that there were plenty of materials and labour to complete the balance of this construction totalling $16,500,000. There was plenty of labour; but apparently no one was interested enough to stop all the unnecessary building and turn that labour to housing. No wonder there is such an outcry about this kind of thing.
The Toronto Daily Star of February 14, 1949, gives an account of a meeting of veterans held in the Earlscourt area of that city. According to this report Hec Carter, one of the veterans, said:
"This meeting's the first real indication we're going to fight this situation. The Legion has taken its first stride toward making itself felt in the land."
Col. Harvey Lyons, blind chairman of the citizens' rehabilitation committee, said: "I hang my head in shame. I'm Canadian-born, and I say Canada can never claim a leading place among the nations so long as it tolerates the chaos and despair that I find among veterans.
These lads feel unwanted. They see the federal government invest in anything but Canadians . . . subsidize anything but human beings. They haven't the courage to invest in Canadians in peace as they willingly do in war."
Col. Joe Finney, veterans' information officer at city hall, said: "Two thousand families will have to be out of their Toronto homes by May, evicted by landlords taking advantage of relaxed controls. To those veterans under notice I say, 'sit tight.' Try to get a home, and if you can't, sit tight.
By June this year, landlords will be forced to wait months for their applications to be heard. Sit tight, and you may be there to Christmas.
Fifty thousand need homes here. Five thousand are veterans living in crowded conditions. Shysters are exploiting them to the limit.
Cheapjacks call me with offers of accommodation. Yesterday it was a Gerrard St. E. man who wanted to help a poor veteran-offered two rooms at $15 a week. He wasn't looking for some poor veteran to help; he wanted some poor veteran to help him.
At the same meeting two hon. members of the house were present. The newspaper report refers to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) as follows:
"I'll see your case gets presented to the House of Commons," promised J. R. MacNicol, M.P. for Davenport. "I just can't understand why the federal government hasn't done more."
Another hon. member of the house is referred to as follows:
"I'm convinced we've got to have a housing program right now," emphasized Harold Timmins,

M.P. for Parkdale. "The government has to be convinced of it; just now it takes things in its stride, quite content with what's been done. I'm ready to adopt any methods you put forward that will get houses built within the income range of average veterans. Small builders in this city are only waiting for the chance."
I could go on and quote from reports about other people who are similarly distressed at the lack of housing in this country, but time will not permit me to do so. I want to assure the house that, if anybody believes for a single moment that this is a problem that can be left to private enterprise, they are making a big mistake. Private enterprise never has solved the problem of housing. I know that, and all hon. members of the house know it. If any further confirmation is required, let me refer to the words of Senator Taft, which may be rather impressive. Senator Taft has this to say:
I am a great believer in free enterprise, but this happens to be one field where it has failed to find a solution.
There was a time years ago, a time we like to forget, when we did not have housing and did not have a housing program, but carpenters, bricklayers, and plumbers were a dime a dozen. They were sitting in their labour halls throughout the country waiting, hoping and praying that they might hear of a house being built somewhere where they could get a job. Private enterprise had scores of opportunities at that particular time to go ahead with a housing program, but it did not do so. Now it is trying to excuse itself on the ground that materials are scarce and labour is scarce, on the ground that materials are expensive and labour is expensive.
The gentleman to whom I referred earlier, when taking part in a C.B.C. news roundup broadcast, was asked certain questions about housing by Bill Beatty of the C.B.C. Mr. Beatty asked him this question:
What are the chief things that affect these home prices?
Mr. Johnson, the general manager of the Canadian Construction Association, had this to say:
There are a lot of factors. Material prices have gone up 60 per cent since 1945.
Sixty per cent since 1945.
Wages for construction workers are up 33 per cent in the same period.
To those who are always claiming, as I heard some do quite recently in the house, that wages are the cause of high prices, I say, let them remember that here is a statement by a man who ought to know, the general manager of the Canadian Construction Association, and he says that the increase in materials is 100 per cent higher than the increase in wages.
The Address-Mr. Williams
The government can take examples from housing programs in other lands if it wishes to do so. I am as certain as I stand here that the government cannot solve the housing problem overnight because the backlog of housing needs is so tremendous, but it could do such a big job that it would rapidly begin to catch up on the shortage of houses. It is not enough merely to lend money. Step into it yourselves and build houses. There is nothing new about that.
During this session of parliament I have been rather interested to hear the criticism leveled by my hon. friends to the right against the government for its lack of cooperation with the provinces. I think the account of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) about what is being done in co-operation with the provinces throws the lie back in the teeth of the official opposition. As far as lending money on houses is concerned, the federal government was doing that long before the Ontario government started to do so. There is a degree of co-operation between the federal government and the province of Ontario, but in no instance have either the federal government or the Ontario government actually built houses. They can do it. There is an enormous scope in this field. Speaking of low-rental houses, one way in which it can be done is through building by direct labour and not bringing in contractors and subcontractors. Surely the experiment at Antigonish, in Nova Scotia, is an amazing example. The guild system of building houses in the old country is something that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is familiar with. That is another example of how it can be done. All kinds of avenues for direct building are open to the government if it will only follow them.
If the government do not look after the health and housing of the people then they deserve the severest condemnation, even at election time, of the people of the country. I am certain that the people will not continue to tolerate a government which has such a grand field before it and fails to avail itself of the opportunity. I plead with the government to take active, vigorous and bold steps in the fields of health and housing.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in what I am about to say with reference to the speech from the throne I too must confine myself to a smaller number of subjects than would ordinarily be the case if I had more time at my disposal. There are many things that I should like to discuss in this debate which are of concern to the people of Canada. High prices is one; rising unemployment is another; high taxation is another; housing is another; agriculture is
920	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Johnston another; assistance to disabled persons is another. And there are many more. Time will not permit me to deal with these various subjects as fully as I should like. The members of my party have very capably put on record the stand of the Social Credit party on many of these subjects. Therefore I wish to confine my remarks at the outset to the matter of housing.
The member who preceded me also spoke on the subject of housing. I agree with him that there is a great need for housing in Canada. I do not agree with him that the government is the best organization to build houses-for reasons which I will give in my address. We recall that a few years ago the government undertook the construction of houses under the V.L.A., and within six months after that project was concluded tremendous repairs had to be undertaken, costing the government something in the neighbourhood of $2,500,000, which had to be paid out of the public treasury. Now we have another housing scheme in operation under the National Housing Act. At the outset let me say that I am not going to condemn all these houses. Some of them are well constructed, and naturally we do not hear so much about those. We do hear a great deal about those not properly built. Even though out of a thousand houses only some fifty are not as well built as they should be, it should be remembered that the owners of those fifty houses have a legitimate complaint.
The project I want to discuss for a short time is a part of the national housing program which was carried on by the Bow River Construction Company in Calgary. I would not bring up this question on this occasion if it were not extremely urgent. The urgency arises because some forty house owners, about eighty to eighty-five per cent of whom are returned men, are about to lose everything they possess by way of savings owing to the foreclosures being carried on by the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and the government, because the government also entered into this enterprise.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is a shame, as one hon.
member has just indicated, because these veterans have put into their houses every cent they possess in the world, and a good share of those savings represents what they or their wives saved while they were away fighting. I am sure these men did not expect to go overseas and fight and then receive the treatment they are now getting. I do not think Canadians generally would expect that to happen. I want to read a short extract I


cut out of the Calgary Albertan just yesterday:
Bow River Construction Faces Second Action
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Manufacturers Life Insurance have filed in supreme court their second statement of claim against the Bow River Construction Company Limited in connection with an unfinished housing project on North Hill.
The next paragraph is the important one:
In this action Mr. and Mrs. J. F. Thomas, 801 23rd avenue N.W., who are living in the unfinished house, are named as co-defendants with the Bow River company.
The claim is for $5,541.30 alleged to be owing on a mortgage on the unfinished house.
So there can be no doubt that the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are definitely taking legal action to foreclose on these houses one at a time. This is the second instance, and eventually the mortgages on all these houses will be foreclosed, the owners being liable to lose everything they have in the world.
I want to make it clear that I am not taking part in this debate and dealing with this particular subject because I hope to obtain any political advantage. In the first place this project is not in my constituency; therefore I can get no votes whatever from it. In the second place I did not go out looking for trouble. These owners formed themselves into an organization and came to my house to see what assistance they could get. My advice to them in this case was the advice I gave a couple of years ago in connection with the V.L.A. houses in Calgary. I said we would try every possible means to get a settlement without giving any publicity at all to this concern, and in fact without any unnecessary publicity of any kind. Having that in mind, together with some of the members of the organization I visited Central Mortgage and Housing to see if we could get some satisfaction from them by way of having the houses completed according to specification, but we had no results. I visited the Manufacturers Life, with no results. I visited the Bow River Construction Company, the contractors in this case, with no results. I even wrote to both the preceding and the present minister of reconstruction, but no action was taken.
Now let me give a little of the history of this organization, so hon. members may be in a position to judge for themselves. It is not my intention to go into great detail with respect to the construction of these houses. If I can, though, I want to point out where I think responsibility lies for proper construction and who should have discharged that

responsibility. Then I want to show, with some evidence, whether or not these houses have been built in accordance with sound construction practices as outlined in the act and the agreement. When the Bow River Construction Company was first formed, under the act Central Mortgage and Housing was supposed to investigate the company to see whether or not it was in a financial position to carry out the project. That was done, according to officials of Central Mortgage and Housing in Calgary; but when I visited the contractor himself I was amazed when he told me they did not have a five-cent piece to start the work, that they began on a shoestring. The only equipment the company owned was a dragline and a used light-delivery truck belonging to one of the contractors, who at that time was running Ware's taxi, and which was turned over to the company. One of the contractors was in the hospital; the other, Mr. Orr, told me that was everything they had to start with; yet the government say that according to their information the financial position of the company was sound. When I asked a question in the house the other day as to their financial standing, this was the answer I received:
The Bow River Construction Company of Calgary was approved as a borrower under the National Housing Act by the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as joint mortgagees.
But of course there was no mention as to whether or not they had building experience. Under the act it is also obligatory on the part of the government to see that the men who get these contracts have experience in this field. Paragraph 4 of my question read:
What were the qualifications of these contractors as to building experience and as to financial ability to complete the job?
They very conveniently left out the answer entirely as to the experience of these builders. They should have, Mr. Speaker, because the contractors had no building experience whatever. One of the partners in the contracting company ran a taxi business and told me he had no experience in building. The other partner in the company had only dug a few basements. Neither of them had any building experience whatever; yet a quarter of a million dollar project was entrusted to these men as builders. Do you mean to tell me, Mr. Speaker, the government handled the matter efficiently?


An hon. Member:: They must have had friends at court.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would not be surprised if they had, although I could not prove that. When this project was stated, Mr. Speaker,
The Address-Mr. Johnston the Bow River Construction Company had some plans and specifications for houses. The partners in the venture had no experience and no money. They went to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and said they wanted to build so many houses. Of course, the government approved the plans and specifications; but let me point out, Mr. Speaker, no one else had seen the plans. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Manufacturers Life and the Bow River Construction Company were the only ones who had seen the plans and specifications. To the extent of 25 per cent of the mortgage, the government is a joint lender for this project. The contractors did not even have sufficient money to pay for the building permit until they received an advance from the mortgage company.


Mr. Fair:: What do those permits cost?


Mr.   Johnslon@: It depends on the type of house. So far as I am aware, the owners of the houses have not, nor has anyone else, a constructual contract with the Bow River Construction Company. Why? Because they assumed this was a government project. In advertising these houses for sale the real estate company inserted "N.H.A." in the newspaper advertisement. The impression everyone received was that this was a national housing project and that the houses would therefore be constructed according to the act. It is a peculiar thing, but I have heard the statement by government officials that, if anyone gets himself in the position of having no contract with the builder, he deserves what happens to him. It is odd, Mr. Speaker, that not one of the owners has a contract. The reason for that is, as I pointed out, that these people believed this to be a government-sponsored project and the home owners were assured they needed no further protection.
I should like to refer to the National Housing Act for a moment, particularly as it relates to the construction of these houses. At page 8 of the 1947 office consolidation of the National Housing Act, 1944, I read from subsection (b):
A joint loan shall be made only for the purpose of assisting in the construction of a house according to sound standards approved by the corporation and under such supervision as the corporation may prescribe.
I point out to you, sir, that according to the act the loan is to be made for the purpose of assisting in the construction, and not for encouraging construction or anything else. Construction is supposed to take place under such supervision as the corporation may prescribe. Under this act the housing project is bound to be built according to sound

The Address-Mr. Johnston construction principles and under proper supervision.
May I refer for a moment to the memorandum of agreement made between the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Bow River Construction Company Limited. It says:
Whereas pursuant to the National Housing Act, 1944, the corporation may, on behalf of His Majesty, enter into contracts with builders, to encourage the construction of houses to be sold to prospective home owners.
This is an agreement between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Bow River Construction Company. According to the National Housing Act, and pursuant to the agreement between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Bow River Construction Company, these houses were to be of sound construction. As I pointed out a moment ago, the only persons who had access to the plans and specifications for this project were Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and the Bow River Construction Company. The prospective home owners complained about not having access to the plans and specifications. I went to see Mr. Lillie of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and he said he would do everything in his power to assist these men. I sent them down to the corporation's office to see if they could look at the plans and specifications. Surely that was not asking very much. Upon their arrival at the office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Mr. Lillie refused to let them see the specifications. I recall that in one house there were seventeen violations of the specifications by the Bow River Construction Company.
Let me refer once more to the agreement between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Bow River Construction Company. On page 2 the agreement says: -and to build all of the said houses in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the corporation, for which individual loan approvals have been granted by the corporation.
Let me repeat that:
-and to build all of the said houses in accordance with the plans and specifications-
Not one of those houses, Mr. Speaker, has been built according to the plans and specifications. When I say that, I do not mean there has been a slight variation. Some of the basements are already crumbling. The cement block footings upon which the chimney rests in some of these houses are so bad that one can reach down and pick up a whole handful of the cement. I will deal with that specifically at a later stage.
I shall refer once more to the agreement between Central Mortgage and Housing Cor-

poration and the Bow River Construction Company. On page 3 the agreement says:
-any house which has been built by the builder under the terms of this agreement and which remains unsold; the price of such house shall be the selling price to the corporation shown in schedule A attached hereto, plus any increase in price under article 3-
Of course there is an escalator clause. Once again I point out that, under the National Housing Act, these houses were to be built according to sound construction methods; yet the government says it has no responsibility in the matter and will do nothing. If the government has no responsibility, who has? If there is no responsibility on the government to see that this project is properly carried out, who is to safeguard the use of public moneys entrusted to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? If the government has no responsibility, then I am afraid public moneys are being carelessly spent.
I wish to refer for just a moment to another section of the agreement. The act says that these houses shall be sold at a certain stipulated figure. At page 10 the act says:
The builder shall offer each of the said houses for sale at a price not in excess of the price fixed in the said contract.
That is according to the act. The price is set. When these people bought their houses they paid a certain sum for each house, and apparently for a completed house. That price is set out in the agreement. In the schedule to the agreement there are set out the prices at which these houses must be sold to the owners. There is provision for the escalator clause, which amounts to only $200 or $250. The agreement also states the price at which the government will take over these houses from the builders, provided that they cannot sell them within six months after completion. But in this one particular case the price set out in the agreement was $7,150. Yet not one of these houses is being sold for the price as stated in the agreement. Who else can force the contractors to sell according to the agreement and according to the act, if it is not the government? They are the ones who stipulated the price, and they are the ones who permit the loaning company to charge a building inspector's fee to see that these houses are properly constructed. Against every loan there is a $20 charge for inspector's fee. Yet when I saw the head of the mortgage company, Mr. Lyne, he told me that they were not concerned with seeing whether or not these buildings were properly built. All they were concerned with was to see that the money which they had loaned was properly protected. Central Mortgage and Housing also have a building inspector, and they told

me his only duty is to be a policeman on the mortgage company's inspector. The city of Calgary also has a building inspector.


An hon. Member:: Fleas on fleas.


Charles Edward Johnston: And they did not do their job either. I will refer to that matter in a minute. The act and the agreement were violated as was everything else connected with them. The houses are so poorly built that the city of Calgary has already condemned some of them, although they are not even completed.
We therefore went to the city inspectors to see what could be done in order to safeguard the interests of these owners. I was appointed to appear before the city council on behalf of these home owners, of whom there were some forty. I addressed the city council in Calgary on this subject. As a result, a great number of the aldermen of Calgary went up and inspected these houses themselves. As a consequence of their inspection and my appearing before the council, this is what happened. I had addressed the city council, not from the standpoint of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's lack of inspection or failure to complete this project properly, but to see why Calgary's building bylaws had not been carried out. In almost every instance there was a violation of the building bylaws. As a result of all this, the engineer for the city of Calgary wrote a letter to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is dated July 27, 1948, and reads as follows:
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation,
214 - 5th Ave., E.,
Calgary.
Dear Sirs:
Attached hereto is a report on the piece of concrete taken from the residence at 601-25th Avenue N.W. This house is one being built by the Bow River Construction Co.
I would advise that we were not notified at the time of pouring concrete of any of the six houses in the 600 block on 24th Avenue N.W., or the six houses in the 600 block on 25th Avenue, N.W.
Under these circumstances we cannot feel responsible for the concrete in these basements.
The recommendation of this department-
I would ask you to note this, Mr. Speaker.
This is on the basement, and this is the recommendation that the city engineers made to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on a house which had just the basement, the walls and the roof completed.
__is that an 8" concrete block wall be built on the
inside of the existing foundation and carried up to the under side of the floor joists and thus support the weight of the house, or beams and posts to support the bearing walls and the main beam.
As the concrete tests definitely show an unsafe foundation would you please see that one of the above recommendations is carried out.
Yours truly,
P. Aumonier, Building Inspector.
The Address-Mr. Johnston
Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, that this project was properly inspected by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the Manufacturers Life, which is charging a $20 fee for that purpose? Here the city recommends that they build an eight-inch concrete wall inside the main foundation. What a terrible mess.


Mr. McCuaig:: Was that free enterprise or
socialism?


Charles Edward Johnston: That was government enterprise.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the kind of thing you
get under the C.C.F.


Duncan John McCuaig: How do you know? They
have never done it.


Charles Edward Johnston: That was a contract amounting to a quarter of a million dollars and it was government-supervised. Let there be no mistake about that. I am not saying that some of the houses under the National Housing Act and under the integrated housing plan are not good ones. It depends on the contractor. My point is that the government and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not carry out their obligations under the agreement or under the National Housing Act.
The city council passed a motion, moved by Alderman Mackay, which I should like to read to the house. It is as follows:
That the commissioners be instructed to go to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the dominion government and the Manufacturers Life and urgently request that the problem affecting the Bow River Construction Company be satisfactorily answered without additional expense to the present owners and that the work be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
As I say, that motion was put to the council and was carried. I would ask you to notice the words "without additional expense to the present owners". Why was that recommendation made? Because in the agreement the price is so stated. Now the government, along with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, says:	We will allow you sufficient
increase in your mortgage to take care of any additional expense that might be incurred by you to finish those houses, to pay for the liens that have been put on there- through negligence of the Manufacturers Life, because they make progress payments and are supposed to see that the money is spent on this contract. Again they neglected to do that. As a result, in some cases liens and encumbrances registered against the title run as high as $15,000 per house. Then the Manufacturers Life has the audacity to say to an individual: We will advance you an increased loan; we will amortize your loan over a

The Address-Mr. Johnston
longer period but you must pay off those encumbrances-for which they, the Manufacturers Life, were responsible.
A motion was moved by Alderman Col-borne and carried. It reads as follows:
That this committee of the whole recommend to council "that the necessary bylaws of the city of Calgary be amended to provide that a bond in the amount of the full value of the contract be posted upon the granting of any building permit in excess of $1,000, such bond to be maintained for a period of one year.
When I was speaking to the council I may say that I recommended similar procedure myself.
I now want to read another letter. I am reading it even at the expense of being monotonous, to show that I am not the only one who condemns this project. I could not give a better authority than that of the city of Calgary where over one hundred thousand people are concerned about this project. This was a letter sent by Mayor J. C. Watson to Mr. C. S. Chapman, who is head of the insurance company, and Mr. A. McClaskey, who was western superintendent for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is dated December 1, 1948, and reads as follows:
The city commissioners have been instructed by the city council of Calgary to urgently request that work be proceeded with at the earliest possible time on those houses not yet completed by the Bow River Construction Company in Calgary, and that the problem be brought to a satisfactory conclusion for the present owners at no additional expense to them.
We understand that there are approximately twenty of these houses that are in various stages of incompletion at present. There are nine basements which appear to be in violation of the building by-law as well as thirteen nonapproved furnaces in which burner units must be replaced.
Incidentally some of these exploded, and the occupants were burned quite seriously.
In several houses posts are required under trimmer and main beams for adequate support. To enforce city by-laws at this time will only create a worse condition and place additional hardships on the present occupants.
The faith of many citizens has been placed in your institution to protect their interests and we feel that a corporation of your magnitude will not hesitate in rectifying the adverse conditions that now exist. The money that has already been advanced by many of these citizens represents their life savings. We feel that you have a definite moral responsibility to protect the interests of those citizens.
It has been drawn to our attention that there are not sufficient funds withheld from the contractor to satisfactorily complete the houses. In view of the fact that you had inspectors on the work to safeguard the financial part of the program, for which the individual owner is being charged a fee, we cannot understand your attitude in not following up this responsibility and completing the homes as speedily as possible.
We are given to understand that certain individuals have been able to take over these houses 
and finish them at their own expense, while others may agree to the completion of the house by permitting an increase in the mortgage. If this is so we feel it is an injustice to the individual and that the original mortgage or arrangement should be followed.
On behalf of the citizens concerned your earliest possible solution is requested.
Yours very truly,
J. C. Watson, Mayor.
I want to read one more letter before I conclude. It seems very significant, Mr. Speaker, that a corporation the size of the city of Calgary would take such an interest in this matter as to direct their correspondence to those concerned. I hold in my hand a letter dated December 1, 1948, addressed to the Hon. Douglas Abbott, P.C., Minister of Finance, Ottawa, which reads as follows: Dear Mr. Abbott:
Some time ago a number of Calgary residents entered into a contract with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company for the construction of homes under the national housing plan. The contract for the construction of these houses was let to the Bow River Construction Company of Calgary, which has since gone out of business through financial difficulties and the work on the houses has ceased.
Construction to date is of poor quality, and I understand there are not sufficient funds left on the mortgages to complete the houses and make them habitable.
The matter has been before our city council on several occasions, and efforts have been made to have C.M.H.C. and the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company complete these homes, which are badly needed.
In this connection, I am enclosing copy of a letter which I have today forwarded to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and to the western supervisor of the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, which is self-explanatory.
We are of the opinion that the citizens concerned are entitled to every consideration and that the houses should be completed at the earliest possible date according to the original contract. Further, as C.M.H.C. is a dominion government corporation, it is the opinion of our council that the dominion government has some responsibility to see that the unfortunate purchasers of these houses are protected and that the houses are completed as soon as possible.
Any assistance you can render in persuading C.M.H.C. and the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company to assume what is at least their moral obligation to see that these homes are completed at an early date will be appreciated.
Yours very truly,
J. C. Watson,
Mayor.
I have a great deal of proof, Mr. Speaker.
I have extracts and photographs taken by the Calgary Herald, by the Albertan and by the Financial Post, which all go to prove the very thing about which I have been speaking; therefore it is not my personal opinion. Before I conclude my remarks I want to read one more letter to show that this difficulty is not confined only to the city of Calgary. Under the national housing plan these difficulties are prevalent all across the country. They are

found in Halifax, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Calgary and at other points. A letter appeared in the Legionary, the voice of the Canadian legion, of January 1949, which reads as follows:
A timely warning Editor, the Legionary :
The legion in Halifax is anxious to make inquiries regarding certain cases where veterans have endeavoured to purchase homes under the integrated housing plan operated by the government-sponsored Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
From the enclosed photo and cutlines (published on this page.-Ed.) you can see that instances have occurred in this city in which the veterans concerned may lose large sums of money-money deposited as a down payment for a home.
We ask the Legionary to draw attention to the matter so that if similar cases have occurred across Canada, other legion branches can bring the matter to the attention of the dominion government as we have done.
The Halifax district council of the Canadian legion has requested the Prime Minister to make an investigation into the matter in order that the veterans will not lose the thousands of dollars which they have paid out towards their new homes.
S. Thomas, President, Halifax district council, Canadian legion, Halifax, N.S.
This is not a problem peculiar to the city of Calgary, Mr. Speaker; it is a problem which is peculiar to the housing project. Let me emphasize that the same difficulties arose when the government was building houses in Calgary under the V.L.A. In almost every instance it is caused by negligence on the part of the government or the Manufacturers Life in not seeing that proper building inspection was carried out. Every one of the men concerned was charged a $20 inspection fee. When you multiply that by forty houses it amounts to a fairly substantial inspection fee which was charged to these home owners, yet the inspection was not properly carried out. It is a shocking scandal, Mr. Speaker. This would not have happened had the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Manufacturers Life taken the proper precaution which was their responsibility under the act and under the agreement which they signed. They have now decided to foreclose on these people, who had no say whatever in the choice of a contractor. They were poor contractors; in fact, they were not contractors at all. They had no money and they had no experience. In the face of that the government say that they are going to wash their hands of the whole thing and let the owner take the blame. Had proper precautions been taken, this situation would never have arisen. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government is not only morally but legally responsible under the act to see that these men do not lose their life savings.
The Address-Mr. LaCroix Surely they did not go overseas to fight for free enterprise in this country and to protect the Manufacturers Life, only to be treated in this way. Surely they did not go overseas to fight for the Manufacturers Life and then come back and be bled of the very last cent they have saved. If that is to be the justice handed out to our returned men, then I am afraid that this government will find it a difficult job to get men to fight in another war.
I trust that the government will take this warning and see that these men who have their life savings invested in these houses will get the proper protection immediately, because the foreclosure proceedings are now in progress.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock,
(Translation):
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, since the very outset of the debate on the address in reply, I have heard the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and several members of the various parties in this house complain, and rightfully, about the income tax, ask that it be drastically reduced and, in some cases, abolished altogether, to be replaced by other forms of revenue.
I fully agree with them. However, if I recall for a moment September 1939, I find that most of those who thunder forth against the Income Tax Act, are the same who voted for the declaration of war, who required our participation and who, during the war, considered that the government was never doing enough. What inconsequence and what a colossal joke! For if today our taxes are astronomical, is it not due to our participation in the last war?
In September 1939, after consulting my electors at a large public meeting held at Loretteville, chief town of my constituency, I voted against the declaration of war. In doing so, I warned my colleagues of what is now happening. I insisted that we limit our contribution to material production, stressing that we had a population of barely eleven million, although our territory was as large as that of Europe. We could have followed the example of Ireland and Switzerland. At

The Address-Mr. LaCroix the end of the conflict we would have been free from the huge war debt that now weighs upon us and that we are required to pay by way of taxes. I told the house that the declaration of war would inevitably bring about conscription and taxes which the Canadian people would be unable to pay.
Everyone will remember, I am sure, the imperialistic statements of the present leader of the opposition who called vehemently for increasingly active participation and asked that conscription be applied as soon as war was declared. In his imperialistic indignation, he accused Quebec of isolationism, as can be seen from the following excerpt taken from the Montreal Star of August 10, 1944, which reported him as saying, and I quote:
The time has come for the people of this and every other province in Canada to say that Quebec is not going to receive a preferred treatment while it refuses to bear its full share of the burden of war.
In the next declaration, he only reaffirmed the hatred he had already expressed towards my fellow citizens. After my people had requested fair representation in the dominion civil service, he stated, according to the Toronto Star of November 27, 1936, that it is not unfair to recall to French Canadians that they are a conquered people and that their rights exist only because of the tolerance shown by the English-speaking community which, though it respects the minority group, must still be considered as the dominant race.
Still later, in an attempt to stem the ever increasing influence wielded by my fellow citizens in this country which belongs to us from the Atlantic to the Pacific, he stated, according to the September 30, 1944, issue of a London publication, Everybody's Weekly, that: I want people of British stock for Ontario. We can receive thousands and thousands of your people. The only thing that can contain the growing French-Canadian pressure is a powerful Ontario, peopled with Britishers.
Furthermore, at a time when a few friends and I were battling in Quebec to ask the people to answer "no" in the plebiscite, he made the following statement, as reported in the Montreal Star of August 10, 1944. I quote:
Prime Minister Drew asks: "Are we going to permit one isolationist province to dominate the destiny of a divided Canada?" He hopes that every one of you will answer by "a resounding 'no', which will be heard in every part of the province of Quebec".
And furthermore, when the Liberal party sought to help the large families of this country to obtain the necessities of life, by

means of generous family allowances, he made the following statement concerning my province, as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of August 10, 1944, and I quote:
But I assure you that the government of Ontario intends to do everything within its power to make sure that this iniquitous bill (Family Allowances Act) does not go into effect. It is not this bill alone but the whole principle involved that we intend to resist.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, having quoted these statements by the leader of the opposition, to say to his face here, in the House of Commons, that the province of Quebec's motto is "I remember", and that in spite of his purchased propaganda in Quebec newspapers that seek to set him up as a friend of French Canadians, an advocate of family allowances, etc., I have never known, in all my political career, an actor with such gall, obviously inclined to think that my fellow-Quebeckers are fools. No, Mr. Speaker, despite the paid advertisements currently appearing in Quebec dailies, to create the impression that Mr. Drew will be the saviour of the French Canadians, despite those advertisements which amount to a big joke, the province of Quebec will never forget that before the hon. leader of the opposition became the leader of the Conservative party in Ottawa my compatriots never had a worse enemy here in Canada. So much did they consider him public enemy No. 1 that, in the last federal election, in 1945, fifteen days after he had been elected as Prime Minister of Ontario, the people of my province, fearing that his ever-growing influence with the Conservative party, and even his election as Prime Minister of Ontario, would return the Conservative party to power, the people of my province, I say, voted as one man to prevent Drew's influence from dominating in Ottawa.
The people of Quebec will also recall that during the last provincial election in Ontario, the leader of the opposition promised my fellow citizens of that province that he would settle the Catholic school problem. Instead of doing so, however, he eagerly extricated himself from his administrative responsibilities in Ontario to seek refuge in Ottawa where he took over the duties of leader of the opposition, leaving to someone else the task of settling nothing at all.
Now, there are those who would once again catch unawares my honest thinking fellow citizens by telling them tales that completely discountenance the political record of the leader of the opposition. No, Mr. Speaker,

the citizens of Quebec will have none of this man who, I repeat, stated in London, on September 30, 1944, that he wanted people of British stock for Ontario and that we could absorb thousands and thousands of their people. He added that only a powerful Ontario, peopled with Britishers, could contain the growing French-Canadian pressure -who has wanted, as I said, through his attitude in favour of mass immigration, to make himself the spokesman of those who, in this country, are constantly endeavouring, by shady means, to prevent the spread of France's beautiful language and thus break the unity that is so indispensable to this country, forgetting, in their unbounded hatred for the French language, the truths strikingly expressed by a poet who, referring to that language, wrote verses which may be rendered as follows:
Whoever tries to stop its expansion might as well endeavour to prevent the opening of buds and the blooming of roses; whoever would attempt to destroy its charm and its power could more easily suppress the beams of dawn.
Mr. Speaker, let me remind the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will never be heard making in the province of Quebec statements he would not repeat in the English-speaking provinces of Canada. Everyone recognizes his frankness and his sincerity.
The right hon. the Prime Minister was not a member of this house when war was declared, but I am sure that if he had voted for the declaration of war, he would at least have had the frankness to tell the people of his country that conscription was an unavoidable consequence, as I stated myself when, in September 1939, I voted against the declaration of war.
I never believed in moderate war, because everyone knows that when two nations or two individuals are fighting, if one of them slows down, he is knocked down. And I blame all those who, whatever their party, have lead the population to believe otherwise.
Probably following this school of thought and wishing others to forget entirely his political past, the leader of the opposition, since he became head of the Conservative party, has shown eagerness to adopt that same strategy towards the province of Quebec.
May I remind the leader of the opposition that in this country there is no victor nor vanquished but solely Canadians who deserve to be treated as such and on a basis of equality, as the right hon. the Prime Minister said recently.
The Address-Mr. LaCroix
I fought against the war policy of the former leader of the government, sometimes violently, and I have no regrets about it, because I am convinced that it prevented some excesses and at least enabled conscription to be delayed until the end of the war. It is true I voted against all gifts and loans to England, because I then thought, just as I do today, that instead of giving our money to England to buy our products, it was more advisable to distribute this money among our own people so as to enable them, in a period of abundance, to obtain what they cannot get, for want of financial resources. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think it is preferable that the balance between the production consumed in Canada and our total production, that is our surplus production, be distributed to agricultural and industrial workers and to each citizen in the form of allowances, of old age pensions at sixty-five, of dividends or any other form of social security which would thus allow them to obtain a legitimate share of the profits of industry, where they are gradually being replaced by machines. The allowances would enable them to obtain goods which only monopolists can get in a country where public wealth is so badly apportioned.
I believe it would be more advisable to follow the policy just stated than to give money to England for the purchase of our surplus production, so that this surplus may be distributed among the suffering people who need it. The more we contribute, through social security, to increase the purchasing power of our great working and agricultural masses, the surer we will be that our production will be consumed at home.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express an opinion with regard to the income tax.
I believe it is urgent and necessary to grant full income tax exemptions to the wage-earner getting $3,000 a year, if married, and $1,500, if single. Why? Because the wage-earner has carried practically alone the income tax burden during and since the war. He is the only one to pay on 100 per cent of his income. Companies and big-business men avoid a large part of the income tax through the following means:
Inventories: the classical and safe enough means of reducing the visible profits (by decreasing the value of stocks on hand at the end of the financial year).
Expenses:	everything is charged to that
account, personal expenses, traveling expenses, representation expenses and a lot of improvements and repairs which, in the end, reduce the profits and increase the assets.
928	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fraser
Fictitious transactions: Large amounts are apparently paid out to people who do not exist. One can guess who gets that money in the end.
Subsidiaries: The working of the subsidiaries, by dividing the profits, is singularly beneficial to the corporations who create them. Everyone is aware that the tax rate increases with the profits.
This is where "capital gains" come in. Corporations find a way to conceal their profits by capitalizing them as shares, which are exchanged between the parent company and the subsidiaries; thus huge profits are undisclosed and converted into capitalization.
As a result, those who are able to pay do not pay. That, Mr. Speaker, is the game of Toronto's two hundred millionaires, those very people who have asked the hon. leader of the opposition to come to Ottawa to protect them because, since a year ago, the government is making them repay what they did not pay and also, because they expect a budget that will protect the little men and make the big fellow shell out. That is the reason why these distraught millionaires subscribe so generously to the electoral fund of the Progressive Conservatives, thus making possible this splurge of paid and mendacious publicity we can read in the newspapers and that explains the request in the hon. leader of the opposition's last speech that elections take place immediately, even before the budget is brought down.
In view of this, for the reasons I have just given, Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly lose no time in voting against the amendment of the leader of the opposition, for I have not the slightest intention to put him in power as I am convinced that the wage-earner's lot would be a sorry one if, heaven forbid, the next budget were to be prepared by the Progressive Conservatives.
(Text):


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just finished, except to say that from what I understood he was not only jealous of the ability and leadership of the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition (Mr. Drew)-	,


Wilfrid Lacroix: I do not think anybody is jealous of him.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -but he was also afraid.


Mr. Graydon:: That is the word.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Afraid of what?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That when the next election comes along his party is certainly going to be defeated.	.


James Angus MacKinnon: Wishful thinking.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: X not only say that, but I will put it down in writing if the hon. gentleman would like to have it in writing in order to see it. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition on his election to the house. At the same time I should like to congratulate the people of Canada, and Canada itself, on having a leader of the opposition with the ability and statesmanship possessed by the member for Carleton. At this time I should also like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Brown) and seconder (Mr. Demers) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on their selection for that honour, which comes to very few members of this house and which I am sure these hon. gentlemen will remember as long as they live.
This year, as in all the years I have been a member of this house, the speech from the throne contains a number of words. Whether or not these words will mean anything we do not know, but we hope they will. In past years they have not, but this being an election year there is a possibility that this government will show a little action and try to carry out some of their promises. One thing mentioned in the throne speech is of the greatest importance to everyone in Canada. This is the reference: "The St. Lawrence power and navigation development is to be brought before parliament this session." In my opinion the sooner this matter is brought before parliament the better for Canada; and the sooner ways and means are found to develop this project the better it will be for everyone, because the St. Lawrence waterway will benefit every man, woman and child in Canada no matter where they live. I know it will benefit Peterborough, the city I represent. Peterborough is often called the electrical city, or the city beautiful. There we have the finest electric-wire mill on the continent, where wire can be made ranging from six inches or more in diameter down to less than the thickness of a human hair. We also have plants capable of making generators as large as those made in any country in the world. One of the largest of those generators would more than fill this chamber. After they are built in that plant they are taken apart in sections small enough to fit on flat cars; and some of these generators will require an entire train to transport them to their destination. We expect that Peterborough will get some of the construction work incidental to

the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. In order that parliament may better understand this project, I feel that a committee of the house should be set up to go into the plans and details, because I do not believe many hon. members have been up and down the shores of the St. Lawrence, into and out of the various channels and harbours, through the rapids and so on. Some have, but very few; and I feel that every hon. member should be one hundred per cent behind this undertaking.
The speech from the throne also says approval will be asked for the renewal of controls. I am not going into that matter because it is the subject of a debate at the present time, but there are many administrative bugs in connection with these controls which could and should be ironed out. These are matters which at present are worrying and inconveniencing businessmen from coast to coast. If an individual or a company finds that a machine is broken down and needs a small repair part which must be imported from the United States, no matter whether that man or concern is located in British Columbia, Yukon or Newfoundland, after Newfoundland is taken into confederation, permission must be obtained from Ottawa to import the necessary part. That is so whether the article costs fifty cents, a dollar or a hundred dollars. It causes weeks of delay, and in some cases the loss of many man-hours of work. I believe those in charge of this department should give a businessman or a business concern a permit to bring in perhaps $25 or $100 worth of repair parts without having to apply to Ottawa. Let the collector of customs at the port through which the article must enter look after the details. I am sure this would save a great deal of time, not only to business people across Canada but also to those administering these controls.
The speech from the throne also mentions that the government is going to give assistance to the production of steel. This is really sound in principle, and I hope it is carried out. You know, Mr. Speaker, on more than one occasion in this house I have risen and asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) where we are going to get the nails with which to put up houses for the veterans. I have had remarks directed at me from the other side of the house; I have had wires, phone calls and letters from all across the country, showing that this condition exists from coast to coast. Last year the minister said my riding evidently was not on the nail pipe line. I quite agree; I think the pipe line took a detour there. But I do not know of any other places in Ontario that are on the pipe line, and if the minister knows I would
The Address-Mr. Fraser like him to tell us. Nails can be had, but you must pay a bootleg price of 20 cents a pound. Throughout the country reliable hardware men object to selling nails at more than the proper price. They are trying to sell them at ten and twelve cents. They will not go into the bootleg market, and I do not blame them. Two, three and four inch nails cannot be had except under priority, as I told the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day. The farmer is unable to get them, and the builder cannot get them except with a priority. There are none for the little fellow; none for the man trying to repair his own home. I believe building in this country would go ahead faster if some of these priorities were kicked out, because they are not given in the right way.
Then last year we were short of cement. It is plentiful right now, but it will be in short supply again during the spring, summer and fall of this year. It was almost impossible to get cement last year except under priority. We had United States cement coming in. At first it sold at about 95 cents a bag. Then it started to climb up to $1.10, to $1.20, to $1.40, to $1.50 and on up to $2.60.


Mr. Murphy:: 


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I hear $2.90 bid. The socialist party to my left talk about free enterprise and try to ridicule it, but there was a C.C.F. trucker just outside my riding selling cement at $2.60. I do not know what kind of enterprise you call that, but he certainly was gouging the poor old veteran.


Duncan John McCuaig: When in Rome do as the Romans do.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If that is the policy of the C.C.F. party, God help Canada should they come to power.
Speaking of building materials, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Before the recess the member for Bow River spoke about this matter. At the present time, houses are needed in every part of Canada. There is a desperate shortage, and has been for some time. Throughout Canada this is causing hardships and heartaches for many people who have to suffer because there are five or six persons in one or two rooms. The shortage of houses has been the cause of family trouble, court action and sickness. I know that everyone is anxious to see more homes built.
I know that you, Mr. Speaker, have heard reports on the radio and seen reports in the newspapers about landlords being brought into court and even getting jail sentences for attempting to charge a higher rental than that permitted by the wartime prices and
930

The Address-Mr. Fraser trade board. These landlords should of course be fined and, if the evidence warrants it, even go to jail. But the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are in what is called a privileged or protected class. They impose the same kind of squeeze, only a little different from those cases we see reported in the newspapers. I will give you an idea of what they do.
A veteran returns from the last war and, perhaps, has to take his wife and children to live with his parents. Owing to the crowded conditions, the veteran is anxious to get a home of his own. Eventually, he does get a wartime house. These houses are comfortable, although very poorly built. The veteran stays in the wartime house two, three or four years. At that time he receives a letter from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation asking him if he would like one of the corporation's brick houses. The veteran indicates that is just what he wants. He goes to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and they say, "Why, certainly, you can have one of these houses." After looking at the house he goes back to the office to sign the agreement, and what does Central Mortgage Corporation say? This is where the squeeze operates. The veteran is told, "You can have that house, but you have been living in one of our wartime houses, so you will have to fix up that wartime house. You will have to pay one-half the cost of putting that house in first-class shape for the next tenant." This might amount to $25, $50 or $100. The veteran is then allowed to have the other house. Now is that not patting on the squeeze? I think so, and the veterans do too.
The excuse given by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for this procedure is that, if the veteran moves out of that house and the corporation allows another tenant to occupy it, the corporation will have to pay the full cost of renovating it. If the veteran remained in occupation, the corporation would be put to no expense. In most cases these veterans have made their own repairs.
Personally, I feel that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has put blinkers on all its inspectors, but instead of putting the blinkers on the side, as one does for horses, it has put them right in front of the inspector's eyes. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) mentioned the inspectors, but I hope the inspection service in his constituency is better than it is in Peterborough. In Peterborough chimneys have been built by putting a tile pipe at the top and *a tile pipe at the bottom, the intervening space being covered with tin. After the tin rots the fumes from the furnace seep through the
fMr. Fraser.]

house. This is not an approved practice, according to the municipal regulations or the building code. It is criminal for an inspector to permit anything like that. If he does, he should be put in jail. Not only that, but the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been getting away with murder in connection with sewers, plumbing and other things by not complying with municipal regulations.
The question most veterans want answered is, who is going to pay for having these things corrected? The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a set figure for repairs on these wartime houses. The corporation will not go out to repair anything until $2.50 is charged for the man going out. On top of that, there are the charges for the repair work. I remember one instance of the corporation charging four dollars for repairing a pane of glass about twenty inches by fifteen inches.
I have asked in this house a question about the protection afforded these veterans when they buy a house under the government plan. The question that is being asked is, what protection have the veterans if there is a slump or sickness and they cannot make their payments? Will the veteran be allowed a fair equity in his home? This is worrying these veterans, and rightly so. I feel something could be done about that, and this government should do it.
In the speech from the throne there is mention of a transcontinental highway. It says:
A measure for assistance in the provision of a transcontinental highway will also be laid before you.
Pay attention to that word "laid". If this government had been awake, the pavement would be laid today. It would not be just a measure that is going to be laid on the table of the house. Every year this highway is delayed, Canada is losing millions of dollars in tourist business. I mentioned this last year and I mentioned it the year before. According to reports I have received, the United States has ten transcontinental highways, while Canada has none. I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the defence department has been asleep for the past ten years -or has it been the government? If you ask anyone on the street he will tell you that is not the sixty-four dollar question because there is only one answer to it and that is yes.
The plans for this transcontinental highway should be complete by now and provision should be made for other highways, not only for tourist purposes but for transport and military purposes as well. If a transcontinental highway were completed our tourist bureau would be able to do a little more

advertising. The bureau could tell the Britishers or the people on the other side of the Atlantic that they could see Canada from the comfort of their own car. As I have said, the speech from the throne mentions this transcontinental highway. But, as far back as March 24 of last year, this government had no more idea of planning for a trans-Canada highway than Donald Duck.
On March 24 of last year I asked the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply about the transcontinental highway. From page 2595 of Hansard I read the following answer by the minister:
All things in their time. At the present time manpower in Canada is being used to the full in other ways. As soon as we have surplus manpower we shall certainly undertake that.
I said:
I am suggesting that the government should now have a plan, with the different provinces, in deciding where the highway will go. Then, when we have plenty of manpower and materials, let the road be built. But that plan should be drawn up now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think there is a lot in what you
say.
The government never woke up until the day it was mentioned in the speech from the throne. With Newfoundland coming into Canada as the tenth province, there is all the more reason why this highway should be built and why the spanning of the Canso gut should be an accomplished fact. These things should be done right away, not fifty years from now, because they mean so much in case we have another war; and no one knows what will happen tomorrow.
I believe that a committee of this house should be set up to study not only the St. Lawrence waterway project and this highway, but also the tourist business. I believe this parliament should be more conversant with what should and must be done; and in my opinion the sooner these committees are set up, the better it will be for everyone concerned.
I should like to say one more thing about the highway. I believe it should be uniform in construction. It should be supervised by the provinces under one general, all-Canadian plan. It must be an all-weather highway and should retain its natural beauty. Trees should be left along the highway from coast to coast. There should be no cutting of trees except by permit. Trees along the highway will be blown down or will fall down soon enough, and new trees will need to be planted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And no billboards.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. gentleman is perfectly right. There should be no unsightly billboards to act as eyesores. We have too many of them in the country now. Forest conserva-
29087-59i
The Address-Mr. Fraser tion is mentioned in the throne speech. But even before the war this government was not practising it at all. Out of an appropriation in 1940 of over $240,000, I believe it was spending only about $45,000 on the planting of trees. Something must be done. This highway should be all planned out now, as should this conservation program; because if a slump should come-and it will come-projects of this kind will take up the slack.
Another reason for the building of the highway is the fact that every year we are losing trade to central and south America. People are going down to Mexico. We could have them here just as well as not. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, have been in Mexico. I have been down there too. It is a beautiful country. But why not let those dollars come up here? There is another .reason, also. I should perhaps mention this when we are on foreign exchange control, but I will do it now. In my opinion the foreign exchange control board is hindering pleasure across this Canada of ours. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising, asking tourists to come here and asking our own Canadian citizens to travel from coast to coast. But when a Canadian tries to travel across-the country and finds that, in order to be assured of decent roads, he must detour into' the United States, what happens? If he has over $25 in Canadian funds-or whatever his H-form calls for, if he has one-the official at the border will take away any extra Canadian funds he has. I know of a man who had travelers' cheques which had stamped right on them the words "good only in the Dominion of Canada." The government officials took the money away from him and sent it back to his home. The man was obliged to curtail his whole trip owing to fool regulations by that department. But, Mr. Speaker, they perhaps saved in that way a dollar or a couple of dollars in foreign exchange. I used the term "fool regulations." Yet that same foreign exchange control board issues permits, involving thousands and thousands of dollars, for the importation into Canada of anti-freeze which is injurious to any water-cooled automobile engine. That fact was found out and publicized in the papers from coast to coast. Thousands of dollars' worth of anti-freeze of that type was brought in here. It should have been inspected' first. What are the inspectors for?
I know that this house would not be satisfied unless I spoke about something to which' I always refer, and which I have criticized. Three years ago I called it a white elephant. Last year I called it a herd of white elephants. This year I shall talk about only one of those white elephants, one of the herd.
932	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fraser
Before doing so, however, I should just like to say that the throne speech mentions the fact that a royal commission is to be set up to examine into their activities, and in my opinion it is about time some of them were examined into. In commenting on the throne speech the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that some time ago he had seen a film which greatly impressed him. I am pleased to hear that. I am pleased to hear that the national film board films are improving. I have heard that suggestion from other sources. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that my criticism of that outfit is worth while if we get better films? That is my objective. No one in this parliament enjoys more than I do seeing motion pictures, taking them, or showing them; but I want them to be good pictures. I want them to have educational value and to be worth while. As a matter of fact, as long as I can see that they are improving,
I am satisfied. But if they do not keep on improving, I intend to do a great deal of criticizing.
I feel, however, that the financial picture of this national film board is not a real one. They do not give the true picture of the set-up. The taxpayer is not getting value for his money. If a royal commission is set up,
I am afraid hon. members in the house will be prevented from asking questions about the film board. I hope that is not so; but you know, Mr. Speaker, that in the past, whenever a royal commission or a committee was set up, we were just out of luck.
The situation in the United States, with regard to their film unit, is quite different from the one here. In the United States the various government departments have documentary films made. The making of the films is turned over to commercial companies. There is no overhead to the government. The pictures are made by these commercial companies, and they are generally satisfactory because these companies have not only real motion picture producers but their own engineers, the best that can be obtained, and their own technicians. They really do a good job. Here in this country we just have a motion picture board without any direction at all. No one knows just what is the set-up. Our system of control of film production is under a socialistic policy. It curtails expansion of the motion picture industry. In this country a motion picture firm is afraid to expand because it does not know what might happen the next day. Curtailments might be put on such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has put on radio. In Canada we have three motion picture firms and they are all trying to do a good job. They are doing a good job. They make splendid pictures in spite of the fact that they have opposition


from the national film board, which is financed out of the taxpayers' money.
Among this herd of white elephants there is one about which I am going to speak tonight. I refer to the stills department of the national film board. This department is injuring every commercial photographer and every press photographer in Canada. Many veterans were taught their trade in the navy, army and the air force. They have come back and have started in business, but the national film board tries to take their business away from them and is succeeding. I have letters from veterans. Here is one from a veteran who said:
However, I prefer to work on my own, even though the going is a bit hard at times. All I and the others in my profession want is a chance to earn an honest living. We didn't go overseas in the recent war to assure us of a handout, but we did believe that in serving this country we would assure the Canadian way of life in regard to earning a living. But it is hard, nay, almost impossible to sell a thing when another chap is giving it away.
That is exactly what the national film board is doing with portraits and photographs of all kinds. I hold in my hand another letter from a veteran, which reads in part as follows:
Each year the national film board takes business away from the commercial photographers. After taking a series of pictures in an industrial plant, they give a set to the management "courtesy of the taxpayer of Canada".
It is not right, Mr. Speaker. I have another letter which reads in part as follows:
The fact that the national film board is actually subsidized by all commercial photographers, through their taxes, is a point which is overlooked by many persons. This subsidization, of course, allows the national film board to turn out photographs at prices which no commercial studio, privately owned, could ever hope to meet. This eventually will mean ruin for many photographers, and certainly will not help the country as a whole in these times of readjustment.
A return was tabled in answer to a question of mine on February 3. This return showed that 167,854 photographs were turned out by the national film board; that is, ordinary photographs. They might be photographs of members of parliament or of people on the street, in different parts of Canada. That means that the national film board took almost 500 photographs every day, including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. They certainly are making inroads on the commercial photographer. They even made photographs six and a half feet wide by twelve feet long. Your guess is as good as mine, Mr. Speaker, as to whose photographs these were. I will not go any further than that. They made photographs eight by ten to the number of 29,139, and sold them at thirty-five cents each. You could not get the photographic material for that amount. They sold another 18,454

at fifty cents each. They have even gone into the developing of rolls of film and charged twenty cents a roll for that work. They made 129 portraits last year. They made 166 passport photographs. That is all right if they are for government officials; but would it not be a whole lot cheaper if these government officials were permitted to go to a commercial photographer and have their passport pictures taken, which would cost the government $2 or $3 each. It would be a whole lot better.
I hold in my hand another return of the stills department of the national film board. Last year this division cost the taxpayers of Canada $55,152 in salaries. Materials cost $24,826 and $2,206.50. They have five telephones in their offices. They occupy 4,742 square feet of space on Sparks street, the busiest street in Ottawa. Their traveling and hotel expenses amounted to $4,287.17 and $6,476. Salaries and materials amounted to almost $93,000. That does not include the telephones which are paid for by the public works department. It does not include the 4,742 square feet of space which is also paid for by the public works department. It does not include long distance calls, cost of stationery and management, if there is any management, and I have my doubts on that. It is like Paddy's pig; it runs where it likes, feeds in the taxpayer's pocket all the time. These extra costs, including the floor space and one thing and another, would add up to more than $100,000, and this $100,000 is not authorized by the National Film Board Act, which was enacted in 1939. You cannot find anything in that act to authorize the stills department unless you stretch your imagination, Mr. Speaker, as long as the elephant's trunk.
I can see that you are ready, Mr. Speaker, to tell me that my time is exhausted. The poor taxpayer does not like extravagance of this kind. I believe the time has come for the taxpayer to rise and demand an investigation into the national film board, especially the stills department, because it certainly is stepping on the taxpayer. In 1939 Mr. Euler, who was minister at that time, said:
I may add, in conclusion, that this board is not being established with the intention of providing jobs for anybody.
Goodness knows how many are there now. There were seven hundred and some odd there last year. Mr. Euler continued:
There is really to be only one paid man in the organization.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. gentleman, but he has exhausted his time.
The Address-Mr. Fraser


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Euler goes on:
That has not been considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to
interrupt the hon. member but I should like to know whether he has the unanimous consent of the house to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two minutes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Euler continued:
That has not been considered. But the only other paid official might be a clerk or stenographer. It is not a board or organization that is going to require the expenditure of a great deal of public money.
But in this Grierson report for the year 1939-I have his report here, but because of a shortage of time I shall not read it-it says they want only $80,000. I do feel that this national film board should be investigated.
The socialist party to my left has been lauding New Zealand, and the government of that country, both in the house and in election campaigns. I notice in a press report however that the premier of that country is asking that the New Zealand film board be investigated. They have communists in there -and I am not saying whether we have them or not. I do know however that there was a question I put on the order paper a couple of years ago regarding a certain party, and at that time I asked the question, "Are there any known communists in the film board?" A week after that, this person was fired, thank goodness. How many more there are, I do not know.


An hon. Member:: Time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If the hon. member wishes me to sit down, I will do so.


Alphonse Fournier: Go ahead.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, just before I rose, the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton), who sits to my left, reminded me that The Humboldt high school curling team won the Canadian high school curling championship yesterday at Edmonton. To do that they had to beat a Manitoba team. We in Manitoba are good losers, and I congratulate the Humboldt high school curling team and wish them every success in the future; but let them watch for Manitoba the next time.
I wish this evening to speak about a few matters brought to my attention by my constituents. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is in the house. He had something to say about me the other evening, in

The Address-Mr. Bryce connection with Liberalism. While I had not intended to say anything about this matter, as he is now in his seat I believe I shall do so. He speaks about the Liberal party as a reform party-and I must say I do enjoy those speeches of his, even though I am not *a Liberal.


Humphrey Mitchell: A pretty good Liberal.


William Scottie Bryce: I was raised in the same school as he was. Perhaps when he was listening to Sir Wilfrid Laurier I was listening to Lloyd George. I had the pleasure of meeting Lloyd George on a number of occasions. But the Liberal party the Minister of Agriculture talks about is no more the Liberal party we had when we were boys than night is day. It is entirely different. In those days the Liberal party was known as a party of reform.


Mr. MacNicol:: In the old days, not these days.


William Scottie Bryce: It was known as the political group which championed the less fortunate and underprivileged. Those were the times of Pitt, Bright and Gladstone and, in my own time, Lloyd George. Theirs was a continuous struggle against reaction of every kind.
But what do we find today? The Liberal party has changed. More and more it is legislating for the more privileged group. Less and less it is legislating for the poor generally.


An hon. Member:: No.


William Scottie Bryce: Oh yes. And I am going to prove it to you.


Mr. Grant:: What about family allowances? What about old age pensions?


William Scottie Bryce: I hope my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island is going to give me a chance to speak. I have been tempted many times to interject when he has been speaking, because he says so many things that are not just according to Hoyle, one might say.
Let us look at the record. One of the first taxes to be removed was the excess profits tax. That was not looMng after the poor people. From that source $277 million was collected last year. Why did not the government take it off a little at a time? Instead of doing that, it made a clean sweep of taking it off-to help big business.
Let us look at the plight of the old age pensioner. Pensions have never been large enough. But when people are earning wages they even find it hard to make ends meet these days. Our old citizens are getting $30 a month. The Winnipeg Tribune has published a series of articles on the plight of some of these old age pensioners. One of my colleagues has already put some of this on
record, and I would strongly recommend that hon. members look at the Tribune regularly to see what is written there. However, I should like to place this on record again because I do not think it was covered fully.
This evening I am dealing with the issue of February 10, 1949, where, at page 17, we find this:
How Pensioners "Get By" on $30 a Month
Can't Afford to Fix Glasses
Edward Martin, an old age pensioner, broke the frame of his spectacles four weeks ago.
He's been helpless ever since-street signs, even billboards, are blurs. Reading's impossible and shaving is more hazardous than the high trapeze.
He plans to wait a few more weeks before getting the broken frame repaired. He knows the bill will only be "a matter of a few pennies," but he hasn't saved sufficient money.
That's because he's living on 64 cents a day.
Like other old age pensioners in Manitoba, he receives $30 in pension money monthly. Although physically unable to subsidize that income through part-time employment, his keen mind worked out a down-to-the-last-cent budget.
The Salvation Army charges him $10 a month for his room in the local hostel.
With the remaining $20, he adheres to the following daily diet:
No breakfast Dinner:
One egg sandwich	15
Toast and coffee	12
Supper:
Two sandwiches	30
Coffee	  07
Day's total	64
That leaves Mr. Martin nothing for clothing, medicine, smoking, laundry or small incidentals.
Right now grey hair is woolly on his head. Haircuts, at 65 cents apiece, come once every six months for Mr. Martin-and the expense means forfeiture of the second supper sandwich.
I am sure that is bound to impress someone here who has sympathy for these elderly people. This man had to do without his breakfast, and lives on two meals a day.


John Horne Blackmore: Two snacks a day.


William Scottie Bryce: I was going to say that, if they were substantial, I could live on two meals each day, if I had plenty to eat each time; but when you have only 64 cents a day on which to live, it is a deplorable condition. If the Liberal party want to be the reform party, here is their opportunity. They can do something about this situation.
That is the condition of the man who has only himself to look after. But let us look at the circumstances of the married male pensioner who has reached seventy years of age and is receiving a pension, but whose wife has not reached that age. He gets a pension for himself but nothing for his wife. You have two people trying to live on $30 per month. Surely it is not thought that women over sixty years of age can go out

and work to provide extra income to maintain the home. I think the time has come for the amount of the pension to be increased, and I believe that women should receive the pension at an earlier age than men. Personally I think that the pension should be paid to women at sixty years of age, and that it should be paid to men at sixty-five. Other countries can do it, and I do not think Canada should take second place to any country in the care of her aged citizens who have helped to make her what she is today.
I am sure that if I turn to my right to the Progressive Conservatives, to my left to the Social Crediters, to the members of my own party, or even the members on the Liberal side, there is not a man who would not vote for better pensions. If any hon. member thinks I am wrong, let him say so. It rests with the men on the front government benches. It is their responsibility. If they say that these people are to get better pensions, they will have them, because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has the money. You could find money for war; then find money to look after the aged pensioners.
I am sorry I have to put this so bluntly to the government, but they are the people who are holding up the matter. Everybody else is agreeable. Let them bring the measure in tomorrow and they will see the support they will receive. The deplorable thing is that so many makeshift methods are adopted to try to help them when, if the matter was handled properly, we could cure the ill.
In the province of Manitoba-and I can talk better about Manitoba than anywhere else-they have brought in a scheme. They are going to give these pensioners another $10 per month if the municipalities will pay half of it. The municipalities have never had enough money in the past to do the things needed to be done, to provide necessary public works; yet the government of the province of Manitoba wants to saddle the municipalities with this additional responsibility, and another means test. I know that the man or woman who has been thrifty during his or her lifetime, and has been able to provide for a rainy day, cannot receive any assistance because they have provided for themselves. It is only the man who has never paid any taxes, the man who has been a waster during his lifetime, or who has had some misfortune, who is entitled to it. People who are trying to get the pension today are encouraged- I do not know whether that is the right word -to do things they should not do. They fill out different forms, and they are not too truthful because they are trying to obtain something to eke out their existence for the rest of their lives. I think the means test should be abolished. If somebody gets the
The Address-Mr. Bryce old age pension and does not really need it, or is not entitled to it, then it is in the power of the government to tax it back from them. But, for goodness sake, do not leave people in dire starvation because somebody may receive it whom you do not want to get it.
If the government thinks a contributory scheme will be better, I am quite agreeable to that. I am agreeable to anything that will aid these people. I do not think I need to say anything more. I cannot appeal too strongly to the hon. gentlemen on the government benches. They have the final say on what the old people of the country are going to receive, and I do hope they will think the same about it as I do.
I want to turn for a few minutes to the coarse grain situation. It has been uppermost in the minds of western farmers. The interest of organized and unorganized farmers in matters pertaining to marketing has been continuous and consistent for the last thirty years. Since 1919 the belief has persisted throughout the west that only a wheat board or a grain board, handling the whole of the western crop, will give efficient and satisfactory service, and secure a square deal for the farmer.
I wish to assure hon. members that I am as anxious for justice to consumers as to producers. As co-operators, the C.C.F. group believe that the proper organization of the marketing and distribution of all products would give recognition in a mutual way to the rights of both. There is no need for me to put on the record at this time the details of the fight in the early twenties. On August 18, 1920, wheat sold at $2.73, and on November 18, 1921, it sold for $1.11. On March 18, 1922, by which time practically all of the 1921 crop was out of the farmers' hands, the price had returned to $1.48, but again we find on October 18, 1922, in the peak month for deliveries by farmers, the price had gone down to $1.02. On April 18, 1923, when most of the wheat was out of the farmers' hands, the price had risen to $1.22, but on October 23 the price was back to 95 cents.
At this time both individual farmers and farm organizations were protesting strongly about the discontinuance of the wheat board. The idea of including coarse grains under the wheat board is not new, because at the convention of the United Farmers of Manitoba, held in January, 1922, the following resolution was passed:
Whereas there Is general dissatisfaction with the present system of marketing our grain;
And whereas the deplorable condition of our agricultural industry is such that it demands the attention of the federal government to the need for national marketing of wheat and other grains;

The Address-Mr. Bryce
Therefore be it resolved that we urge upon the dominion government the necessity of re-establishing the Canada wheat board under the former management with the wide powers to sell wheat and other grains.
Let us look at what happened. In 1935 the Bennett government introduced legislation setting up a compulsory wheat board which would handle all wheat. That policy was objected to by the Liberals, who brought in an amendment. I understand that they were the official opposition at that time. I was not here then, but from what I have read they were in the opposition. They brought in an amendment to provide that delivery to the wheat board would be on a voluntary basis. That meant a dual method of marketing wheat. You could either sell through the wheat board or put your grain on the open market. That was the policy until 1943 when the wheat board became the sole agency for the marketing of wheat.
During the war years and up to October 21, 1947, the price of coarse grains was fixed, and it was not very high. Then the federal government removed the ceiling on coarse grains, at a time when probably two-thirds of the crop already had been disposed of by the prairie farmers. I do not know how much the farmers lost in that transaction, but it was a great deal of money, which somebody else made. The farm organizations and others complained bitterly about that action by the government, and the upshot was that the government finally gave the farmers compensation to the extent of five cents a bushel on oats and eleven cents a bushel on barley, which compensation I understand cost the federal government approximately $4 million. But I still think the farmers lost more than that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The farmers did not lose anything.


William Scottie Bryce: Just wait, now. The farmer lost far more than $4 million.


James Garfield Gardiner: He got 18 cents on his oats and 27 cents on his barley.


William Scottie Bryce: Let me finish. Don't get me away on another tack or the first thing we know we will be back on the Liberal party. Those who were fortunate enough to belong to the wheat pools received 13 cents a bushel for oats and 16 cents a bushel for barley. A number of the line elevator companies made additional payments; but the farmers were victims of the apparent idea of the federal government that it would be a good thing to throw coarse grains back into the speculative market. Take the farmer who sold his grain to the feed houses around Winnipeg or any other large city. His first payment was also his last payment, because these feed houses 
claimed they worked on a day-to-day basis and had nobody to come back on.
Look at what has happened to barley. There has been a variation of approximately 41 cents in the price of barley since it went on the open market. Somebody got 41 cents more than the other fellow, and somebody got 41 cents less than he got. That is one of the things Bill No. 135 would do away with if it were proclaimed. Certainly we should have that legislation in operation; and now that the three hon. gentlemen who had most to do with it are sitting quite close together they should be able to agree on it. I refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gar-son). Those three hon. gentlemen all had different opinions last fall. I need not go into that; I think every hon. member knows what their ideas were. The Minister of Trade and Commerce gave us the bill because we asked for it, but said he would only proclaim it if the provinces would agree. The Minister of Agriculture was not so sure about it; according to the Winnipeg Free Press he did not know whether we needed it, because he thought we had enough legislation in the province to do the job. But I am doubtful as to that.
One could not find a better example than rye-the grain, I mean. During the war it was allowed to remain on the speculative market. I have not the exact figures before me, but at one time I think it was around $4.47. Today it is a little over $1. How can any man plan his agricultural economy on a basis like that? He buys seed when the grain is over $4, and when he comes to sell his crop he finds that it has dropped by at least $2.13. The speculative market system has been advertised all over the prairie provinces in the newspapers and by radio. It has been said that such a system provides farmers with the most efficient and economical means of selling their grain. The chief complaint of the farmers in regard to the speculative system of marketing is its insecurity. That system provides protection for the elevator companies, the flour mills, the exporters, the bakers and so on, but it provides no price security for the man at the bottom, the man who grows the grain. The farmer is only asking for security in the marketing of his products. He is only asking that farmers be on the same basis as carpenters, plumbers, electricians and so on, who make arrangements about their wages for a year or two in advance.
As we travel through the country we find that the greatest opponents of Bill No. 135 are people who do no farming at all. Surely

it should be left to the farmers to settle this thing for themselves. Today we have groups advocating that we should retain the wheat board but that it should not be compulsory, and that we should have the speculative market along with it so the farmer might maintain his independence. Such a system would only benefit the speculative market. If a ' majority of the farmers want this act then the majority should rule, just as the majority rules in all other organizations such as the bar association, the doctors' union and many others. Democracy works there; it should work for the farmer, too. I have a clipping here from one of the western newspapers dealing with coarse grains, as the matter was considered by the western agricultural conference at Saskatoon. It says:
Without an opposing vote the conference endorsed the following resolution on coarse grains: "that a joint effort be made to enable the Canadian wheat board to be the sole marketing agency for coarse grains and that any legislation giving the Canadian wheat board the same exclusive powers over the marketing of other grains as it now exercises over wheat, should be based on the principle that the Canadian wheat board should be an agency operating in the interests of grain producers, with a duty at all times to sell grain for the best available price whether in export or domestic markets, and should not be used as an instrument of government policy to limit domestic prices.
I am sure it is good news that everyone has agreed on that, and I hope the three ministers who could not agree last year will agree now and have this act proclaimed, because if you do not proclaim it you are going to be in trouble. It is most unfortunate that this bill was not proclaimed last year. I do not know who is to blame, because there seem to be faults on all sides. The Minister of Trade and Commerce brought in a bill demanding that we have complementary legislation from the provinces. The premier of the province of Manitoba told us there was no need for it, and the law officers of his government told us it was not necessary. According to the Winnipeg Free Press, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said the provinces could handle it under their natural products marketing acts.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are not suggesting the Winnipeg Free Press speaks for me, are you?


William Scottie Bryce: I know the Winnipeg Free
Press has blamed the minister for a lot of things, but I am believing it this time. I do not think this would work without dominion legislation. I remember that, when the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett brought in the dominion Natural Products Marketing Act, he failed to get the enabling legislation from the provinces. The act was challenged and declared ultra vires. It is no doubt for this reason the
The Address-Mr. Bryce officers of the crown consider enabling legislation necessary.
The premier of Manitoba wanted to do everything the farmer wanted him to do, but he had to consider his own welfare first; so he picked holes in Bill 135, as only a lawyer could. No doubt he sought to satisfy his coalition government, but he deprived the farmer of the benefits that Bill 135 would have given him. It is a well-known fact that the coalition government in Manitoba contains many members who detest the sight of Bill 135 and have openly sworn that it will never be proclaimed if they can help it. No doubt that had an effect on the arguments the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) put forward. Now that he is rid of that entanglement, I suppose he can be a good Liberal again. Perhaps he can approach the subject with an open mind without offending the gentlemen in his former coalition government. I hope the government will make sure that this legislation is in operation before the next crop is harvested. I would suggest that neither rye nor flax be left outside its sphere of operation. The day has come when no farm produce should be sold on a speculative market. I have urged that in the past, and I shall continue to do so until farm products are no longer objects for speculators and profit seekers to play with, but are put into the channels of consumption in the most efficient and economical manner to the benefit of both producers and consumers.
I should like to say a word to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) about the income tax. With the present high cost of living, I consider the exemptions are too low and something should be done about them. I have my old grievance. There should be some other basis for levying income tax upon farmers. The farmer works as a unit. If he has boys old enough he can charge their wages against his income tax. There are on the farm, however, many young people who do a man's work long before they reach the age of sixteen. Unfortunately, although the farmer works as a unit he is taxed as an individual. This unfair method of taxation reflects itself in the production of cream, in the production of eggs and in the production of hogs. Perhaps "unfair" is not the right word, but there is something unfair about it. When the income tax inspectors came around in Manitoba they assessed the farmer's income. The farmer said, "If I had not sold these hogs or bothered milking these cows, I would not have had to pay any income tax".
When I consulted the Right Hon. Mr. Ilsley about this matter he told me that, while my argument might be sound enough, if he did that for the farmer he would have to do it



S38 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. J. O. Gour for the small storekeeper who claims that his wife too works. If the small storekeeper's wife works, he is entitled to an exemption just as the farmer is for his wife. This should not be offered as a reason why the farmer's whole unit should be taxed and one man be forced then to pay that tax. I have exhausted my time, but I hope the minister will read these remarks and give some consideration to them. At another time I will continue what I have to say.
(Translation):
Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to extend my congratulations to the mover of the address in reply, the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown). I do not need to praise him, for many have done so before me. Long before making this speech he had been known as a worthy member of parliament who is a credit to his beautiful constituency and to his party.
I am also pleased to join those who have already praised the seconder of the address, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Demers). May I say to him that his first appearance in this house has been most auspicious because of his wisdom and his integrity. His constituents are rightfully proud of him. He may be assured that we, the Liberals, are pleased with this lucky choice they have made.
I also wish to offer public thanks to Divine Providence for placing at the helm of the Liberal party, for the last half century, such great statesmen as the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. Both have been recognized as very great men not only in this country but throughout the world. We are today as privileged as we were before in having the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent as prime minister of Canada, as he has shown himself to be worthy of his predecessors. What has happened since the opening of this session indicates that he will perhaps surpass them, if that were humanly possible. On behalf of the electors of Russell whom I have the honour of representing, I wish to tender him my most sincere congratulations on his speeches, so full of wisdom and firmness, and worthy of the greatest men this country has ever had the honour of producing.
I would not forgive myself if I failed to offer my congratulations also to the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), on the splendid speech he delivered before the Canadian Board of Trade in London. It was necessary that they should be told 

these truths there, in view of the need for mutual understanding between the two countries. We have always been grateful to the nations who have wished us well, but they should not forget our benefactions.
I therefore ask the Minister of Agriculture to believe that all Canadians appreciate the immense benefits he has brought and will continue to bring to this country.
I also wish to thank all the ministers of the crown for the beneficent administration they have given the country. We must thank Providence for having so guided and protected them, for never has Canada known such prosperity.
I therefore ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it would be possible to give a subsidy of 5 cents a pound on butter and 2 cents a quart on milk, provided the provinces contribute an equal amount, even if some petty politicians accuse us of assailing their autonomy. Low income earners could thus obtain a product which is worth twice as much, so far as flavour, quality and usefulness is concerned, as this substitute called oleomargarine or any other name. We could also pass another law, should the provinces decline to do so, requiring that this product be coloured, chocolate or otherwise, to prevent the unscrupulous from mixing this product with butter, in which case the swindled consumer might be led to believe there is not much difference between this mixture called "butter and oleomargarine" and genuine butter.
Moreover, such subsidy on butter and milk would reduce the sale price, increase the consumption of a wholesome and necessary product and allow farmers to produce more of it. I should also like the government, if this entailed no financial difficulty, to reduce the sales tax on working clothes used by our labourers and our farmers, because after all they are those who earn their money the hardest way.
Mr. Speaker, nothing has been funnier to me, since I have had the honour of sitting in this house, than the requests of all kinds made by the hon. members of the opposition, and even by members on this side, asking for bridges, wharves, railways, bonuses, subsidies, pensions, even requesting that rivers be dug or filled, etc., etc., and thousands of the requests which, according to certain experts, would cost the government at least 4 to 5 billion dollars a year. In addition, most of those members ask the government to reduce taxes to a point that would leave us less than a billion dollars of revenue. There is even a certain group of the Social Credit party who

want to abolish all taxes, which means that we would be deprived completely of revenue.
However, I am particularly critical of the official opposition. During the war they urged the government to spend twice as much as it did. Those same people now wish to have low taxes and criticize the government's policy.
Who will refund Canada's debt and pay the interest and at the same time provide enough money to run this country and carry out the social legislation which we want to extend?
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, because of the present prosperous conditions of our country and our increasing revenue, I believe it would be possible this year for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to exempt from income tax single persons earning between $1,000 and $1,200. In the case of people with one dependent, the exemption should be between $2,000 and $2,500. In addition, the allowance should be increased by $100 for each child.
I regret that I am unable to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) as I should like to. All I can do is to commend him on the enlightened pre-election campaign he conducted in Ontario. He heaped pledge upon pledge up and down the province, promising either the sun or the moon, according to the section he was dealing with. Banking on victory, he hoped this would help him be chosen leader of the opposition in Ottawa.
I thoroughly enjoyed hearing him criticize the paragraph of the speech from the throne which mentions the appointment of a royal commission. His words are reported on page 46 of Hansard for January 28. Of course, the leader of the opposition knows all about royal commissions since, during his short term of office as premier of Ontario, he appointed eleven. They are the royal commissions on: 1. Milk; 2. Forestry; 3. Public Halls; 4. Mining; 5. Investigation of the Gestapo charges on the C.C.F.; 6. Agricultural Committee of Inquiry; 7. New Departments; 8. Reform Institution; 9. Planning and Development; 10. Travel and Publicity; 11. Education. The royal commission on separate schools which has been sitting for over four years now and which has cost the province more than $100,000 to date served no other purpose than to refuse several school boards a permit to establish a separate school. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the royal commission on schools was denying, throughout the province, the rights of school boards, where Catho-
29087-60J
The Address-Mr. J. O. Gour lies of all racial origins but especially French-Canadians, are represented in a proportion of from 72 to 99 per cent, and that at a time when he was minister of education and prime minister of the province. Yet he is pleased to say in this house that the French Canadian ridings voted for the Conservatives 6 to 7, although 4 to 6 would be a truer proportion.
No, Mr. Speaker, the French Canadians, by a wide majority, did not vote for the member for Carleton (Mr. Drew) or for his Tory party. We, the French Canadians of Ontario, also have our motto; it is the same as that of the province of Quebec, "I remember". To be sure, we well remember regulation XVII, which was passed by the same Tory clique, supported by whatever influence the leader of the official opposition in this house had at that time, regulation XVII which deprived the French Canadians of the right to teach their mother tongue and their religion in their schools.


Mr. Gagnon:: How did they vote?


Joseph-Omer Gour: The French Canadians of that day would have never accepted, under any circumstances, a regulation of that kind, and I am one of them. Never will French Canadians accept such iniquitous school laws.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Whom did they vote for?
Out with it.


Joseph-Omer Gour: No, French Canadians did not vote Conservative because they believed in the promises of the then Prime Minister, apart from a small number of gullible partisans, like the one who is interrupting just now, who remained staunch Conservatives come what may. Many knew that he would quit the provincial field in order to escape his promises and that his ambition was to be the eternal leader of the opposition in Ottawa, as long as the other opposition parties did not deprive him of this rank.
It is not because of grants to our institutions, since, to be fair, they deserve twice as much. That has had but little influence. The real reason was the royal commission on education suspended over our schools like the sword of Damocles. I warn the Ontario Progressive Conservatives that if the settlement of the separate school problem is not what it should be, they cannot expect to have one single member re-elected in French-Canadian constituencies for centuries to come.

The Address-Mr. J. O. Gour
The people reasoned thus: "While doing it reluctantly, we are going to vote for the Tories this time and if they remain in power-which is what unfortunately did happen-the government will have no excuse to give for maintaining the unfair laws which affect the separate schools. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Ontario separate schools are still treated with rank injustice, because under the law no part of the taxes paid by public utilities and the like can be given to the separate schools. On the other hand, the electors reflected that in the case of a Liberal victory they would not have to worry because even though they did not return a single Liberal member they would still be treated fairly inasmuch as the Liberals have always dealt equitably with all people when they were in power. They did respect all races in the province, as regards language and creed, and their policy was to promote in this country unity, prosperity and freedom from agitation.
No, let me say to the hon. member for Carleton that the Ontario French Canadians remember the statements he made on the occasion of a by-election in Hastings East, when he said in a speech that the French Canadians were a vanquished race. They recall the statements he made in London, England, his comments on family allowances and the words he has uttered as a public man against the French Canadians and which have been quoted in this house, although others were not. A good many people believe that if a French Canadian was given a portfolio in the Ontario cabinet-one of the minor portfolios-it is because he-I mean my good friend the provincial member for Prescott- has accepted to make over the radio and to the newspapers this naive and unconsidered statement that the leader of the official opposition was the saviour and protector of the four million French Canadians of this country.
I feel sorry for my good friend that he was not more fortunate because according to what I read in the newspapers, he has been ridiculed and quite justifiably. The newspapermen who criticized him have been approved by 99 per cent of the French Canadians of the counties of Prescott and Russell and of all the province of Ontario. I can understand that it was mainly to supply electoral matter to the Conservative leader of the province of Quebec. The statement was used over the radio and in the newspapers, because such leaders have remained Tories despite all

the insults leveled against the province of Quebec by the leader of the official opposition. I shall mention only one, which dates back to the 1944 provincial election.
I therefore considered it my duty, Mr. Speaker, that these statements be made in the house. I challenge the leader of the opposition to repeat the suggestions he made in his speech to the house on February 4, to the effect that we, French Canadians, were playing a dangerous game in recalling to the people these idle statements he made at the time for political motives. But today, anxious to secure the support of the province of Quebec, he does not want those statements recalled, hoping that the Canadian people might forget.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister and his cabinet to appoint during this session a diplomatic representative to the Vatican.
I also feel it would now be advisable to have a national flag. I have two designs here that would be very acceptable to the people I have the honour to represent and, I am sure, throughout Canada. I was happy to find it suggested in the throne speech that we no longer appeal to the privy council in Great Britain but, instead, transfer to the Supreme Court of Canada the functions exercised by that body. It is also to be hoped that where rights pertaining to provincial autonomy or rights involving any particular province are at stake, such a province will appoint half of the judges sitting on the case.
I urge and request that during this session, if at all possible, legislation be enacted to replace His Majesty the King as governor general of Canada by a Canadian incumbent. In the person of the former Prime Minister of Canada, now member for Glengarry (Mr. King) we have a man best suited for this outstanding position.
(Text):


Mr. C. C. I. Merritt (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, in this want of confidence debate we have been discussing three points: first, the failure of the government to reconvene a dominion-provincial conference and bring about agreement with the provinces on the division of their various tax fields and responsibilities; second, the continued bureaucratic control that this government is exercising over production and trade in Canada; and third, the continued crippling rates of taxation which they are leveling on the people of Canada.
It is not going to be my purpose to depart far from that pattern. Those are the impor-

tant points; those are the reasons why the Canadian people have no longer confidence in this government. Those are the principal reasons and they are important ones. My purpose in this debate, Mr. Speaker, will be to draw to your attention, by way of illustration, one practical example which exists now in British Columbia of what happens when a government pursues the kind of policies which they have been following in the past few years. I refer of course to our very serious unemployment situation and which is particularly centred in the Vancouver area. I am not going to give many figures to the house. I believe any figures one would give would be uncertain; but in the last issue of the Financial Post it is stated that in January there were 41,500 claims for unemployment insurance in British Columbia. The figures of unemployed in the province are much greater than that because a very large number of people there do not come under unemployment insurance and would have no occasion to make claims. It is likely that in the Vancouver area alone there are over 50,000 people out of work. Because that is close to 10 per cent of the population of that area we have a very serious situation indeed.
I am quite surprised that although the Vancouver members have questioned the government on the situation in British Columbia on several occasions, and now more than a week ago, we have had no statement from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as to what is to be done to meet the situation. I have a strong suspicion that they have no ideas of what they are going to do, and they are just hoping that the unemployment will blow over in course of time. However, that is the situation.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in a practical and personal way this raises the failure of the government to bring about an agreement between the provinces and itself so as to take care of these fields of responsibilities which are not at present clearly and properly allotted between the jurisdiction of this parliament and the jurisdiction of the provinces. I say it raises it directly and personally because it is not simply a political issue as hon. members on the government side of the house seem to try to make it this session. In this matter of unemployment, the failure to provide for one class of the unemployed in British Columbia comes right home to many individuals living in that province.
The situation there, of course, is that there are three classes affected by this unemployment. First of all, there are the unemployables, who are the responsibility of the city and province and who, I should imagine, are being taken care of under the usual provisions of the city and province in that regard.
The Address-Mr. Merritt
Secondly, there are those who are in insured occupations, and who therefore draw unemployment insurance. So far as that kind of assistance is concerned, they are properly taken care of.
But there is a third class of which I wish to speak, the class known as the employable unemployed. For that class no authority takes any responsibility. The provinces have long contended that the employable unemployed are a responsibility of this government, which has its unemployment insurance set-up, and its employment service. They have held for a large number of years that this is the jurisdiction which should look after that group. Naturally the provinces have not provided funds or machinery to take care of that class of persons.
The whole responsibility for the employable unemployed in Vancouver at this time is falling upon the red feather organizations, those groups of private social security organizations which function together under the sign of the red feather. But the strain of caring for the employable unemployed in Vancouver at this time is much too much for that authority to look after. Not only are their financial resources quite inadequate for the purpose, but a large number of those who are unemployed in Vancouver are not residents of Vancouver, nor are they residents of British Columbia. A large number of them have come to the coast from points east of the Rockies.
A survey taken by the red feather organization a year ago-I have not the figure for this year-showed that about 50 per cent of the people being taken care of in the seasonal unemployment crisis a year ago were from outside British Columbia. It is not proper that a municipal organization, or a private organization drawing its resources from within a municipality, should be called upon to look after a serious unemployment situation which affects a large number of people who do not live within the borders of that municipality.
Yet this very class for whom, as I have pointed out, no government authority accepts any responsibility-and I am referring of course to the employable unemployed-is the class for which in the green book proposals of 1945 the dominion government undertook to care. The proposals in that regard are to be found at page 44 of the green book, at which point it is indicated that the dominion government, in addition to unemployment insurance, would undertake to provide unemployment assistance in respect of the class about whom I am talking, up to 85 per cent of the rates paid for unemployment insurance. It seems to me too bad that, where that responsibility was recognized and virtually accepted in 1945, we should find in 1949 a
942	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Merritt large number of Canadians who are in need of this assistance but who are being done out of it. They are done out of it because this government has not had the will to bring about a dominion-provincial agreement which would have settled not only matters of taxation, but also this vital question of care of the unemployed, which affects personally so many people.
I was little short of amazed when in this debate, as reported at page 86 of Hansard.
I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) say that an attempt to reach a dominion-provincial agreement was a waste of his time.
I do not think that remark will be well received or appreciated either by those people who are now in want in British Columbia, or by those who are giving their money and their time on an entirely voluntary basis in an attempt to do something for people who have not resources.
I am sure those people do not'feel they are 'wasting their time in trying to carry out a public service; and I believe they will be greatly disappointed that the Prime Minister should have made use of those words. The real reason, of course, why the Prime Minister would find a further attempt to bring about an agreement a waste of time is that he knows that in 1945 and 1946 the government was wrong, and that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was right in the stand he took at the time at the conference. The Prime Minister and members of his government know that, were a conference reconvened, the agreement which would come out of it would be one along the lines proposed by the leader of the opposition. This would be a tremendous political defeat for the government. That is the reason they do not reconvene the conference and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.
I say, in short, that the government has no will for agreement. We in this party have a will for agreement-we have a will for agreement with the provinces which will make it possible for the provinces and municipalities to discharge their responsibilities in their proper fields. And not the least of these responsibilities which require assumption by someone is the one to which I have been making reference, namely, the caring for the employable unemployed.
If the government does not see fit, as apparently it does not, to reconvene the conference,
I say that at least it should carry out the responsibility it was willing to undertake in 1945 and provide unemployment assistance for those who do not qualify for unemployment insurance.
I want to say further that this is not an unexpected situation. This year conditions in Vancouver are much worse because of the (Mr. Merritt.]

bad weather we have been experiencing, but every year we have a seasonal unemployment problem. Every year a large number of people are out of work at this time in the province, and they come into Vancouver. The problem I have been discussing was brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) last year. I brought it to his attention myself in connection with the burden it throws upon the red feather organizations. Apparently nothing whatever has been done about it.
I do not think that when the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) was in Vancouver the other day he showed a proper realization of this problem. He is reported in the Province as having suggested as cures for the unemployment situation there such things as the speeding up of shipbuilding, the building of some naval craft in Vancouver, the building of a highway to the airport, and a good homebuilding program. None of these projects can be put under way in time to take care of the kind of problem that we are facing now. The government should have known that it was coming. If they wanted to carry out such measures they should have laid their plans months and months ago. Then they would be useful now. But this talk is just to put the matter oil and to avoid responsibility.
Everything I have said so far has been in reference to the provision of unemployment assistance. I have illustrated how, in failing to bring about a dominion-provincial agreement, the government is causing difficulties to a large number of the Canadian people. I want to turn now to other points of criticism that have been aimed at the government during this debate. I want to illustrate by this same unemployment situation how their taxation policy, and their interference with the ordinary flow of production and trade in Canada, are stultifying the growth of industry, particularly in British Columbia, and are leading to the very serious pockets of unemployment that we now see appearing.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the economy of British Columbia is based principally upon development of our natural resources. You have heard many times that the chief of those are lumber, fish, fruit, and products of our mines. From our very rich resources we produce a great amount of wealth each year. We market a large amount of that wealth through the port of Vancouver to export markets overseas. We have had our troubles finding markets in the past, but since the Ottawa agreements of 1932 markets have been pretty well assured for our main exports of natural products in the British commonwealth countries, and particularly in Great Britain.
As a result of assured markets we have been able to build up our industry and to

The Address-Mr. Merritt
establish it on a pretty firm basis. I think all the people who are engaged in active industry in the province of British Columbia, and indeed all the people of British Columbia, saw at the end of the war that our opportunity for expansion, development, and diversification of our industry was just beginning. They saw that we had one of the least tapped reserves of valuable natural resources in the world, and they were prepared to go all-out and take advantage of their opportunity to expand our production and to diversify it by branching off into secondary industry, allyear-round industry, which would do a great deal to prevent these ebbs and flows of employment.	__
I think these people know-and they are very active people-that the best way to get rid of unemployment is not through assistance by the government but rather through the production of new opportunities for employment by private industry. They were quite ready and able to go out and, by establishing new sources of production, make available new jobs to take care of a large number of people who wanted to go and live on the coast and who have been coming there steadily since the end of the war.
In order that the people active in industry in British Columbia might carry out that expansion they needed three things. First of all they needed very large amounts of new capital from outside the province. In order to establish their new industries they needed new people to work in them, to produce the wealth and to earn the rewards of that production. Finally they needed assured markets so that increased production of wealth would be worth while. All these ideas were very important to the people of Vancouver, and particularly to the people of my constituency. The city of Vancouver, which is growing apace, and now is approaching the half-million mark in the case of greater Vancouver, is dependent for its prosperity upon the continued flow of our natural resources from our rich province into the markets of the world. The constituency of Vancouver-Burrard, which I have the honour to represent. consists primarily of a residential area in which live a very large number of people who are engaged in the industries and services of Vancouver based upon export markets. It includes also a considerable number of retail stores which provide services for the people of the city and in so doing earn a livelihood for their proprietors. At the same time there are in my constituency some sawmills and a large number of machine shops and other establishments which service the natural products industries of the province.
You will therefore see, Mr. Speaker, that the success of our industrial leaders in expanding production in the province will mean very much to the people of my riding. It is from the continuous flow of wealth from our resources that they make their livelihood, and unless that flow of wealth is kept up and increased there is no power on earth, and particularly no government power, that can keep those people from distress. With that opportunity and with such a large number of willing people available to go out and take advantage of the opportunity and increase the production of wealth, one would have expected government policies to be of some assistance. But as a matter of fact the fiscal policies pursued by this government since the end of the war have been a direct, centralist, bureaucratic interference with the aspirations of the people of whom I have been speaking. The policies put forward principally by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), whom I am glad to see in the house at the moment, in almost every case have been a drag upon the initiative and enterprise of the leaders of industry in British Columbia.


Mr. Abboii:: With the national income at an all-time high.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: These policies, with which the minister seems so satisfied, are not an attempt at expansion but an attempt only to maintain the status quo. They consist principally of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, the import and export restrictions, and of course the minister's budget decisions which have amounted to almost confiscatory taxation upon the people. The policies he is following- whether he knows no others I cannot imagine -are precisely those a socialist government would follow.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not know anything about that.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: It is quite possible the minister does not know anything about that, but the people of British Columbia know quite a good deal about it, because they are very much exercised over this whole question of socialism. At the moment the opposition in the British Columbia house is socialist, and it is doing in a major key exactly what the Minister of Finance is doing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not think they were as good as that.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The socialists in British Columbia are breathing very heavily down the neck of anyone who is thinking of investing capital in the province, doing everything they can to drive out capital and prevent expansion, and everything possible to set back the progress of British Columbia.
944	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Merritt


Mr. Archibald:: What about the three per
per cent sales tax put on by the Tories?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Well, you know, there is
probably a direct connection between that three per cent sales tax and the attitude of this government with respect to dominion-provincial relations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean the Liberals are running that coalition out there?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: In respect of dominion-provincial relations that could be possible. But I want to get back to the question of the fiscal policies of this government, because fortunately at the present time what my friends to the left would do to British Columbia is only a threat, while what the Minister of Finance is doing to my province is a fact, and I am more interested in the fact than in the threat.
I want to take these three requirements for progress in British Columbia-capital, people and markets-and show by one or two illustrations how this government is holding back that progress and hurting rather than helping us in our endeavour to diversify and expand our industry and thereby to get rid of the serious pocket of unemployment we are experiencing now. First I will take capital. Everyone knows you cannot build up a new and rich area without outside capital. It is quite impossible to expand the economy of British Columbia as we would like to see it expand unless we can get outside capital.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Ontario is the place to go.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister says Ontario is
the place to go.


Mr. Gray  don:@: Apparently you will have to get out of Quebec.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am all right in Quebec.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Keep Ontario strong.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the thing.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: For a moment I want to refer to what an outside authority has to say as to the effect of the minister's foreign exchange control upon the expansion of British Columbia. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver News-Herald of some time last year, and I do not believe the present situation will have changed. It refers to a visit to British Columbia by Francis Adams Truslow, president of the New York curb exchange. He gave an interview to this newspaper, in the course of which he said that after having studied the situation in British Columbia he was satisfied there were no greater opportunities for risk capital in all the world. I quote from this clipping:
Canada, however, he found, had set up man-made barriers against the flow of capital from U.S.A. . . .


Canada requires vast amounts of risk capital, but its regulations scare capital away . . . He did not suggest that it would be possible for Canada to remove all restrictions at once, but it was vital that this should be the objective, because, he said, "You can't expect capital to walk into a trap."
That is the opinion of a very good authority on the Foreign Exchange Control Act of the Minister of Finance. He calls it a trap.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Did he refer to the Foreign Exchange Control Act?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: He refers to the fiscal policy of the government and says it is a trap into which capital would be too wise to put its foot.
I should like to say a word about the other possible sources of capital that are available for expansion, one of which is savings. In British Columbia there is a large number of small businesses that have been built up over the years and which rely for their expansion capital on the savings of the proprietor. You know, Mr. Speaker, that all through the war the standard profits for this type of business under the Excess Profits Tax Act were set unusually low. This meant that expansion capital could not be obtained from that source. You know, too, how the jewelry tax, the soft drinks tax and all these other unusual taxes were levied during the war for the sole purpose of slowing down the particular businesses to which those taxes applied. Probably that was a very good thing for the war effort, but it is a very bad thing for the prosperity of the people today. They cannot increase their savings. The same remarks apply to the general rates of income tax which have the effect of making it difficult to acquire capital for expansion. By reason of these two measures, the restrictions upon capital coming into this country and the rates of taxation imposed by the government, the opportunity for expansion in our province is being held back.
Let me turn, sir, to the second requirement we have in British Columbia, and that is people. We have experienced a considerable influx of people in the past few years. Our population is still not large enough to do all the things we would like to do. How in the world are we going to handle a larger number of people and do the things we want to do, while the government is unable to do more than it has been doing about housing? In a newspaper report dated January 29 of this year, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, who is responsible for housing, is quoted as saying that he hoped 100,000 houses would be built in Canada in 1949. Then he said this:
If we had 100,000 additional housing units available right now, there would be occupants for every one of them.

If during the course of the next year all the minister hopes to do is provide 100,000 houses which could be used right now, what chance is there for the expansion of our population in the next few years? If we are to be prosperous economically, if we are to be secure from the point of view of national defence, then we should expand our population. It is not sufficient for the government to say how difficult it is to build houses and to be satisfied with increases such as we have seen over the past few years, from 60,000 units to 70,000, to 80,000 and now to a target of 100,000 units. Broadly speaking, there is something wrong with the whole manner in which this government is conducting the economic affairs of this country. If after four years of trying to make provision for a very much greater quantity of housing than will simply meet our needs our building trades cannot meet those requirements, then something should be done.
I see my time has expired, but I should like to refer to a third requirement of which I spoke, and that is markets. I assure you I shall not be more than a moment. I have a report from the Pacific lumber inspection bureau of Seattle which points out that the water-borne shipments of lumber from British Columbia declined 24-1 per cent in 1948 as compared with the year before. From this you will see that this government is losing those markets which are important to British Columbia. Nothing is being done to restore them.
I did intend, Mr. Speaker, to expand on the question of markets, but since my time has expired I shall bring my remarks to a close. I simply want to say this, that if by these policies-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member would permit me, since he has exhausted his time, I would ask the house whether he has unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I thank the house for its courtesy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Solve this question of markets while you are at it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Since the minister and his colleagues are so obviously unable to do so, perhaps I might have a try at it. I have referred to the fact that the water-borne shipments of lumber from British Columbia have declined 24-1 per cent over the last year. This is not a matter about which anyone who has lived in British Columbia could be happy. We have had experience before in trying to market our lumber in the United States, and it has not been a happy
The Address-Mr. Merritt experience. We are very properly alarmed at the present trend in the commonwealth countries, particularly Great Britain, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, which have always been our best markets for lumber. These markets have been shut off because of the dollar shortage.
In British Columbia we do not like the way this government has thrown away our empire preferences. In the Geneva trade agreements of last year the government was very generous with these preferences. It gave away half the preference on lumber, half the preference on fish and the whole of our preference on apples. We do not like the cavalier fashion in which that was done. No matter what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) may have said the other night about the Ottawa agreements, in British Columbia* we know that they were the salvation of our economy. We know that they have been the background and the basis for our economy every year since 1932. We particularly do not like the declaration of the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture the other night against the whole principle of empire preferences. We do not like the manner in which the government has handled either the freight rate policy or the question of the trans-Canada highway because those are two matters which vitally affect our possibilities of markets. If we are not to have these overseas markets, upon which we have principally relied, then we should like to have a better entry into the home markets.
I was greatly disappointed that, despite the promises made by the ministers in the Vancouver Centre by-election of last year, the government has not seen fit to deal with the mountain differential as a question of government policy rather than as a question which will be determined simply by the board of transport commissioners. The differential should have been taken off in order that we might have some alternative market in place of the markets overseas which the government seems quite content to allow to be given away.
In my view it is the home market to which Canadian industry should be turning now. The home market in Canada, in this difficult world, will be our surest and most secure market. Anything the government can do to build up that home market will be well done; and where they fail to build it up and make it possible for us to sell a greater amount of our produce within our own borders, they will be doing our country and our people great harm. I believe that Canada's new preferential trade policy should be one of preference for people. The minister wanted to know if I could suggest to him some way whereby he might have other markets for the

The Address-Mr. Merritt ones he is allowing to slip away. I am suggesting to him that if he must maintain-and 1 do not think he must-all the socialist policies which he is now pursuing, and-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Which ones would the hon. member discontinue?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: -if he must try to put an iron curtain around this country to keep capital out-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No answer.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: -and prevent us from exporting our goods to our usual markets, then I suggest to him that he should seriously consider bringing people here so that our industries can sell to the people within our own borders.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would my hon. friend allow a
question?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Yes, certainly.


Douglas Charles Abbott: To which markets does my hon. friend suggest that government policy is preventing us from exporting our products?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The markets of the whole sterling area.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend will allow another question, I would ask him this. In what respect is government policy preventing these exports to the sterling area?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: It is government policy, as the minister well knows-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am just asking for information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: -because he is the chief one who expresses these policies in this house, although the policies probably are not made by him-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I asked a simple question. It is an easy one to answer, if my hon. friend knows the answer; but I do not think he does.


Mr. Drew:: The minister does not.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do know the answer, but my hon. friend does not. That is just the difference between us.


George Alexander Drew: The minister does what he is told.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not do what I am told, but my hon. friend does do what he is told.


An hon. Member:: Give him a chance to answer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should like to know the answer.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister is talking so much that I cannot get a chance.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member is not answering the question. He is trying to skate around it. I should just like to know the answer.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: As I understand it, it is government policy to maintain in the world, in respect of Canada's dollar and in respect of the currencies of all other countries, a rate of exchange which does not represent the terms of trade between the countries.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I do not want the minister to interrupt me again.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member is getting extra time. I will not, however, ask the question.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister may ask another question when I finish my answer. It is government policy to keep that rigid exchange rate in existence, no matter what happens to the flow of goods between countries.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would my hon. friend now allow a question?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Most certainly, yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does my hon. friend think that depreciation of the Canadian exchange rate would facilitate the import of products from sterling areas to Canada?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I think that by allowing the Canadian dollar to find its true level-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I asked if the hon. member thinks that by depreciating the Canadian dollar-


Mr. Green:: Let the hon. member answer the question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: All right. I put to the hon. member an easy question to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: It is half past ten.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I think that if the Canadian government would get out of its head-


An hon. Member:: It is out of its head now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Suppose the hon. member try to answer the question, and never mind these generalities.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If the minister tomorrow, when he is not so talkative and when he has some time in which to give the matter some thought, will read the answers I have given, I think he may understand them better.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have asked a few short
questions, and my hon. friend has been extremely verbose in refraining from answering them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order for return.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, order for return; I think that is right.


An hon. Member:: Tabled herewith.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, not tabled herewith.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, next sitting of the house.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Abbott) will allow me to go on and try to answer his questions, I will do so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend may have a
hard time in doing it, but I will allow him to go on.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I do not think that I shall
have such a hard time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Surely, Mr. Speaker, when
we see country after country putting on import restrictions-South Africa is the most recent one, whose restrictions greatly affect us in British Columbia-it must be plain that the cause of these restrictions on goods is the rigid exchange rate maintained by the countries which signed the Bretton Woods agreement. What I am suggesting to the minister is that, as a matter of government policy, this country should let its own currency find its proper level.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What level is that?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: And that it should bring its
influence to bear upon the other countries which are signatories to that agreement, with a view to their doing the same thing, so that we may bring about a proper relationship between our rates of exchange and our terms of trade and those of the countries of the world, and get back to some kind of normal flow of trade.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would my hon. friend allow a question?


Howard Charles Green: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just one more question.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: One more when I have
finished.


Douglas Charles Abbott: One more, and I will not ask
anything further.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member getting
time and a half on this, as overtime?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just one more question; will my hon. friend allow it?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Has he read the Bretton Woods agreement?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I read the Bretton Woods agreement. I read it in 1945
The Address-Mr. Merritt when my hon. friends of the Social Credit party were putting on quite a filibuster against it. I will tell the Minister of Finance the clause in the Bretton Woods agreement which I liked best of all when I read it, after listening to the speeches of my hon. friends of the Social Credit party. It was the clause which said that any country could withdraw from the Bretton Woods agreement without any lengthy notice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should like to ask another question but I said I would not. Does my hon. friend suggest that we should withdraw from the Bretton Woods agreement? I should not ask the question.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is the wish of the hon. member who is to follow me to start his speech at this late hour; therefore perhaps I might say one word and then conclude. To get back to what I had intended to say when the Minister of Finance interrupted me, and in conclusion, I wish to say to him that in British Columbia we believe that we have a tremendous opportunity for progress and prosperity if we can attract to our province large amounts of outside capital to expand our industry, and of course a large number of new people to work in that production and to provide the additional market for our goods. I believe that people and capital alike, because capital is only savings in the hands of the people, are attracted by freedom, and not by restriction. No matter how proud the government and the Minister of Finance may be of his present restrictive policy-


Douglas Charles Abbott: He hates it as much as the hon. member does.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: -I am sure that they will do nothing to enable us in this country to go ahead to the expanded future which we see before us under freedom. I suggest to the minister that he take seriously some of what I have said this evening. If he does, I think he will find in it the kernel of what is wrong with his policy, and some useful suggestions as to how we, when we come into power in a very short time, will set things right.
On motion of Mr. Knight the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Maclnnis:: What is the business for Monday?


Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we shall continue this debate.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on February 22, 1949.

Monday, February 28, 1949