1949-02-03

Mr. Roland Beaudry (SI. James):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. May I protest most vigorously against a newspaper dispatch appearing in this morning's issue of he Canada which I consider derogatory both to the leader of the opposition 'Mr. Drew) and to myself, and which I believe will be so adjudged by every hon. member. The article, headed "Gorgeous George Drew," is translated as follows:
Mr. Drew, leader of the Progressive Conservative party, this morning went to his hairdresser's. This commonplace event would not warrant underlining if it did not denote a significant state of mind in the Carleton colonel.
Yesterday Mr. Drew brought to the house a head of hair which would have done credit to a zazoo.
Whatever that is.
During his speech on the address Mr. Beaudry could not refrain from alluding to this in the following words, which do not bear translation:
"Where we were told to expect master minds we come up against recent prize ring technique. Where we were sold gorgeous George, all we see is a new hair-do."
This afternoon, at the opening of the sitting, everyone noticed with a smile that, in the morning, Mr. Drew had had his hair cut American fashion.
This is my point of privilege and my protest: I did not intend, and I do not intend, to be adjudged the hon. member's tonsorial adviser, much as I shall take great delight in being one of the Carleton Samson's clipping Delilahs.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines
and Resources): Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on record the following information regarding immigration to Canada during the calendar year 1948.
During 1948 a total of 125,414 immigrants entered Canada. This was the largest total of any year since 1929, and is almost exactly twice as many as came in during 1947, when the figure was 64,127.
Of the 125,414 immigrants, 46,057 came from the British isles, and 7,381 from the United States. Immigrants from northern European races numbered 16,957, including 10,169 Dutch. Other races contributed 55,019 new Canadians, the largest individual groups being 13,799 Poles and 10,011 Ukrainians.
Disposition of the immigrants by provinces
is as follows:
Ontario	 61,621
Quebec	 24,687
British Columbia	 11,918
Alberta	 9,715
Manitoba	 7,750
Saskatchewc	 5.087
Nova Scotia	 2,813
New Brunswick	 1,476
Prince Edward Island	 269
Yukon Territory	 64
Northwest Territories	 14
The movement of immigrants to Canada during this year was facilitated by an arrangement made with the Cunard White Star line which kept the Aquitania on the north Atlantic run and provided over 12,000 priority berths for immigrants. This arrangement, but expanded to cover 15,400 priorities, has been continued for the year 1949. The government also assisted in the conversion of a German prize vessel which is now known as the Beaverbrae and is engaged in carrying to this country from continental Europe close relatives of persons resident in Canada. Finally, the government has arranged with Trans-Canada Air Lines for 10,000 air passages to be made available to immigrants from the United Kingdom between the 1st of July, 1948, and the 31st of March, 1949.
During the year immigration offices were opened or reopened in Glasgow, Liverpool and Rome.
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, has the immigration branch medical and immigration officers in every European country?


Mr. MacKinnon:: No, not in all of them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In which countries are there no such officers?


James Angus MacKinnon: We are not represented in countries behind the so-called iron curtain.
184	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT



CANADA-AUSTRALIA AIR AGREEMENT  PACIFIC OPERATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Did Australia object to Canada's action in changing the Canadian-Australian air agreement by turning the Pacific operation over to Canadian Pacific Air Lines? If so, what is the present status of the matter?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Notice of the hon. member's question was received by me only a moment ago. If he sent it earlier, I can only say I received it about three minutes ago. My recollection however is that the government of Australia did not make formal objection to the government of Canada in connection with the matter referred to by the hon. member.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lelhbridge):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister give the house and country a clear and comprehensive definition of the expression "basic herd" as it is to be used in the computation of income tax by stock raisers during the year 1949?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I thank the hon. member for having given notice of his question. The department's definition of "basic herd" is contained in directive 230, made public on November 17, 1948. Representations for the modification of this directive have since been received, and are now under active consideration. I shall be pleased to send the hon. member a copy of directive 230, and also to table a copy of it.



INDIAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkion):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources, of which I have given notice. Is the draft bill to amend the Indian Act to be presented to the special joint committee on Indian affairs, as was recommended by that committee last year?


James Angus MacKinnon: It has not yet been decided
when the bill will be introduced. It may be that we shall reconstitute the committee and ask its members to make a final survey of the bill when it comes from the Department of Justice. This procedure may facilitate agreement between all parties when the bill is returned to parliament. However, this is just my thought and no official decision has been made.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REPORT AS TO REMOVAL OF OPERATING HEADQUARTERS FROM WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alisiair Siewart (Winnipeg Norlh):: I
have a question to ask of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since the continuous removal of Trans-Canada Air Lines employees from Winnipeg to Montreal is a matter of serious importance to the city of Winnipeg, will the government request the company to reconsider its policy and refrain from adding to the concentration of industry in Ontario and Quebec?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, Trans-Canada Air Lines is a crown company, the shares of which are owned by Canadian National Railways, and the shares of Canadian National Railways are in turn owned by the government. Trans-Canada Air Lines is operated by its own board of directors, which board determines the internal policies of the company. I do not conceive it to be my duty as the minister responsible for the air line to intervene in the matter referred to by my hon. friend.



AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I should like
to ask the Minister of Justice to what date the Agricultural Prices Support Act has been continued in force by the governor in council?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: A copy of this question was
referred to me before the opening of the house, but it is not a question which can be answered just by giving a date. As the act was first drafted it provided in section 12:
Section 9 of this act shall come into force on a day to be fixed, and remain in force for such period as may be determined, by proclamation of the governor in council published in the Canada Gazette.

The purpose of wording the section in that manner was not to place a limiting date upon the operation of the act, but to permit the governor in council to give consideration to the matter from time to time. It was found last year that we neglected to give that consideration until after March 31, and so the section was amended to read:
Section 9 of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, chapter 29 of the statutes of 1944-45, shall be deemed to have continued in force from the thirty-first day of March, 1948, until the coming into force of this act and shall continue in force thereafter for such further period as the governor in council may fix by proclamation.
This section was so worded in order to permit the government to give consideration to the matter from time to time. The present order in council sets the date at March 31, 1950, and before that date the matter will be further considered.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CONTRACTS WITH BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and I apologize for not having given him notice. In view of his recent trip to Great Britain will the minister be prepared to give the house a full statement in connection with the British-Canadian food contracts?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not decided as yet whether I will speak on the address. If I do, I will make a point of saying something about the matter. If not, I shall certainly be prepared to deal with it when my estimates are before the committee, or at any other time the matter is up for discussion.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: On Tuesday last the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) asked me the following question:
Nearly a year ago a delegation representing two major labour organizations in Canada waited on the then minister of justice and asked that the government disallow the Trade Union Act (1948) passed by the legislature of Prince Edward Island. Can the minister tell the house whether the government intends to take action to that end?
My information is that the government of Prince Edward Island proposes at the approaching session of the legislature to introduce a measure to amend the statute in
The Address-Mr. Fair question. Final action on the petition for disallowance has been delayed pending action by the Prince Edward Island legislature to amend the statute accordingly.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. D. F. Brown for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose yesterday afternoon I was dealing with the British wheat agreement. Because the farmers are not particularly satisfied with the outcome of or the returns from that agreement, I should like now to continue with a discussion of the 1949 contracts.
I think it is understood by most people in Canada that there has been a good deal of dissension, both on this side of the Atlantic and in England, in connection with the British contracts. In order to show the feelings of some people in Great Britain I should like to read a clipping from the Edmonton Bulletin as follows:
British Press sees Canada Being Slapped
London, December 10 (BUP). The British press got on Gardiner's side today. Notable was an editorial in the London Daily Graphic. It said that Canadians feel the Anglo-Danish food deal is being made at their expense, and that unless a full statement is made immediately "grave harm" may be done to Britain's relations with Canada.
The Daily Graphic then says it is confirmed that Britain is increasing her purchases from Denmark; it is a slap in the face to Canada and "rubbing salt into the wound," as the newspaper puts it.
Dealing further with the 1949 contracts, I have here an item which appeared in Canada's Weekly of December 24, 1948, with the headline, "Mr. Gardiner clarifies the position. 'Canada did not let the U.K. down on any contract.' " Then appears a fine photograph of the minister. I should like to read part of this article, because I think it will throw a little light on the contracts. Perhaps the minister when he speaks will deal with any part of it which is contentious. I quote:
"All of our discussions on food bulk contracts were proceeding satisfactorily until difficulties arose in adjusting the relationship between dollars and sterling. We were aiming at being able to provide the United Kingdom with 350 million pounds of bacon, 125 million pounds of cheese, 75 million dozen eggs and having 400,000 head of cattle which we could dispose of either to the United States or the United Kingdom. We could provide all the requirements of the United Kingdom for wheat and much of the needed barley and oats if long time contracts could be agreed to.

The Address-Mr. Fair
"It was our hope that you would agree to take these quantities and we would be prepared to accept returns for them which would bear a reasonable relationship to the returns which are being provided to your own farmers. Canada and Britain are linked in tradition. Canada and Britain are one in their hopes for the future. We were just beginning to think that at last our common sorrows growing out of war were going to result in lasting joy when the root of all evil, 'money,' entered".
I may say this is a speech that was made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to a Canadian chamber of commerce luncheon in the old country. Dealing with the 1949 contracts, he goes on to say:
To indicate that it was desired that, because of shortage of dollars with which to buy from us, it was expected that we would, as soon as possible, get our quantities of beef, bacon and eggs down to zero. When the United Kingdom traders came over this year they intimated that they could not find dollars with which to buy food, together with other purchases they desired to make, excepting wheat and cheese. They were, after much discussion, prevailed upon to find dollars with which to buy 160 million pounds of bacon and 46 million dozen of dried and storage eggs.
I am not making these statements to be critical of the United Kingdom government or its agents. I am making them to impress upon you the fact that the British people want our bacon, want our eggs, want our beef, want our wheat. I am making them to impress upon you that if dollar requirements had not intervened we would have been in a position to send you in 1949 over 300 million pounds of bacon, nearly 200 million pounds of beef, 80 million dozen of eggs, several hundred thousand barrels of apples, thousands of bushels of beans and much jam, none of which your traders feel you can afford to have from us because of the dollar shortage. We cannot sell the apples, beans, jam and salmon to anyone at any price under the present dollar arrangement, and for the moment we are finding it impossible to dispose of millions of bushels of linseed at 30 per cent less than you are paying others for it. They are taking 140 million bushels of wheat and 50 million pounds of cheese from us because they must have them, and we appear willing to provide them for fewer dollars than any other will supply them.
Then follows a paragraph of which I should like members on all sides of the house to take particular notice:
All this is bringing me to wonder if an unknown economist-or was it Abraham Lincoln or some such individual as Churchill?-was not right when he said that he would rather have the money in his pocket tied to the unthinking inanimate substance called gold which cannot change its mind than to the manipulations of some small group of crackpots who fancy themselves as economists or statesmen.
I take it the minister is referring to officials of the Department of Finance, and as our trading position stands at the present time I think they are pretty well named. In 1945 all parties, with the exception of the Social Crediters and one lone member of the Progressive Conservative party, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), voted in favour of legislation which is causing much of our present difficulty. I thought I had better place that on record so that people

may do some sound thinking before adopting another program of this kind. Further on the minister says:
I barged into a meeting where I was not intended to be the other day and heard one of your members of parliament imply, if he did not say it, that the Marshall plan is creating more communists in Europe than Stalin.
Commenting on that paragraph, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the policies of our present government are helping to create communists in Canada, because the potential production of this country is not being made available to the people, and for that reason people are dissatisfied and turning perhaps to communistic ways of life. Further on he says:
I am not convinced that this latter statement is correct, but I am convinced that the world is not in any state of mind where it can be expected to agree that the manipulation of any system or systems of currency is going to be allowed to interfere with the will of those who have empty stomachs when it is preventing surpluses of food to get to them. It might be a good thing for everybody if they would close down the united nations meetings long enough to permit the United Kingdom and United States experts to get together and settle some basis upon which dollars and sterling can be converted to allow nations like Canada to produce food to feed the starving millions and distribute it. If that cannot be done, then they might provide some means by which we may have an opportunity to fill our country with working people to develop the resources the world needs for its war and other machines, that they may eat the surpluses which are already piling up but which we are not permitted to sell.
I say again, sir, that this is a direct result of legislation that has been passed in this house. It is about time we took action to relieve the suffering of people in other countries, and relieve a lot of the distress in this country as well, by having at least some of the disadvantages arising from that legislation remedied. So far as we are concerned we want to have international agreements, if possible, and we also want to have the wheat board continued. I understand that every day of the week, including Sunday, certain people are asking that the wheat board be put out of business. We want it continued in operation and staffed by the very best men who can be obtained for the purpose. Personally I have no complaint whatever about the wheat board, and so far as I know, my group has no complaint whatever about the management of that organization in the past.
In spite of the advice given in the editorial in Maclean's magazine of January 15 last, we believe that floor prices should be established for agricultural products; otherwise you are going to destroy one of the greatest industries in the country. Conditions which people are prophesying for the near future will, if they prevail, tend to destroy our agricultural industry.

I hope to say more about this subject on a later occasion, but in the ten minutes or so that remain at my disposal I should like to deal with one or two other matters.
The speech from the throne says:
Prosperous conditions now prevailing are being reflected in the buoyant level of national revenues, a condition to which due consideration is being given by my ministers in the preparation of forthcoming budgetary proposals.
I wonder if that is not a breach of confidence, because it is the first time since I came here, and for many years before that, that any reference has been made to the budget in the speech from the throne. Many of the people are looking for drastic reductions in taxation. We of this group certainly favour them, and we also favour an increase in the exemptions from the present $750 and $1,500 to double the amount in both cases. There is no opportunity for a young man to get married today, and start off in any kind of business on his own. In my home town of Vermilion I know of several couples who want to get married, but because of the burden laid upon them by taxation they are afraid to make the venture. They are not able to provide themselves with homes. For that reason I believe the progress of the country is being hindered; for my home town is no different from any other town, city or rural district in Canada.
If the government wants to advance the interests of the country, drastic reductions must be made in taxation. Then there are a number of nuisance taxes. I would ask the government to be kind to the children first of all. At the present time we have a heavy war tax on the "pop" youngsters drink. I am not suggesting that you remove a lot of the taxes on liquor. I hope the youngsters do not drink it; as to those who are drinking it, I do not think it does them very much good. They get a little kick out of it at the time, but possibly get a kick the next day as an aftermath. In the case of Coca-Cola however, and all other soft drinks, I would urge the government to remove the two cent tax so that people may again have their drink of "pop" without the nuisance of the tax.
Again I would suggest that candy bars, which formerly sold at five cents, be made available to the youngsters at that price- and I do not mean in the decreased size which today costs seven cents. Make them bigger and better at five cents each. Give the youngsters a chance, because they have been robbed of their candy bars for a number of years. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) says they now cost eight cents. I have not bought any candy bars for years, so I do not know; but I am taking his word for it.
The Address-Mr. Fair
We have found it necessary to import some fifteen million pounds of butter from other countries. If it were not for the severe income tax that has been levied I believe you would find our own farmers milking their cows and selling the cream to be made into butter. Instead, we are turning our business over to other countries and taking it away from our farmers. Recently I read an article on turkey production in the three prairie provinces. Last year in Alberta there was an increase of about six per cent, but in Manitoba and Saskatchewan there was a large reduction, I believe amounting to 26 to 40 per cent. This production is not good enough. People want turkeys to eat, and taxation should not be such as to prevent them from getting turkeys. We also like to eat pork and beef, but again heavy taxes are responsible for reduced production.
On many occasions we have asked that the trans-Canada highway be built. We appreciated the move made last fall by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. MacKinnon), though last session the then minister of reconstruction (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) refused to have anything to do with it. A start now has been made; and we have a demand by many organizations in the west that a trans-Canada highway commission be set up. If this is done we will avoid many squabbles between provincial governments and reach a decision as to the route that highway should follow. The trans-Canada highway should have been built years ago; we should now be able to travel from coast to coast without finding it necessary to travel part of the distance in another country.
On various occasions I have been very much hurt to find that many of our crippled people, old and young, are compelled to live on a bare subsistence level. Last summer I went to the Lloydminster exhibition. After the crowd had left the grandstand and gone to see the sideshows a young girl I have known for years came to me and asked if anything was being done to help the crippled people of Canada. I told her about the national health program announced last session by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), and she asked, "Is anything provided specifically for crippled people?" I was sorry to have to tell her there was not, but I said that when I came back this session I certainly would see that the matter was brought to the attention of the minister. He has been good to some people; I hope he will not forget the unfortunate crippled people.


Mr. Marlin:: Of course under the health program there is a grant to deal with conditions which cause children to become crippled.

The Address-Mr. Fair


Robert Fair: I understand that children are looked after, but I believe this young lady is close to thirty. Just as I turned away after speaking to her I met another neighbour whom I have known for quite a while; she was being pushed along in a wheel chair by her dad. Neither of these families is in a financial position to look after these crippled people. Our two major parties have been scrapping for the last week or so over their sins of the past, but now I hope the party in power will get busy and do something worth while, and that the other party to my right, the Progressive Conservatives, will get busy and help them. The sins of the past do not help people in the future. We should look ahead and prepare for the future instead of looking back searching for each other's past sins.
On the question of education I should like to read the resolution which was sent to me the other day by the Canadian school trustees' association:
Federal Grants in Aid
Whereas various educational bodies in all provinces are concerned with the present inequality of educational opportunity throughout the nation:
And whereas present sources of finances are insufficient:
Therefore be it resolved that we ask the federal government to give grants in aid in order that the provinces whose needs are greatest may be able to provide equality of educational opportunity.
This is signed by the secretary, Henry E. Spencer, who was at one time a member of this house. I am glad to see that Mr. Spencer is turning again to his old love, monetary reform, because this is the place where credit can be created. This government has that power, while apparently the provinces have not. There is no reason why this government should adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude by restricting the creation of credit and at the same time refusing to allow the provinces to make use of it. Substantial grants should be made to the provinces to be administered by them without any strings attached.
Old age pensioners also demand better treatment than they have had in the past. We know that the amount given is by no means sufficient to afford them a decent standard of living, and I hope something worth while will be done this session on their behalf.
I have just one further matter to deal with; I refer to soldier settlers. Last session an item of $150,000 was placed in the estimates and passed by the house without any controversial discussion, but that amount does not begin to deal with the problem. The veterans affairs committee, which has done such excellent work under the present minister, as well as under the former minister, Mr. Mackenzie, who has now gone to the other place, unani-
IMr. Martin.]
mously recommended in its report that the veterans be given clear title as requested in the brief presented on June 17 last by the president and secretary of the soldier settlers association. Now, thirty years after the soldier settlement legislation was passed, I ask the government to make the final gesture of giving these men clear title, in the interests of these citizens, whose average age is about sixty though some of them are over eighty. In the name of common sense I ask today that clear title be granted to those who remain in debt to the board.


Mr. J. A. Bradeite (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the house for a few moments. I know that indulgence will be readily granted, because I have not spoken very often in this house during the last ten years. However, there are times when a member of parliament must express his opinion and voice the sentiments of the people whom he has the heavy responsibility, and honour, of representing in this national forum.
Since we prorogued last summer quite a few changes have taken place in this House of Commons, to which I am going to allude very briefly. First, as one who has been in this house for many years, I want to pay a special, personal tribute, in which I am voicing the sentiments of all my constituents, to our past leader, now the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King). When I first came to this house in 1926, Mr. Speaker, I was elected as a Labour Independent; but after I saw Mr. Mackenzie King and the Liberal party functioning in this chamber I went back to my executive and said that unless I was allowed to follow Mr. King and his party-not blindly but intelligently-I would not remain here. At that time I was given carte blanche, and I have never regretted that action.
I sincerely believe, I am sincerely convinced, that under that fine leadership which was supported on so many occasions at general elections in an unmistakable way, Canada has enjoyed years of prosperity, great accomplishments, and a large measure of national unity. It is said when a man gets married people will tell of his faults; he has to die to get praise. In this instance, our revered past leader must enjoy life because, if there was ever a man that was abused in the hurly burly of public life, it was certainly the right hon. member for Glengarry. He is still in public life as a member of parliament, but 'is no longer leader of his party. Now, every section of Canada, every section of the press, finds it possible to put in proper perspective the fine qualifications of the right hon. member for Glengarry. He must enjoy this because he deserves it. If there was ever a man who gave of himself it was certainly the right hon. gentleman.

I also wish to say a few words of praise concerning the present Prime Minister of this country. I wish to praise him for many reasons, but the primary one is that he was a man with a successful law practice, highly honoured in his province, who was practically conscripted. We all know the circumstances. He answered the call diligently and loyally. It was not very long before this parliament and this nation fully realized the stature of this fine man, with his broad vision and his true Canadianism. I know Canada was proud when last August the Liberal party chose him as its leader. I know Canada feels secure at the present time in the fine leadership he has already given as Prime Minister of this country.
I should like to say a few words about the new leader of the Progressive Conservative party. I was proud of his nomination as leader of that national party. One of the reasons for my pride is the fact that I am an Ontarian. He has made some sacrifices in coming into this field because, as you all know, he was certainly successful in so far as provincial politics were concerned. The hon. gentleman resigned his position as premier of the province of Ontario. So long as it is possible to have men of that calibre enter the field of national politics, this country as a whole does not need to worry very much. It is a sign that there is something great; there is something for which a man is willing to make the necessary personal sacrifices to enter this field. When one considers the actions of the right hon. the Prime Minister of this country and the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, I repeat, people do not need to worry about the future of Canada. It should be secure.
I should like to make a few remarks about the past leader of the Progressive Conservative party. I get mixed up in trying to say the name of that party because my father was a Conservative in the days when they were only Conservatives. I wish to pay him a tribute. Regardless of what publicity may say about the new leader of his party, I do not think the leadership will be more dignified or more Canadian than the leadership he gave. I say that sincerely. No doubt he has brought a lot of his own fine, strong colour, which was mostly Liberal, into the ranks of the Progressive Conservative party. This parliament and the nation as a whole has benefited from his actions as leader of that great party.
May I say a word concerning a new member who has great physical size, and also, it has been stated, great mental stature. I wish to pay tribute to the new member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). Before the election he received some praise, not only from the Ottawa Journal, which is a Con-
The Address-Mr. Bradette servative newspaper, but from all newspapers in the maritimes that knew him. It was said he was a well qualified man, highly respected in those sections of Canada which had the opportunity of knowing and appreciating him.
I should like to say a few words about another physical giant who lately came to this house, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Boucher). May I say to him that his predecessor was highly respected by every section of the house. He sometimes found it possible to arouse the ire of hon. members opposite but, at the same time, no one doubted his sincerity. I know that the present member must possess a large measure of his fine qualities.
At this point, I should like to say a few words about the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Demers). I may have to repeat my words concerning him when I speak about the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should like to compliment him on his maiden effort in this house. He spoke as a true Canadian, and as a man who believes absolutely in national unity. He impressed me as a man who is not going to follow the current, but will breast the head wind. The House of Commons needs men of that calibre. It is always easier to follow the line of least resistance. I know the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains will never do that because he will follow his own personal inclinations and his own Canadianism.
I should like to say a few words about the new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). At this point I find it necessary to answer certain sections of the press who seem to be under the impression that we backbenchers of the Liberal party were impatient at the government for bringing new members into this field. The truth is far from that, because after all, the whole is more important than any part. I praise the government for finding it possible to bring into government circles men of the calibre of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I believe it is the duty of all parties, under any conditions or circumstances, to bring into public life all possible talents of statesmanship. Speaking for myself as well as for the backbenchers, may I say again that we are proud and glad to have within our ranks men of the calibre of those I have just mentioned.
May I also say a word of praise about the member for Marquette (Mr. Garson), the Minister of Justice. Although some sections of the house did not entirely agree with what he said yesterday, all members must have seen in him a real Canadian who will work, not only for provincial autonomy, but also



The Address-Mr. Bradette for national unity. I watched the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken), during the course of the remarks made by the Minister of Justice. I am sure he could hear the echo of his own words during the time he was premier of Manitoba. It must have been pleasant for him to hear them repeated by the Minister of Justice in his presence yesterday.
I had the honour and privilege of working under the Secretary of State for External Affairs during 1948 as a delegate to the united nations in New York. Prior to that, a section of the committee on external affairs visited New York. On both occasions we were given the opportunity of seeing him in action. I know I am not revealing any secrets when I say that he was highly respected by member nations of the united nations. My own observations proved this. I believe it is safe to say that any of the higher positions in that organization were within his reach if he had wished them. It is for this reason that I repeat that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is a wonderful acquisition, not only to the Liberal party and to parliament, but also to the whole of Canada. He, also, has made great sacrifices to come here since he had a secure position which he filled to the satisfaction of everyone. I could apply the same principle to him as I did to the Prime Minister and to the leader of the opposition. It applies just as forcibly to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Now, I wish to turn my attention to that fine young man, the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters). I wish to felicitate him on his assumption of the office he occupies at the present time. He also was successful in his own calling. In answering the call of his constituents, he came into the national forum. I am positive this young man will go far in the national life of Canada.
I wish to say a few words of praise to the members of parliament who have been made parliamentary assistants. Little criticism has been heard concerning the original appointments because hon. members of this house fully realize the necessity of having younger men groomed for the higher positions. I believe our experience over the last two or three years fully bears out what I have just said. To these new appointees, and to those who were appointed when this system was inaugurated, I wish all possible success in discharging the heavy responsibilities they have undertaken. I am glad to state, and I think everyone will agree with me, that every one of them has been filling his position marvellously well and to the satisfaction of the country as a whole.
I wish to say a word about the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the


throne, the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown). A year ago last spring, accompanied by my esteemed friend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), I visited that wonderful section of Canada which the hon. member so well described as the sun parlour of Canada. I had been there before but I made an extended visit and spent a week in that section of Canada. I went to Kingsville and saw the work being carried on by Manly Miner, the son of Jack Miner. We went to Leamington. Wherever we went, we were always well received. One thing that went to my heart more deeply than anything else was for me, a Canadian of French descent, to go into those sections of rural Ontario, which is predominantly English-speaking and protestant, and see the broadmindedness of the people there, and the friendliness they have towards other Canadians. On several occasions when I was given an opportunity of speaking, I made the wish that it might be possible for my compatriots from the province of Quebec to come and visit those sections of the country and to see the fine spirit prevailing among the population there. I also said that it would be beneficial for them to come and visit the old historic province of Quebec where they would find a great common ground, our love for Canada as a whole.
On this visit I saw things that I believe it is my duty to mention here. On a Sunday morning, in a locality whose name I do not need to mention, I went to mass at eight o'clock. It was held in the basement of the church. There was no superstructure, just a few skeleton beams of steel. After the service I went to see the priest. He said, "Mr. Bradette, we have enough money with which to go on and complete the building, but you will perhaps be greatly surprised and delighted to learn that at least one-third of the money to complete the church has been supplied by English-speaking protestants." That is the kind of spirit that everyone approves from the heart, the mind and the soul.
I wish to say just one word about our present financial situation. To me sometimes the pros and cons of politics and some of the propaganda we hear are fairly baffling. Let us suppose for one moment that, instead of having a fairly good surplus in our budget, we were to have a heavy deficit. What would be the criticism we would hear from every section of the opposition and the opposition press? They would say that this country was near bankruptcy. Now we have a surplus and perhaps it will be large. I have no time to discuss that aspect at the moment. The opposition find it possible to criticize; but, from my experience, I believe it is just as

necessary to have a sound national income as it is to have a sound personal one.
I come to the province of Ontario, in which an election was held last year. Boasts were made, and rightly so, that the government of that province had a surplus of $25 million. Do you think that we Liberals criticized the Conservative administration at Queen's Park for such an accomplishment? Certainly not, because it was a real accomplishment. But there is more to it than that. What did they do with that fine surplus? Instead of doing as the national treasury did-reduce taxation -they increased it. For instance, at the present time we pay a tax of eleven cents per gallon on gasoline. When the federal government took off the gasoline tax and left the matter in the hands of the provinces, the Ontario treasury put it on. They did the same thing with the amusement tax. At that time, when the provincial government had a surplus, we were proud of it. Why should not every Canadian be proud of the present economic situation? I will go this far:	I
would not be in favour of having a great surplus from year to year. There is a time and a place for everything. Our present hope is that taxation will be greatly reduced in the present budget. But why will that be possible? Purely and simply because the present administration has been courageous and capable, presenting policies which were not always absolutely popular with the Canadian people. But the Canadian people are practical, and they are much happier today with a large surplus than they would have been with a large deficit, and I believe that they like courage.
One must be practical in all these things. I repeat, you may have the pendulum going too far one way or the other. I would not like to see a large surplus from year to year. But we must ask ourselves this question. If the national debt kept piling up by billions and billions of dollars every year, would we be happy then? Is it not true that when we were in danger of inflation, the national government was courageous enough to tell the Canadian people that they must fear inflation, which is just as dangerous, and more so in certain circumstances, than deflation? In warning the people the government was alert, and for its action I, representing my constituency, praise the government. Again I repeat that if we are in a position at this present session to decrease taxation, that is due largely to the fact that our economic and financial position is as fine as that of any other country in the world.
I want to say a few words about election promises. We in northern Ontario, in spite
The Address-Mr. Bradette of Dr. Chisholm, still believe in old man Santa Claus. We believe that he is a fine old man and that he is performing a useful service. At the general provincial election we had a new type of Santa Claus, a rather young, handsome and glamorous young man. He made promises that dipped deeply into the Ontario provincial treasury. For what purpose? For the purpose of winning the provincial election. It is not an absolutely bad purpose, I must admit, because all parties always try to win elections. Why a person would be highly scandalized because that might have been done, I do not know. It might have to be done by this party. I do not know why the leader of the opposition thought it was scandalous when it happened so glaringly during the last provincial election. If I know anything about the constitution of the provinces, and of the country, it is this. When a legislature or the central government is dissolved, the government is then practically in the hands of the people, and I believe it is absolutely in order for the leaders of the parties or for the ex-premier of the province to make certain promises; but how it is permissible to dip into the provincial treasury in order to fulfil those promises, and for the money to be handed out immediately, without legislative sanction, is past my comprehension. If all the promises that were made during the last provincial election had been implemented, we in northern Ontario would be sitting pretty. For instance, promise was made of a fine university in Fort William or Port Arthur. Then a day or two later another university was promised for North Bay. Promise was made to a fine rural community in my own riding-and I am not scandalized about it; I merely make mention of the fact. This place was located fourteen miles east of the industrial town of Kapuskasing. The promise of an agricultural college was made to that fine rural community. I am going to see that they get it, because the promise was made. The people of that area are entitled to what they were promised; they should have it. Then, promise was made of a water system, funds for which were to be provided, to the extent of $120,000, out of the provincial treasury.
The other sixty-four rural communities in that section are watching developments. When these promises are fulfilled, the citizens will be proud of what they have. But each of those municipalities will go to Queen's Park and make similar requests; and if they do, they will be entitled to what they ask, because I say election promises must be fulfilled-there can be no getting away from that. Otherwise it would be deceiving the population, and not keeping faith with the voters of Canada or of a province.
192	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bradette
I should like for a moment to speak concerning a delicate subject. A few days before the last vote in the most recent Ontario provincial election, in this city of Ottawa a fine institution which has been operated for generations was granted $250,000. Perhaps the amount should have been greater. But my point is this: Why was not that money voted properly from the floor of the Ontario legislature? Why was it granted just at election time? I do not criticize the grant, because in my view the organization in question should have been given at least $500,000. But a procedure of this kind skirts closely the process of political buying; there is no getting away from that fact.
These are matters which of necessity must be placed before this national forum because, in my view, no matter what party is making an appeal to the Canadian people, it has no right to buy votes out of the provincial or the national treasury. And I would stay by that statement. After all, the roof of democracy must fall over our heads if care is not taken in this connection.
In a few months it is likely that we will be engaged in a general election. I do not want to see the spectacle of the political parties of the House of Commons going before the people in an effort to overbid each other out of funds in the public treasury. That is not democracy; that is not freedom; that is not Canadianism-and it should not be done. It is falsifying our constitution.
May I next refer to those election promises which are never implemented. The Canadian people generally are as well informed as members of the House of Commons, and when promises are not fulfilled they are entitled to resent it. They do not like this failure to fulfil promises, and they soon learn that they have been fooled. You may fool them once or twice, but you cannot fool them all the time. I make this appeal in all sincerity, because I well remember when, in 1935 I believe it was, I made a definite promise during the campaign, and I promised that I would never make another one. My promise was that I would bring back a better service for the numbers 1 and 2 transcontinental trains from Toronto to Winnipeg, passing through Cochrane. But my promise was never implemented, and the people up there have held that against me,-and rightly so. Every election I am reminded of it. I would repeat that it is contrary to all democratic principles to go before the people at election time, whether provincially or in a general election, and make promises, when those who make them know full well they will never be fulfilled.
While I have not the time to go deeply into the matter, I should like to say a few


words about dominion-provincial relations. In this forum three years ago, prior to the 1946 dominion-provincial conference I expressed the wish that the premier of Ontario would be big enough to see the viewpoint of all parts of Canada. I am sorry he did not come up fully to my expectations. I do not blame him altogether for what happened in those instances; but he must take some of the blame.
I come from a section of the country which at times has had quarrels with Queen's Park; I mean northern Ontario, that fine treasure house in Ontario. Sometimes our resources were badly used and wasted, and at a time when we had practically no voice in the government at Toronto. However, we have always remained true to the old province of Ontario. When one hears talk of secession of that portion of Ontario from Fort William to North Bay or anywhere else, one may be sure that 99J per cent of the people in northern Ontario have always been against it, and will continue so. We believe that Ontario must remain as it is at the present time.
The point I wished to bring out is that those of us from northern Ontario believe that the welfare of the whole of this province is better than the welfare of the northern section of it, or even of the city of Toronto. We believe in the welfare of the whole of the province-and that same principle applies with equal force to Canada as a whole. I would ask the present administration at Queen's Park, and I would ask those here in the House of Commons, as a man who was born in the province of Quebec, to forget sometimes some of the smaller features in politics, and to think of Canada as a whole. Ontario has been described as a privileged province, but she is not. Ontario is Ontario only through the accident of geography. While the people are Ontarian, they are primarily Canadian.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), as premier of Ontario, was a talented man; no one can deny that. He is a true Canadian. But why he did not practise that true Canadianism in his relations with the dominion and the other provinces is something beyond my comprehension.
May I say one word about our present trade situation, and particularly our trade with dear old England. I am speaking my mind on this score, because I have always been a great admirer of those fine, tidy little islands; and even more so since the last war, when for over a year Great Britain was the only human rampart against the hordes of barbarism, nazism and fascism. No matter what we do for England, no matter what happens in the future, we can never forget that fact; because

I maintain that had it not been for Great Britain democracy for the rest of the world would have died.
However, in our relations there may be times when some irritation is revealed. May I compliment here and now the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who, when speaking on this subject, asked us to be tolerant when discussing this matter, because it was a sensitive one. It is true that we have to be careful, because some people consider it only from the standpoint of dollars and cents. True, in any democracy dollars and cents must count; but at the same time I maintain that in our trade relations with Great Britain sentiment must always have its place no matter what some may say. We may have to exercise a good deal of sentiment if the day comes when liquidation of her debt to us is required. I repeat, without fear of successful contradiction, that some day they may find it impossible to meet all their obligations. Under these conditions, what would be the duty of the Canadian nation? It would be proper for us to forget about it, for the simple reason that Great Britain has paid in blood a price away beyond anything which can be counted in monetary consideration. She has paid in the lives she lost and the horrible tortures she had to suffer, not only among the personnel of her armed forces, people who had military training, but among her young children and her old people who were destroyed by tens of thousands when, for over eight months, the luftwaffe poisoned the skies of Great Britain.
We must not forget that situation, that great epic of heroism. While we may have done all that we possibly could, we must not forget that there may be times when Great Britain must do certain things from necessity. We too have international trade problems.
I do not believe in the iron curtain. It should never have been allowed to exist. Speaking not as an expert but as a Canadian, may I say that I cannot comprehend how it could be possible for Great Britain to hurt Canada by dealing with any nation within the iron curtain. My reasons are not only sentimental; I say that because a principle is involved. If the application of that principle is continued it may mean the doom of freedom and democracy as we know them.
In support of my opinion I should like to quote from an article which appeared in that fine weekly paper The Ensign of January 29, 1949:
Building on slavery.
This is worth listening to. It may be that Great Britain has a right to deal with other nations, but if Canada attempted to deal with a nation behind the iron curtain I would be
The Address-Mr. Bradette the first to rise in my place and protest. The article reads:
The Yorkshire Post says editorially that one of the reasons Great Britain must buy food from Poland rather than from Canada-
We are all in sympathy with the fine Polish people. They do not like the communists, for they are not communistic by nature; but they are behind the iron curtain at the present time.
-is that the prices of her manufactured goods are too high to compete in North America. The editorial concludes that Britain must export more goods at present wage levels, but with cheaper raw materials than the new world can supply.
We have every sympathy with Great Britain's brave effort to restore her economy, which suffers from war wastage, from technical and mechanical obsolescence, and from currency dislocations. Nevertheless we are appalled by the implications of the Anglo-Polish and similar pacts when viewed in the light of the above reasoning. Reduced to their true significance, they mean that henceforth Britain's living standard is to be maintained, not by increased efficiency at home and unsnarled trade abroad, but by the poverty, exploitation and expropriation of eastern European farmers by their communist slave masters.
Those are strong words, but I do not think anyone will dare deny them. Those who purchase from a country behind the iron curtain should know that they are buying goods that have been produced by political slavery pure and simple and by terrific sacrifices on the part of the people. The article continues:
We know from history that a soviet government will buy machinery and other finished goods needed for its "plans" at the expense of millions of starving peasants. It has been estimated that more than three and a half million peasants were deliberately starved in the thirties when their wheat was shipped abroad to buy equipment for Magnitogorsk, Dnie-prostroi, and other projects.
Can Britain eat her bread with a good conscience when it is known that she buys it cheaper than in Canada because a ruthless dictator is exploiting his Polish slaves? Can the United States permit a dollar shortage which helps to produce such a situation? Does not this constitute aiding and abetting a crime against humanity? These are questions to be answered, for not even economic distress excuses transgressions against basic morality.
I speak very feelingly on this subject. After all, we can all remember the terrible blood bath through which Canada and Great Britain have passed in defence of democracy. We see now where trade balances and a monetary system have forced a great nation to deal with other nations inside the iron curtain. I am not going to go into the question of internationalism, for I have too much respect'for our great friends to the south. I think the average United States citizen would like to see the dollar made more pliable, more humanized, so as to bring about freer trade throughout the world. The average United States citizen would like to see something done about the sterling situation. It would be a great humanitarian victory if there were
194

The Address-Mr. Bradette freer trade between Great Britain and the rest of the world, Great Britain and Canada and Great Britain and the United States, and in fact between all nations.
I should like to say a few words about what I hope will be our new sister province-Newfoundland. There is something fine in this possibility, something great. It is expected that within a few months there will be integrated into the Canadian federation that fine, old colony located in the gulf of St. Lawrence. In my youth, which was a long time ago, when I was attending a small rural school I was always baffled that Newfoundland, which was so close to the American continent, geographically speaking, and which was so close to the Canadian mainland, was not a part of Canada. To me the gulf of St. Lawrence seemed to have opened its mouth deliberately so that Newfoundland could come into Canada.
It was a proud day for us and no doubt a proud day for Newfoundland when by a majority vote they decided to come into the Canadian confederation. They have problems of their own and in my view it is the duty of every Canadian worthy of the name to study their problems, to try to know them, to sympathize with them and to help them in arriving at a solution. I believe that the Newfoundlanders will fully realize what it means to come into the great Canadian federation.
When this is accomplished, when Newfoundland does come into the Canadian federation, I hope that they will send some of their fine sons and daughters to Canada to explain to us their aspirations, their struggles in the past, their love, their culture and what they expect of the future. Then in turn Canada should send some of her prominent sons and daughters to sell and make better known this country to that great strategic island which in the future may mean so much to the peace of the world.
I make that suggestion in all sincerity. I wonder how many Canadians know the fine qualities of the Newfoundlander? How many of us know their loyalty to British traditions? Perhaps the same thing could be said, although perhaps not as forcibly, of many Newfoundlanders who have never had an opportunity to know Canada.
It1 would not be just a matter of selling one to the other; it would be a matter of interesting our population and making them realize what a wonderful asset there is in having that fine sentinel between Greenland, Europe, and the Canadian mainland-a sentinel to guard us against things that may happen in the future, which have never happened in the past.

I make this plea very sincerely. This is not just a political question; it is bigger than that. I hope that the moment Newfoundland comes into confederation Canada will choose half a dozen of her sons and daughters who are well qualified, and that Newfoundland will do the same. There are in each country many intelligent men and women-who will visit the other to tell them of their own. We love these people already because they belong to the British family of nations. We want them to come here to tell us of their aspirations, of their problems, of the things that they expect from the Canadian confederation.
It is true they will have to make sacrifices in order to enter confederation, but the same will also apply to us. We must be ready and willing to try to understand them, and to have respect for their traditions and ideals. Let us not get away from the fact that in the past Newfoundland has been a real sentinel of the British empire on this continent, and will remain faithful in its loyalty in the future.
I want to say a word or two about the St. Lawrence waterway. As a person who represents a section of Canada that, geographically speaking, is really central, I may say that we are open-minded as far as the St. Lawrence waterway is concerned. The potential hydro power is needed at the present time in the province of Ontario. I do not say that in a critical way. It is because of the progress that industry has made, in the province. There are also the factors of immigration and transportation. I feel somewhat reticent about discussing the problem because, under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a national rail link was built between the maritimes and Winnipeg out of the federal treasury. Today, west of the town of Hearst, with one of the finest roadbeds on the North American continent, the rails are practically rusty. We are in favour of the development of the St. Lawrence waterway because it is a necessity.
The United States and Canada are friendly nations and we should have no difficulty on that project. But, in saying that, I want to protest against a situation which has been allowed to exist for many years in regard to that fine national link between Quebec city and Winnipeg. It is practically unused at the present time. You have there a potential that should be used winter and summer. Why it is not is past my comprehension. It is true that when the national transcontinental line was built north from Quebec, and out through the wilds of northern Quebec and northern Ontario, they thought that there was nothing but muskeg. Then they found the area contained the finest natural resources, and today it is the real treasure house of Canada. From Quebec city to fifty miles west of the town

of Hearst they have developed those natural resources, with the result that you have there some of the best paying traffic on the whole of the Canadian National railway system.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I greatly appreciate the indulgence of the members of the house and thank them for it. I have no right to it, because hon. members have been too kind to me in the past. I will terminate now. I may have occasion to say something else about certain problems which are very important, not only to our section of the country but also to other sections, because we are not parochial in our viewpoint. We happen to be located in what we call central Canada. We are absolutely national as far as our problems are concerned. It may surprise some of the members listening to me at the present time to know that we are familiar with the names of the mayors of the cities of Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon and Vancouver. We also know the names of the mayors of the cities of Halifax, Saint John and Montreal. Therefore we are truly national as far as our location is concerned, and I also believe we are truly national in our viewpoint.
That is why I appreciate the kindness extended to me. We have no real grievances, but I am going to mention freight rates very briefly. If there is a zone that has suffered it has been my zone. I have no right to say "my"; I am not big enough. 1 should say "our zone". We always had discrepancies, but we accepted them for the benefit of the whole. We must be practical. If the Canadian National Railways has great deficits, we must remember that this nation owes something to that national railway system, and also the Canadian Pacific railway system. During the war their accomplishments were such that no other nation in the world was able to match them. They did something that was a revelation to the whole world, and helped our war effort greatly. Nevertheless, I maintain that we are not getting the full benefit of our fine national system at the present time. I am not going to enlarge any more on that point. All I want to do before resuming my seat is to express the hope that in dealing with freight rates we will all take a national viewpoint. Can we expect our railway systems to carry on with deficits year after year? We must be practical. Speaking as a northern Ontario man, I am in favour of certain concessions as far as British Columbia is concerned, as far as the Crowsnest pass rates are concerned, and as far as the maritime provinces are concerned. I am sure I am speaking for the people of central Canada when I say 29087-131
The Address-Mr. Bradette that I believe they are willing to make adjustments and certain sacrifices as far as freight rates are concerned. I believe they should do so for the whole of Canada, because again I repeat, the whole is better than any part, and a problem of that magnitude must be faced and in a national way.
Before I forget, I want to say that I am not a Canadian National railway man, and I am not a Canadian Pacific railway man. However, I do not believe in the plank incorporated in the C.C.F. platform at their last convention involving the amalgamation of the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. It is true that I believe implicitly in the Canadian National railway system, but at the same time I maintain it would not be fair to the Canadian people if the two systems were amalgamated. You have only to mention that to Canadian Pacific men and Canadian National men to see that they highly resent that plank in the platform of the C.C.F. party. The railway systems in Canada not only have the commercial viewpoint in mind; they have to give service to certain localities. There is a humanitarian-ism in that regard on the part of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. I say that with feeling. A few years ago the then premier of the province of Ontario, Mr. Hepburn, allowed the construction of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, as it was then called, from Cochrane to Moose Factory. At the time many people were very much in favour of that, but when they found there was very little revenue for the extension of the railway they wanted to dismantle it and take the rails away. I went to Toronto and told the premier of Ontario that he could not do it because, when they built that ribbon of steel from Cochrane to Moose Factory and Moosonee, they had permitted the settlement of certain small localities along the railway; and I said that if the people of Ontario knew the situation they would not permit the demolition of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. To the credit of the Ontario administration it was not done.
The railways in a country like Canada have more than freight and passenger services to give. They have to provide service in a great, expansive territory at times under very difficult conditions, a service to which every Canadian man and woman is entitled. That is why, as a Canadian, as an Ontarian, and as a member of this parliament, I want to take this opportunity to say that I am absolutely against the amalgamation of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways on the ground of humanitarianism and also on the ground that better service may be given to the Canadian people if both railways maintain their identity.

The Address-Mr. Fleming


Mr. Cruickshank:: I rise on a question of privilege. I do so because the last speaker is on my own side of the house, and I prefer to do so now rather than when a speaker from the other side of the house has concluded a speech. We have talked about amendment of the rules. I should like to suggest that only the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) be allowed to exceed forty minutes. If you are going to permit one member to do it, then every one of us should have the same privilege. I say that with no disrespect to the previous speaker, who is a member on my own side of the house. If a member cannot say what he has to say in forty minutes he should write it out, hand it to the press and stay in his own riding. I respectfully suggest that the forty-minute rule be enforced, with the exception of the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I may say it is the custom of the Speaker to remind the house when a member has spoken forty minutes, but if the house gives unanimous consent then the member continues, and the Speaker can do nothing about that.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is gratifying to every true lover of democracy to see on the part of the Canadian public a quickened interest in what is going on in this parliament. There are many reasons one can think of for that fact. Perhaps rumours of an election have assisted. In any event, the fact that we have in the house a new Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and a new leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) undoubtedly has been a major factor in attracting increased interest to what is transpiring in this house. I would say to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that when he was elected to the leadership of the Liberal party, and then when he assumed the responsibilities of Prime Minister of Canada, it was a great pleasure to extend very hearty congratulations to him; and I repeat those congratulations today. We have had many differences; we may have more today before I conclude my remarks, but the warmth of my congratulations is not in the least abated.
I should like to say a word, too, concerning the man who leads the Progressive Conservative party, the new leader of the opposition in this chamber (Mr. Drew). I have had the good fortune to know him personally for something like twenty-four years now; and I know him, as this house increasingly will come to know and appreciate him, as a man of high courage, a man who presently, after the next election, will give the whole Canadian people dynamic, progressive and vigorous leadership. His record as premier of the province of Ontario is such that it will be
[Mr. Bradette.J
the ambition of premiers of that province in generations to come to seek in some degree to emulate it. He was at all times progressive, and he gave that province such administration as will leave it forever in his debt. This party under the present leader of the opposition presents to the people of Canada an invincible unity, and that unity will make itself felt not only in this chamber during the present session, but, after the election that is to come, throughout this dominion when he takes his position as Prime Minister.
I suppose it is only to be expected that some members of the house should seek to train their cap pistols on big targets. I suppose some, like the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry), because their armoury may not be quite as heavy as they would wish, will seek to make up what may be lacking in their aim by choosing large targets. But I want to say that remarks such as those which fell from the lips of the hon. member for St. James today and on Tuesday do not hurt my leader or reflect upon him. By remarks of that kind the hon. member only hurts and reflects upon himself.
It was appropriate that the leader of the opposition, in his speech opening this debate, should have concentrated most of his remarks on the subject of dominion-provincial relations, because those who have sat in this house since 1945 will not forget how frequently members opposite have sought to regale the house with accusations directed at the distinguished man who is now leader of the opposition. It was refreshing to see that leader literally take the government by the scruff of the neck and give a complete answer to those who have been misrepresenting the record in the years that have intervened since the government sabotaged the last dominion-provincial conference.
Did it not strike members of the house as passing strange that when the Prime Minister followed the leader of the opposition last Friday evening he completely avoided the subject of dominion-provincial relations? As a matter of fact he sought with almost indecent haste to align himself on the side of the angels. Here is what he said, as we find it at page 60 of Hansard:
Before doing that, however, I want to say to the leader of the opposition that there are many of the things he said in his speech concerning dominion-provincial relations, and concerning the constitution of Canada, and its principles, with which I am in entire agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Why not?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite so; at last we have a little wisdom flowing from lips opposite. Why not? There is no reason why hon. members opposite should not have agreed with every word the leader of the opposition said in

his speech last Friday. I do not condemn the Prime Minister for the extent to which he professes himself to be in agreement with the leader of the opposition; I commend him for his frankness in that respect. I only regret he did not go the full distance and commit himself completely to agreement with the leader of the opposition.
But, Mr. Speaker, behold the welter of confusion, the welter of contradiction which always characterizes speeches from the right-hand side of the chamber immediately became apparent. When the new Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), making his maiden speech in the house yesterday, undertook to be the spokesman of the government on the subject of dominion-provincial relations, what an extraordinary attitude he displayed! It is time the government decided where they stand on this subject, because here we have the man who apparently is to be the government spokesman on this question describing the fundamental conception of confederation, the kind of confederation that apparently he professes to cling to, at page 165 of Hansard:
The provinces were deliberately left with small revenues, which in some provinces were inadequate from the start, in order that the legal powers which they received under the constitution would be supported as little as possible by revenues wherewith to pay for exercising them. The idea was that after a short trial with that sort of federal system they would ultimately, in the language of Sir A. T. Galt, "at no distant day be enabled to do away with those artificial boundaries which separated one province from another, and come together as one united people"-without any provinces.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the conception of confederation that fell from the lips of the government spokesman on the subject of dominion-provincial relations. Then, very properly, he went on to give this description of his own conception, as already expressed; this is what he says at page 166.


Mr. Martin:: If the hon. gentleman would
permit a question, was that not a quotation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The part following the words "Sir A. T. Galt" is a quotation, until we get down to the words "without any provinces", which the minister added.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The new way of doing it is to say "I am quoting now" and "I have stopped quoting."


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have no time to deal with
remarks of that kind. This is the way the spokesman for the government sums up his conception of Canadian confederation:
Well, sir, how did this limited and static conception of provincial responsibility . . . work out?
This "limited and static conception of provincial responsibility"-those are the words of the government spokesman on the subject of dominion-provincial relations. I suggest,
The Address-Mr. Fleming Mr. Speaker, you could not have a better description of the whole conception of confederation which has actuated the government since the time it took office, particularly in these years since the war, than in those words:	"this limited and static conception
of provincial responsibility." That is just the conception that has characterized the attitude of this government toward the provinces since this whole question became a national issue.
I would say to the minister, if I had the opportunity of speaking to him now, that he and his province owe very much to the stand my leader took at the dominion-provincial conference. Had it not been for that firm and courageous stand, taken with a due appreciation of the essential realities of confederation in Canada, the province of Manitoba would not have had nearly as good an agreement with the dominion government as it eventually got.
Step by step, just along the lines my leader and other leaders like the premier of Quebec and the premier of Nova Scotia had been taking at the dominion-provincial conference, the province of Manitoba and others properly began to get more and more under the agreements. The province of Manitoba and other provinces throughout this dominion, as time goes on and the truth sinks in, will come to appreciate more and more how much they owe to the courageous stand taken by my leader at the dominion-provincial conference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would rather take the questions at the end of my statement, since time is running short.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this an admission that your leader broke up the conference?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I should point out that a question cannot be asked without the consent of the member.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He cannot answer him anyhow?


Donald Methuen Fleming: When you get a question as absurd as the one asked by the hon. member from Winnipeg, it does not take long to dispose of it. I have just made it clear the dominion government sabotaged the conference and I may say it would have been sabotaged just as quickly if the C.C.F. had been the government, because the worst centralizers in this Dominion of Canada are the C.C.F. socialists.
This mentality that has been exhibited by the Minister of Justice is apparently the

The Address-Mr. Fleming mentality that is to characterize this government in its continued relations with the provinces.
We had to listen to the Prime Minister on Monday last say, in effect, that he had neither the time nor the patience to attend further dominion-provincial conferences.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He never said any such thing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: Why does the hon. gentleman not read the whole statement instead of one excerpt?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. minister had been in the house or had read Hansard, he would know the Prime Minister read at very great length from what he said on June 18, 1946. I repeat, for the benefit of the minister, that the Prime Minister omitted to read that most significant statement in the passage he read. I do not think that omission was accidental. That is the contention which fell from the lips of the right hon. gentleman on that occasion which has given rise to so much disturbance in certain parts of this country and which ought to be a matter of genuine concern to all parts.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In all parts; what parts?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the parts with which the hon. gentleman apparently is not acquainted, but should be.
The Prime Minister has said the province of Quebec likes its facts straight. I wonder if the Prime Minister did not get the facts straight from the people of Quebec last July when the results of the provincial general election were announced. Strangely enough, although this subject has been discussed on many occasions, to the Prime Minister's certain knowledge, it has taken him nearly three years to rise in his place in this house and attempt to put an interpretation on remarks that he made on June 18, 1946. Let there be no mistake about that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my time is limited, and I will not ask for any extension. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will wait until I finish, I shall be glad to answer his question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has said-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.
The Address-Mr. Fleming


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare likes it or not, I say that remark from the Prime Minister was a perfectly deliberate and studied remark. It was, however, in accord with the contention the Prime Minister, then Minister of Justice, was making not only then but in the previous days of debate on that same subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has just now made an insinuation that the Prime Minister deliberately tried to deceive this House of Commons.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not.


An hon. Member:: What is the point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the point of order. I say that is unparliamentary language, and that the hon. gentleman should withdraw it at once.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has stated that he did not make the statement that the Prime Minister had deliberately tried to deceive this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that. I did not use the word "deceive". What I said was that the Prime Minister's statement was a perfectly deliberate statement; that is, that the statement he made, which I have just quoted, was a deliberate statement. He was not caught off guard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise to a point of order. I am subject to the judgment of the house, but if the hon. gentleman now says that he did not seek to convey the impression, by the words he used, that the Prime Minister had deliberately deceived this house, or if he now withdraws that insinuation, I will withdraw my objection.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw nothing, because I did not make that remark. I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare would pay attention to what is being said instead of concentrating on making interruptions and trying to delay me. What I said was that the statement of the Prime Minister was a perfectly deliberate statement. He was not caught off guard. What he said was completely in keeping with the argument he was making in the house that day and in the previous days of that same session. It was a deliberate statement. The consequences of that statement of the Prime Minister, which was a deliberate statement, have been incalculably mischievous and harmful to the whole of Canadian unity, and those remarks have given rise to a distrust and disturbance of feeling for which he is entirely responsible.
He did not do that without due warning on that occasion, because he had ample warning from those who followed him.

The Address-Mr. Fleming


George Alexander Cruickshank: Tell us about the
iniquitous family allowances.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to refer to some of the things which were said then. I had the honour to follow the Prime Minister in that debate-


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member speaks every day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I pointed out the danger in remarks of that kind. Here is what I had to say at that time, and I am quoting from the daily edition of Hansard because a translation was given in the bound edition. It is to be found at page 2701 of the daily edition of Hansard of 1946.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member spoke in French that day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. And whether the hon. member likes it or not, I propose to read my remarks made in French on that occasion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about the convention?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will say to the hon. member that I am happy about the results of the national convention of the Progressive Conservative party and I am happy in the selection of leader made by the convention.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There will be another chance next year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: (Translation):
Now the Minister of Justice says that there is no need to consult the provinces on redistribution. He contends that as long as an amendment of the constitution does not involve matters allocated in the British North America Act to the provincial jurisdiction, such as property and civil rights under section 92 of the act, the provinces have no right to be consulted by parliament.
(Text):


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member seems to be getting some amusement out of this.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Any time the hon. member talks nonsense, I get amusement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is what I said:
(Translation):
This is a dangerous doctrine. Its full significance should be clearly understood. If parliament can bring about an amendment of section 51 of the constitution without consulting the provinces, it can also bring about without consulting the provinces amendments of other sections of the British North America Act. How long will the rights of minorities which are now guaranteed by the constitution be safe if this doctrine, expounded by the Minister of Justice, prevails? It would mean that parliament could, if it wished, bring about an amendment of section 133 of the British North America Act, and thereby eliminate the use of the French language in parliament-all without consulting the provinces.
'Mr. Fleming.]
Let us then be on our guard against creating so dangerous a precedent. The proposed increase in the number of members of parliament would be gained at too high a cost if it is to be acquired on that basis.
The British North America Act is not an ordinary statute to be amended at the whim of parliament. It is our national constitution; it contains the pact entered into by the old provinces at the time of confederation, binding the dominion and each province; and it is the great charter of the rights of minorities, particularly of those of the French tongue and culture. Let no bold hand be lightly laid on this constitution to overturn its provisions without consultation with the provinces.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear! Hear!
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: I say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister did not see fit either on that occasion or since to listen to such words of warning as were offered in good part by members of this house who appreciated the gravity of the remarks he was making. When a government has had power too long, and has had too much power, it ceases to be attentive to things that are said in the house by the representatives of the people and seeks shortcuts through the constitution to achieve the goal it has in mind; and shortcuts towards objectives, that are attained by driving through the constitution, are undesirable in a country like Canada. If the Prime Minister has cause for complaint in the fact that his words, which I have quoted, have become issues in many parts of Canada, the responsibility rests on his shoulders and on no others. And when he reminds us that the motto of the province of Quebec is "Je me souviens", meaning "I remember", I wonder if the province of Quebec did not nobly live up to its motto with regard to this subject and others at its last provincial election in July. For his personal motto I think the Prime Minister should choose "Je voudrais oublier", meaning "I should like to forget".
In the time that remains at my disposal I wish to say a word on the subject of radio broadcasting. In the speech from the throne we heard the announcement of the government's intention to appoint a royal commission. If the government intends to do that, it does not need to say so in the speech from the throne. It does not need to make it a matter of announcement in parliament. It may be interesting; but of course the government has that power of appointing royal commissions.
Here is a government that, on the eve of an election, is undertaking to say that it will appoint a royal commission to deal with some subjects that are greatly agitating the minds-and rightly so-of the people of Canada at the present time. There is in Canada a great deal of dissatisfaction about the whole method of the administration of radio broadcasting, the whole method of

control and, above all, with the high-handed attitude of the government and of the C.B.C. with respect to the subject of television.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) revealed that he needs some further briefing on the facts when he undertook to give to the house, as it appears at page 82 of Hansard, apparently what was the substance of a communication addressed to him by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). The Prime Minister said:
I have a note here that there was an attempt to set it up.-
That is, the House of Commons committee on radio broadcasting at the 1948 session- -but that the minister in charge found there was no one who wanted it.
Mr. Speaker, if the government had made a full announcement last session of what it intended to do, or intended to permit the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to do in spending money the government put at its disposal, you may be sure there would have been a demand for the setting up of that committee. As a matter of fact the 1947 committee included in its report a recommendation that the committee should be made a standing committee of the house.
On this subject I would say this to the Prime Minister-and first of all on the subject of television-that he is not going to escape responsibility by the setting up of a royal commission. It may be a convenient device to try to sidetrack debate and discussion by saying, "Oh well, that particular subject is under review by a royal commission. We do not wish to prejudice their review of the question, and we are asking the commission to deal with it." The government must not be permitted to dodge its responsibilities that way.
This subject of television has been discussed in committees and by the press, and the attitude of the government and the C.B.C. has been exposed before committees. It was exposed before the House of Commons committee in 1947. On that occasion the Minister of National Revenue undertook to inform the committee of the stand taken by the government on this question, and to justify it.
What he said in effect was, "We do not think it is a good thing for Canadians, while this field of television is in its infancy, to permit Canadians to go ahead and risk their money in the development of it. We and the C.B.C. are not going to do anything; we will sit by and see what happens in the United States."
That was the sum and substance of the attitude of the government as portrayed to the committee by the Minister of National Revenue. Mr. Speaker, I characterized it then, I characterized it last year and I 29087-14
The Address-Mr. Fleming characterize it today as a dog-in-the-manger attitude, born out of the infernal paternalism which characterizes this government's attitude at all times.
What does it amount to? They will not let private stations do anything; they will not let Canadians who are quite prepared to risk their money in developing this field go ahead and do so. They will not permit them, because they say it is not a good thing that they be permitted to risk their money. They will not do it themselves. They have been marking time, and have not done anything.
The result is that Canada, which ought to be a leader in this scientific field, is far behind. We are away behind the United States; we are behind Great Britain, too, in the field of television. Apparently this government is content to sit back and watch the rest of the world go by. It is content to let the rest of the world get ahead of us while it sits with folded hands, and keeps its hands folded-and also keeps the hands folded of those who would develop the field, if the government gave them the opportunity.
The other striking point in the remarks of the Prime Minister in connection with radio broadcasting has to do with what he declared to be his open mind on the subject whether the C.B.C. should be permitted to continue to have power to regulate all radio broadcasting in Canada by private stations, or whether that function should be assigned to a public body separate and distinct from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is an operating body.
Mr. Speaker, that is a strange profession from the Prime Minister, who has been a leading member of this administration for the last seven years. It has been the policy of this administration throughout that time to refuse to deprive the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of any of its power to control all broadcasting in Canada carried on by other stations.
His colleague and deskmate (Mr. Howe) has taken the position in the house, time after time-and apparently the Prime Minister did not pay any attention to it; perhaps we should not have either-that this power should not be taken from the C.B.C. But today, if you please, the Prime Minister, as a reason for appointing a royal commission on the subject, and seeking to get the government out of its responsibility, says, "I have an open mind on the subject."
Well, he was a member of the administration for the last seven or eight years which has had a closed mind on the subject. If the Prime Minister's mind is open, then let us congratulate him and let us also hope that the opening of minds will also be communicated to other members of his administration.

The Address-Mr. Fleming
I see I have only three or four mintes of my time left, so I shall devote it to the subject of housing. Again, housing is the neglected child on the doorstep of the government, despite all the promises on which the government was elected in connection with housing, and all the glorious things it has been telling the Canadian people for the last several years. Despite all this the housing situation today is as bad as ever it was.
May I remind the house what the ever-optimistic minister, the then minister of reconstruction and supply, and now Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said in the house on July 22, 1946, as reported at page 3672 of Hansard:
As at March, 1946, our minimum immediate housing needs were estimated at 150,000 housing units.
Then he went on to describe that as the emergent requirement. I asked him about it a year or two later, but he had forgotten all about it-which proves conclusively that he was reading somebody else's speech on that occasion. Then, in the city of Toronto only last week, the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Mr. Mansur, in a speech to the Canadian construction association, had this to say:
The number of household groups including not only families but also individuals who maintain households, exceeds the number of front doors by approximately 350,000.
Then he goes on to say, in terms of emergency-
It would be my guess that the immediate need is of the order of 150,000 units.
That shows, Mr. Speaker, that the housing shortage is just as bad today as it was three years ago. That indicates the measure of the government's progress in the field of housing -after all their promises, after all the nonsense they have told us in this House of Commons about the progress they were making in housing. The fact of the matter is that the housing crisis in Canada today is as bad as it was three years ago. Their progress has been exactly nil.
In conclusion may I say we are dealing with a motion by my leader expressing want of confidence in this government. We see a government that has attempted to rip up the Canadian constitution, which has neglected defence, and admits now the critical danger which this country faces because of its neglecting defence; which has made inroads upon the freedoms and responsibilities of parliament; which has imposed a crushing burden of taxation; which has been practising extravagance on a profligate scale, as evidenced in the report made to the house the day before yesterday showing that one Toronto lawyer in the last two years has been paid $172,000 in fees.


I say to you that this government does not possess the confidence of the country, and that the government does not deserve the confidence of this House of Commons.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, one of the terms which has come up regularly in this debate has been a reference to national unity, and I should like to make that the theme of my remarks this afternoon.
There is no doubt in my mind that all members of parliament, regardless of their political complexions, are interested in and desirous that there shall be national unity in this country. I believe we are fortunate in that we have one of the most wonderful countries in the world. We are the inheritors of a great tradition and of great natural resources. National disunity could be a most serious instrument in destroying much that has been done. However, I say with all sincerity that I am very doubtful if the speeches thus far made on the question of dominion-provincial relations, the subject which has occupied the time of most speakers from the government and official opposition groups, have helped in any way to create national unity in this country.
The speeches I have heard thus far consisted of accusations, counter-accusations, acrimony, recrimination and explanation. There was a political high wind blowing. Somehow through all these verbal acrobatics the speakers have managed to keep their eyes cocked toward the province of Quebec.
I am sure that if we desire national unity in this country it can be achieved, but it can be achieved only by this parliament setting its eyes resolutely to the future and being prepared to forget much of what has taken place and by striving to prepare and carve out a program of economic and social security. In addition, and perhaps even of more importance, there should be the greatest possible equality of opportunity in the future for all the people of Canada rather than privileges for the few. If we will do that, I think much more will be achieved in the way of national unity than by all this wrangling which has so far taken place.
The speaker who preceded me referred to the welter of confusion in connection with dominion-provincial relations. I would be happy if I could stand up and say that his speech had cleared up that confusion. However, much as I would like to pay him that compliment, I am not able to do so because his words have only added to the welter of confusion so far as I have been able to understand them. He merely went over the ground that has been gone over so often. I sincerely hope that for the time being, at least until

the smoke screen clears away, this house will drop that subject and get on with its real business.
If we are to find national unity the real business before the house is to see that this parliament-this may be the last session of the present parliament and therefore there is a greater sense of urgency than ever-should do for the people of Canada those things which they expect will be done. What are some of those things?
First, ever since the election of 1945 the people of Canada have been led to believe that the government had plans for an overall social security system. It has been called by various names, but what it boils down to is that the government, along with other parties in and outside of the house, promised the people that they would amend the Old Age Pensions Act in a way to provide that the means test would be abolished and the age limit lowered to 65 years-in some cases it was promised that it would be lowered to 60 years, but we will be happy if it is brought down to 65 years as the first instalment-and the amount of pension raised in order to bring it into line with present costs of living, which would require approximately $50 per month.
We in this group have urged that in the form of resolutions and motions ever since this parliament commenced. We have not been successful in obtaining a majority vote on that subject. We invite other parties in the house to join our pleas to the government that they do not let this opportunity go by without bringing into being these things that I have mentioned and which were promised, in good faith I believe, and accepted in good faith at election time.
We also need legislation to provide similar assistance to all persons who are crippled or disabled in some way. The other evening the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) made an excellent plea, with which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) agreed, on behalf of persons suffering from arthritis and similar disabilities. We know from personal experience that in every community in Canada there are people who are not old enough to qualify for an old age pension, people in their forties and fifties, who are hopelessly disabled from some form of rheumatism or other disease and who must depend in most cases solely on municipal aid.
There is no legislation to provide this aid so far as the dominion is concerned. In most provinces there is no provincial legislation to provide this assistance for crippled persons, and I know this is so with regard to Manitoba with the exception of those who 29087-ui
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny live in unorganized territories. In all other cases they are a drain upon the municipality.
Those who are close to municipal affairs know that municipalities, particularly rural municipalities, are having their hands full trying to provide education, build roads, repair bridges and so on and simply cannot provide the assistance required by these unfortunate victims of disease. Therefore we need legislation at the federal level to provide for disabled persons of this country on the same basis as we provide for old age pensioners. That is something that is urgent and could be done at this session of parliament. There is no reason why it could not be done.
We hear a lot about the huge surpluses that are being built up-later on I shall refer to one reason for that-and there certainly is no argument that we cannot get to work and pass the necessary legislation in order to show that we made those promises in good faith and are prepared to carry them out.
The speech from the throne makes a reference to the extension of the scope of the Family Allowances Act. We have no way of knowing just what that will mean when it gets to the stage of legislation. However, I hope that it will include at least two extensions.
The first should be in connection with students who are over the prescribed age for family allowances and who are still attending school. In many cases parents are trying to give children higher education but at a considerable sacrifice to their own standard of living. The payment of family allowances would be of great assistance to those people who are sincerely trying to educate their children.
Another way in which they should be extended is in connection with immigrants arriving in the country. At the present time the act does not permit the payment of allowances to the children of immigrants until they have been here three years. I made a plea on that point last June and if I remember correctly the minister said that consideration would be given to it. I do not know whether he has that in mind but it seems to me that if we look at the thing from a logical standpoint we will realize that these immigrants, regardless of whence they come, have not great resources. They are coming here to try to make a living out of the great wealth of our natural resources. They are prepared to work hard but during the first three years of their life in Canada they require the assistance that could be given in the way of family allowances much more so than ten or fifteen years hence. It would seem the better part of wisdom to extend the act to cover the children of these people.
204	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny
We need a national health insurance program, but I shall not go into details about that as my leader has placed our proposals before the house.
There is another matter which while not strictly a social security item certainly is required. I refer to aid for education. I am glad the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), who always makes an excellent speech, referred to that today. I shall not undertake to discuss it in detail as I have a resolution on the order paper already and it would be out of order for me to discuss it ahead of time.
Suffice to say that within the last few months the people of Canada from coast to coast, especially such organized bodies as school teachers and educational societies, have expressed the opinion that it is necessary for the federal government to come to the assistance of the provinces which are trying to bring about an improved standard of education but which find themselves in financial difficulties.
Only recently we heard of the teachers' strike in Montreal and newspaper reports indicate that possibly a further dispute may arise. It is going to become more and more difficult for some of the provinces to finance their educational program unless this government is prepared to give some grants in aid to help them over the rough spots.
Perhaps the most importrant problem that faces Canada today, particularly western Canada, is the need for the stabilization of the agricultural industry and I say "stabilization" advisedly. During the past few years the government of Canada has been making agreements with other countries for the sale of agricultural products and has given assurance to the farmers of Canada that they will not be penalized by the fact that their products are being sold at controlled prices.
1 am sure that the government will realize that the farmers of western Canada, the grain growers particularly, have been very patient and co-operative. They accepted the plan of the government to sell grain to Great Britain and other countries under agreement on the understanding that the government would do everything possible to keep the cost of production at its then level. These agreements were entered into and we know what has happened. Figures have been placed on Hansard in the last few days and I do not need to repeat them. However, I will say that the cost of production certainly has not remained stationary.
I should like to quote from the Rural Co-Operator, which is published in this province. They are giving their point of view on this question. They issue a warning, and it


is a serious warning, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will be the first one to admit it.
In discussing the increased cost of production, Mr. Hannam had this to say:
But a double-barreled trend of farm prices going down and costs remaining high or going higher will soon undermine farm prosperity. The danger is it could and might develop into a period of general business recession. Because of this danger, maintenance of agriculture in a healthy economic position is vital to the national welfare.
Those are words of wisdom.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has said he is sure I would be the first to agree. I should like to point out that statement is a prophecy of what may happen in the future. Would my friend not agree that up to the present time farmers are getting the highest return for their products they have ever had?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am glad the minister made that interjection, because I started out with what I had to say by saying that it is the duty of this parliament to look into the future, and to make provision for certain things that may happen.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have done very well up to the present.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am not going to detract from the minister's self-congratulation. Perhaps he feels justified in patting himself on the back.


James Garfield Gardiner: Even that statement says that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I think perhaps the best thing I can do, Mr. Speaker, is to continue to quote. Perhaps the minister will take a somewhat different view of it as I go on. The same article continues:
During the war farmers toiled long hours, increased their production, and sold their product far below cost. At the same time the dominion government paid industry's "cost plus." It promised farmers, as postwar compensation, floor prices which would give them more than the market price.
That has not yet happened.
What have they had? A ceiling price on butter, a ban on exports to the United States, which still remains on dairy products, and margarine. At the same time industry has been making unprecedented profits. The dominion government has been allowing industry special taxation privileges such as double depreciation, for instance, charging up the cost of new capital equipment over a period of five years as a deduction from income tax.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only criticism I would make up to that point is that the interjection made by the hon. member is not in the statement itself. I refer to his words, "that has not yet happened". As a matter of fact, prices to the farmer on many of these farm commodities are higher now in Canada than they could receive in the United States.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The chief commodity, in the west at least, is wheat. The price of wheat is certainly not over the world price at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is over the price being discussed in the international committee.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Let me proceed.
At the same time the government has joined in the hue and cry, as much industry inspired and financed as the margarine campaign, about farmers not paying income tax. The dominion government has persecuted farmers, has demanded income tax returns from thousands of farmers who were not taxable, and has collected tax from others who would not be taxable if they could afford to employ accountants to keep their records and make their returns for them.
Further, the article has this to say, and perhaps this is the most significant part of it:
Why are farmers being pushed around or just Ignored by their governments?
It is "governments" because it refers also to the Ontario government. It goes on:
Mr. Howe gives one of the answers. He says that in 1919 agriculture was Canada's most important industry, contributing 44 per cent of the total net value of commodity production against 33 per cent contributed by manufacturing. By 1945 agriculture was contributing 21 per cent, and manufacturing 52 per cent. Presumably, with Mr. Howe's encouragement, there has been a substantial change since then in the same direction.
May I pause there to point out that these are dollar values, and of course they do not reflect actual physical production.
First, then, farmers are producing a smaller proportion of the total dollar production volume, and farm people are a smaller proportion of the total population. Second, farmers handle only their own money, while business handles the money of producers, consumers, shareholders, and uses it to publish and propagandize the ideas and public policies of which it approves, and to finance and control political parties.
Those are strong words. A little later I will refer to the article again in another connection. I think that sets out the attitude of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Perhaps by now the minister has less reason to congratulate himself than he had when I was reading the first part of the article.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no; I still say that the first part is all prophecy.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I was not hoping to get the minister to agree with me. Then we move on from there. The gist of that whole article, and what I have said so far, is simply that, while admitting, for purposes of common ground with the minister, that agriculture is now receiving as high or higher prices-I have not the statistics before me-for its products, compared with other years, there is a trend going on now which is causing concern to the farmers of Canada. The prices of many of their products are still under
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny control. Even if they were not we know from experience, and from a cursory study of what is going on in the world today, that the prospect for farm prices, as far as our exports are concerned, is not in an upward direction. I think the minister will agree with that because he stated that himself not very long ago. The prospect is that farmers will have to accept lower prices for their products in the future than they have in the immediate past. That being so, it makes it doubly important that the cost of production for farmers shall not rise. As a matter of fact, it has risen too much already in relation to what the farmer receives. That puts the onus on the government if they are going to undertake to ask farmers to accept controlled prices for their produce because of the condition of the export market. Farmers can understand that very easily. Farm organizations have been very reasonable and cooperative in that regard. They have understood that because European countries and Great Britain cannot pay higher prices they will have to accept the prices they can pay. There is, however, the other half of the bargain which is equally important. The government should then undertake to see to it that the farmer can buy, at reasonable prices, the products he needs in order to remain in farming, such as his farm machinery, fuel, hardware, and all the other things that are necessary for farming.
The government had the whole stabilization program in its hands in 1945. Since then it has destroyed half of it. It has destroyed that part which has to do with the cost of production of the farmer, by yanking off the controls on manufactured products, over the protests of organized farmers, organized workers and most of the professional people of this country. They listened to the advice of a small privileged group who saw an opportunity to reap a harvest when the controls were taken off; and by doing so they have placed the farmer between two grindstones, with the prospect of farm prices going down and the cost of production on its way up. If that process continues it will not be long until the farmers find themselves in a very tough position.
The government is now responsible for seeing to it that the cost of producing farm products does not go any higher; and as a matter of fact in my opinion it is already too high. It is for the government to state in this house very soon what they intend to do. Future agreements for the sale of farm products are still up in the air and the cost of living and the cost of production are still rising. The farmers of this country want to know where the government stand, whether they are going to take off all the controls and trust to free enterprise and the speculative

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny market to see that the farmers get the going price. Already the farmers have expressed an opinion on that. They do not agree with that type of marketing, because speculative marketing has not given the farmer a fair return for his products. Or are they going to reimpose some controls on manufactured products and give the farmers a square deal?
While I am on the subject of controls I may as well say that there are those who argue, very seriously and sincerely, that since the war emergency is over we should get rid of all controls and return to a system of free enterprise. That is a very comforting, very neat little package of philosophy. The only trouble is that it does not work, because we have never successfully operated a free enterprise system in this country. Ever since the beginning there have been interests ready to run to the government for protection just as soon as they considered their industry needed it. I see the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) smiling, and I can almost hear what he is thinking. But before he even says anything to me let me tell him that the industries in his province were the first to deny the free enterprise system in Canada. They were the first to benefit from our tariff system, and some of them are still benefiting from it. That might have been the proper thing to do at the time, to subsidize and assist the manufacturing industries of Canada in order to develop greater production; but these same people, like the Canadian manufacturers' association, for example, and the Canadian chamber of commerce, who today go out and rave against the subsidy system and in favour of free enterprise, who are against controls, have a very short memory. They were the main beneficiaries of government intervention when it was in their interest for the government to intervene. Now that they have obtained what they want they say, "Throw it wide open. We want free enterprise from now on." That is a very comfortable position if you are in the driver's seat, but there are many people in this country who are very serious about this matter and who know we shall never move out of the field of subsidies. If we did we would have to revise our whole economic system in a backward direction, and it cannot be done. If we moved out of the subsidy field in its full sense we would have no social security schemes in this country, because that is a means whereby the wealthier subsidize the poor. We would have no government assistance of any kind to industry; and some of those who today are crying about controls would be the first to weep bitter tears and ask the government to intervene in their behalf. So let us not kid ourselves about


free enterprise; we do not have it in the full sense of the word, and we will not have it. What we will have is a combination of free enterprise and public enterprise, and it is up to the government to provide the balance wheel of public enterprise in order to keep prices at reasonable levels. I am not saying the government must do it all, because the co-operative movement in this country has been doing a great job in keeping prices at reasonable levels.


James Garfield Gardiner: Ever since the Liberals first encouraged it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I remember that the Liberals encouraged it a couple of years ago by slapping on an income tax. If it had not been for the fight this group put up in the house for a period of about ten days the co-operatives would have been taxed out of existence; and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was the first to admit it.
But let us not get sidetracked on that subject; let me follow through with what I was saying. The co-operative movement, if carried into government and public affairs, would be one method of keeping prices reasonable, because there is no profit motive in a co-operative association. It is production for use and service at cost. When you take out the profit motive there is no reason to jack up prices and profiteer, because people would not be so foolish as to charge themselves more than is necessary for their services. Co-operatives have an equalizing tendency in keeping prices at reasonable levels. But co-operatives are limited in what they can do. They are limited in the amount of money they can raise; and some of the things that need to be done in this country must be done on a large scale. Only the federal government have the finances with which to do them, and only the federal government are in a position to do them. In the meantime, until they accept the philosophy of public enterprise as one of the chief factors in our economic life, we must have price control or we are going to have profiteering.
But let me move on. We also need increased income tax exemptions for many of the low-income groups in this country. Here I want to quote from a leaflet entitled "Labour Research" containing figures which come from the statistics branch of the Department of National Revenue. These figures are for 1946, and I am told more recent figures are not available because the income tax department is about two years behind in supplying these statistics. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) shakes his head. If he can produce the figures for 1948 I shall be very glad to see them. According to these

figures the breakdown of incomes in this country for 1946 showed that those receiving up to $1,000 a year totalled 13-7 per cent, while those receiving from $1,000 to $2,000 a year comprised 52-8 per cent of our population. The figures show that 89-3 per cent of the people of Canada earning incomes received less than $3,000 a year. If you take the two lower groups and add 52-8 per cent to 13-7 per cent you get 66-5 per cent; and you can appreciate the position of 66-5 per cent of the people of Canada who are receiving less than $2,000 a year and still have to pay income tax.
If I were to carry on a bit further I might point out that the trend in regard to savings over the last three years is very serious. The speech from the throne makes reference to this wave of prosperity which is supposed to be bubbling around us.
We may have been at the crest, but it appears from the report on savings that the crest has passed and we are on the way down. Soon, we may be in the trough. In 1944, the percentage of income that went into savings was 21-6 per cent; that is, it was possible to save roughly one-fifth of your income, taken on an average across Canada. By 1947, that percentage of income which could be saved fell to 6-4 per cent. This is a serious drop in the space of three years. If that trend continues, by 1950 and 1951, that portion of income which the ordinary people of Canada can save will have disappeared entirely owing to the high prices.


James Joseph McCann: The government was doing the saving for them in 1944.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: You are no doubt referring to compulsory savings. Whether they were compulsory or voluntary, they were savings at the disposal of the people of Canada. The portion of income people have been able to save has slipped from 21-6 per cent in 1944 to 6-4 per cent in 1947. You cannot refute that argument.
I wish to refer to a few more items in connection with agriculture. The speech from the throne makes mention of an amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I have no way of knowing just what is contemplated, but I do hope it will include the type of amendment we have urged from here on several occasions in the past, to the effect that the unit be made smaller than a township for the purpose of qualifying for assistance. In Manitoba, particularly the northern part of that province, where we suffer more from hail and flood than we do from drought, such an amendment would be of importance to many farmers in acquiring assistance to which they are morally entitled but which,
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny because of the technicality involved in putting it on a township basis, is denied them. I have taken this matter up on so many occasions, I shall not take the time to go into details. The Minister of Agriculture knows very well what I mean. He has been in the area and has seen for himself the grave injustices which arise from the present system of administering the act. It must be made possible to administer it on a smaller unit basis so that the farmers who actually need assistance will be the ones to receive it.
At the present time we have the anomaly of farmers who have a good crop receiving assistance on top of that, whereas the farmers who are completely wiped out by flood or hail get nothing. Surely, that is an administrative problem which should be solved before this session is completed.
There is also need for the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. As a matter of fact some members, including the member for Souris (Mr. Ross), have argued the act should be made applicable to all farmers from coast to coast. I am going to make this plea to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), that the designated area be extended to include the three prairie provinces. As it is now, it covers only a section of the three prairie provinces, usually referred to as the Palliser triangle. There are other parts of these provinces which need the services of the rehabilitation provisions just as seriously. There is a need for flood prevention and water conservation, which makes it necessary to extend the operative provisions of that act to take in the total area of the three prairie provinces. I am sure the minister will give that suggestion serious consideration, knowing the problem as he does, around the area of Dauphin particularly, about which I am speaking at the present time.
Another thing which would bring about greater national unity would be an equalization of the burden of freight rates across this country. It is not necessary for me to go into detail on this subject because we talked freight rates at the last session until we dreamed about them. Nothing has been done as yet to solve the problem. The railway companies have received one increase of 21 per cent and have made application for another increase of 20 per cent.
May I say at this point that I am pleased to see the non. Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) take his seat. As premier of the province of Manitoba, he was one of those who went all over that province making a lot of fine speeches about their opposition to the increased freight rates. Fate has so arranged it that the hon. member is today the Minister of Justice. I say it is his duty now

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny to see that justice is done on the freight rates question. When this matter comes before the house, it will be interesting to see what stand the Minister of Justice will take, since he is now a member of the government. I wonder if he will be as bold in his statements, as sweeping in his denunciations of the actions of the government, as he was in Manitoba. I hope he will not retreat from his position, since it might cause some of us to say some very nasty things about him.
For the remainder of my time, I should like to turn to another subject which is of great importance in connection with national unity, and that is electoral reform. Recently a bill was placed before the house by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power).
I am not going to discuss that bill, Mr. Speaker, but merely refer to it. In his opinion this bill would have the effect of reforming some of the practices that are being carried on during elections. At the outset, without discussing the bill at all, I should like to say I am not convinced we can legislate any political party into honesty. I am not that much of an optimist. The bill may have, however, some effect in bringing out discussion in this house. It is a serious matter that such practices do take place.
I refer now to an article which the hon. member for Quebec South, a former Minister of National Defence in this government, wrote and which appeared in Maclean's magazine. I will have time to quote only a few excerpts from this article concerning the practices which have been carried on by his own party. I wish to congratulate the hon. member on his frankness. I believe he has done the people of Canada a public service. The article reads as follows:
There was a time, of course, when votes were literally bought for money in the market place. I well remember an incident, more than forty years ago, when the Liberal buyers set up shop on one side of an actual market and their Tory competitors for votes on the other, while the vendors, the voters, moved from one side to the other, offering their franchises to the highest bidder. It was a tight election and toward the end of the day single votes were going for as high as $75 and $80 and one transaction was even recorded for an even $100. When the exchange, or rather the polling places, closed the winner's majority was two votes.
If the other party had had $300 more, they might have won the election.
Then the writer goes on to say that such things are not done any more. This was forty years ago, and we have now become smoother operators. Today there are surreptitious deliveries of coal, large orders of groceries, or even electric washing machines made at the right moment. Surely, the people of Canada do not approve such tactics.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: If you continue reading that article, you will see the writer says the people who owned the washing machines came and took them away again.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is right. I was only trying to save time. Bills were sent for those washing machines and they had to be returned. The people of Canada will, no doubt, be astonished to find out that is still going on in this country of ours. Surely we should set higher standards of behaviour when we appeal to the people of Canada.
The people are asking these two simple questions.
First, why does the Liberal party, as revealed by one of its own members, find it necessary to offer cash, groceries or washing machines for votes, if their policy is correct? And second, where are they getting the money from?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I count it a great privilege to have another opportunity to represent the constituency of Fort William. The people there are intelligent, sensible, honest and progressive, and I still consider it a great honour to represent them.
My first words are those of congratulation of the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I know the mover somewhat intimately, because he is my roommate. He is a faithful, hard worker; there is not a lazy bone in his body, and the government would do well to consider him for advancement. He is not in his seat, so I am free to say this.
Then, there are two other men, neither of whom is in the house tonight-and one of whom will not be here. There are no other two men who stand higher in my respect because of their unselfish service. The first of these is the former member for Carleton; for any man who resigns his seat to let another man come in to take his place is rendering an unselfish service. Indeed, had he not done that, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) might not have been in his seat at the present time.
The other man to whom I pay tribute is an old friend, the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken). He, too, did an unselfish thing by stepping down to allow another man to take his place. The House of Commons would be much poorer if he were not here, and I pay tribute to him.

My next words will have reference to the speech from the throne, which contains many good things, as I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, after I have finished. The speech is full of hope, and contains suggestions concerning actions which I hope will come to pass. These are not empty promises.
I would congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) upon trying to pay off a little of our national debt. Some hon. members well know that there are people who will borrow money on Friday, tell you they will pay it back on Monday, but who do not "come across." Any minister representing an honest government, as we believe we have, has a right to see that the debts are paid.
The speech contains much hope in that its first suggestion concerns tax reduction. The first measure of reduction will come about because of the slice which will be taken off the national debt; for that reason some taxes will not need to be paid.
Then, there is the further promise in the speech from the throne that the sales tax will be reduced, which in my opinion is a proper procedure. The common people are hit hardest by the sales tax, and when it is reduced the cost of living must come down. In that connection let me say there is one extra sales tax, over and above the regular business sales tax, which should be wiped out completely; I refer to the 25 per cent tax applied to the business of jewelers. That should be wiped out, and I fully expect it will be.
Then, further, the tax on soft drinks and chocolate should be reduced. However, we shall have another opportunity to speak on that point because a Liberal member has had the foresight to introduce the subject by way of a resolution now appearing on the order paper.
Another hope held out in the speech from the throne is that of the construction of great waterways. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has given us much encouragement in this connection, and I believe President Truman is a man of his word. It would seem now that the great waterways project would reach fruition before any great time has elapsed. We at the head of the lakes believe this to be an absolute necessity. We know it will help employment, that it would furnish much-needed power and that it would be of great advantage to transportation. I would like to be able to step onto a freight boat at Fort William and go across to Londonderry. I would enjoy riding even on a freight boat for that distance because of what 1 would see when I got there.
203)
The Address-Mr. Mclvor
This construction of a great waterways project would mean much in the development of power. I need scarcely tell the House of Commons that we at the head of the lakes are in a comfortable position, so. far as our supply of power is concerned. When people in this section of Canada could not get the power, we were revelling in it, and did not need to turn off our lights, if we did not want to. And if there is anyone here who is thinking of opening up a new industry, then let me tell him that because of our supply of power, water and good fresh air, the finest place in Canada would be Fort William or Port Arthur.


Mr. Brooks:: And lots of wind, too.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Another hope in the speech from the throne is for the building of the trans-Canada highway. We at the head of the lakes think this should come through, and have held the view for a good while. However, if you keep pecking away at a thing long enough, if it is right you will get there eventually. We believe that the trans-Canada highway will soon be a reality, and we thank the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. MacKinnon) for his big-hearted co-operation. This highway would be of great advantage to people in the east, so that they could come up yonder to lake Nipigon, up through Port Arthur and Fort William, up to Hillcrest on the top of the hill. Boy! the view there would pay them for the whole trip. And then, if they were to go around Fort William and up past Loch Lomond, 800 feet up on Mount McKay and looked over that scenery, they would realize that it is truly gorgeous! There is nothing to touch it in all Canada. Therefore I thank the minister for the work he has done.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is not in the house, but I should like to congratulate him upon his visit to the head of the lakes. We had a promise of $200,000 for an addition to our sanatorium, one which serves not only the Thunder Bay area, but the whole of northern Ontario. Because of the number of Indians and others who were being cared for in that sanatorium, the former Minister of National Health and Welfare said that $200,000 would be set aside for us. Some difficulty developed. We thought we had that $200,000, and we were not going to let go. When the minister saw our sanatorium, and the work being done, and when he saw the way the Indians were being cared for there was no further doubt about our getting it. For this we thank him.

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
I should like to speak about another matter which was mentioned either in the speech from the throne or at some other time, something I have advocated for six years, and that is a national contributory pension. Railroad men have called on me, and they say it is an absolute necessity. A railroader may have a pension, but that does not provide for his wife. And any railroader who loves his wife wants to leave the best for her after he is gone. Therefore I say we should have a national contributory pension for all Canada; and I believe this has been suggested by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Of course that scheme must not conflict with other pension schemes conducted by industries.
I do not know for certain, but I have my own ideas as to who spiked the dominion-provincial conference. My heart was sore when through the years, having built up a wonderful contributory health bill, it was wiped out entirely. We had men from New Zealand, England, the United States and all over Canada who helped in the framing of this bill. We thought it was a fine bill that had been drafted under the supervision of the former minister of national health. I think that bill should be called back from its resting place and put before this house. If all the provinces do not agree, those who do should be able to put it into force.
I have a word to say about old age pensions. Before I came down here I had the honour of being called to speak to a group of older people, some old age pensioners and some who had retired from the different railroads. It was a well conducted meeting. I agreed with those people that the present old age pension of $30 per month is not enough. It will be said that Ontario gives another $10 per month, but very few get it. I stood up in this house last year and congratulated the premier of Ontario on providing that extra $10, but at the present time there are a great many people who have no other income and who get only $30 per month. It is not enough.
The other day I was out tramping around and I passed the home of an old age pensioner about 8.30 in the morning when some hon. members are supposed to be taking it easy. I called in and found that breakfast was still on the table, so I said, "I am just in time." They had porridge, but they had no milk and no brown sugar. They were buying their little cottage which their son-in-law had helped to build.
I hope the province of Ontario will rise in its dignity, in its honesty and in its spirit of self-sacrifice and give every pensioner that $10 per month extra no matter who he is. I think Ontario will do it. British Columbia
rMr. Mclvor.]
does it and I think Ontario is just a little better than British Columbia.
I am not forgetting Fort William, of course. Some of you may think that there are no farmers at Fort William; you may think that we have nothing but water, rocks, scrub, bush and mines. We have those things, but in addition we have one of the best farming districts in Ontario. The farmers in this district are well looked after. Mr. Harrison is the agricultural representative and Mr. J. K. Knight is the supervisor of the agricultural substation. Those men keep the farmers on their toes.
Then there are many agricultural societies and our farm life has developed considerably. Our farmers are encouraged to do things in the right way. Many attractions are offered to the boys on the farm. These efforts appeal to me, as I am sure they would appeal to anyone who wants to see the young people kept on the farm. We have a good baseball league in that district. If you want to spend a thrilling night you should attend one of those evening games in the summertime. Not only do they put on a good round of baseball; they provide refreshments of a type that permits you to go home without your head being light.
In the wintertime they have a rural hockey league which attracts large numbers even to the open-air rinks. They play a splendid brand of hockey and the cup that is presented in the spring is well contested.
Then we have other types of competition. Last year I mentioned our 500 bushels to the acre potato club. That was carried on this year and F. J. Kailik of Upsala managed to produce 649 bushels of potatoes to the acre, not just 500 bushels. I say to other farmers that if they want to know how to raise potatoes they do not have to go to Ireland. If they go to Kailik he will explain the program that enabled him to achieve that production.
Then we have the hundred bushels to the acre oats club. Mr. Finholm of Cloud Bay raised 105 bushels per acre of good oats. I think that record leads Canada.
We have several farm associations which are supported splendidly by the Department of Agriculture under the leadership of the minister. We have the head of the lakes agricultural society and there are many exhibitions held in the fall, the principal ones being at Fort William, Murillo, Hymers and Upsala. The chief attractions at these fairs are animal husbandry and farm products.
Fort William and Port Arthur are known for their good record in connection with juvenile delinquency, something to which the good city of Toronto cannot lay claim. They might be able to make that claim if they

would take my advice. We have a family juvenile court which helps, but perhaps what is of even greater help are our supervised playgrounds. These are conducted all through the summer so that our boys and girls do not have time to get into mischief by hanging around in gangs. We have our swimming pools under the supervision of the Y.M.C.A. and many boys and girls learn to swim during the summer months.
A large section of our library is set aside for boys' and girls' books. The librarian has conducted special film showings with the assistance of the film board here in Ottawa. Our city is really tops of all Canada in film showing. You see that through their eyes, through their bodies and through their hands and feet we keep our boys and girls busy so that the devil does not have a chance to get into their lives.
I do not think there is a city in Canada where the churches, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and Gentile, are more on their toes than in Fort William. Our.people do not mind paying their ministers decent salaries. I would consider it a special privilege if Toronto would send up one of those hoodlum gangs and let me place them on one of our hockey teams. I think they would go back to Toronto ready to conduct themselves sanely.
We have a mining district west of Fort William fifty miles wide by one hundred miles long. I should like to read a brief description by W. A. Gray of the Shebando-wan district. He says:
The Shebandowan area lies in a belt of rocks comprised of sediments and volcanics which have been intruded by granite, porphyry, gabbro, diorite, diabase and several smaller intrusions.
Geological conditions are similar to other areas where gold and base metals are being produced.
At the south-west end of the belt gold was produced from the Ardeen mine. East of this you have the great lakes copper property which at present is developing a large deposit of copper-silver-gold around the old Tip Top mine.
Three miles east of this at Kashabowie, Andowan gold mines are developing a copper-gold property along with their associates, Norpic Mining Company. East of this you have the International Nickel property which, although not producing, has outlined an ore body by diamond drilling, and is talked about as a billion dollar deposit in nickel, copper, gold, platinum and platinum group metals.
May I interject here that I think the International Nickel Company should be compelled to open that mine, and not just keep it for a future generation.
Around Shebandowan lakes there are many gold, copper and nickel finds. Some of them have had considerable development and have proved commercial ore bodies, but due to conditions and lack of finances never were able to come into production. Geophysical surveys have been made north of the village of Shebandowan, and large anomalies have been found by this work and have never been diamond drilled. The Shebandowan area offers
The Address-Mr. Mclvor plenty of possibilities for finances, and if work was done systematically and money spent wisely, there is no doubt that more mines would be produced, and of large tonnage, as the deposits so far found in the area are of the major type.
I should like to ask the minister to see that something is done towards the opening up of new gold mines. I know some of the old mines are able to carry on, but they are having a terribly hard time. I was very grateful to the gold mining district north of Port Arthur for the way they helped us during the depression. They took hundreds of our young men who could not get work anywhere else.
Then again we have a trades and labour council in Fort William. We think it is just about the best. There are Progressive Conservatives in that body; there are Liberals in that body; there are C.C.F.'ers in that body; there are some Labour-Progressives in it, and there are some who think they are better than any of the others. As a labour body they are not contributing to any political party as far as is known. They were somewhat disturbed in the past year, and I was disturbed with them, because of the treatment of young men who make their living on boats. I mean the merchant marine. I think it is not fair for young men to leave Canada, sail across the Atlantic, and then find they have not any ship to bring them back home again. I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) to see that the merchant marine receive decent treatment. I know we have at the head of the lakes one shipping company that would not stoop to that sort of thing. It is headed by Senator N. M. Paterson. He treats his men fairly if they co-operate with him. I congratulate him on the way he treats his men.
We have new industries at the head of the lakes. There is an old starch factory which was taken over by a group of men and is now producing edible oils. The former member for Moose Jaw has taken quite a part in it. He was kind enough to tell me that he thought Fort William was the best place for that project, and I think so, too. Then we have a fuel oil industry which is growing rapidly. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will know that we have the manufacture of starch from wheat, but because wheat went up in price they are pretty well out of business. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce could give this company the same subsidy that is given to flour mills we would appreciate it, because the day will come when wheat will not sell for as high a price as it does today.
We have certain needs at the head of the lakes. From the Steep Rock mine trainloads of hematite ore are brought to Fort William and then taken to the United States. We
212	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Mclvor think we should have a smelter so that we could keep that ore in Canada and not have to buy back steel from the United States. That is an absolute necessity. If I had strong enough powers I would see that we had a smelter there. Then we need a breakwater at island No. 2. I should like to congratulate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) on dredging the McKellar river and lowering it by 20 feet, so that steamers will be able to go up the McKellar river instead of having to go away down and back into it, and then go out that way again. That is one of the finest things that the Department of Public Works has done for Fort William in many a long year. We need a public dock. We have no public dock. It is perhaps my fault that I was blind to the need, but we hope that will be remedied this spring. Then we need the development of Mount McKay into a public park. I spoke of that last year. The scenery is par excellence. There is not anything to beat it in all Canada, but the Indians are in control. They have not the ability to develop it, and what has been given to them has perhaps been abused. It would make a splendid public park. People from the United States and Canadians from east and west could enjoy the scenery.
To come back to pensions, I should like to pay tribute to the chairman of the pension board, Brigadier General Melville. He is a splendid friend of the veterans, and is doing a magnificent job. There are some things, however, that he cannot do without legislation. I think Imperial veterans who have been twenty years in Canada should be given the burnt-out pension. The veterans of the South African war are holding a convention in London, I believe in July. I think that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) should see to it that a number of veterans have their passages paid over there, because some of these old veterans have not a great deal of this world's goods.
I have here something I enjoyed reading. It is the platform of the Progressive Conservative party as established by the Progressive Conservative national convention, the program on which the party and its new leader, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew), hope to be elected. I should like to refer to plank 27, a Canadian national flag.
I do not know whether or not that will come about under the present government leadership but I wonder what kind of flag they are going to propose.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It would not be one like the one you brought in here a year ago.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Then again we get a lot of literature to read. I read all I have time to read, and some of it I just look at. I had


great pleasure this past summer in spending a day, or part of a day, when I was not busy at anything else reading "Harvest Triumphant" by Merrill Denison. It is a good book, one that is well worth reading. I think the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) should advise the department of education in Toronto to place this book in our public schools for collateral reading. It shows the daring, courage, Christian character, ability and perseverance of the early settlers of Canada.
I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I have never been very close to many of the deputy ministers, but from what they do we know of their outstanding ability. I congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the work he has done in striving to set up Israel as a nation. I think that was a fine thing, but again it is necessary for me to prove it. There is not a nation in the world that has done as much for civilization as the Jews.
The greatest sanitary expert that the world has ever known is Moses. If you do not remember it, go back and read it for yourselves. We would do well to practise some of his teachings. If we did we would not have so much stomach trouble. The greatest lawyer the world has ever known-he is not excelled even today-was Moses. The laws of Canada, of the United States, of Great Britain, and all jurisprudence are based upon the ten commandments. Sometimes they were changed a bit but not to their betterment. You will find that it is all there. In addition they have given us this old bible. There is no book to compare with it. It is never out of print, and it is the best seller today. I notice that a large number of hon. members have a copy of this old book in their offices. I suppose they also have it on their room tables.
As far as literature is concerned, there is no other book that will compare with the bible in beautiful diction, in simple language and in plainness of speech. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would permit me to give you a quotation from the bible, taken from the 55th chapter of Isaiah.
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and retumeth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater;
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth; it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace; the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.
You cannot show me in the writings of any poet, ancient or modern, any passage that will compare with it in simplicity, directness and diction. No other book written can com-

pare with the bible, which is written in words of one or two syllables. The second book to it is Bunyan's " Pilgrim's Progress." Some believe it and some do not. I believe it.
Somebody asked, "What is truth?" Anybody who reads the 14th chapter of John will know what truth is:
Jesus said unto him, I am the way. the truth and the life.
That truth will never change. The only thing that is the hope of civilization today is that truth put into practice. I am happy to say that a great many hon. members agree with me in this. A poet has said:
There is a divinity that shapes our ends, Rough-hew them how we will.
In conclusion I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on the way in which he finished his speech. This is what he said:
There is something more important than dollars.
I thank him for that. Then he said:
Man shall not live by bread alone.
That is true. If you and I practise that, and if the Prime Minister keeps that to the fore, as the former Prime Minister did, he will lead Canada in a way that is equal to the leadership that any country of the world has ever had.


Mr. John R. MacNicol (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the kindly remarks of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) about the great city from which I come, I am proud to be a humble citizen of Toronto. If there are one or two hoodlums in a population of a million, that does not spoil the whole city nor does it spoil the great metropolitan city from which you come, Your Honour.
That is all I am going to say in reply to the remarks of my hon. friend. I rise tonight to take up another subject, namely the marvellous effect that navigation on the great lakes has had on the building up of the economy of Ontario. I shall spend most of my time talking about Ontario. What would we do in Ontario without our great harbours? I do not know. They have had an outstanding place in building up Ontario and also Canada. I would not touch on this subject at all had it not been for something the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said when he spoke the other day. I do not intend to criticize what he said, and I am not going to pass comment on it other than to quote one passage. He mentioned the probable implementation of the St. Lawrence canal proposal at Washington. I shall quote from page 66 of Hansard of January 28. This is what the Prime Minister said:
I think it is only fair for us to say that if we cannot at this time get implementation of this agreement for the double-barreled purpose of navigation
The Address-Mr. MacNicol
and power, the value of the power is so great that we shall have to give very serious consideration to going ahead and developing it on the power side alone-which would be amply justified, I think, by the economic benefits which could be derived from the power alone.
I wish to emphasize as strongly as I can that in our dealings with our cousins to the south, while we promote as strongly as we can the production of power in that agreement, we must not under any consideration forget the vast advantages that accrue from navigation.
This province and its great industry are a living example of what has happened because of our ability to navigate the great lakes. In preparing to take part in the debate on the St. Lawrence canal, when and if it ever does occur in this house, I made a very exhaustive survey of everything pertaining to the subject, but one survey was in connection with the fifteen ports in Ontario on the great lakes and connecting rivers. I was much impressed in learning what I did on that journey. I shall try to take the house on an imaginary journey over the course that I took, which should show, if I can properly express it, the vast advantages that have accrued to Ontario, to Canada and to the economy of all of us, as a result of what we have been able to obtain from the navigation of the great lakes. I for one shall not forget the vast place that navigation holds in this whole problem.
I shall first take the house to the head of the lakes from which my hon. friend who has just taken his seat comes. There are congregated elevators whose capacity is greater than that of any other centre in the world so far as I have been able to ascertain. I believe that the elevators at the head of the lakes have a storage capacity of almost 150,000,000 bushels of grain. They are so well equipped with loading and unloading machinery that five or six hundred million bushels of grain are passed through these elevators in some years and sent on down east. I am going to follow the grain east for a while. A large proportion of it goes directly overseas either from ships right to Montreal or by being unloaded at the lower lake ports and then by rail to the ports on the Atlantic ocean. First of all I am going to talk about the ships that go down the lakes, loaded with grain, which unload their cargoes at one of the great Ontario bays, Georgian bay. Therefore after returning from the head of the lakes I shall take the house to the first port that I visited in the course of my survey, the port of Midland.
Midland has more elevator capacity than any other elevator centre on the lower lakes.
214	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. MacNicol I believe the elevators there have a capacity of approximately 14 million bushels. So magnificent is the loading and unloading equipment at that point that through that port on Georgian bay pass approximately 58 million bushels of grain per year. Lest I forget, 1 must say that all this grain comes from our great western provinces, to which the province of Ontario owes a very great debt of gratitude. The harbour has a draft of not less than twenty-five feet. It is an excellent harbour. It could be improved and made larger, and I hope the government, in surveying what has been done, will do something in that regard. I am glad to see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) in his seat, for I believe such matters come under his jurisdiction. I hope the responsible minister will see to it that the harbour at Midland is extended. There is ample space to extend it.
I examined it very carefully. The extension of it would permit the berthing of more ships loaded with grain in the fall of the year.
A day or two ago I read in the newspaper that, at present, in the Midland harbour the ships and elevators are plugged to the roof with 50 million bushels of grain. If the harbour were extended, perhaps boats containing another 25 million bushels of grain could be berthed there. It is important that we do everything we can to handle the capacity shipments of grain which are sent down to us by those devoted farmers of the three western provinces.
Just across the bay from Midland there is another port, Port McNicoll, named after the late David McNicoll who for many years was the general manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway. This port has elevators the capacity of which is about 6J million bushels. There, too, as well as at Midland, the loading and unloading equipment is so efficient, and the men operating that equipment are so capable that through that port almost 50 million bushels of grain are transshipped yearly. This makes a total of over 100 million bushels per year for these two ports. All this grain does not go through to the ocean ports. A lot of it goes out by railroad and truck to the great counties surrounding these ports, the counties of Simcoe, Grey and the other counties thereabouts where it is used by the farmers, chopping-mill operators or flour mills. This is a tremendous business, sir.
Continuing west, the town next to Midland is Collingwood. At Collingwood there is also an excellent elevator. At this port, in distributing the grain, they go farther than any other port I surveyed. The elevator capacity at that point is about 2 million bushels, but they handle up to 15 million or more bushels


a year, two-thirds of which goes to the farmers in the counties of Grey, Simcoe, North Wellington and perhaps partly into the county of Bruce. This is a tremendous business, Your Honour. We in Ontario are very proud of that marvellous business built on the handling of western grain. We are all working together. In Ontario, we help the west by using the grain and the west helps us by producing it.
The harbour at Collingwood has a draft of about twenty-two feet. It could be improved. I did not find many complaints. The main complaint is that when there is a storm on the bay there is difficulty in getting into the harbour behind the elevator. The elevator is most expertly managed. The men who operate these elevators are men of whom we might well be proud for their expert ability in processing, shipping and distributing the grain grown by our western farmers.
The next port is that of Owen Sound. Owen Sound is a very beautiful city represented in this parliament by my hon. friend from Grey North (Mr. Case). There is a splendid harbour and an excellent elevator, due mostly to the efforts of a former member of this house, Mr. Telford. I believe he sat on the other side of the house. This elevator is a credit to the men of Owen Sound whc organized and built it. It handles approximately 25 million bushels per year; that is big business. A large portion of the grain goes to the surrounding counties, helping to build up the great livestock trade for which Ontario is so well known. This harbour is large enough to permit another elevator, and I hope the men of Owen Sound will go ahead and build another one.
Continuing around the Bruce peninsula we come to the very excellent harbour of Goderich, represented in this house by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff). Goderich is one of the best harbours on the whole of the great lakes. It has about a twenty-five foot draft right in from the lake. The harbour could be improved. The fine men operating the two main elevators in that harbour do a magnificent job but they are handicapped by an island right in the harbour. I am going to ask the Minister of Public Works to take notice of that and see that the small island is removed. If one watches the movement of boats in the harbour it will be observed they find it difficult, when backing up from the elevator, to avoid backing into that island. If the little island were removed it would allow more ships to be berthed in the harbour, and thus more grain could be handled. If you went to Goderich today, you would find the harbour full of ships, which they move around after sawing the ice and taking it out of the har-

bour. Then, the grain is unloaded into the flour mill and elevators which are located there. The harbour at Goderich brings great credit to the province of Ontario.
I must hurry along, as time is short. Continuing down the lake, we come to another great port at the city of Sarnia. This city is growing very rapidly. I have to be very careful, since the representative of that city is present, but I believe the population is around 40,000. Located there is an excellent elevator. It has not as large a capacity as that at Goderich, which is 3,600,000 bushels, but a capacity of about three million. The elevator distributes approximately fifteen million bushels of grain which comes from the west. The elevators at Goderich process approximately thirty million bushels of grain.
At the city of Windsor, represented by my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), there is a very fine elevator. I am happy to learn that plans have been made for doubling the capacity which is, at present, 1,325,000 bushels. I was very pleased to be able to observe the elevator in operation when I was there. Approximately ten million bushels of grain are distributed or handled by this elevator, a great deal of which is distributed throughout that magnificent county of Essex. There are many stock raisers and farmers in that splendid county doing a fine job.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are no better people.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When we leave Windsor,
the next stop is at the lake Erie entrance of the Welland canal, at Port Colborne and Humberstone. There too are elevators that have a capacity of over 6,500,000 bushels but through which pass upwards of 40,000,000 bushels of grain a year. Some of this grain is distributed out around the counties of Welland, Lincoln and Haldimand. Few people would think that Toronto would have elevators, but we have. Anyone inspecting the harbour at Toronto today would be amazed to see the four gigantic elevators located there-two rows of tanks, I think they call them, or silos for holding grain. Those elevators have a capacity of about
8.000.	000 bushels. For an inland port, that is an amazing situation. Through these elevators pass 16,000,000 bushels of grain a year, all of which is used for making oil, flour, feed for cattle or cereals for human beings. I do not think much of it is going across the ocean.
Then going farther down the lake we come to the city of Kingston, where there is an elevator with a capacity of approximately
5.000.	000 bushels. There again, while that is the capacity of the elevator, it handles up to 25,000,000 or 30,000,000 bushels a year.
The Address-Mr. MacNicol Much of this grain is distributed as far east as Cornwall and some of it as far east as Montreal. I should like to point out what a magnificent job for the economy of this country is being done by the lake and river navigation and the Ontario ports on the shores of the great lakes.
Then we come to the town represented here by the excellent, capable and hard-working whip of the official opposition, the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman), where there is an elevator with a capacity of 5,500,000 bushels. It is a government elevator managed by a most excellent superintendent or manager by the name, I believe, of Alex Ross, with whom I had a chat. That harbour at Prescott, where I used to swim when I was a boy living down there, is doing wonderful work. These elevators on the lower great lakes have a combined capacity of the sum of the figures I gave, perhaps
50,000,000 to 75,000,000 bushels of wheat, but they have a capacity for forwarding wheat of not less than 150,000,000 to 200,000,000 bushels, or whatever is the total of the figures I quoted; I did not add them up. All of this goes to show what they mean to Ontario.
The farmers in the counties in the hinterland behind every one of these fine harbours use a great deal of that grain. Ontario could not do more than a fraction of what it does for the stock trade of Canada if it were not for the grain that comes down from the west through these lakes and through these harbours. The government assists-and most wisely so, in my opinion-in the payment of freight on that grain that is sold east of Fort William and that comes down here for use. That is a great help to the Ontario farmer and to the western farmer in the selling of his grain in Canada. It is of help to a vast line of businesses that I could not take the time to mention, although I should like to do so, just to give an idea of what it means to these various businesses and industries making material in Ontario for the elevators, for the transport of grain, and in connection with ships, and the thousands and thousands of men that are engaged in that interchange of trade in connection with grain. Thousands and thousands of farmers and others in Ontario would be out of work if it were not for their ability to obtain grain, grown in the west, as it comes down through that line I have mentioned.
We have a great country, Mr. Speaker, if we all just have vision enough to see it, work together and help to build it up. In using the grain down here we are trying to do our part by using a product that is raised in the west. I can foresee in the future of this country a growth of population such that,
*216

The Address-Mr. MacNicol instead of selling abroad the vast proportion of what we raise, we shall reach the stage at which the United States has arrived. Only about 6, 7, or 8 per cent of what is produced there is sold outside. Over here we must sell anything over 35 per cent or 40 per cent. Let us all work together and build this country up. That whole line of elevators and ports in Ontario is doing a big job. The men whom I met on that trip, I was proud to meet. They are men of a splendid type. I do not know what there is about the handling of grain; but, whatever it is, it seems to make the men rugged, friendly, gracious and kindly. Everywhere I went I was met with courtesy and obtained all the information I required. I made up my mind that when the time came that I could use it I would present a picture *of the vast value of the whole trade not only to my own native province but to the whole of Canada. To all of those concerned in the trade, in the department and elsewhere, who help to see to it that the grain is moved and used, I say, "The country owes you a debt of gratitude."
In the beginning I had intended to tell the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in connection with his observation about the probability of the St. Lawrence agreement coming before the senate at Washington, that I doubt if any bill or agreement will be passed for power alone. I have a clipping here but I will not take the time to quote it. Everyone else has read it. It is a statement by the president of the United States to the effect that, with them, it is either power and navigation or neither. So I will again say that I hope none of us here, in promoting the building of the St. Lawrence seaway, will disjoin the two elements. I believe we shall get farther if we keep together those two forks, power and navigation. If we take a stand for one and not for the other, I believe we shall be quoted at Washington as not being united to obtain the whole. We want the whole development. In the picture I have presented tonight of what navigation on the great lakes means to Ontario alone, and through Ontario to Canada, in the matter of transportation, I have presented only one product of importance, namely grain. I could of course give an equally good picture of others, but I thought I ought to confine my remarks to the product raised by our farmers in the west, those men who have done such a wonderful job all these years and under distressing circumstances often beyond description.
My time is nearly up, but I want to impress the minister, who is in his seat, and the other ministers who are equally concerned in the promotion of trade in Canada-and I am convinced that they all are. I can never get myself into the frame of mind where I believe


that only men of one group are anxious to promote trade. I urge that an effort be made to encourage the construction of other elevators in Ontario, since I am talking about Ontario, so that the counties round about the suggested elevators can do the same job as is being done elsewhere.
Yesterday I was talking to the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Gauthier) about the possibility of a port on the north shore of Lake Huron where an elevator could be built. He told me-and I endorse what he says-that the Spanish river flows into the north shore of lake Huron, and that between its mouth and Espanola there is an excellent site for an elevator which, in building up business, would play as big a part in that section of the country around Algoma and Sudbury as in our wonderful counties of Grey, Huron, Bruce, Kent, Essex, Waterloo, Wellington and elsewhere. So I hope some consideration will be given to that. The fact is that on lake Erie there is no elevator from the time one leaves Windsor until one reaches Port Colborne. The whole of the centre of that great area of western Ontario is without elevator capacity to enable them to have the same great benefits which accrue at other places where they have them.
I should think Port Stanley, situated in the constituency of Elgin, would be an excellent place to erect an elevator. Through the railways grain could be run out into the great counties of Middlesex and Oxford, and other neighbouring counties.
One cannot visit Chatham without wondering why there is no elevator at that point, because there used to be an elevator on the Thames river. Today, however, there is nothing of that kind, despite the fact that Chatham offers great opportunities for the building of a fine harbour. I surveyed it carefully, and I know there is ample water to enable ships to come up to Chatham, if the river were dredged properly. There is ample space for an elevator at that point-all of which would help boost the economy of the great county of Kent, one of the greatest in Canada.
Then, perhaps I should mention other points like Belleville, on the north shore of lake Ontario. Perhaps I need not refer to any other places, although there may be others worthy of mention. However, the object of my speaking along these lines tonight is to congratulate all those who have been associated with the development of the grain trade-those who are connected with the harbours, the elevators, the banks, the farms, the railways and the trucks. I congratulate all of them, and I would encourage them to go on and to expand. The more grain we use in Canada, the better for all of us.

I believe I have time for only one or two further observations. Someone may ask what all this means to Ontario. Well, when anyone looks at the figures he will be amazed, as I was. Not being a farmer-although I lived on a farm-I thought most of the cows and other stock were in the west; because, after all, it is really only in western Ontario and in eastern Ontario that farming is congested. However, I found upon consulting the bluebook that of the total average crop acreage in Canada of 63 million acres and over, only 8,213,000 are in Ontario. But on those acres, because of the assistance from harbours, elevators and western grain, one must look at the vast job they are able to do.
There are more milch cows in Ontario than anywhere else in Canada; the figure stands at
1,250,000.	Then, there are more other types of cattle in Ontario, with a figure of 1,618,000; more swine-2,013,000; horses-not so many as in two other provinces, but still 467,000; sheep-not so many, but still 701,000; poultry -we are at the top, with 27,013,000; laying hens, 11,100,000; eggs, 115,000,000 dozen per year, all this from this little province of Ontario-because it is not so large when one takes off the vast unsettled areas north of the main lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the old Grand Trunk Pacific in northern Ontario. Then, the figure for milk is 5,700,000,000 pounds in this little province of Ontario; butter, 76,700,000 pounds, and cheese, 96,000,000 pounds. I give much credit for that to our western farmers, because the Ontario farmers could not have achieved that high record, that enviable peak, had it not been for our ability to obtain western grain.
Then, as my last word, may I give credit to the splendid harbours on our great lakes, those I have mentioned-as well as the men who operate the elevators, the railroaders and truckers who take the grain away, and all those others who are associated with the movement of grain in Ontario from the time the grain reaches us from the west until it is on our farms. This grain has enabled the Ontario farmers to do the great job they have done, as represented by the figures I have just placed on record.
In support of our arguments concerning the St. Lawrence seaways development, let us keep both programs together-both power and navigation. I am convinced that if we do that we will get both; and if we do not do it I am not sure that we will get either.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I wish particularly to welcome to the house the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). For a long time we have admired their respective careers, and it does us good to have them with us in the house.
The Address-Mr. Croll
I should like also to extend a personal word of welcome to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew). Party politics aside, he and I, and the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Kidd), have something in common. We are the only members here who sat together in a provincial house. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) followed me in the provincial house; he followed me to Ottawa-indeed, I feel as if I am being followed. But I can assure him I shall do everything I can, and I hope successfully, to stop his following me over to the government benches.
The first point which strikes me in the address of His Excellency is that it devotes itself to the present and looks to the future. We as a party are not content to rest on our past achievements. I am not minimizing the record of this government: there it is. It is worth looking at, not once but twice. Certainly it is not from poverty of performance that I suggest we should not rely upon our past record. But the fact is that it is past. The record shows what we stand for; and we are not going to be content to stand on our record. Much requires to be done today and tomorrow. This much we can say, that today Canada is stronger and sounder than she has ever been in her history; and that the people of Canada can and will stand five more years of good government, and the prosperity that has gone with it.
Let me say something about foreign trade. Our exports have reached the all-time high record of $3 billion, one-half of which has been with our neighbours to the south. What was more important than the volume was the ever-increasing variety of exports. No longer are we a one-commodity or two-commodity country. Those who have been at the helm and who have planned and encouraged industrialization have rounded out the economy of this country so as to give us an entirely new stability; and our high level of production is reflected in the employment index, which continues to rise to a new peacetime record.
I am happy to say that industrial relations seem to be going through a bedding-down process as the two partners, labour and industry, are learning to get along with each other much better than they have in the past. It is worthy of note and worthy of recognition that labour is becoming more mature and is taking the long view. Under present circumstances the emphasis is on pensions and security rather than on short-term gains.
In order to ensure manpower for our expanding economy the government is moving ahead with the most ambitious immigration scheme we have had in the last 35 years. I saw government immigration officials in Italy, France, Germany and Austria and I

The Address-Mr. Croll found them competent, considerate, interested in their work and willing to help people to get to Canada as quickly as they could. I found the administration to be as good as could possibly be expected. I do not like to name anyone on the floor of the house, but I am told that the commissioner of immigration, Mr. Jolliffe, is responsible for the present set-up. He has done an excellent job. I was impressed with the people I saw, with the work they were doing, and I felt that they were a credit to Canada.
During my trip I talked with many people of all races and all nationalities in different camps. I am happy to report to the house that not once did I receive a complaint that there was bias or discrimination on the part of the Canadian immigration officials in these various countries. These people were all impatient to get to Canada, but they agreed, and I agreed with them from inquiries I made, that the officials are free from bias and that the choice is being made on merit. For that reason, I was interested in the few words said the other night by the hon. and very kindly and gentlemanly member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). I quote his statement from page 127 of Hansard as follows:
I do not know of any department that is so discouraging to work with or from which you get so few results as the department of immigration.
I have many occasions to visit the department of immigration and the officials there have never failed to show me every courtesy. I am satisfied that not only are they conscientious and able, but that they are understaffed and over-worked. In my opinion they are doing an excellent job for which they deserve very high marks indeed. I have one thing for the ears of the government. I do not think the regulations are wide enough. I think there should be an immediate broadening of the relationship category to a point where a person would be admissible if he had a relative of any kind in this country who was willing to give the necessary guarantee. As a matter of fact I am prepared to go further than that. If a person has in this country a friend who is willing to vouch for him, who will be responsible for him, that person should be permitted to come here.
Our experience in this country with immigrants has been excellent. They have made a fine contribution by their addition to the Canadian scene. We are particularly lacking in professional and technical people, doctors, dentists, teachers, lawyers, professors and technicians. Europe is full of such people, who are anxious to come here to contribute their knowledge and skill. I think the time has come to broaden the occupational categories. We can use these people in the urban areas and we can use them particularly in the rural areas where they are badly

needed. Last week when in Toronto I made a speech which was reported in the Ottawa Journal of January 31, which report reads:
. . . the Canadian medical profession has "actively worked" to discourage the entry of refugee doctors into Canada.
And again:
... it Is to the discredit of many of our professional bodies that they have actively worked to discourage immigrants in their particular fields.
The charge was promptly denied by Dr. Magner, president of the Canadian medical association. Maclean's magazine of February 1 contained a leading editorial which reads: Canada Needs Brains, so Why Keep Them Out But there's a bigger obstacle to the immigration of highly skilled men. There is more than indifference, there is, in some cases, active hostility, based on a fear of competition.
According to the officially accepted estimate, Canada needs about 2,000 more doctors to provide adequate service by present methods. If we had health insurance on a national scale we'd need many more. In fact, one of the arguments against health insurance is that we've nowhere near enough doctors to carry it out.
And again:
Doctor Hugh Keenleyside, the deputy minister in charge of immigration, said last spring, "The only trade union that has been adamant in its official opposition to the admission of competitive D.P.'s has been the medical profession".
And just a few more lines:
We can't afford to keep skilled people out merely because they might compete with people already here. In fact, it's to the national interests that they should compete, the more effectively the better.
The present is the greatest opportunity in one hundred years-since the revolutions of 1848-to enrich our nation with fine new blood. We're letting that opportunity slip.
I do not suppose that there is any member who rises to speak on the speech from the throne who does not say something about taxes. We all agree that reductions are overdue and that they will come from this government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why did not the hon. member say that last year?


David Arnold Croll: I said that last year. The hon. member did not listen. These reductions should be tailored to do the most good. I worked out a simple formula; it is so simple that if you do not like it, you can forget it. It is about as follows:
For the labouring man-higher exemptions For the white collar worker and middle class- reductions
For those in the high brackets-a kind word
For corporations-not even that
For all of us-some reduction in indirect taxes.
As I said, this can be easily forgotten if the minister does not like it, but it struck me as having some fairness. I should like to say something about international affairs.

We are singularly fortunate in having at the head of the department a gentleman who has gained his knowledge firsthand. In my opinion the minister is a believer, not in the British line, not in the United States line but in the Canadian line. That was illustrated by the stand taken by the government in connection with Israel.
Great Britain turned over the Palestine problem to the united nations. At that moment it became a Canadian concern, and the lion's share of the credit belongs to Canada for the fact that within eighteen months from the time that the united nations tackled the problem a fair settlement was arrived at. Today a democratic state is created, strong and free, and all that after twenty-five years of fruitless discord and strife. Under any circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the birth of a nation is a profound event, but in the case of Israel it is heavy with urgency, tragic with memories, historic in meaning such as to stir the heart of every man. So to the government of the day, and to the members of this House of Commons, on behalf of countless thousands of Canadians, and particularly on behalf of some 200,000 Canadians of Jewish origin, I can only say, thank you. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I have waited a very long time to be able to say that, but I am glad that today it falls to my lot, and under such circumstances in this chamber.
Canada's first major incursion into the field of international affairs has been an outstanding success, and her second one, the North Atlantic security pact, augurs well to follow suit. We have come a very long way from the Imperial conferences of the twenties, when the theory was advanced that Canada was incapable of performing the necessary defensive and diplomatic functions. It took the first world war to prove to everyone that Canada was a nation. It took the second world war to prove to the world that Canada is a power. The people of this country have great confidence that this government will do everything within its power to see that there is no third world war.
In the speech from the throne, on page 3 of Hansard, the suggestion was made that there would be a royal commission on cultural matters. I put great stock in that, for reasons different perhaps from those of other people, because I think such a commission might well examine into the very soul of Canada as a nation. No people, no nation, yes, and no civilization, will endure without expressing its aspirations and its achievements in the arts, in painting and in music. Perhaps they can tell us what makes a Canadian. Perhaps they can tell us what keeps a Canadian in Canada, and how we can keep him here, because there has been a steady
The Address-Mr. Croll and relentless drain of young people from this country to the United States.
Writers have coined a phrase, absorptive capacity, to indicate the number that we can take in without upsetting the balance of our economy. We are far from reaching our absorptive capacity, but let us look at the other end of the scale. I think the time has come, and is overdue, for us to consider our evaporative capacity, the number of people a country can lose by emigration without upsetting the economy of the country. The two factors exist in this country in inverse ratio to each other; our absorptive capacity is high and our evaporative capacity is low. We can cure the one by immigration, but what about our evaporative capacity? I believe that the royal commission can be helpful in that respect, because one of the first reasons for evaporation of population is lack of economic opportunities for the young people of this country. No less is there a lack of cultural and intellectual opportunities which drives people of talent and people of skill elsewhere to find recognition, and an opportunity to develop their artistic and their cultural personalities. I think the role of an enlightened government could be well played in encouraging the arts and sciences, and the growth of a cultural heritage, for our cultural background in this country is as good as any in the hemisphere. We lack the financial resources that are available in the United States, which facilitate so much what we call the free enterprise culture of that country.
We have to make up for large audiences and capital with increased government interest and sponsorship of cultural affairs in general. I know that Canadians truly wish for a national library, a national theatre, national films, and, yes, for government-owned television, too, and more liberal support for the museums and art galleries. These things will do much to provide our young people of talent with openings to develop that talent which they are now compelled to seek outside our borders. I think the commission can be an effective means of checking the evaporation of population which we cannot afford in this country.
Let me speak of one other major problem, the matter of social services, a matter that is becoming not only urgent but of a demanding nature, and with particular reference to contributory old age pensions and national health insurance. We need in this country a system that will not only give, but permit, the average Canadian to pay for proper medical care. We need more doctors, and we need to locate them more evenly. We need more hospitals, and they should be within easy reach of every person in the country. These fine hospitals and excellent doctors are not of much use unless

The Address-Mr. Croll the people can afford them. Health insurance in this country is not extravagant, nor is it back-door socialism; but if it is either it is still necessary, for today many people who need hospitalization, nursing, and medical care avoid it because they cannot pay for it. Health has become a matter of public concern. It is not a personal matter dependent upon the size of the individual's purse. The cost has to be spread across the whole country and medical aid should be available according to need rather than financial position. That is not true in Canada today.
I want to say something on dominion-provincial relations. It seems to me that provincial rights should not be associated with isolation, impoverishment or disregard of human rights. Prosperity is divisible and should be shared with all provinces. That is a provincial right and a provincial responsibility which should be wholeheartedly supported by every Canadian in every province.
I have kept silent on this question for a long time, but I feel the time has come when I must speak out. I feel that Ontario has been put in an unfavourable and ungenerous light. The people of Ontario want contributory old age pensions; they want health insurance; they want hospitalization; they want medical services, and they want them now more than ever before, because they see the benefits that have come from hospitalization to the people in Saskatchewan and to the people of British Columbia. Ontario, rich in money, rich in resources and rich in people, must realize that her prosperity depends upon the prosperity of the rest of Canada. It is undeniable that the western and the eastern provinces contribute to the welfare of the central provinces. We in Ontario have the wealth, and we tax it, and the social services in the other provinces must be provided for by people who are poorer. That is not the view of Ontario. That is the view of a political party in Ontario. These narrow views are narrowly held.
After listening to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), when the double talk was washed aside, when the welter of contradictions was cleared away, when the tin soldiers were knocked down, one thing became crystal clear. It is not a question of provincial rights; it is not a question of centralization; it is not a question of a threat to confederation, nor is it a question of a threat to the constitution; it is, you pay my price or else. That is what it has been. It is very clear now that the proposition that Ontario wanted was not social security for Canada, but social security for Ontario which would perpetually foster inferiority in the other provinces; and so mischievous and so selfish was the proposi-

tion that even Duplessis saw the implication and could not stomach it. Therefore I say that Ontario must not, and Ontario will not, squeeze the rest of the provinces for the last dollar. Ontario's position is being misrepresented.


Mr. Skey:: By you.


David Arnold Croll: I know Ontario. My hon. friend says, by me. Certainly I am telling the country what I think Ontario's position is. I am in a position to speak for Ontario to the same extent as any hon. member over on the other side, because I know it as well as they do. It may be that some of my hon. friends across the way have become recent converts, but I say that from every aspect it was possible and was necessary that an agreement should be reached in order that we may have these things that I talk about, not only old age pensions and health insurance but public investment, in order that we may have a cushion against any possibilities that might arise in this country.
I went through the thirties, when it was necessary to come hat-in-hand asking for handouts in order to be in a position to look after the people who were unemployed. Now when we are attempting by public investment to build up a cushion, to have something ready, we find people standing in the way of it. I have been at dominion-provincial conferences. I know that a conference is a place of compromise. You cannot have your own way at them. You bring together people of different points of view, and in concert somehow or other a solution is found. When that happens the conference is a success; but reading the record and listening to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew) in this house, and the Minister of Justice, one finds the record reveals that the conference foundered on the inflexible and remorseless obstacle of the premier of Ontario. There was no will to make that conference work. There was a will, but that will was to impede and to destroy. The difficulty was that the premier of Ontario misunderstood, he was dealing with figures and statistics, but other people came here to deal with human beings.
As a result of what happened, the sick will have to wait until the votes are counted, but the leader of the opposition will have to answer for that in due time.


Mr. Drew:: That is the most inaccurate of all the speeches.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne is somewhat like a blind earthworm apparently going in different directions without any definite course and without any definite apparent reason. But, Mr. Speaker, like the

blind worm the speech from the throne has a very useful purpose. The ordinary earthworm has the business of aerating the soil. Without the earthworm the soil would grow sour and stagnate. Similarly, the speech from the throne gives an opportunity to all elected members to air their problems and their constituents' difficulties. It gives this house an opportunity to air the problems facing Canada today. Therefore it fulfils a useful purpose. To cut it short, or to cut it up into little bits, is akin to cutting an earthworm into little bits. Each bit has the power to wiggle but none has the power to do a useful job.
The other day I listened to an impassioned speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). In that speech he accused the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). He felt very aggrieved about something that had been left out of a text. I heard the words "left out", "left out", over and over again. My mind went back to the time when those words were altered from the far more sinister words "kicked out", which were recorded and then altered on the printed pages of the Hansard of this house. It seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who was as likely to alter the record himself to such a degree would, perhaps, be like the pot calling the kettle black in bringing up a matter of alterations. Referring to the field of histrionics, sometimes I wonder: "methinks the lady doth protest too much."
There was in the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, one phrase with which I wish to deal in some detail tonight. I shall read it to you.
So long as trading and financial conditions remain unstable, a degree of control over foreign exchange will be required.
I believe that is a fundamental fallacy. The speech should have read, there will be no stability of foreign trade until a free exchange of currencies is permitted. Then, Mr. Speaker, we might be accomplishing something. If the government had indicated an intention of allowing the foreign exchange control board to lapse on March 31, as it would under the present statute, instead of actually wishing to continue it for two whole years, then we could have looked forward to a free trading position based on the soundness of individual and corporation trading, which is the only true lasting form of international trade.
I have been interested in the great credit the government has taken unto itself as a result of our export trade. I was interested in the figure of $3 billion worth of export trade last year. Unquestionably $3 billion is a lot of money for a country with only twelve to thirteen million people. Let us examine how this is made up.
The Address-Mr. Adamson
First of all, I should like to mention the Marshall plan. I do this in some detail because the figures, so far as I know, have not been made public-at least they have not been given to this house. Up to the end of 1948, the total appropriation authorized under the Marshall plan-I shall not call it the ECA because the Marshall plan is the general name-was $4,229 million; the ocean freight was $347 million, leaving an authorized net of $3,881 million. I am omitting the hundreds of thousands although I have them here. Of that amount, the total offshore purchases amounted to $1,499 million, of which the Canadian portion was $593 million; that was to the end of 1948.
Since the beginning of April, 1948, when the plan began to be operative, to the end of January, 1949, the figures I have show that up to the 28th of January the total authorized was $4,072 million; the ocean freight was $356 million. The total offshore purchases were $1,596 million, of which the Canadian share was $650 million, leaving Canada's percentage of offshore purchases at approximately 40 per cent and Canada's percentage of the total aid at 16 per cent. The United States internal purchases came to $3,881 million, less $1,499 million, or $2,382 million.
I put those figures on the record, Mr. Speaker, to show that our treatment under the Marshall plan has been extremely fair. At this moment, I wish to give every credit to the executive of that fund for treating this country as fairly as they have.
I should like to break down the figures in regard to this Marshall aid a little further into percentages of the Canadian purchases. These percentages are reasonably accurate, approximately within one or two per cent. Fifty per cent plus, that is 50 or 51 per cent of the purchases, was for breadstuff grain; 10 per cent for other foodstuffs; 12 per cent for wood products, including paper; 4 per cent manufactured goods or products of industry; 23 per cent metals in the raw and base states and one per cent miscellaneous. From a cash point of view, $135 million was spent in Canada for base metals in the raw state.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, a number of commodities have been declared surplus in the United States. These commodities are as follows: oats, cotton, tobacco, peanuts, beans, flaxseed, linseed oil, oil cake, meal, and prunes. Many other items are on the list and they may be declared surplus within a short time.
The United States Act which makes the Marshall plan operative reads as follows:
When agricultural commodities are surplus in the United States, they will be procured in the United States.

The Address-Mr. Adamson
It is my opinion that is an eminently fair arrangement. Since the United States is putting up the money for the Marshall plan, it should decide where it is going to purchase the commodities. The percentage of United States purchases is therefore increasing while the Canadian percentage of purchases is remaining static. I put these figures on the record, Mr. Speaker, so that when we come to examine the export trade we shall see how Marshall aid affects the total and in what way.
Let us assume our export trade for the year 1948 was, in round figures, $3 billion. A breakdown of this into different types of trade shows something of this nature: Sixty-seven per cent for raw products, 7 per cent for ships and agricultural machinery, leaving 26 per cent for secondary manufactured goods which, exclusive of Marshall aid, leaves our exports at $3 billion, less $600 million or $2,400 million. Breaking this down into dollar value, we have $1,608 million for raw products; $168 million for ships and agricultural machinery; and $624 million for manufactured products.
It is these manufactured products which are so important to us at the present time. Manufactured goods are the stable export. I do not think I need to tell the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) what the fluctuations are in the prices of agricultural products. The other day I received a letter from a major exporter, and I will read just two paragraphs because I think they put the story on the record as well as can be done. The first paragraph reads as follows:
Now it must be quite clear to our government that the export of agricultural produce and mined raw materials is always subject to fluctuations and consequently a most unstable kind of export. The anxiety of the Canadian government at the delay in the receipt of purchase orders for wheat, bacon, etc., from Britain shows how unstable these agricultural exports are, particularly in times when prices for agricultural products slump and countries such as the Argentine may be forced to throw their products at very low prices out to the world market in order to obtain the sorely needed dollar exchange.
In view of the news today from the Argentine, and the warning from the Bank of Canada, that statement is significant. The second paragraph reads:
The history of the foreign trade of such classic exporting countries as Great Britain, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Switzerland, shows that a stable export business can only be created through the export of finished products, the products of the secondary industries, the products which bear special brands or names and which through these brands and their special features create and establish a definite demand in foreign markets. Canadian wheat, bacon and eggs, Canadian lumber, pulpwood, copper, nickel, have no brand and will never establish a stable market if price fluctuations should occur.

I think that shows how important are the 27 per cent of manufactured goods in our export trade. These are the goods which are finding it most difficult to obtain a market, because they must be paid for in American dollars. Canadian manufactured goods must be paid for in American dollars. That is a most extraordinary situation, and one that puts a crimp or an obstacle in the way of trade, which many manufacturers today are finding it almost impossible to overcome.
Before I go on I want to mention one of our major exports, newsprint. The figures that were given to me this very day show that Australia today is paying sixty-three pounds, Australian, per ton for newsprint whereas Canada could supply the same or better newsprint for forty-four pounds, Australian, per ton. Here we have newsprint, a major export of Canada, unable to be sold because of currency difficulties; unable to be sold to Australia because we are not playing with the same kind of chips. To tie the currency of this country to that of the United States and to channel and virtually to sterilize our currency is, I suggest, one of the most dangerous things that any government in any country could do.
I also received these figures with regard to newsprint. Our exports in the last year before the war came to 550,000 tons whereas our exports this last year were 400,000 tons, or a decrease of 150,000 tons; in our best and most stable single export we have a reduction of about 20 per cent from pre-war sales. I must say that the figures came to me as a surprise, but unless I hear otherwise I consider them to be quite accurate. Here we have a reduction in the sale of newsprint or in the export of newsprint; and if the Australian condition is symptomatic, the reduction can be based almost entirely on the inability of our purchasers abroad to find the currency with which to purchase our newsprint.
With unemployment growing in the Pacific province of British Columbia, with some 25,000 people out of work in the metropolitan Vancouver area, we shall pay a heavy price in unemployment alone for the lack of stable, long-term, continuing markets for paper and for other wood products. In this connection may I say, Mr. Speaker, that no manufacturer in any foreign country cares where the raw materials that go into his product come from. The Swiss manufacturer of electric motors does not care whether the copper for those electric motors comes from Canada or from Africa. All he cares about is that he gets his copper, and that he gets it at a price. In the same way, the Frenchman looking for a loaf of bread does not care whether the flour comes from our No. 1 northern hard wheat. Even though it is perhaps a better
223;

flour, he does not care. All he cares about is that he gets a loaf of bread at a reasonable price. The raw material exports, which comprise 67 per cent or two-thirds of our total exports, are today in a most vulnerable position; and they are in that extremely vulnerable position almost entirely because of our currency situation with respect to the United States dollar.
I come now to another point. We who represent great industrial ridings have a responsibility to our constituents. That prime responsibility is to see that the wheels of industry are kept going. There is no panacea that will prevent unemployment and depression except that of a full weekly pay envelope. No scheme of social security, no promises of any kind under any circumstances, will take the place of happy, productive industry and a full pay envelope. It is a will-o'-the-wisp of the most dangerous sort to consider that any type of social security is in any way a substitute for industry operating at capacity.
I come again to Canadian exports cut off by the austerity program announced last year. At one time-and I give this purely as an example-we imported about $2,500,000 worth of Mexican tomatoes. Last year we put on an embargo against those imports; and I understand that Mexico followed suit and put on an embargo against certain Canadian manufactured goods.
Then these austerity duties were to a degree removed, but there was no quid pro quo with regard to our trade with Mexico. Their prohibitions still exist. The trade, which used to be fairly good and fairly useful, does not now exist. I feel that, while it is not the policy of the government, before this austerity program was taken off there should have been at least exploratory talks with Mexican authorities to see if a return in trade could not have been arranged.
Then, there is one other thing in connection with trade, and that is that a great deal of it is on a long-term loan basis. From 15 to 25 per cent of our total trade is on that basis. It would be a very sanguine man who would expect that these loans would be paid back in full, and with interest.
In this connection I should like to quote briefly from the observations of Mr. C. E. Gravel, president of the Banque Canadienne Nationale, who makes this significant comment;
At first sight the situation and prospects of Canada's foreign trade appear to be satisfactory. But if the official figures are analysed it will be found that such progress is somewhat illusory. Besides ignoring the rise in prices, the statistics do not indicate that, since the end of hostilities, our exports have been, to the extent of 15 to 25 per cent, on the basis of long-term credits, the full repayment of which remains doubtful. What have the following years in store for us in this field?
The Address-Mr. Adamson
With those sentiments I agree entirely.
Then, one other thing: until governments get out of the business of trying to conduct international trade, stability will not return. It is not the function of government by any stretch of-I was going to say anybody's imagination, but there are people who do imagine it is the function of government to act as a trading medium-I will say it is not the function of government to act as traders.
Trade was built in Canada by individuals, by firms, by these corporations which get so much abuse. And those corporations and individuals took the trouble to analyse the-markets in which they were selling. They had the time and the ability to train personnel who knew what their markets wanted.
No government, no cabinet, no group of civil servants, no matter how expert, able and willing, can ever take the place of the individual who is studying the market for himself and, if I may be permitted to point out the one essential factor which is not understood by the socialists, using his own judgment and taking the risk.
Until we return to a basis whereby each individual trader carries out his own deal and arranges his own exchange through the once able facilities of the chartered banks, trade will be insecure. We shall not know from one month's end to the next what regulation, what government edict, or what prohibition will be enacted. That is the essential first step.
There is one further point I should like to mention with regard to a quid pro quo, and that is that we have been singularly generous throughout the world, but particularly so to the United Kingdom-and I believe in most instances, extremely justifiably so. But in the light of the difficulties we are having at the present time in obtaining stable markets for our raw materials in the United Kingdom, and finding the ability to purchase over there, it should be remembered, for instance, that we spent $14 million to provide aircraft on an interest-free loan for the British Overseas Airways Corporation. That may not seem a very great sum, but it is an example-and a high percentage of that was American dollars. This is $14 million for aircraft for an air line which will compete with our own, and it is given as an interest-free loan. It seems to me that if I were negotiating a loan I would have my minister of agriculture somewhere near, and I would perhaps say, "Let us see if we cannot sell some eggs for this" or "Let us see if we cannot sell some butter for this". Perhaps they did, but apparently not.


Mr. Rowe:: They are not too good at that.

The Address-Mr. Adamson


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like briefly to
analyse our current situation. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) announced in the house the other day, with a degree of satisfaction, that our gold and United States dollars held at the present time amounted to $998 million.


Mr. Abbott:: That was as of December 31.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, December 31. Are they up since then?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are not down.


Agar Rodney Adamson: At the low point, which was December, 1947, just a few weeks after the austerity program was announced, the figure was $461 million. On those figures there would be a gain of $537 million in gold and hard currency. On the face of it that would seem to be satisfactory, but let us look at what happened in another period, a somewhat shorter period. We got Marshall aid for $600 million and we apparently-


Douglas Charles Abbott: We did not get any Marshall aid.


Mr. Fulton:: We certainly did.


Agar Rodney Adamson: We got Marshall aid purchases.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We got paid for $600 million
worth of goods from Marshall aid funds.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Six hundred million dollars.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We got United States dollars.


Agar Rodney Adamson: We got Marshall aid purchases; we got dollars; we got exactly $593 million.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister should stop
splitting hairs when he knows perfectly well what it means.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Which is more than my hon. friend does.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister is entitled to his own opinion, but I sometimes wonder who knows best.


Agar Rodney Adamson: And then there was a
United States loan of $150 million. On that basis we received $750 million in American dollars which could not under any circumstances be considered as a normal trade item.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We loaned about $150 million.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister should get up
and make a statement about it some time and not leave us in the dark.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That still leaves us with a much impaired position.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A pretty good position.


An hon. Member:: The minister does not
like it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will say he likes it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I do not know what the
minister did with the $150 million he had left.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It went to the United Kingdom and western Europe.


Agar Rodney Adamson: You never can tell what
happens Even with the Marshall aid and the United States loan of $750 million and the gain of $537 million in our net hard currency and gold position we still show a deficit in normal trade, excluding Marshall aid, amounting to $213 million. If it had not been for the extreme generosity of the United States and the extraordinary contribution made by the European economic recovery program we would be in the hole to the extent of $213 million in our over all hard currency and gold nosition.
It should be remembered that the Marshall plan started in April, whereas the low point in our hard currency position was reached in December, 1947. Therefore if we were to take a figure on an annual basis it would be far worse.
We cannot count on Marshall aid continuously. As a matter of fact, Marshall aid will come to an end either next year or in 1951. I am not certain of the termination date or what will happen in Washington. Up to the end of January we received $650 million for offshore purchases for the European recovery program. To count that into our ordinary trading position and say that it is much better is a dangerous fallacy.
I want to take a brief look at our taxation and deal with the question of surpluses. The other day the minister mentioned that since the war we had reduced our funded debt by $900 million. That is a lot of money and perhaps that is good. But what about the surplus we had last year; what about the surplus we had the year before? Last year the surplus was approximately $600 million, and according to the usually accurate press it will be at least $700 million this year, possibly far more.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Do not bet on that.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I would not bet. Incidentally, I would not make betting a habit over there if I were the minister. Betting is one thing that I would eschew.


William Earl Rowe: Especially on by-elections.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Anyway we have a $900 million retirement funded debt. Last year we had a surplus of $600 million and this year we shall have one of at least $700 million, or

perhaps more. That means that in the last two fiscal years we have had surpluses amounting to $1,300 million; yet we have reduced the funded debt, according to the minister's statement, by only $900 million. What on earth happened to the $400 million?


William Earl Rowe: Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


Agar Rodney Adamson: They would not have spent $400 million in Digby-Annapolis-Kings. Notwithstanding what the minister said, I know he could not have done that. Apparently a lot of money has disappeared. Whether there is a pronounced boom along the south bank of the St. Lawrence in Nicolet-Yamaska halfway between Montreal and Quebec I do not know, but still they could not get away with $400 million on one or even two by-elections.
We have this position:	We have had two
enormous surpluses and according to the minister's own statement our funded debt has been reduced by only $900 million since the war.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the non. member that his time is up.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall finish with just two sentences. To continue controls in currency is like sliding down a greasy inclined plane into a crocodile pit. You hope the crocodiles will not eat you, but as far as recorded history goes anyone who has tried it has always been eaten by the crocodiles. That has been true from the days of Diocletian right up to the present time. I warn the minister that the economic crocodiles in the twentieth century are just as unpleasant as they were in Roman times.


Mr. H. E. Brunelle (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the program of the government for this session as enunciated in the speech from the throne is one that will affect every Canadian citizen once it is in operation. In the first place, family allowances, which have already contributed so much to raising the standard of living of the mass of people, will be increased and therefore the allowances will render still greater service.
My constituency of Champlain alone received during the last twelve months the sum of $1,145,232. That will present the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) with occasion for additional scorn for the baby bonus as a measure of iniquity and as an instrument of bribe, to use his own expressions.
On the other hand, I am glad that the income tax will be reduced. I hope that it will be considerably reduced, and the sooner the budget is brought down the better for all concerned. A great part of the national debt is made up of the cost of the last two wars. Those wars were fought, and the expenditures for them were incurred, for future
The Address-Mr. Brunelle generations as much as for the present generation, and although it is rather elementary, I submit that future generations should be called upon to pay their full share of those expenditures.
There are vast projects in the speech from the throne which will have a definite bearing on the future welfare and development of our country. For example, there is the St. Lawrence deep waterway, which will give employment to thousands and thousands of people not only during the time of construction but afterwards. It will provide more electrical power, which will mean more plants, more manufacturing, more industries in our country, and in turn more work for our industrial workers.
Besides the Trans-Canada highway, there is the all-important question of the entry of Newfoundland as a tenth province in our Canadian confederation. Situated as it is at the gateway of our country, this new province will be of great advantage to us. Some people look upon such national projects from the point of view of the duration of a man's life, whereas a nation's life should be considered in terms of centuries. Some will judge the new project in terms of dollars and cents. Some are saying that Canada is paying too much in this deal. I wish to remind those who have that view that in 1867, when the United States purchased from Russia the vast land of Alaska for $7,200,000, certain people thought that the United States was paying too much for that new land. That is less than one hundred years ago, but I wonder who would say now that the United States paid too much to acquire Alaska as a part of their territories.
I am glad the government is anxious as always to protect the farmers by finding new markets for agricultural products. Farmers are entitled to the continuous protection of governments owing to the fact that when it comes to organizing their forces they must meet almost insurmountable difficulties on account of the size of our country, and the varying geographical conditions. I regret that the dairy industry must now face the competition of margarine. I wish to remind everyone-and there are some in my province who do not seem to realize it yet-that for over fifty years the federal government protected the farmers by prohibiting the sale, manufacture and importation of margarine. It is only recently that our highest court has declared unconstitutional the federal law which banned margarine from our country. In declaring the federal law unconstitutional our highest court has followed the plea and recommendation of Mr. Beaulieu, solicitor for the Union Nationale government, who pretended that the federal law was unconstitutional, and that the regulation, manufacture

The Address-Mr. Brunelle and sale of margarine should be handled by the provinces. Mr. Beaulieu won the case for L'Union Nationale government, and also won margarine. The provinces will now have to look after the question of the regulation, manufacture, and sale of margarine, and while I hate to think it, I feel certain that margarine is now in Canada to stay.
I am glad to know that the Liberal program of social security and national services is being rapidly carried out by our able and aggressive Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). The 1948 plan for spending $150 million in five years is being effectively implemented, and a sum of nearly $4 million has been granted to the province of Quebec during the last four months. In my city of Cap de la Madeleine there is need for a hospital. The need has been recognized and this government is offering to give a minimum of $1,000 per bed. Therefore, if the hospital is built and has 250 rooms, this government is offering and is willing to pay the respectable sum of $250,000. The poor people of Canada will naturally profit by the generosity of the government in making these grants to improve the national health of our country.
The question of rent control is a matter which was taken over by this government during the war, and has been administered by it since the war. It is a provincial matter. The government, as in all other matters, is willing to allow the provincial governments to resume the exercise of their rights. Apparently those who form the government of my province, and the premier of my province, who usually has so much to say about provincial rights and autonomy, have not decided yet to do anything to regain the control of rents, although it is a provincial matter. If I had my way I would hand over rent control to that particular province, no matter what happened.
I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say that I have always been desirous of respecting the rights and prerogatives of the provinces, and I am sure that every hon. member is anxious to respect those rights. I said "every hon. member." I hope I am right. Yet, speeches replete with hypocrisy, halftruths and plain falsehoods are being inflicted upon us by those so-called autonomists and opportunists of the day. They persist in saying to whoever will listen to them that the present federal government has been and is still invading provincial rights. That is not so. Let those who say this name one such invasion of provincial rights that has been made since the war. Be that as it may, there is real confusion in the minds of the people as to the respective rights of this government and of the provinces in certain matters, and


this government is the victim of the confusion.
Last week the leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Drew) gave us a striking example of his supreme desire to keep up that confusion, hoping to draw from it some political advantage that somebody else has already drawn. For nearly two hours he tried to show one aspect of his mind in the matter of provincial-federal matters, and I now beg leave to show as best I can the other aspect of the hon. gentleman. I listened attentively to him and I came to the conclusion that he had fairly well played his very bad part in the first scene to which the speech from the throne gives rise. May I first say that frankness, dignity and self-respect will always win the general esteem of one's fellow man. On the other hand, to be false, to be arrogant and to be mean is fatal. I do not wish it said or thought that for one reason or another I exaggerate when I say that the leader of this government, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), enjoys the enviable reputation of being straightforward, humble, fair-minded and dignified. That applies to him in private as well as in public life.
The leader of the opposition, in his long speech last week, hardly touched upon any of the paragraphs of the speech from the throne. That was his business, and I have nothing to say about that. He chose to speak for over two hours on provincial-federal relations, placing great emphasis on his respect for provincial rights and on his great consideration for the prerogatives of the inhabitants of Quebec. I shall check that in a moment. In fact he laid what he considered to be a safe foundation for posing later as a friend and defender of the rights and prerogatives of myself and of my fellow men in Quebec. This is the impression he gave everybody when he spoke for over two hours last week. The leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) noticed it and referred to it in his speech. Again I say that was the business of the leader of the Conservative opposition, but it is also mine and I wish to say something about it. The trick was childish and manifest, but as it took the form of an offer of sympathy it became insulting, in view of what he would naturally expect in return.
When one can find motives in a man's words or actions it is easy to interpret those words and actions with accuracy, and I may say that sympathy which has its source in personal interest is of rather doubtful value. In recent years it has pained me to become aware of the inner sentiments of the leader of the opposition with regard to the people of my province. Of late, and last week in particular, a noticeable change was shown for the better, probably as a consequence of some instinctive need of sympathy. I speak

in the name of my constituency, where the people are no different from the rest of the province of Quebec.
In Quebec, Mr. Speaker, we are all jealous of our rights and prerogatives, and we are all firmly opposed to a legislative union or to a central form of government in this country. I can say that I am just as firmly opposed to a legislative union as the premier of Quebec is himself, and I am sure that everybody in this house is just as opposed to a legislative union as is Mr. Duplessis. When the leader of the opposition last week expressed his own opposition to a legislative union, or to a form of one government only for our country, and when he gave, as an example of the demerits of an act of union, the Act of Union of 1840, I wish to say that he forgot to mention the fact that the Act of Union of 1840 was brought about against the will of the people of Quebec by a hostile group who wanted to drown us, and who wanted to quickly assimilate us. When the leader of the opposition said that he was opposed to such a legislative union I did not believe him because on other occasions, when he was free to speak his true mind, he said he was in favour of a different system. In order, as he says, to make the record clear, I wish to quote what he said, and until I indicate that my quotation is ended I shall be quoting from the Toronto Globe and Mail.


Mr. Sinclair:: A great paper!


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Not accurate, but fulsome.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: On the 10th of November, 1936, addressing the board of trade of Toronto, the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said:
Canada must eliminate the costly inefficiency of ten governments doing, in most cases, the job of one, or else sink in the rising tide of fascism.
We must decide whether we are one nation or nine.
As for Canada, according to the Toronto Star, February 23, 1935:
Harassed by debts, labour troubles, and conflict in company, insurance and labour laws, Col. Drew saw in one strong central government the solution instead of an utterly mad jigsaw puzzle of ten conflicting governments.
Note this well.
If we were starting all over again, said Mr, Drew, who would be crazy enough to set up ten governments in Canada?
I believe the hon. member tried to give a different impression in the house the other day. By the way, it seems the present leader of the opposition resembles the late Lord Bennett in some ways, particularly in that he has all his faults. He seems to believe in concessions to be made to us. He seems to 29087-151
The Address-Mr. Brunelle believe also in the great principle of a French minister who once said:
La parole a ete donnee & l'homme pour cacher sa pensee.
I might translate that in this way:
The faculty of speech has been given to man so that he may more easily conceal his thoughts.
May I return to the question of concessions? We, in the province of Quebec, want no privileges. Once more, I should like to make it plain we do not beg for concessions; we only want the respect of our rights and prerogatives. The word "concession" is humiliating.
On the Plains of Abraham in 1759, when the French army was defeated, my forefathers were not disgraced nor dishonoured. The general of the English army, Wolfe, and the general of the French army, Montcalm, both died gloriously on the battlefield. Afterwards, a treaty was signed. Those who stayed in Canada after both armies had left became simply Canadians, irrespective of names, religion or language. Later difficulties came up, but no difficulty was found insurmountable. There were cases of conflict, but I say that the feelings of the descendants of those who lost the battle of the Plains of Abraham are cruelly hurt when someone holding a high position in our country tells them they are only a vanquished race and should be content with whatever concessions the victors condescend to give. I say that if anyone is guilty of that baseness he is marked by the people of the province of Quebec.
In our province, Mr. Speaker, I can say we are proud of our survival. Our feelings are more easily hurt because we are a minority with distinct but nonetheless respectable characteristics. In response to the implied, heartfelt offer of sympathy of the leader of the Tory party in this house, I simply say, "no", and I hope each one of my people will answer with a resounding "no", which will be heard in every part of Canada. Is anyone surprised at my assertion? If anyone is I wish to tell him I have just used the very words the leader of the opposition himself used in Ontario not very long ago when he was trying to stir up the feelings of the people of that province against the people of the province of Quebec.
In order to keep the record straight, I shall give you another quotation. When the leader of the opposition made the statement to which I have just referred he was speaking about family allowances. Referring to the Globe and Mail of August 10, 1944, I find he is reported to have said:
But I assure you that the government of Ontario intends to do everything within its power to make

The Address-Mr. Brunelle
sure that this iniquitous bill does not go into effect. It is not this bill alone, but the whole principle involved which we intend to resist.
That is a statement by Premier Drew, now leader of the opposition. According to the Toronto Star of August 10, 1944, he also said:
Are we going to permit the isolationist province of Quebec to dominate the destiny of a divided Canada? I hope that each one of you will answer with a resounding "no", which will be heard in every part of the province of Quebec.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is that the same man
who is now leader of the opposition?


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Yes. I do not wish to be
an easy dupe, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the people of my province are of the same mind.
To substantiate my reaction against intolerance, against arrogance, against concessions and other humiliations which always seem to come from the same class of people, I wish to call as a witness one who knew the Tories well because he was one of them. I wish to quote from a speech which was made, not years ago but during the last parliament, by Mr. J. S. Roy, who then represented the constituency of Gaspe. This speech was made on the 4th of November, 1941, and until I indicate that the quotation is ended, I am quoting from the 1941 Hansard, page 4058:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in order to make a statement with regard to my change of seat in this house. I am sure the house will be interested to know why I intend to follow hereafter an independent course in this parliament.
A political party is usually composed of men with the same principles, and among whom there is some friendship or brotherly spirit.
I omit a long paragraph and commence about the middle of the page.
The bonne entente between the two main elements of the Liberal-Conservative party gradually deteriorated. As time went on, French Canadian influence dwindled in the party. This was largely due to the demise of Sir John A. Macdonald. The Liberal party was strongly organized, and it manoeuvred the Conservative party into becoming an English Canadian party in which French Canadian sympathy was forcibly thrown into the background. The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) cleverly followed Sir Wilfrid's tactics, and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is using the Minister of Justice for all he is worth. Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Meighen were never able to control the element which is bent on wrecking our efforts to make Canada a country in which three million French Canadians will be considered. Mr. Bennett, now Lord Bennett, was the man who said we ought to be pleased with the concessions granted to us by English-speaking Canadians. He went back on the principles of the party which had put him in power, and did more than all the Liberals put together to shake public confidence in political conservatism.
Any French-Canadian member of this house who has mixed with the Conservative party as it now exists must realize that he is not a member of their political family. He is at best a tolerated stranger, accepted from necessity and looked at with a certain degree of curiosity. In the opinion of Conservative members he is and always will be a poor


relation. His views of Canada are not their views: his ambition for more French-Canadian influence in our public life is not their ambition. They are firm in the opinion that we French Canadians are a source of trouble in their endeavours to make Canada an American England. There is no friendship or sympathy between them and us. I may add, however, that a good proportion of Englishspeaking Canadians, particularly the young generation, show us more sympathy, because they have a real sense of true Canadianism.
I have decided to leave them, and I did not do so hastily. For the past few months I have been in consultation with people in Quebec who all expressed the opinion that it is useless for the province of Quebec to make any further attempts to work hand in hand with the Conservative party. Warm sympathy, the main element, is lacking. You all remember the story of the man who called upon an acquaintance. He was first told that the man was not at home; he then forced the door, but he was received with a heap of abuse. He went a third time, when he was taken by the sheriff by the scruff of the neck and kicked down the verandah. He then said, "Well, I don't think that man wants to see me." Take out the violence and I think you will see there is something like that in the attitude of the Conservative organizers toward Quebec Conservatives.
I had intended to end my speech here-


Mr. Hackett:: Your speech?


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: That is the end of the quotation.


John Thomas Hackett: Yes; you mean that is the end of the quotation.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Apparently the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) was not here when I used a celebrated phrase of the hon. leader of the opposition in the matter of making quotations.


John Thomas Hackett: Yes, I was here; and I thought it highly original on the hon. member's part.
(Translation):


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, I shall add a few words in French. I want it understood that what I have just said in this house was devoid of any animosity whatever.


John Thomas Hackett: No, it was all perfectly friendly!


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I do not wish to offend anyone. If I have told truths which might have offended some, it must not be forgotten that they were taken from statements made in the house by the Progressive Conservative leader himself or by the former member for Gaspe.
The main object of my remarks was to be of some service to the youth of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear! hear!


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I wish to prevent it from committing a fatal error.
I have tried to make our young people- gifted, ambitious, brilliant and truly capable of filling the highest posts in the public, polit-

ical or social spheres-realize that the fact of being intolerant and arrogant may bar them from the high offices they seek to attain.
Our great statesmen, Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, remained at the helm for so long because they were, above all, human, and never hurt the feelings of either of our great racial groups.
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent), the leader whom I have the honour to serve, follows in the footsteps of these great men. Now 67 years of age, Mr. St. Laurent has never hurt the feelings of anyone in this country. A true Canadian, proud of his origin, he is deeply respectful of those of others and
The Address-Mr. Brunelle frankly prepared to walk hand in hand with all men of good will. For these reasons, the Canadian people from coast to coast will place their trust in him.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Weir, the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we shall continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 4, 1949