1949-03-02

OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Mousse of Commons ©efaates
[Stage Direction]
Speaker: The Honourable Gaspard Fauteux
Wednesday, March 2, 1949


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I am again compelled, Mr. Speaker, to rise on a matter of personal privilege, but I hope it can be disposed of without raising any uproar, because it has to do with the rethreshing of old straw.
The Montreal Gazette of this morning has on the front page a column with this heading: Serious Charges
Misuse of R.C.M.P. Laid to St. Laurent as Secrecy Ends "Methods of Gestapo"
P.C. Leader Urges Prime Minister be Called to Account for "Prostitution"
The article is written by Mr. Arthur Blakely. It goes on to say:
Serious charges against Prime Minister (then minister of justice) St. Laurent, involving the misuse of the R.C.M.P., are contained in the famous secret letter on Hong Kong which opposition leader Drew wrote to ex-Prime Minister King in 1942, and which Mr. Drew made public today.
The letter charges Mr. St. Laurent as justice minister with having attempted "to suppress the truth" in the Hong Kong debacle "by imitating the methods of the gestapo." It urged that he be "called to public account without delay" for "this shameful prostitution" of the R.C.M.P.
A little further down the article continues:
The Drew letter accuses Mr. St. Laurent of having used, through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, questionable methods to secure evidence which would counterbalance testimony that the twenty military vehicles which were to have accompanied the troopship to Hong Kong could have been loaded had they been made available.
Editorially the leader writer of the Gazette makes this comment, under the title, " 'War secrecy' concealed strange actions":
These are charges which would seem to require a full and detailed reply. But Mr. St. Laurent says that no reply can be made . . . This irregular use of the R.C.M.P. in Canada has never received the examination which the charge would seem to deserve. The delay in making the matter public has been prolonged for seven years.
I am afraid the inaccuracy must be attributed to the fact that Mr. Blakely was probably not here in 1942, and I do not know 29087-67
where the leader writer of the Gazette may have been at that time. But I wish to call the attention of those who may be interested- if there are still any who are interested-to the fact that on July 28, 1942, this matter was fully gone into, as reported at pages 4868 and following of Hansard of that year. Mr. Bruce, the then member for Parkdale, raised this question, among others:
How can the government ever justify using the authority of the criminal investigations branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a great and honoured force, to obtain evidence in a civil inquiry...
At page 4869 Mr. Bruce went on as follows:
I am asking the government to justify its action in using the criminal investigation branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the purpose of getting information in a civil inquiry-not a criminal inquiry.
Then on page 4870:
I think it is a prostitution-
The word is not new.
-of the great Royal Canadian Mounted Police to ask them to assume a responsibility of the kind which they were asked to assume, and which is a direct responsibility of the minister of justice (Mr. St. Laurent) for having done so.
I went fully into all the facts in that connection, as appears on pages 4870, 4871 and 4872; and when I got through, the hon. member for Parkdale was generous enough to make this statement, as reported at page 4872:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. As the minister of justice in quoting from a Vancouver newspaper has cited portions of a letter submitted by Colonel Drew to the Prime Minister, to my leader and to the leaders of the other groups, I may say that I also was quoting from that letter and I was not attacking the minister of justice personally.
In reply I said:
I thank the hon. member for Parkdale for the withdrawal of the implication at least which his former words contained.
Anyone who may be interested at this time in these events will find that the matter was fully gone into, with the result that the then hon. member for Parkdale made the statement I have just quoted.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime - Minister has referred to an earlier discussion of this matter, and I should think he might now wish to have

Questions
the letter tabled so that the record may be complete. If that is his wish, I am prepared to table it. In any event-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: In any event, Mr. Speaker, may I simply say that the letter has been published, and I stand by every word in it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not now prepared, and never will be prepared, to break a confidence until such time as the one who stipulated that confidence relieves him of the responsibility involved therein. If others choose to take a different view of the obligation with respect to information received by them in confidence, it is their responsibility, and I do not wish to share it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Graydon:: Fair play.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask hon. members to listen to the leader of the opposition, who has risen on a question of privilege, and let him state his question of privilege. I would ask the leader of the opposition, however, to state his question of privilege and not to make any statement.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege is very clear. The Prime Minister has left the impression that in what has been done there is a breach of secrecy. I would point out that there has been no breach of secrecy; anything that has been said was said in the proper way to the then prime minister of Canada, and was placed in the possession of this house. The information was received here through the regular channels.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fleming:: How many persons were in the employ of the dominion government (a) on a temporary basis; (b) on a permanent basis, on each of the following dates: May 1, 1945; January 1, 1946; January 1, 1947; January 1, 1948; January 1, 1949?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: (In each case the statistics shown are as reported at the end of the preceding month.)
1.	(a) May 1, 1945, 83,971; January 1, 1946, 106,761 (includes employees for Christmas rush, 20,000); January 1, 1947, 121,673 (includes employees for Christmas rush, 22,000);

January 1, 1948, 92,392 (includes employees for Christmas rush, 9,793); *January 1, 1949, 102,397 (includes employees for Christmas rush, 18,000).
(b)	May 1, 1945, 30,477; January 1, 1946, 31,038; January 1, 1947, 30,060; January 1, 1948, 32,497; *January 1, 1949, 37,706.
^Includes November figures for the administrative and lands and development services of the Department of Mines and Resources, which are the latest available.


FREIGHT RATES
Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	At the time the increases in freight rates were authorized, were there any increases authorized on services such as refrigerated car charges and heating charges?
2.	If so, under what authority were the increases on services authorized?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Increases authorized by board of transport commissioners by order 70425, dated March 30,	1948, under their powers
expressed in the Railway Act.


CIVIL SERVICE
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has a reclassification taken place within the last year of civil service positions?
2.	If so, in how many cases was there: (a) an increase; (b) a reduction in grade or salary, or both?
3.	In how many cases were there reductions made in the case of civil servants receiving less than: (a) $2,000; (b) $3,000?


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 5,049; (b) 865.
3.	(a) Less than $2,000, 533; (b) between $2,000 and $3,000, 280.


CUSTODY OF NAZI SYMPATHIZERS
Mr. McCullough (Assiniboia):: 1.	How many persons in Canada were taken into custody during the war for their nazi sympathies or activities?
2.	What were the names of these people?
3.	How many are still in custody?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	Germans and pro-Germans, 847; Italians, 632; communists, 133; National Unity party, 27.
2.	It is considered that it is not in the public interest to supply this information at this late date.
3.	None.


UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How much wheat has been (a) purchased; (b) delivered; (c) bargained for. by the British govern-

ment or by British purchasers, month by month, since the first day of January, 1948?
2.	Was any of this wheat bought and paid for by foreign aid funds transferred or credited direct from the United States?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	(a) The purchase and sale of wheat and wheat flour to the United Kingdom is covered
Questions
by the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement.
(b)	Delivery of wheat is made to the United Kingdom at seaboard and delivery of the wheat for milling of flour is regarded as completed when the imported cereals division books the flour with the Canadian mills. Deliveries in the January 1948-January 1949 period were as follows:
Wheat and Flour Deliveries Under United Kingdom Agreement (Period January 1, 1948 to January 31, 1949)
Month	Wheat deliveries
1948	(bushels)
January			 11,996,459-20
February 			 11,917,117-40
March 			 6,662,205-50
April 			 10,569,227-20
May 			 13,014,486-50
June 			 12,535,197-20
July 			 12,408,686-20
August			 * *8,597,878-40
September 			 8,407,557-50
October 			 10,996,908-30
November 			 12,470,368-50
December 			 9,587,056-50
1949	
January 			 11,939,366-30
Total 			 141,102,517-50
Total
wheat and flour deliveries (bushels) 12,747,702-11 12,317,553-23 19,038,954-25 10,662,454-29 13,014,486-50 12,535,197-20 14,816,803-28 9,199,914-23 14,297,704-16 12,022,133-50 18,127,627-25 9,606,856-50
7,200-00	11,946,566-30
29,231,437-30	170,333,955-20
Flour deliveries (bushels) 751,242-51 400,435-43 12,376,748-35 93,227-09
12,408,117-08
602,035-43
5,890,146-26
1,025,225-20
5,657,258-35
19,800-00
* 7,457,286-50 bushels 1947-48 agreement; 1,140,591-50 bushels 1948-49 agreement, t 86,952-51 bushels 1947-48 agreement; 2,321,164-17 bushels 1948-49 agreement.
(c)	Nil.
2.	Not known; the payment for Canadian wheat and flour is arranged by the United Kingdom authorities. See also question re purchase of Canadian wheat by United States appearing in Votes and Proceedings No. 5, page i, and answer thereto, Hansard, volume 88, No. 11, pages 380-381.


* AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT BOARD
Mr. Hatfield:: How does the agricultural prices support board propose to dispose of the grade one potatoes they are now surveying and entering into contracts with the farmers for payment of $1.15 per hundredweight in the bins on the farm?


Mr. Gardiner:: It is not my understanding of the arrangement, Mr. Speaker, that the agricultural prices support board secures any potatoes to dispose of; but it is their hope that the private organizations which have been handling the potatoes of farmers for some considerable time will make such a good job of handling them this year that the potatoes will be well taken care of.
29087-67J


INCOME TAX
Mr. Argue:: 1.	What amount of tax was collected from cooperatives under the Income War Tax Act for the years 1946 and 1947?
2.	What was the amount of tax collected in each province for each of the above years?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Up until the year 1947, the taxation division did not maintain statistics on the amount of tax declared by, or collected from, co-operatives. The statistics are being compiled for 1947 but will not be completed until midsummer.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


INDIANS-RATIONS CHARGED TO BAND FUNDS
Mr. Campbell:: 1.	Are rations to aged Indians now being charged to band funds?
2.	If so, since when and on whose authority?


Mr. MacKinnon:: 1.	Yes, but only where such costs can be met without seriously depleting the revenue account of the band concerned; otherwise

Questions
such rations are purchased from moneys appropriated by parliament for Indian welfare. There is also granted from appropriations a special allowance to aged Indians.
2.	The authority to grant assistance from band funds to aged Indians has been provided for in the Indian Act since it was first passed; see section 95 (d).


BUILDING PERMITS
Mr. Fleming:: 1.	What was the aggregate value of building permits issued in Canada by months in the year 1948?
2.	How much of such aggregate value in each month was for (a) residential; (b) commercial and industrial construction?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2.
January . February March . . April .... May .... June ....
July ....
August .. . September October . . November .December
(1) (2) Total Value of Permits $
17.478.810 21,047,234 42,331,311 69,447,531 73,631,690 75,052,649 73,108,839 63,652,206 56,845,721
56.253.810 51,307,919 46,751,089
(2)
Residential
Construction

8,617,254
10,845,178
23,758,153
43,960,039
46,304,525
47,075,938
41,046,219
38,663,501
34,131,730
33,699,234
28,932,701
22,662,559
(2)
Commercial
Construction

5,755,471
6,465,852
9,854,616
13,148,474
14,565,133
14,094,803
12,173,335
11.365,400
11,115,650
11,985,048
11,891,277
12,801,692
(2)
Industrial
Construction

1,633,648
1,719,170
2,544,550
4,179,004
5,406,351
4,963,525
7,093,090
4,486,585
5,125,210
5,223,606
5,300,890
3,508,430
(1)	Includes institutional and miscellaneous permits.
(2)	As reported by 507 municipalities in Canada. No account is taken of the building act' 'ity outside of registration areas.



DRAINAGE AND RECLAMATION


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Has a contract now been let for the lowering of the level of Lillooet lake in connection with drainage and reclamation at Pemberton Meadows, British Columbia?
2.	If so, who was the successful bidder, and what was the amount of the tender?
3.	Were other tenders received?
4.	If any, who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of the tender in each case?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Highway Construction Company, Limited, Vancouver, B. C. $404,000.
3.	Yes.
4.	Campbell-Bennett Limited, Vancouver, B.C., $407,000. Assiniboia Engineering Co., Ltd., Calgary, Alta., $486,700. Dawson, Wade & Co., Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., $540,000. Fred Mannix & Co., Ltd., Calgary, Alta., $1,215,000.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
Mr Maclnnis:
1.	What are the postage rates to Yellowknife and other areas in the Northwest Territories on (a) letters; (b) newspapers and periodicals; (c) printed matter; (d) parcels?
2.	Is the postage rate on any of these items different from rates to other parts of Canada?
Mr. Bertrand (Laurier):: (1) First class (letters)-4 cents first ounce, and third class (printed) matter, 2 cents each

additional ounce or fraction thereof; second class matter (newspapers and periodicals) when mailed by the public-1 cent per 4 ounces or fraction of 4 ounces to each separate address; when mailed from the office of publication or from newsdealers to subscribers-4 cents per pound.
Parcel Post
30 cents per lb. or fraction of a lb.-Bitu-mount, Camsell Portage, Embarras Portage, Fond du Lac, Fort Chipewyan, Fort Fitzgerald, Fort Smith, Stony Rapids.
70 cents per lb. or fraction of a lb.-Fort Providence, Fort Resolution, Hay River, Port Radium, Rae, Yellowknife.
$1.20 per lb. or fraction of a lb.-Copper-mine, Fort Good Hope, Fort Norman, Fort Simpson, Norman Wells, Wrigley.
$1.40 per lb. or fraction of a lb.-Aklavik, Arctic Red River, Fort McPherson, Port Brabant, Reindeer Depot.
Note:	Small parcels weighing up to 8
ounces may be prepaid at the air letter rate of 7 cents for the first ounce, and 5 cents each ounce after, if the sender so desires.
(2) Yes. All mail for Yellowknife and the other offices mentioned above must be carried by air. Special rates of postage were established for printed matter, parcels, and news-

papers and periodicals mailed by publishers to subscribers with the object of keeping the volume of printed matter, newspapers and parcels to a minimum so that there would be sufficient space available on the planes at all times for the conveyance of letter mails.
Questions



INCOME TAX


Donald Methuen Fleming: At January 1, 1949, on how many Income tax returns, by years and by district offices, had assessment not been made?


Mr. McCann:: Individuals
By district income tax offices	By taxation years
1917-44	1945	1946	1947	1948	TotalCharlottetown 	261	745	3,979	5,783	11	10,779Halifax 	1,064	1,580	4,522	19,638	73	26,877Sydney 	927	520	1,484	3,870	14	6,815Saint John 	9	46	826	23,593	42	24,516Quebec 	1,448	1,880	15,171	57,565	77	76,141Sherbrooke 	269	186	1,413	5,356	2	7,226Montreal 	5,238	46,990	284,075	768	337,071Ottawa 	430	1,391	8,694	67,924	26	78,465Kingston 	16	88	885	15,317	20	16,326Belleville 	412	278	2,348	14,226	68	17,332Toronto 	1,927	1,493	12,818	194,647	304	211,189Hamilton 	2,162	1,435	32,864	160,985	132	197,578London 	10,344	18,309	57,272	141,079	205	227,209Fort William	299	433	3,392	8,881	95	13,100Winnipeg 	1,153	4,372	24,716	125,456	244	155,941Regina 	231	6,468	25,840	61,157	63	93,759Saskatoon 	3,878	7,435	12,918	33,951	96	58,278Calgary 	2,206	3,826	22,176	51,421	45	79,674Edmonton 	56	188	3,030	44,410	42	47,726Vancouver 	11,097	13,194	51,924	168,080	218	244,513Dawson 	93	53	102	1,021	2	1,271Total 	38,282	69,158	333,364	1,488,435	2,547	1,931,786Corporations	By district income tax offices	By Taxation Years	1917-44	1945	1946	1947	1948	TotalCharlottetown	
33	21	50	202	139	445Halifax	
403	501	1,069	1,380	437	3,795Sydney 	
42	49	152	204	45	492Saint John 	
60	44	230	898	277	1,509Quebec 	
97	100	345	931	297	1,770Sherbrooke 	
7	8	58	107	32	212Montreal 	
20	1,468	3,111	6,984	2,365	13,948Ottawa 	
117	281	788	1,406	404	2,996Kingston 	
2	5	28	107	37	179Belleville 	
16	17	93	285	79	490Toronto	
1,699	2,503	3,844	7,593	1,725	17,364Hamilton 	
178	482	1,270	1,899	491	4,320London 	
438	410	1,386	1,826	443	4,503Fort William	
116	61	216	297	71	761Winnipeg 	
626	765	2,101	2,744	639	6,875Regina 	
22	77	260	715	174	1,248Saskatoon 	
50	80	277	881	129	1,417Calgary	.... 157	359	791	1,194	331	2,832Edmonton 	.... 63	79	573	1,270	382	2,367Vancouver 	
980	1,410	4,072	5,942	2,166	14,570Dawson	
17	9	12	18	1	57Total 	8,729	20,726	36,883	10,664	82,150
Questions



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ST. MAURICE, QUE.  EMPLOYMENT OP PERSONNEL

Mr. Caouelie:: 1.	Were certain local employees or officers of the Canadian National Railways (St. Maurice division) employed on the recommendation of the minister or through the patronage of their member of parliament?
2.	If so, what are the names of such employees; what are their respective duties and what recommendations were made by the minister?
3.	What recommendations were made by members of parliament and what is the name of the member in each case?


Mr. Chevrier:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	There is no operating division or subdivision bearing the name of St. Maurice, but if the question were of general application the answer would be no.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
The management of the railway state that individuals taken into the service of the Canadian National Railways are engaged having regard for their age, their physical fitness, their educational standard, their character and the feeling of employing officers who will be capable of performing the duties assigned to them. Recommendations from individuals can only be considered in applying the foregoing tests. Certainly no employee or officer is engaged merely because of a recommendation by anyone in public life or otherwise.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Diefenbaker;: 1.	By what mode or modes of transportation did Dr. Michael Seigneur, his wife and children enter Canada and what were the dates of arrival of each of them?
2.	If transportation was by ship, give name of ship and steamship line?
3.	Did the Canadian immigration authorities examine their credentials and screen them prior to embarkation or departure from Europe?
4.	At what Canadian port or ports were they admitted to Canada?
5.	Were they in possession of landing cards? If so, who signed the same?
6.	If entry was made by way of the United States by them, or any of them, who were the Canadian immigration authorities who admitted them?
7.	When did any of the immigration officials first become aware that Seigneur and/or wife and family were in Canada?
8.	Have any documents been issued legalizing the the entry into Canada of the said persons?
9.	If so, what is the nature thereof?
10.	Was an order in council passed? If so, what is the number and date thereof?


Mr. MacKinnon:: 1.	Dr. Michael Lucien Seigneur entered Canada from New York by the Delaware and

Hudson Railway, on December 1, 1946. Mrs. Seigneur, with her children, entered Canada from New York by Colonial Air Lines, on June 1, 1947.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	There were no immigration officials in France at the time. Dr. Seigneur, under the name of Vincent Desgarets, did apply to the Canadian embassy at Paris for a non-immigrant visa as a student for temporary entry to study at College Stanislas, Montreal. This was granted.
4.	Dr. Seigneur entered Canada at Lacolle, P.Q. Mrs. Seigneur and her children entered Canada at Montreal, Dorval airport.
5.	Non-immigrants are not required to be in possession of a landing card under immigration regulations.
6.	As no individual record is kept of nonimmigrants entering Canada from the United States, no record was made of the entry of Dr. Seigneur and his family.
7.	On February 26, 1948, when Dr. Seigneur applied for landing for himself and family.
8.	By order in council P.C. 2920, dated June 29, 1948, the provisions of P.C. 4849 and P.C. 4851 were waived in respect of Dr. Seigneur and his family.
9.	Answered by No. 8.
10.	Answered by No. 8.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Caouelie:: 1.	What are the names of the lawyers and notaries residing in the counties of Chapleau and Pontiac who have acted as agents for the different departments or boards of the federal government during the years 1945 to January 1, 1949?
2.	What amount of fees has been paid annually to each of them?


SHIPMENT OF GOODS TO CHINA
Mr. Lennard:: 1.	Have shipments left Canada for China since January 1, 1949?
2.	If so (a) what goods and in what quantities; (b) to whom; (c) how are they being paid for?
3.	Are shipments still going forward?



DAIRY INDUSTRY


Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	Has the international emergency food committee ceased to function in regards to oils and fats entering Canada?
2.	What steps have been taken by the government to protect the dairy industry in regards to vegetable oils and fats entering Canada for the manufacturing of margarine?



DOMINION BONDS


Donald Methuen Fleming: What amounts of bonds issued or guaranteed by Canada were purchased by months in the year 1948, by the Bank of Canada and each of the other federal government boards or commissions or departments authorized to purchase government bonds?



RADIO BROADCASTING


Mr. Ross (St. Paul's):: 1.	How many applications for increased power have been received by the (a) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; (b) Department of Transport, and from what stations, in the years 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948?
2.	What are the frequencies allotted to these stations?
3.	What is the minimum power for security of occupancy of these channels under the Havana agreement?
4.	What is the maximum power allowable for these channels under the Havana agreement?




Mr. Ross (Si. Paul's):: 1.	What is the effective date and term of the North American regional broadcasting agreement or so-called Havana agreement?
2.	What was the date set at which time the channels allotted to Canada had to be occupied with minimum power?
3.	Have there been extensions of this date?



YARMOUTH CENTRE AND FINGAL, N.S., AIRPORTS

Mr. Coyle:: 1.	Is the government using the airports at Yarmouth centre and Fingal?
2.	If not, what disposition has been made of these airports?
3.	Are either or both of these airports being used as farm lands?
4.	If so, to whom are they rented and under what terms?
5.	Are taxes being paid on these lands?
6.	If so, to whom, and if not, why not?



CROWN COMPANIES

Mr. Green:: 1.	What crown companies continue to function?
2.	What is the nature of the work carried on by each of such companies?
3.	To which minister of the crown, if any, is each of such crown companies responsible?
4.	What crown companies remain in existence but are not functioning?



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


Mr. H. W. Timmins (Parkdale):: On February 9, 1947, an order for return was made to a question of mine which appears on page 389 of Hansard, and which had to do with subsidies on various commodities. I have not yet received that return, and I wonder whether the Minister of Finance would look into the matter.
Motions for Papers


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, probably it does not concern only my department. I shall make inquiries however, and see what the situation is.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Pearkes:: For a copy of the report of the Canadian delegation which attended the international conference on safety of life at sea, in 1948.


Lionel Chevrier: The only report brought to my attention in this connection is that of the international conference on the safety of life at sea, signed at London on June 10, 1948. I presume that is what the hon. member wants, and I now table it.


George Randolph Pearkes: I thought perhaps the Canadian delegation would have put in a special report of their own.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no special report.



CANADIAN MARITIME COMMISSION


Mr. Green:: For a copy of any recommendations made to the government or to the Canadian maritime commission by the national advisory committee of such commission.



DRAINAGE AND RECLAMATION


Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of the report known as the McGugan report on the costs, etc., and method to be followed in carrying out the program of drainage and reclamation at Pemberton Meadows, British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, and recommendations (other than the McGugan report) between the Department of Agriculture and any other department or agency of the federal government and any individual or committee of citizens with respect to drainage and reclamation at Pemberton Meadows, British Columbia.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transport tell the house when the hearings of the royal commission on transportation will begin? I ask the question because when the appointment of the commission was announced on December 30 the Canadian Press indicated
1062	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry that the hearings would begin in approximately two months. It is now more than two months since the commission was appointed.


Lionel Chevrier: In a conversation which I had some weeks ago with the chairman of the royal commission on transportation he indicated that he was anxious to proceed with the hearings as quickly as possible, and stated that he thought the commission would be ready to proceed by the end of April. Since then I have been informed that some of the provinces have sought some delay in order to prepare their cases. I cannot give any further information.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister know which provinces have asked for the delay?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not able to say.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister find out?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.	*



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the soldier settlement and Veterans Land Act branch of the minister's department done anything to correct the defects in the Faircraft flat-roof houses occupied by veterans across Canada?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I shall take note of the hon. member's question and give an answer later.



COARSE GRAINS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Probe (Regina City):: On Wednesday, February 23, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) addressed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to which the parliamentary assistant replied, stating in effect that it would be dealt with by the minister upon his return to the house. The hon. member's question was:
In view of the conclusion last month of the conference on coarse grains between the federal government, provincial governments and the Canadian federation of agriculture, can the minister indicate when he will give a statement to the house as to what was accomplished, and what decisions were reached?
Will the minister indicate whether an answer is being prepared?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The matters referred to in the question are still under study. I hope to be able to make a statement to the house within the next two weeks.



CHANGES IN SEATING ARRANGEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). Now that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has been moved forward, when will the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case) be moved to the front ranks?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: After you uncrook your shanks.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Oliver Probe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. For the purpose of answering inquiries by Canadian and other stamp collectors, will he inform the house whether his department has planned a special stamp issue to celebrate the entry of Newfoundland into confederation, when this is achieved? What other commemorative or special stamp issues are planned for this year by the Postmaster General?


Ernest Bertrand: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative; a stamp is now being printed. We also have another historical stamp which is to come out in commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the founding of Halifax.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked a question about seining for herring in Digby basin. I should like now to answer the question.
The department has received two telegrams with reference to winter seining in Annapolis basin. The department's information is that of six weirs licensed in the basin, one only operated this winter, and it has operated only partly. Three seine boats had been operating up to recently in the basin, but ceased operations at the end of last week.

No shortage of bait in this district has recently been reported to the department. The department is informed that if bait were required, the seiners would gladly sell it on request, as they have done in past years.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, having to do with the fact that some 600 townships in the prairie provinces have been declared ineligible for payment of the prairie farm assistance allowance. Has the minister given consideration to the reinspection of these areas, or to any alteration in the area of qualification? This is a matter of great interest to large areas, particularly in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: As the hon. member knows, there is a board to which all these applications are referred. Whenever a question arises whether a decision by the board is correct or otherwise, reinspection is made, and I presume that where any such question has arisen, that has been done. If, however, there are any districts in which reinspections have not been made, and about which there is question, the board will reconsider them.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister would make a general statement in regard to the whole situation, it would be beneficial, because, as he knows, all of us on the prairies are in receipt of letters from many farmers who believe they are entitled to payment.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY INQUIRY AS TO CHOICE OF ROUTES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Mines and Resources about his reply to my inquiry as to the route of the trans-Canada highway. A certain route had been recommended in the early thirties by the federal government and by the different provinces. That is the information for which I have been asking, rather than the results of the request recently made to the provinces as to the route of the highway. What routes were recommended by the different provinces from 1930 on; what routes were approved by the federal government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Percy Chapman Black: -and what
expenditures have been made?
The Address-Mr. Stephenson Mr. Speaker: May I suggest that as the hon. member's question is a lengthy one, it should have been placed on the order paper.


Percy Chapman Black: I think it should be answered. May I have an answer from the minister?


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minisier of Mines and Resources):: I shall be glad to look into the matter and see whether there is any such information in the files of the department.
If there is, I shall produce it.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 1, 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. C. E. Siephenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, in availing myself of this opportunity to speak I intend to bring to the attention of the government some of the serious problems that face agriculture across Canada, and in particular I should like to refer to those who are engaged in this basic industry in the county I have the honour to represent. Before proceeding I should like to join with others in congratulating the mover (Mr. Brown) and the seconder (Mr. Demers) of the address and to say to them that they did a very fine job.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is far too much disturbance in the chamber.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: When I spoke last year in the debate I found myself in the same position as I am in today. At that time I asked if it might not be possible to arrange for an interval after the orders of the day have been dealt with during which time hon. members who wished to leave the chamber might withdraw. Then it would not be necessary for the speaker who had the floor to compete with all the confusion that arises.
As I was saying, I should like to join with others in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address. I think they did exceptionally fine jobs with the meagre material they had at their disposal. I should like also to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) upon attaining the high position he now holds. It might be timely to remind the youth of Canada that under our democratic system they have the opportunity of attaining to that same high position. It might also be timely to warn Canadian parents who have the interests of their children at heart, and who wish them to

The Address-Mr. Stephenson attain to high office in this country, that they should take cognizance of the actions of those people who would attempt to bring dictatorship to this country and deprive our children of the great opportunities they have.
I should like also to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I believe it is becoming more widely known every day that he is a great statesman and a great defender of freedom. I am sure that in the near future he will attain to the great position to which I have just referred.
One thing is noticeable this year-the continuity of the debate on the address. It will be remembered that in recent years the debate was interrupted every few days in order to permit the government to bring down bits of legislation which they claimed were of an emergency nature. In my opinion those bits of legislation were brought down for no other purpose than to distract the people and to divert from the government the criticism being leveled at it. This year instead of bits of legislation being brought down we find that cabinet ministers are being injected into the debate in an effort to redeem the government and to make excuses for their sins. However, I am sure that that has not had a a great deal of effect on the country.
I was much interested in listening to the fine reading by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). It was a reading and I understand that copies had already been given to the press in order that they might not miss anything. I noticed the great effort the minister made to pat himself on the back, so much so that I thought he might break his arm, when he told the country what a wonderful job he had done with our money. Someone said that it had been the provinces that had done the good job, but the minister said, "with our money." He should have said the hard-earned money of the taxpayers.
I should like to pay a tribute to the press of Canada. I think they try to present without bias the different views on political issues. In particular I should like to pay a tribute to two publications in my riding. The Port Hope Guide is a daily paper that has been published since 1831. The Canadian Statesman is a weekly paper which has won distinction across Canada. It has been awarded the national editorial trophy and the certificate of merit for the past two years, and this in competition with all the weeklies in Canada. I think that is a record to be proud of.
It has been said by the Liberal party that this paper has considerable political bias.
I will admit that it has seen fit to support the policies of the Progressive Conservative 
party, but as an indication that it is not biased I should like to refer to the fine picture of the former Prime Minister of Canada which it published over the following statement: Honoured today as Canada's greatest statesman, crowned with the record of the longest tenure in office of any Prime Minister in the long history of the empire and commonwealth, Prime Minister Mackenzie King retired from his high office on Monday, November 15, 1948.
Then they went on to state that every Canadian would wish him well-deserved leisure and congratulate him upon his long years of service. I do not think that a paper which would publish a statement like that could be said to be altogether politically biased. Another political party in my riding has claimed that this paper is politically biased. The C.C.F. party have also claimed this paper to be biased because it does not support their policies. When they could not get support, the leaders of that party had notices posted in the factories forbidding their supporters to buy this paper. This is the first time to my knowledge that any political party has boycotted the freedom of the press. I would say that those are communist tactics.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Trying to suppress the truth. Mr. Stephenson: I hear some remark.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Trying to suppress the truth; that is what they were trying to do.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: In order to show that this paper is a staunch supporter of agriculture I should like to quote some of the articles that appeared in a recent issue with regard to the achievememts of farmers in the county I have the honour to represent. The articles which refer to the royal winter fair read as follows:
W. Carruthers Takes Apple Prizes at Royal Wilfred D. Carruthers, Bowmanville, surprised the usual large exhibitors of apples at the royal winter fair by capturing five prizes on his small displays of Spy and McIntosh varieties. His ribbons included two firsts, two seconds and a third.
Here is another heading:
Reserve champion for oats goes to Garnet Rickard.
He is from Bowmanville. Here is an excerpt from an article in the same paper:
Maurice Baker, Hampton, fitted and showed the grand champion and junior champion shorthorn bull.
Then there is part of another article to which I wish to refer:
Latest lists received show Fred Trewin, Nestleton, winning the junior championship on a Tamworth sow.
The junior Durham county team had great success at the royal winter fair, winning one first, six seconds, one third and one fourth in recent years, and many other winners whom time does not permit me to mention.

The Address-Mr. Stephenson
The whole paper is more or	less filled	with	present	time does not appear any too brightthe achievements of the farmers of Durham	for the	future of agriculture,county at the royal winter fair in Toronto. We now find the government going back I have given these quotations to show that I years and digging out taxes from these people represent a truly agricultural district.	who worked so hard, but who were allowedI should like to make a few remarks now nothing extra for their long hours of labour on agriculture in general. In saying that agri- and the work performed by the wife and the culture is a basic industry of the country, I children on the farm. They were not given believe that to be so because our great coun- one cent's consideration by way of reduction try was built upon it. We know that our of income tax for the extra services they forefathers depended on this basic industry performed. The department is now trying to for their very livelihood,	and the	great	dig out	the odd dollar from these people, whoadvance Canada has made	is due to	their	gave such great service to their country. It
efforts. As I said, they also depended on is even going to the extent of asking whether agriculture for their very existence. That is the farmer's wife may have an extra bill true today, but people living in urban and shoved down her stocking. When they go to metropolitan areas give very little thought see if the farmer may have an extra nickel to this fact. They assume the attitude that hidden away some place, they are demanding agricultural products just grow on the shelves it of the farmer in spite of the fact that this of the grocery stores, that all they have to government boasts of a surplus of over $600
do is to go into the store and pick them off the shelves, and the shelves will be restocked from some storage plant. These people give little thought to the long hours and the hard work that the farmers have put in to place these products on the shelves of the grocery or butcher stores.
I think the farmers should be commended for their great war effort. It has been said that an army marches on its stomach, which is true. If it had not been for the effort of the farmers there might have been a very different ending to the last war. At the time farmers were making this great effort to produce the necessary products of the farm, industry was offering higher wages than the farmers could pay their help. As a result of the attraction of high wages in industry, farm labourers left the farms and went to the urban and metropolitan centres. The farmers' sons did the same thing. The result was that pop and mom and the little children were left to carry on as best they could to try to satisfy the great need for farm produce. They worked twelve hours a day before they lost their farm help, but afterwards it was necessary for them to work fourteen and fifteen hours a day.
Nothing was done by the government to see that farmers were given assistance to secure labour, although every other industry seemed to receive some consideration. As a result the farmers found they had to purchase special machinery in order to maintain production, and they purchased tractors, combines, and so forth, at considerable expense. They made a gallant effort. A great many of their products had to be sold at controlled prices, something that I do not think we should forget. I hope the farmers who borrowed money to buy machinery now have it paid for, because the outlook at the 29087-682
million.
On an expanding market we always find that the products of agriculture are generally the last to increase in price. We also find on a receding market that they are the first to feel the effect of any change. That is what is happening today. On the Toronto market last fall beef sold for $28 to $30, and the price now is from $18 to $20. I have a letter from one of my constituents who is in the beef cattle business. He says that at the present time he stands to lose $2,500. We see that chickens have gone down 14 cents a pound. Eggs were selling for 70 to 75 cents a dozen a while ago, and just the other week I bought grade A eggs for 44 cents a dozen. We find that potatoes are now selling at $1 to $1.25 a bag. This is the reward of the farmers after the great effort they made on behalf of Canada, and I would say that in great part it is due to the bungling of the government.


Mr. Grant:: That is a broad statement.


Mr. Rowe:: Broad but it is true.


Gordon Graydon: It is not a narrow one either.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made a political speech the other night. I am sure it is not the kind of speech that the farmers have been waiting for. He took great credit for the expanding trade Canada had enjoyed since 1935, when the Liberal party came into power. He said it was all due to the Liberal party.


James Garfield Gardiner: And in spite of the Tory party.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: The minister has made his statement. Let us see what happened. What is the true reason that we had expanding markets practically from the time that the
1066	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stephenson government came into power in 1935? The reason is that we had just come through the greatest depression the world has ever known, a world-wide depression. By 1933 or 1934 markets had started to move upward, and when the government came into power in 1935 they were able to enjoy the returning markets. That was the reason there was an increase at that time. During the war we find that the market was expanded owing to the great demand for the goods that were necessary for war. After the war was over those countries that had been devastated by it were not in a position to produce the goods they needed. Canada was fortunate enough not to be touched by the war, and we were in a position to supply what was needed. All the government had to do was to shovel the goods into the market. In many cases they were sold at less than the world market price. It is not hard to go out and sell goods on the market at less than the world market price. If I were a salesman I could easily go out and sell an article for less than the other fellow was asking for it. That is hardly salesmanship, and it requires no great effort. That is exactly what happened; that is why this government had these expanding markets and why Canada enjoyed those exports. But now we find a different position. These other countries are getting back into production and are competing in the world markets, and as a result we are losing them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Oh, yes, we are. We cannot get the markets, that is all.


James Garfield Gardiner: What unsold surpluses have we?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: If the minister will not admit that, let us see what is actually happening; let us take a few of the statements that have been made. Here is one that appeared in the press a short time ago:
Under the agreement with the Netherlands, the United Kingdom will obtain sorely needed supplies of bacon and eggs to compensate in part for reduced purchases of these foods from Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is because we ate them all ourselves, or sent them to the United States.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Here is something that has actually happened. Between 1939 and 1949 we negotiated over 125 contracts with the United Kingdom for foodstuffs, and had as many as 22 in force in one year. Today we have four:	wheat, covering 160 million
bushels at $2; cheese, covering fifty millon pounds at 30 cents a pound, an amount less than the total shipments of cheese in any single year during the past thirty years; a contract for 160 million pounds of bacon at fMr. Stephenson.]
$36, grade A Wiltshire, f.o.b. Canadian seaport, the lowest bacon contract we have had in the past ten years. This portrays a situation of such gravity that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) felt it necessary at the last dominion-provincial agricultural conference to state that the Canadian government can no longer assure farmers of a market in Britain for all the hogs we can produce.


James Garfield Gardiner: All they produced were sold.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: If the minister wants to make a speech he may do so later.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Leave him alone and let him do it.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: He would like to be left alone, I know. Then our contract this year for 46 million dozen eggs represents a reduction of 62 per cent from last year. It is said that the reason for this situation is the shortage of dollars in the United Kingdom. We will admit that this has been an important factor, but I still say this government has been sitting on the doorstep, paying hardly any attention to export markets, and as a result we have lost them. Are they going to continue to just sit here and wait for these people to come and knock on our door?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Let us blast our way in.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: 
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: We have been told by the minister also how much better off Canadian farmers were under these long-term agreements. Well, how many long-term agreements have we now, as compared with what the farmers thought they were going to get? Now we find the minister presenting to this house the Agricultural Products Act, which would give him a virtual monopoly over all agricultural products in Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the bill on which you should be making this speech.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: In reading that legislation I find that if a farmer should violate any of its provisions he may be subject to a fine of up to $5,000 or six months in jail or both. I am going to ask the minister if he still thinks that is a good act


James Garfield Gardiner: Which act?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Surely the minister is not going to say, like some others, "I did not hear you." Do you still think it is a good act as far as the farmers are concerned?


James Garfield Gardiner: Which act?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: The Agricultural Products Act, which you have on the order paper now.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it is a good act.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: If it is good, how do you reconcile the statement apparently made by you at the meeting of the Ontario concentrated milk producers association on October 10, when you were reported to have said: Mr. Gardiner said that consumers do not appreciate wartime sacrifices of farmers and . . . that farmers have not been able to make consumers realize how much farmers sacrificed under a government controlled price policy during world war II.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is why we need the act. If the consumers realized that we would not need it.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: The minister says the farmers suffered under this control policy, but now he wants to bring in legislation which will give him control over everything. The farmers in Durham county were not much interested in the political speech made by the minister the other evening, but they would like to know where our markets have gone for hogs, eggs, apples, honey, tobacco, potatoes and many other commodities. Incidentally I would like to ask the minister again when the department intends to carry out T.B. tests in my county. I have been asking for this during the last three years. I have had promises from the minister that it would
The Address-Mr. Stephenson be done, but nothing has been done. We heard the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) tell us that cattle were one source of tuberculosis in human beings. Then on the other hand we have the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) standing up and saying what a wonderful job has been done in chest X-rays for the detection of tuberculosis; yet here we have nothing being done at the source in order to prevent the spread of this disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will produce the veterinarians, we will do it for him.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I now want to say a word about the Minister of Agriculture's applesauce.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We are getting plenty of it.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: If there ever was an instance of applesauce being handed out by a responsible minister, the statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), to the effect that we cannot sell our apples in the United Kingdom because she is now producing enough of her own, hit an all-time high as the following official United Kingdom import figures show.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the hon. member reading from?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: The official United Kingdom import figures. Here they are. From Australia, in 1947, imports to Britain were 92,707 hundredweight; in 1948 imports apparently were 1,108,995 hundredweight. From New Zealand there were no imports to Britain in 1947 but in 1948 she sent 357,529 hundredweight. In 1947 Canada shipped to Britain 663,145 hundredweight of apples. But in 1948 Canada did not ship an apple to Britain.
I should like to table that report also, if I may have the permission of the house to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: My riding being particularly an apple-producing area-and by the way, some of the best apples in Canada are grown there-what I say to the minister is this. When the government saw fit to spend $1,500,000 in the Annapolis valley to root up some of the trees before an election, the people in my riding want to know why some of this money was not spent to procure markets for their apples, or why they did not get a little slice of this money which apparently was spent.


James Garfield Gardiner: They got a great deal of it indirectly.
1088	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Stephenson


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Instead of having to go around and peddle their apples from door to door in order to get rid of them.


An hon. Member:: There is no by-election in Durham.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: 1 am sorry that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is not in his seat because I understand that he is going into my riding tomorrow night in order to oil up the Liberal machine.


Howard Charles Green: It needs it.


Gordon Graydon: They will have to get a new Mie.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I shall be unable to be there because I have my duties here in the house, which must be attended to.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We can spare you.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: But the minister apparently can go to a political meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I cannot be there to welcome him as federal member for the riding, but on behalf of the good citizens of Durham I would at this time give him a welcome to one of the finest counties in Ontario. I should also like to say that although there is good fishing in Durham county-


William Earl Rowe: Not political fishing, though.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: -I would warn him that possibly the fishing for votes will not be so good.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Your fishing was not bad down in Nicolet-Yamaska, with Sauriol.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: We did fairly well.
In conclusion I should like to say this. During the time the government have been sitting back and allowing the markets to come to their door, without making much effort to procure markets for the goods we have to export, had they done a little bit of looking for those markets we would not find ourselves in the position we are in today. We would also find that, instead of having our surpluses piling up here at home, we would be able to dispose of them in other countries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Order. The hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson), during his address, asked for leave of the house to put on Hansard certain statements. Has he the permission of the hon. members to do so?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Maclnnis:: What was the source of the papers that he wanted to put on Hansard?


William Earl Rowe: He told the house.


Angus MacInnis: I would ask the hon. member just to keep quiet. Other members in the house have rights as well as he.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, but the hon. member should listen to what is being said.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to know the source of the figures the hon. member wanted to put on the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: The
hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) is quite correct. Will the hon. member for Durham state what he wishes to have put on Hansard?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: If the hon. member for Vancouver East had been in the house he would likely have heard what I said.


An hon. Member:: Hold it up.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Here is the article. It appeared in a government publication entitled Foreign Trade.


Angus MacInnis: That is all right with me, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: The other is the British or rather the United Kingdom import figures.


Thomas Vincent Grant: That is one the hon. member made up himself?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: No.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Where is it from?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: I would ask hon. members to refrain from interrupting. It is not fair to the member who has the floor, and it is not fair to whoever may be acting as Speaker, when he is trying to get the opinion of the house on a matter of this kind. I should like to ask hon. members if they are agreeable to having these tables put on Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: 
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: : This	debate has	
now been in progress for some two weeks, Mr. Speaker, and the general line of approach of the different groups in the house to the problems which we are facing in Canada today has become quite clear. I should like to comment briefly on them, as I see them, and as they have been expressed in the various speeches made.
In the first place, we have the Progressive Conservatives' ideas which have been almost invariably looking backwards. They want to go back to the old wheat board which we had before 1943, and under which we operated on a floor price. Grain was sold in the grain exchange. Unless the exchange went below that price, the grain exchange made any profits that were to be made out of speculation and the people of Canada paid the bill if there was a loss. Others have stated that they would like to go back to the gold standard and the depreciated currency that we have known in the past. I lived in western Canada during the 1930's when we were operating under a depreciated currency, when we were getting approximately $3.86 for the English pound, when we were exporting our wheat, pork and beef to Great Britain and getting back from eighty cents to eighty-five cents on the dollar. And when we went to purchase the things that
The Address-Mr. Wright we had to purchase from the United States, such as farm machinery and many of the household articles which we use, we had to send there $1.17 to get the means of production which we had to have on the farm to produce our wheat at eighty-five cents a bushel and pork at four cents and five cents a pound. Therefore I am not anxious to go back, and I do not think the people of Canada are.
Then they would like to go back to a complete free economy. What does a complete free economy mean? It means monopoly at home and cartels abroad. That is what it means. Certainly neither we of this group, nor do I think the people of Canada, would like to go back to a complete free economy again.
We have the government's approach. They appear to be looking both ways. Some hon. members' speeches would appear to be progressive. They are looking forward; they are looking to the future. Others are looking back. If it is not presumptuous, I should like to give a bit of advice to the government. I was quite a young man when I first went out west. Out there at that time there was a very smart horse dealer who sold me a team of horses. When I got them home and hooked them up and picked up the lines there was one that looked over his shoulder, looked back, and backed up. The other one wanted to go ahead. I never got very far with that team of horses until I traded off the one that was always looking backwards.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Something like your party.


Percy Ellis Wright: I suggest to the Liberals that they should trade off some of their members who are always looking back. They should trade them off to the Progressive Conservatives and then they might get somewhere.
I should like now to turn to western Canada, which has always been a country in which we have looked to next year. It is a next-year country. We have always looked to the future. Today we in this group are looking to the future. We believe that there is a great future for Canada. There is a great future for us in this country if we would just grasp the opportunities we have.
In making their reports-the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) yesterday, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) a few days ago-the ministers gave a fairly glowing account of production in this country. They used dollars as the basis of their reports. We have a gross national production of something over $15 billion and a gross agricultural production of some $2,800

The Address-Mr. Wright million this year, but I do not think we should use dollars as the standard in measuring our progress. A fairer way would be to give the volume production of goods. So far as volume production of goods in Canada is concerned, we have today approximately the same volume of production that we had during 1944 and 1945. There is a greater dollar value but actually in volume production of goods there has been little increase. That was to be expected, because during 1944 and 1945 we were producing mostly standardized goods, war production. Even the goods which we were using in home consumption were standardized and naturally we were able to get a greater volume of production. Immediately the war was over, we as civilians demanded a more diversified production in this country, and naturally that production, because it was diversified, became less. The government are to be congratulated on the fact that they have brought the production back to where it was in 1944 and in 1945.
However, in spite of this increased production, if we read the financial papers, if we read the annual reports of the chartered banks, if we read the reports of the Canadian chamber of commerce, the manufacturers association, the Canadian federation of agriculture, and the labour organizations, we find a note of doubt as to the future. In giving their reports so far in this debate, the ministers have brought us up to the present, but they have not given any indication of what the future may hold in store for us. We find some of these organizations to which I have referred saying that we are going to have a recession. Others say that that recession may even become a depression. The surest way that they can make it into a depression is to keep on talking about it until they get everybody scared to death, and then they will have a depression. They have not been following a wise course in that respect.
Let me quote a statement which appeared in the Monetary Times-and I think it is fairly typical of the expressions which we find in our publications:
Businessmen are complaining that there was never a time in their memory when it was so difficult to form an intelligent estimate of the state of things to come. So manifold are the imponderables in the international situation, they contend, that about the only way to pick your way through the maze of the future is with a bent pin, like the Chinese do at the race track.
If big business in this country is in the state of mind where it is prepared to admit that it has no plans for the future, that it is just sitting there waiting for something to happen, it is time that we had a government in this country which is prepared to do a little

bit of planning for the future and to let the people know what these plans are.
Why do we find the situation that we have today? Why are manufacturers, the farmers and the labouring people in doubt? If you follow it up you will find that almost invariably the statement is that we have become a great trading nation, and that from 30 per cent to 35 per cent of everything we produce in this country goes into the world markets, and we do not know what these markets may do; we do not know whether the people to whom we are selling are going to be able to continue to buy from us.
Great Britain became a great trading nation in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the first part of the twentieth century. She became a great trading nation because she was prepared both to sell and to buy. I say that that is the only way that we in Canada can ever become a great trading nation.	We can become a great trading
nation only when we are prepared to import as well as export.
In his speech the other day, the Minister of Agriculture spoke of England in the days of Gladstone when she was a great trading nation, but that was seventy years ago. Today the world is changed, and the position in Great Britain has been changed greatly, changed mostly by two world wars. In the first world war Britain had to dispose of some of her assets which she had throughout the world. In the second world war the situation was even worse. In the first two and a half years of the second world war Great Britain carried the load of the defence of democracy in the world, and she did it by disposing of every asset that she had all over the world to get the means of carrying on the war until the United States came in and we instituted lend-lease. What happened at the end of the war? Within three months of the end of the war we stopped lend-lease. The United States stopped it first, and we, like Charlie McCarthy, followed along-"me, too." Then what happened? It was only about three or four months later that we realized the foolishness of the move and that we were not going to be able to dispose of our products. So we made a loan to Great Britain. The United States made a loan of $3,750 million, and our loan was $1,250 million. Immediately that loan was made the United States removed controls, and almost overnight the loan lost about 40 per cent of its value, so far as the purchasing power of Great Britain was concerned. We followed suit, with the result that almost immediately the loan we had made became worth about 70 cents on the dollar.

Then we got into difficulty ourselves with our exchange situation; so we froze $225 million of the loan, thereby placing Great Britain in an even more serious position. After that we had Marshall aid, better known today as the European recovery plan. Under ECA we are again supplying large amounts of goods to Europe. We seem to forget however that war is not over on the day the shooting stops. A war is never over until the damage caused by the war has been repaired. The sooner people throughout the world realize that fact, the better. It matters not who wins a war; everyone must pay for it.
It is just the same as if, living on an island, we found one group in towns and another group in the country. The people in the towns may become dissatisfied with what the people in the country are doing, so they decide to go out and beat them up. We go out and beat them up; we burn a few barns, destroy some stock and come back to town, saying, "Well, we really told those fellows off." But the next day the milkman does not come around; there is no milk. There are no eggs. We are told that the only way we can get milk or eggs is to go out and milk the cow while the farmer is in the hospital, or go out and do the chores required for the supply of eggs. Then we must deliver them to town Exactly the same thing is taking place in Europe. We have destroyed Europe in two wars; and until Europe is rebuilt, until she is back in production again, we will not be able to trade with Great Britain or with other countries of Europe. When we have rebuilt Europe and have established trade relations there on a fair basis, we can hope for some prosperity in our own country.
As I have said, as a result of twd wars Great Britain has not the dollars with which to buy the surplus we have on the American continent. But she must eat; so she makes barter arrangements with her neighbours. In that connection I should like to tell a story about my own community. We have one of the best agricultural districts in western Canada, one which produces an abundance. Around the fringes however there is an area of bush country. During the depression years, in the thirties, many of our people were sent from the cities to homestead in that bush country. Those of us in the better areas had an abundance; our granaries were full; we had hogs; we had cattle-we had everything. But a few miles away our neighbours had only some cordwood and lumber. They received a dollar a cord for the cordwood, delivered in the car, and $10 a thousand for the lumber. But when we in the other area wanted to buy lumber it cost us $30 a thousand. When they wanted to buy any of the hogs which we sold for $7.50
The Address-Mr. Wright they had to pay $20 or $25 for them. It took four of our hogs to supply enough money with which to buy a thousand feet of their lumber. It took 3,000 feet of their lumber to buy one of our hogs.
Eventually some of the 'people got wise, and thought it would be a pretty good idea if we were to trade direct with our neighbours. The result was that one would see a farmer put a couple of hogs on his sleigh, drive away with them, and come back loaded with a thousand feet of lumber. We were practically on a barter basis, because certain people who had control of the finances of this country made money scarce.
The only people who got anywhere during that depression were those who did trade on a barter basis. They built new barns and new homes. Those who traded with them were able to stay off relief. There was in that community, however, another group who followed the old method. They went to the mortgage companies, borrowed money with which to build, and undertook to pay six or seven per cent interest. They then obtained some more credit from the lumber company, and the result was that in about five years the lumber and mortgage companies owned their farms; they were out on the road. There were others who sat down and did nothing, and there were still others in the bush area who did the same thing-nothing. They went on relief.
That is the situation we see in Europe today. When I listen to that program, which is broadcast every Saturday night, and begins "Gold, silver, dollars; gold, silver, dollars"-


Mr. Bentley:: "Share the wealth".


Mrs. Strum:: "Money, money, money."


Percy Ellis Wright: -it makes me think of the situation in Canada and throughout the world today. Someone is sitting on top of all the gold, silver and dollars, with the result that we cannot exchange our goods. We could not exchange them in the thirties.
I am not saying the barter basis is the only one under which trade should be carried on. But I am saying that it works, and in our own community we proved that it works. I believe England is going to prove that it will work in Europe, and that we had better get wise to ourselves and get in on some of that trade while it is going on-or we will find that we, too, will be on relief, just as were some of those people who refused to barter in the thirties.


Thomas John Bentley: Or we will be mortgaged to the hilt.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, or we will be mortgaged to the hilt.

The Address-Mr. Wright
What happens when a country exports more than it imports? If the United States and Canada continue to export more than they import, and refuse to bring back goods to Canada for those exports, they accumulate pounds and francs in Europe. The only good those pounds and francs can be to us is for purposes of investment in the industries or resources of Europe. That was the procedure in the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries, with the result that some of the exporting nations owned the basic resources of many other countries.
That has happened right here in Canada. We have imported more from the United States than we have exported to that country; and as a result of the accumulation here of dollars owned by Americans we find that about 50 per cent of our basic resources are owned by Americans. The condition is not so bad in Canada: we know the Americans. They are our neighbours and our friends; and we can trust them. But let me tell you this, that the people of Europe are not going to trust the people of North America who will come in there and attempt to own the basic resources of Europe-their railroads, their power sites, their manufacturing plants. And if the United States or Canada believes it can carry on on that basis, it is in for a disappointment-and it is not because there is no market for our goods.
The food and agricultural organization tells us that only one-fifth of the people of the world have a reasonable standard of living. Today we have a surplus of food, but that surplus is only in areas where production has been high, while in areas where the purchasing power is low there is still a great need for food.
Here is what the food and agricultural organization has to say:
However, the total supply of food available comprises only part of the picture. Availability per person is another major factor. The world's population has been increasing, and at different rates in different regions. These population increases, over the eleven-year period 1936 to 1947, vary from 3-5 per cent in Europe to over 24 per cent in Latin America. As a result, per capita food supplies have fallen more rapidly, compared with pre-war, than absolute quantities of food produced.
I do not think we will ever reach the point where there is hope for peace as long as there are surpluses of food in one section of the world and starvation in another. We must devise ways and means of distributing the wealth that can be produced on the North American continent. Unless we do that we will find ourselves in the same position as in 1936 and 1937. How did Hitler get the courage to try to conquer the world? He believed the democracies were too weak to resist him, that they could never get together. 

At that time we were in a depression, we had millions of unemployed, and he thought we were weak.
Exactly the same situation will develop in the world again unless the democracies get together to solve some of these problems of distributing the tremendous productive capacity of the North American continent. This is needed for the development of Asia and India and the Middle East. We must find some method, barter or otherwise, to distribute our production. If we cannot do it in one way, then we must find some other way. There is no ground for the fear of overproduction. In my opinion, we can never really overproduce in this world.
What about our own country? Have we reached maximum consumption here? I do not think we have. I do not know what most people think, but I cannot help thinking of the old age pension of $30 per month that is paid by the dominion government. Some of the provinces pay supplementary amounts of $5 or $10, but mostly there is a means test attached. Out of that money these people must pay rent and clothe and feed themselves. Yet we have sufficient production to give them a better standard of living. It does not make common sense to me. I do not think we have nearly reached our consuming capacity in this country.
What about housing? We need probably 150,000 to 200,000 new houses this year every one of which will require furniture, kitchen equipment and all the things needed to furnish a home. There is a market for the tremendous production of this country, but apparently we cannot build houses. What about the war veterans allowances? This government is paying $30 per month to men who fought in the first year, an amount even lower than the old age pension. Some of the provinces supplement the old age pension, but the dominion government cannot even match that as far as the war veterans allowances are concerned.
Certainly there is a market for what can be produced in this country. I could go on indefinitely referring to groups of people in Canada who could consume more if they had the necessary purchasing power. We have the wealth to distribute; why not do the sensible thing? Why have a depression when there is a market for our goods, both at home and abroad? It does not make common sense.
We could undertake a tremendous construction program. I was astonished the other day when figures were tabled in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). They showed that the government had on the shelf a program that would give employment, on the job and off the job, to some 40,000 additional workers.


Mr. Winters:: I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to say that the figures I tabled covered projects for which the drawings and specifications were completed, but there are other projects under active consideration and the shelf is being increased.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am glad to hear the minister's explanation, but I submit that he has left it dangerously late to get his plans in order.
It is now four years since the war, and if those are all the plans he has prepared it does not seem to me that they are adequate. Employment could be given to 40,000 people for the next ten years on constructive work in my own constituency. There is need for a power site at Fort a la Corne on the Saskatchewan river where some 80,000 to 100,000 horsepower could be developed.
There are three uncompleted lines of railroad in the constituency. One runs from Regina through Melfort up to Gronlid. When it was first built it was intended to be extended through to Nipawin and from there on to meet the Hudson Bay railroad to Churchill. This line was built back in the twenties by the Canadian Pacific and I suppose the government cannot do anything about it.
But there are two Canadian National lines. One runs to Arborfield and another runs from Saskatoon through Melfort up to Carrot River where it stops. Settlers have gone in to points fifty miles from those railroads to open up the country, but the government apparently has no intention, at least in the immediate future, of extending these lines. The line which ends at Carrot River should be extended through to The Pas in Manitoba to meet the Hudson Bay railroad. That extension would open from ninety to one hundred miles of the best farming country left in western Canada. Three years ago the Saskatchewan government took certain lands out of the forest reserve some thirty miles from Carrot River and established co-operative farms. Two years ago they had under cultivation 2,500 acres of land; this year they put another 4,000 acres under cultivation, and next year they propose to have a further 6,000 acres under cultivation in that area. There is easily twice that much land which has been broken up by individuals who are located 30, 40 or 50 miles from the railroad.
These lines should be constructed because they would prove to be an asset. They would open up new country and give employment. Why should we worry about a depression in Canada? Why should we worry about places to spend our money? We have plenty of places. What I have said applies also to the line that ends at Arborfield. It should be
The Address-Mr. Pinard extended through to meet the Hudson Bay railroad. This extension would open up new country and provide additional employment.
The line that ends at Gronlid should be extended to Nipawin. The area through which this extension would pass is one of the best mixed farming areas in western Canada. They have a greater diversified production in that area than in any other area in the west. We produce honey, five million to six million pounds of alfalfa seed a year, red clover seed, grass seeds, peas, rape, registered grains. The land has been tested for the production of sugar beets. We could have a sugar beet factory there. The land is suitable for the production of sugar beets without irrigation, and would justify the establishment of a factory. We have power on the Saskatchewan river. We have everything there except-


An hon. Member:: Government co-operation.


Percy Ellis Wright: Government co-operation to go ahead with these schemes and make that province a diversified one instead of a one-crop province as it is at the present time. Those are some of the things which I should like to bring to the attention of the government. I am one of those people who do not believe in hollering blue ruin. I believe we have a great country, and I think all we need is the courage to go ahead and develop it.


Mr. Roch Pinard (Chambly-Rouville):: In
rising to participate in this debate, it is my intention, while trying to adhere strictly to the rules of the house, to discuss some aspects of the political situation in Canada today in the light of recent developments and circumstances. Amongst the many changes which have made of the year 1948 one of the busiest and most active in the political life of Canada, an all-important event has taken place. I refer to the change in the leadership of the Liberal party during the month of August. If one recalls that our party has experienced such changes only three times since 1893, a period of fifty-five years, one is bound to admit that the event of last August is of very great significance.
It is true that a similar change has also taken place in the Progressive Conservative party, but one is not surprised if in this case the event did not attract the same attention or offer the same interest to the political observer. The reason for such indifference is easy to understand. Even to the most enthusiastic of moving picture fans the sixth or seventh marriage of a Hollywood star cannot offer much interest. Likewise, even to the most devoted, or should I say the most hardened Tory, the advent of the tenth or eleventh leader in the last forty years, to

The Address-Mr. Pinard take charge of the opposition, could not but leave him quite cold, or at least very skeptical.
In the case of the Liberal party the election of our new leader, the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) coincided with the retirement from leadership of one whom,
I am sure, the history of this country will confirm as having been one of Canada's greatest servants and statesmen, the righc hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King). The people of the country and everyone in the house were pleased to realize that our former Prime Minister had chosen to remain with us as a simple commoner in order to give the country the benefit of his long and unique experience, not only in Canadian but in world affairs. It is indeed comforting to see that the former leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken), has also decided to remain with us. He too has made a great contribution, and fortunately the house will continue to benefit from his experience. Such an attitude on the part of the former leaders of our two great political groups, in deciding to remain in the service of their country in this house, offers a much better example than that which was given some time ago by another leader of a political party. I refer, of course, to the late Lord Bennett, who was Prime Minister of Canada for five long years.
The leader of the Conservative party at that time launched before the public in the 1935 election his famous slogan "Canada first", which he defended with his usual emphasis. After suffering a crushing defeat in 1935, a defeat which we all remember, he decided to leave his country of birth and origin, which had bestowed upon him such great honours, and he went overseas to England. He changed his slogan, "Canada first", into the strange declaration, "I am going home."
It is doubtful, however, whether the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) will follow such an example after he has experienced the same political adversities. Even if he decided to go back to the province of Ontario in order to become again premier of that province, it is possible that the electors would not accept his change of decision. Then the leader of the opposition would be left with the possibility of offering his services to the premier of Quebec as a friend unless, of course, the latter has then disappeared from public life.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: He would not accept it.


Roch Pinard: Or possibly, as my friend says, the offer would be refused because the Quebec premier would try to find better political 

advice. Let us return for a moment to that great event of last August when a new leader was chosen to take over the direction of the Liberal party. On that occasion once more the people of Canada understood the two main reasons that are behind the continued success of our political group. Those reasons are competent leadership and sound national policy. Ever since its inception, the Liberal party has indeed enjoyed competent leadership. I think everyone in the house, even my friends opposite, will agree that it is not necessary for me to demonstrate that fact. No better and more decisive proof could be brought than that of simply recalling that ever since the end of the last century, or if you prefer since the advent of Laurier in 1896, the Liberal party has been in power all the time with the exception of the decade from 1911 to 1921, and the sad period that I recalled a minute ago, from 1930 to 1935.
What better demonstration is there of the brilliant leadership which our group, and I would also say the Canadian people, have enjoyed under Laurier and the right hon. member for Glengarry? On the 7th of August last Liberals from all parts of Canada elected their new leader, the present Prime Minister of our country. Since that date the Canadian people have once more realized how fortunate indeed our group has been that there should be a man so highly distinguished, of so great ability, to carry the emblem of Liberalism and follow the path traced out by these great figures who shine in the history of our nation.
The prodigious ascension of the Prime Minister to the highest political honours is a tribute paid by the Canadian people to his sincerity, competence and ability. The fact of his choice by all Liberals throughout the whole country is also proof of the spirit of unity and good understanding which has always prevailed in our political group. This gesture in selecting once again a Canadian of French origin is another recognition by Liberals of the fundamental principle of equality of the two major races of the nation. It is one of the numerous reasons which justify the contentions of our group, that it really represents the aspirations, ideals and thoughts of everybody in Canada, and justify its claim to being a truly national party.
But, Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that not only good leadership but also a sound national policy throughout has been one of the reasons for the continued achievement of our political group in the past. A great French statesman once said that politics should be a fight for ideas rather than a struggle of intrigues. Unless a party is willing to base its political actions on intangible principles; unless it chooses to remain faithful to a living

doctrine; unless it devotes all its energies to the defence of national ideas; it cannot survive.
It is true that other groups have been formed, even in our country, which preferred to count on opportunism or on trying to achieve power by making appeals to the weaker instincts of the masses; or who in their bid for office have resorted to promises or flattery; but inevitably such groups, after agitating public opinion for a while, have had or will have to crumble and disappear under public contempt. Ever since its origin the Liberal party has been faithful to its principles and doctrines, and has tried successfully to adapt its course of action to the continuing and changing needs of our time. Many definitions have been given by our party leaders of such principles and doctrines. All such definitions, though they may vary in terms, have expressed the same idea, for which so many Canadians in the past have been willing, and so many are still willing, to fight. Laurier, who is often referred to as the father of Canadian Liberalism, gave a sound and complete definition of Liberal principles when he stated that Liberals should pursue reforms through moderate and democratic means; that they should try to obtain an extension of the political freedom of the people, and also that they should work towards a vision of a greater independence for our people in the international community. He also admirably summed up those principles when he spoke of the superiority of Liberalism when it tries to favour, by its actions, the attainment of an easier life by a larger number.
It is through constant adaptation of such ideas to our ways of life by Liberal leaders ever since confederation that the whole legislation of our country-I refer, of course, to that legislation which is permanent, not to the transitory legislation-is imbued with Liberalism. For that reason I was pleased to realize, when reading the speech from the throne this year, that under its new Liberal leader this government intends, in carrying on its task, to apply the same principles and doctrines as they were expressed anew in the resolutions adopted by our party at its convention last August.
Under our present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and this government, we find in the speech from the throne that other reforms are proposed which after this session will form part of our legislation. The legislation thus enunciated is entirely in conformity with the principles already defined, and one has only to
The Address-Mr. Pinard recall some of the measures already proposed or to be proposed to realize that they are in complete accord with the ideals of Liberalism. For instance, in order to facilitate an easier life for a greater number the government has decided to introduce legislation to modify and extend the scope of the Family Allowances Act, and legislation also will be introduced to supplement the national health program which was undertaken last year. Again, in order to give Canadians greater freedom, a measure will be introduced to establish our Supreme Court of Canada as the court of last resort for this country. No doubt it was also in pursuit of this ideal of making our country more powerful, so that it may enjoy greater influence, that a few days ago we decided to sign an agreement by which Newfoundland is to become the tenth Canadian province. In 1905 two great provinces entered confederation, at a time when another great Liberal leader was at the head of government. Now our new Liberal leader welcomes another province into our midst. To add special significance to such a great venture, on both occasions it has fallen to the lot of members representing the same historic constituency of Quebec East, two Canadians of French origin-Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Louis St. Laurent-to welcome the entry of these new provinces into the Canadian confederation.
Again, following the traditions of our party and the policies advocated by former Liberal leaders, the government has expressed itself in favour of the opening of new markets and the expansion of trade. In 1911 Laurier was saying, "Our policy is advance. Our policy has been and will be to seek markets wherever markets are to be found." So I was very pleased the other day to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) express the same views, and state that this government will continue to try to secure new markets and new openings for our products throughout the world.
But, Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal party has always enjoyed competent leadership it is because it has constantly followed the same sound policies and has constantly defended the same doctrines. Thus I say that today the Liberal party enjoys the confidence of the whole people of Canada. During that time our Tory opponents have been satisfied to criticize, to make appeals based on opportunism, or to change from destructive criticism to electoral appeals. The reason for their constant failure in the last few years, however, has been their refusal to adopt a national policy which could represent the aspirations and ideals of every Canadian. It would appear from some of the policies they
1076	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pinard have advocated that their aim and intention has been to bring about a divided country instead of trying to have a united Canada. While constantly opposing the needs of one section of the country to those of another, or again while trying to antagonize one province against the others, on other occasions by their attitude they have tried to create unrest and at times even hatred between the two great races. Thus they have become in fact, even though perhaps unwillingly, the real enemies of Canadian unity. Not only in their speeches but in their writings our friends the Progressive Conservatives seem even today to have some sort of dislike or aversion for the words "Canadian unity." You may look through the declaration of policy that party adopted last October, and in the whole twenty-three pages of what I would call the Tory tale of promises to the people you will not find one word about unity. This pamphlet contains almost everything as far as offers to the people are concerned except an undertaking to work with the people to bring about unity in Canada. Yet after the recent by-election in Nicolet-Yamaska the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) interpreted the result as an expression of gratitude by the people of that riding for the great work accomplished by the Progressive Conservative party in the direction of Canadian unity.
After that election we saw in the press that we Liberals who had participated in the campaign were accused of having raised religious or racial cries on various occasions.
I am asking you, Mr. Speaker: Who has in fact raised such an appeal? Is it the members on this side of the house who have constantly worked to establish unity, tolerance and better understanding between the races of this country? Is it the Liberal governments under Laurier and Fielding or is it the government led for so long a time by the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his former colleague Ernest Lapointe, or is it this present government which has raised religious or race cries in this house? On no occasion have you heard that, Mr. Speaker.
I would refer hon. members to some words that were used in this very house by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on January 31 of this year, as reported at page 89 of Hansard:
We have always been able to put forward the same policy and to make the same appeal in both languages. There has never been a Liberal government since confederation which has not recognized at all times in its ranks the principle upon which this nation was really founded, the principle of the partnership of the two races. Our party is the only one which has been able to have leaders from both races: and our party has always practised the precept of unity-which is desired I think by most Canadians.


A little further on he added:
We also stand for national unity, unity based upon the fundamental equality of all Canadians whatever their race or wherever their province.
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the leader of the opposition should not be called the real enemy of national unity or whether it should not be he rather than we who should be accused of raising religious or racial cries, in view of the declarations that the leader of the opposition himself has made on many occasions in the past-and I quote his own words as they were reported on one occasion:
Are we going to permit one isolationist province 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.
This was said by the leader of the opposition on the occasion of the discussion concerning family allowances; and I could cite many of these expressions by the leader of the opposition along the same lines. For instance, if we are accused of raising the religious cry, I would refer this house to a declaration that was made by the leader of the opposition at one time in his own province. He said this, and I quote his own words:
If the Roman Catholics say they are going to bring their faith into the political scene by organizing as a political party, then I say "the war is on." If they do, they are starting something that may end in the abolition of the separate schools in Ontario. If it appears that the Roman Catholics have decided to operate as a political group-
Which has never been the case, by the way, and the hon. gentleman knows it only too well.
-then the contract of 1867 is forfeited and I will be ready to fight to the last ditch.
Those were some of the appeals made by the leader of the opposition. I am surprised to find that today we are the ones who are being accused of raising religious and racial cries. It has never been done by the Liberal party. Nobody on this side of the house has ever tried to do such a thing. Because of the fact that most of the members from the province of Quebec belong to our group, it is untrue to say that the religious or race cry has been raised by anybody on this side of the house.
It is so true that the leader of the opposition has become a real enemy of Canadian unity that he did not go and participate in the election in the riding of Nicolet-Yamaska.


An hon. Member:: He was not obliged to.


Roch Pinard: In fact, he was invited to stay out by the candidate of the party at the time.


Mr. Hodgson:: Twenty-three leaders of the Liberal party were down there. He did not need to go down.


Roch Pinard: I am pleased to find out that the hon. gentleman knows that. If he knows, he should have gone there. And if he had gone there with his Tory friends, I am telling him now that his friend from Nicolet-Yamaska would not be sitting in this house today.
I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that when the other day we saw the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska coming into this house arm and arm with the leader of the opposition and the Conservative member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon), it was indeed a strange combination-an extremely sad scene, I should say.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You did not like it.


Roch Pinard: We remember what he said during his campaign when he refused, in his radio addresses, to give his confidence to the one he today considers to be his own leader. But as was said at the time by some hon. members of this house-I think it was said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and also by our own Prime Minister-our Tory friends know quite well that one swallow does not make a summer. They will certainly find that out at the next general election, when it is time to go and ascertain whether the people are in favour of this government or not. They will find then, and we will find, that the government still enjoys the confidence of every province, of every race, and of the majority of the electors in this country.


Mr. L. W. Skey (Trinity):: In view of the unfortunate nature of some of the remarks made by the hon. member who preceded me, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should point out to the house now, for the sake of the record, that the leader of the opposition is not in his place and he was not present to hear what was said by the hon. member who has just spoken.


An hon. Member:: He should have been.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I will not spend any more time on that matter. I should like to offer my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the motion for an address in reply. I congratulate them on making the best of what was not too good a speech from the throne. At the same time I should like to extend my personal welcome to the new members who have entered the house since we prorogued last June.
May I also add a word concerning a new constituency in Newfoundland. The name of the new constituency is Trinity-Conception. As the member for Trinity, Toronto, I shall be pleased to extend my personal welcome to a new member from another Trinity constituency as soon as that member is elected from that grand old dominion.
Before I go on with the general tenor of my remarks, which will deal with housing,
The Address-Mr. Skey I should like to refer to another unrelated matter, namely, Christie Street hospital in Toronto which has just recently been handed over to the city. It has been renamed and is now called Lambert Lodge. It is about three years ago that I first made the suggestion that, when the hospital at Sunnybrook came into full operation, perhaps the government would see fit to extend the hospital facilities in our part of the province by handing Christie Street hospital back to the city of Toronto. I am extremely pleased that, through the tenure of two ministers of veterans affairs, two prime ministers and two different mayors of Toronto, my original suggestion has survived. I am pleased that it is now a fact that the city owns Christie Street hospital and that the facilities and hospital beds, which are so greatly needed at the present time, will be available to the people not only of our city but of York county and the part of the province surrounding the city. A few days ago I was happy to participate in the ceremonies, with several members of the city council and many of the hospital staff of Christie Street and the Prime Minister, at the time the key was handed over. It was following that ceremony that the Prime Minister spoke interestingly on the housing problem in Toronto. Judging from his remarks that day, he has changed his mind considerably from the stand he took on October 28, 1947, when he was reported by the Ottawa Journal to have said that he would have no part in passing any legislation to assist subsidized housing in any way. On the latter occasion the Prime Minister said, and I quote from the Telegram of Monday, February 21:
We feel that the proper policy for the federal government is one which is limited to extending financial assistance to individuals and corporations, whether home owners or landlords.
Because the remainder of my remarks will be devoted to housing, I do hope that the government are going to go forward in the general way outlined by the Prime Minister on that day, and that there will be the most vigorous prosecution of, and action on, the housing front in Canada that we have ever seen. I should like to see it equal in some ways the efforts put forth by industry during the war, because I think it is the most acute problem in the country.
According to the Toronto Star of Monday, February 14, the financial editor asked this question:
What has been accomplished in meeting the demand for adequate housing (since 1945)?
His answer was:
The simple answer to this question is "not very much." In fact, it is not unfair to say that we have failed and failed badly.
1078	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Skey
It is not amiss for me to point out at this time that, immediately following the war, the housing problems of our country were largely under the control of the federal government through the wartime powers that they had assumed. In 1945 they gave the electorate to understand that they intended to deal with the housing problem. It was not many months after that before they almost threw up their hands in despair and handed it back to the municipalities.
May I turn to another phase of this question, Mr. Speaker? In Toronto on February 13 the veterans held a meeting in Earlscourt legion hall, which was reported in the Telegram of February 14, 1949. The report reads:
At the meeting attended by representatives from Ottawa and Queen's park as well as local housing officials, the veterans aired hundreds of cases of poor accommodation for which returned men are paying high rents, and other housing complaints.
If there is any group in this country to which this parliament and the people owe a fair deal, it is the veterans, and yet they have been those most penalized. I need only remind the house that after we rose on August 31, 1946, the Veterans Land Act was amended and the acreage provisions were raised from half an acre to something close to three acres. With that one stroke of the pen literally thousands of veterans in Canada were denied the thing that they wanted most, namely, a home, a home in which to settle themselves and their families. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) is in his seat and I am sure that he will not deny the fact that the effect of the alteration made by order in council was to stop thousands of building projects and building plans for veterans across the country. Perhaps the government could argue in this instance that the Veterans Land Act was a small-holding act, and was being used for purposes different from those intended by the government. But what it was doing, even though it might not have been used for the purpose that the government originally intended, was meeting the veteran's greatest need at that time. His greatest need was a home, and he was using the half-acre provision to get himself a home. Since then there has been practically no assistance to this group, which deserves it above all others.
My constituency is in the most crowded part of the metropolitan urban area of the city of Toronto. There we see the full effects of inadequate housing. Hardly a week goes by that I do not get a number of appeals from my constituents, asking me for help in the housing field. I think I can speak with authority when I tell you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members, that it is causing broken


families. It is placing a tremendous strain on the budgets of veterans and the workingmen. With high rents and high costs for makeshift accommodation, with the number of restaurant and outside meals that have to be paid for, the crowded housing conditions are causing problems of health which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) should be aware of. In some ways it is contributing to juvenile delinquency. Recently it was reported in the press that one family was using sleeping drugs on their children in order to keep them quiet so that they would not be evicted from accommodation which they had secured after great difficulty. That is certainly bad for the children; it is seriously affecting their health and the well-being of that family. But that is not all, Mr. Speaker. It is contributing to another social and political problem. It is contributing to communism.
Yesterday I was interested when the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) spoke of communism and referred to it as "organized desperation." I do not think that that is a bad description, because people get to the point in this housing problem where they say to one another: "Things could not be much worse for us. We are ready to try anything." That sort of thing is true not only in my city but also in Montreal. I am sure that it is true in Vancouver and from coast to coast.
May I give you some insight into that, Mr. Speaker. When we had a provincial election in Ontario last year, in my constituency the returning officer looked for polling stations. In some parts of the constituency he found that there was no place in which to place a poll for the people to vote, because the people in those sections were sleeping in shifts. They were on the twenty-four hour shift, and every bit of accommodation was being used in these parts of Trinity-Bracondale.
Now where is the individual to find any help with these problems? He has not received it from the federal government up to the present time, because, just when the young men and the young women need most to save, they find themselves subjected to taxation which can be described as extortionate or confiscatory, and they cannot put aside anything with which to pay for a new house or to provide any part of the cost of a house under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation plans. Not only has this taxation been imposed on his or her savings or earnings, but the government's financial policy has led to a cut in the purchasing power of the dollar which amounts to 50 per cent over 1939. In 1939 the Canadian dollar would buy 65 cents worth of goods, using the year 1901 as a base. Now, on the same basis of compari-

son, in October of 1948 the dollar would buy only 32 cents worth of goods. I have here a table showing the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar. It has been prepared by the very reliable firm of George A. Touche and Company, the auditors for the Canadian National Railways. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the permission of the house I should like to place this table on Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to put this document on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: The Address-Mr. Skey house is aware that Ontario is providing additional credits for those who build houses under the National Housing Act to the extent of $1,000 per unit. They have also special conditions for veterans. This pamphlet reports that Ontario has been forced to guarantee municipally sponsored rehousing schemes up to a limit of $15 million. The province will grant $300 per lot to veterans housing programs; and the province will guarantee building development corporations up to $2 million. Loans on 10,000 dwelling units will be guaranteed up to an aggregate sum of $10 million.
Here we have the provincial governments wrestling with a problem in connection with which it seems to me they have practically no help from the federal government, up to the present time. I am sure British Columbia is having the same problem but I have no information on that province at hand. However I make the statement because I do not want hon. members to think I am speaking only as a Toronto urban member, because I know the problem is one which extends from coast to coast.
When the Progressive Conservative party met in national convention in October last we recognized this situation as an emergency. In our platform we wrote several planks on the subject, one making provision for the extension of the National Housing Act, the second making provision for an extensive research by the government on buildings costs, and the final one a recommendation of dominion-provincial-municipal co-operation in tackling the problem. I believe there is no one in the house today who does not realize that all three levels of government are involved.
When a national highway became a political issue, the federal government was quick enough in calling a conference of the provincial premiers to discuss this worth-while project, one which I favour, but one which in my opinion is not nearly as important in our national life as is the housing problem in the cities of Canada. I should like to see the federal government call a housing conference and back to the limit its Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) at such a conference, giving him power to negotiate with the provinces and municipalities in order to find a solution-not just to produce a nice draft of what can or cannot be done. I should like to see this problem really tackled, so that Regent park would not be the only housing project in Canada that has been developed as a co-operative venture by the dominion, the province and the municipality. We are proud that the city council of Toronto have carried out the Regent park development, the


only one of its kind in Canada. But it is a shame that it is the only one; it is a shame that this type of co-operation has not been extended to other communities, as well as in our own, in an endeavour to deal with this urgent national problem.
I have completed my remarks except to say that I hope the new minister of reconstruction will succeed. I hope he will be permitted to meet with the provinces and the municipalities in a conference of the type I have described. There is no doubt that he understands the problem because he said so in Toronto when he spoke there on February 22. But he must do more than understand it; he must fight it and beat it. I hope the government will put its full financial strength behind his department and that we will make the same rapid progress in this field that we were able to make when we turned out munitions of war during a time when we faced a national crisis.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Gingues (Sherbrooke):: Allow me to join those who have already spoken in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, which is now under discussion. The hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), who is already an old hand in parliament, displayed much talent in moving the address, and the new member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Demers) showed that his constituents have selected as their representative a man of worth, a man who will surely succeed in Canadian politics.
I also wish to join those who believe as 1 do that the best parliamentary system is the two-party system and congratulate the new leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). Although I do not share his views, I hope that he will hold that office longer than his predecessors.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak on behalf of the people who live in that beautiful Quebec district which is called the eastern townships, to congratulate one of our fellow citizens on his success and to thank him for the great honour he is bringing to our wonderful region.
I should like more especially to tell you, Mr. Prime Minister, on behalf of the Borro-means, that is the former pupils of St. Charles Seminary, that the professors, the former students and all the pupils of the seminary have been proud of you at each stage of your brilliant career as a lawyer and as a statesman. But on the day when you were sworn in as Prime Minister of Canada, the rejoicing was complete "on the top of the high hill"; the joy was ecstatic; your alma mater was jubilant.

The Address-Mr. Gingues
All those who know your old seminary will easily understand that. To all those from other parts of the country who do not know it, I* must say that you were a bright student, always getting the highest honours in your class, and that since you left St. Charles, you have been the model of all Borromeans. As the Bishop of Sherbrooke said one day, and I quote:
Your conduct has made of you an example to follow, a model to imitate, and all this because of the integrity of your life, of your frankness, of your fondness for truth.
Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that if a provincial-municipal conference were called where the Quebec government would offer to share this revenue with the cities, the latter would be able to meet their present obligations and plan for their future development?
The same applies to the tax on gasoline, which brings in good money, half of which is paid by city dwellers. Since cities must undertake the building and upkeep of their streets, do you not think that the provincial government infringes upon municipal autonomy in refusing to share this revenue with them?
The eastern townships, your seminary and Sherbrooke are proud of you. You can rely on our support. We know you and we like your frankness. Politics needs men like you.
Mr. Speaker, in 1945, a federal-provincial conference was held in Ottawa during which the federal government made certain proposals to the provinces. Unfortunately for the aged, the sick and the invalid, unfortunately for the economic future of the country, the two wealthiest provinces refused to co-operate and, in the case of Quebec, counter-proposals were not even submitted. Since then, the government is being branded as a centralizing power, as the enemy of the provinces.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, if we consider the generous way in which the federal government have contributed to social security, assistance to the young, and through many other pieces of legislation, we must recognize the fact that the central government have only performed those functions which are assigned to them in the constitution, and that they never attempted to encroach upon provincial rights.
I sometimes wonder why the provincial government has not yet called a provincial-municipal conference. The time has come for provincial authorities to invite the mayors to discuss municipal finances. The provincial government should restore their autonomy to the cities and towns of Quebec.
Recently, the cities of the eastern townships attempted, one after the other, to introduce a bill in the Quebec legislature in order to obtain the power to amend their charter and levy a 2 per cent sales tax. They were compelled, however, to withdraw the measure on account of the protests from their citizens. They will have to solve their financial problems in some other way. The 2 per cent sales tax levied by the provincial government in the city of Sherbrooke yields about $300,000 per year.
Those who loudly clamour for autonomy should, to my mind, start by having regard for the autonomy of the government closest to the people, the municipal government. We know our cities are hard put to it to balance their budgets, that they cannot further increase the real estate levy and are duty bound to pay adequate wages to their employees.
How can they be expected to carry out all their responsibilities if the provincial government keeps on draining the sources of income at their disposal? I suggest that the municipalities demand a conference with the provincial government. We shall then see which government most encroaches on the autonomy of others.
Such a conference would also compel realization of the fact that, in our country, all governments-federal, provincial and municipal-must co-operate. This co-operation, on the part of every government, is indispensable if the true interest of the country is to be served. That is, after all, in the interests of every Canadian.
The federal government, it seems to me, has been, up to now, worthy of its responsibilities. However I feel it to be its duty today to alleviate the burden of taxation which the Canadian people have borne with so much courage. Speaking for my constituents, I request the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to increase the income tax exemptions so as to raise the morale of our people, inspire confidence in the future and bring about those undertakings upon which depends the future development of our great country.
It must not be forgotten that a disheartened people is a people whose collective will may obey any impulse and may accept any belief, even communism, whilst a people whose morale is excellent pays no attention whatever to any dangerous ideology, because such a people is confident and is constantly striving to better its position without fearing that its efforts will be futile.

The Address-Mr. Gingues
If the Minister of Finance should object that he will have to find other revenue sources, I would strongly advise him to find them and to rid our people of this disheartening method of taxation, the income tax.
We could, for example, levy a higher tax on alcoholic beverages and luxury goods in general. We could even organize a national lottery and place it under the jurisdiction of the Post Office Department which, I am sure, could sell national lottery tickets as easily as it sells money orders. Such a source of revenue alone would permit the Minister of Finance to exempt from income tax hundreds of thousands of Canadians, freeing them from all the red tape of the Department of National Revenue, and the government would still be in a position to meet the requirements of its social legislation and the national debt.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act is a demoralizing measure and I wonder whether the time has not come to look for something better. Those who direct the taxation policy of the government should ponder and endeavour to obtain revenues by other means.
Any word liable to demoralize another person is an evil word and should never be uttered. Likewise and with greater reason, any law which tends to demoralize a people is an evil law and deserves to be suppressed.
The people are aware that they must pay taxes and are ready to do so. They know the government needs revenue but they hate the present taxation methods. Let us find other methods such as I just mentioned. I have already taken the liberty of writing to the ministers concerned to suggest certain methods. I hope they have studied them and that the next budget will bring forth these reforms. The people will be satisfied, their spirits will be better and they will face the future with confidence.
And now, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all that it has done to promote the building of houses, I would like the government to improve the National Housing Act. We all know that this act is nearly perfect. If it has not produced the expected results, it is only because of the high cost of building.
The cost of building, however, is about to become stabilized and the government should, in order to make the National Housing Act more complete, absorb part of the interest.
At present, a worker is unable to build a house for less than $6,000 to $7,000. The interest on $6,000, at 41 per cent, amounts to $270 per annum. In other words, on $6,000 the interest alone would amount to $22.50 a month.


In addition, the Sherbrooke property and school taxes amount to $125 per year. If we add insurance and upkeep, the rent comes to approximately $40 per month.
A labourer will be unable to keep his home if he has to build under such conditions. However, it would be much easier for him to purchase a house and keep it if the government absorbed the difference between 41 per cent and 2 per cent, because there his rent would only amount to some $30 per month.
I therefore urge the government to look into the matter carefully and follow my advice. I am convinced that it is the only way to help thousands of Canadians who wish to buy a house. Being property-owners they will be better Canadians.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I deal with various matters of particular concern to the constituency I have the honour of representing. A Sherbrooke industry employing some 500 workers, male and female, prospered during the first great war. Right after the 1918 armistice, however, hundreds of glove workers were dismissed and had to look for employment elsewhere. Not only did the industry lose thousands of dollars, but these workers, who had spent many years acquiring the precision which is essential for glove making, were left at loose ends. Glove imports from Czechoslovakia and western Germany were the cause of the trouble.
Remembering this experience, I felt it my duty, as early as 1942, to bring to the attention of the government the importance of this industry to the city of Sherbrooke and to the country at large. At the time the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) visited the present industries-the Julius Kayser and the Austin Gloves plants. We then supplied the Department of Trade and Commerce with all the information required in order that the government might protect, after the war, an industry that had contributed its share from the economic viewpoint and had given some five hundred local workers steady employment. Unfortunately,
I am afraid that imports from certain European countries will again help to nullify the efforts of hardy Canadians who invested rather substantial amounts, only to find that their efforts were useless and that they had better turn to other industries.
Canadian manufacturers are not seeking any favours, Mr. Speaker. All they want is honest and loyal competition.
However, that is not possible with European countries, since the glove-making industry on that continent does not operate the same as it does here. Over there, it is a

family industry. A man will cut the parts necessary to make hundreds of gloves a day and will then distribute them in homes where members of the families will sew them up, at ridiculous wages. Here, our manufacturers must own huge plants, install therein costly equipment, pay good wages and ensure good working conditions. All this compels them to sell their goods at a higher price than imported goods, in spite of the duties imposed by Canada. This importation, it seems to me, is getting unjust and disloyal. There is still time however, and I today request the government to take every available means to protect the industry and to keep these 500 workers employed. The government can, I think, through conferences with the interested countries, arrive at an agreement which will keep this industry in our midst so that it may continue to progress and to make of Sherbrooke the "cradle of the glove-making industry in Canada."
I read in the newspapers a while ago that a group of Esthonian immigrants were to come to Sherbrooke to work for the Dominion Textile Company. These immigrants were technicians, which would enable the company to take on two Canadian workers for each immigrant it would employ. I hear, Mr. Speaker, that these immigrants are here and that the Dominion Textile Company has taken on six Canadian workers for/ each one of the Esthonian experts. If it is true, it is not so bad then. But they say that the wives and daughters of these foreigners are employed in other industries. If that be true, it is intolerable because we already have here men and women who are looking for work. I read also in the newspapers that the city council of Sherbrooke had allowed that company to accommodate these people in the former military camp "Lord Sherbrooke."
I shall put some questions on the order paper in order that my constituents may get the necessary information on that subject. If I mention it in this house, it is that I want to disengage myself from any responsibility as far as the arrival of these immigrants is concerned. The answers I shall get will show that I had nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with the coming of these immigrants to Sherbrooke.
I am not against selected immigration but I do not believe that the government should grant entry permits to Canada to anyone while there is unemployment in Canada. I trust that before taking action in the future the authorities of the Department of Mines and Resources and of the Labour Department will refer to the member for Sherbrooke.
The Address-Mr. Gingues
The member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) said the other day during the course of this discussion that he was afraid that the taxes might lead to revolution. As I said a while ago, I want a reduction of income taxes but I believe that the attitude of the present premier of Quebec (Mr. Duplessis), that dictator, towards organized labour could lead to revolution more than the taxes could.
I was very much amazed to learn that Mr. Picard, chairman of the Catholic Federation of Labour, had been called a "saboteur". I know Mr. Picard and several leaders and chaplains of the Catholic Syndicates. I am well acquainted with their patience and tolerance and with the contribution they have made for the betterment of the position of the Quebec workers and I know that they do not deserve to be called "saboteurs". When a man, speaking on behalf of his government, describes in such terms people who are so honest and so anxious to preserve the good relations which must exist between capital and labour, he simply does so, in my opinion, in order to destroy the labour organization, and I say that he acts as the No. 1 organizer of the communist party. Yes, Mr. Speaker, when the labouring classes have lost confidence in their present leaders, they will choose others, and you know which ones they will select. Our province and the whole country will then see the masses turn to plain socialism, which in my opinion is communism's spring-board. The one responsible for that situation will be the man who, through his dictatorial attitude, will have succeeded in destroying the confidence the workers had in their leaders. This is no time for dictatorship; in this period of readjustment the workers need first the confidence of their leaders and especially the honest and sincere leadership of a government having all the autonomy required for the protection of their rights.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am myself a worker, more than anyone else in this house. I know by experience the countless difficulties we had to overcome during the last twenty-five years in order to defend the legitimate rights of workers. The Canadian and Quebec worker enjoys today conditions better than those I have known myself scarcely a decade ago.
That is due to the Liberal governments which have always given fair play to the working class, both by placing social laws on our statute books and by enacting measures enabling workers to discuss on equal

The Address-Mr. Gingues footing with their employers. Mr. Speaker, the saboteur is not Mr. Gerard Picard, president of the C.T.C.C.; it is the dictator of Quebec, who sabotages the Liberal legislation protecting our workers.
Mr. Speaker, I have taken part in many struggles during the past twenty years, but never have I witnessed an election such as that of July 28 last in my province. When I went actively into politics, I laid down a policy for my organizers in the matter of electoral manners. This policy was complied with and I am convinced I have improved electoral methods in my constituency.
Personally I have always believed and I still believe that candidates must appeal to the electors' intelligence. That is what I did. However, those who took part in last summer's election know that some people do not hesitate to resort to all sorts of means to corrupt and buy human consciences. I wonder if those methods will not lead us quicker than anything else to the revolution which the member for Chicoutimi seems to fear.
In my opinion, the methods used during the latest provincial electoral campaigns are far more dangerous than taxes to stir up indignation. The people of my province are now crying over their mistake of July 28.
In conclusion, may I say that although the present government is not perfect, taking its administration as a whole it has faithfully fulfilled its mandate.
Today, under our new leader, we may rightly feel confident, for, as I pointed out earlier, he is a man who loves frankness and truth. With him, we know where we come from and where we head for.
I am satisfied with the way of frankness and truth. I shall fully support my leader and begin by casting my vote in his favour when the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne is put before the house.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Weir the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 3, 1949