1949-09-26

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Hon. members will recall that when the shortage of United States dollars made it necessary to impose import restrictions in November, 1947, the importation of oranges and other citrus fruits, apples, potatoes, onions and fruit juices, was placed on a quota basis and the importation of many other fresh fruits and vegetables was prohibited.
As I said on several occasions in this house during the debate on the Emergency Exchange Conservation bill, these import restrictions on fresh fruits and vegetables like the other restrictions were intended to be temporary. They were put on as a necessary measure to conserve exchange and it has been our declared policy to relax and remove them as soon as the exchange position permitted.
Accordingly from time to time, as our reserves of gold and United States dollars improved, we relaxed the restrictions, by increases in the quota and by allowing the importation of staple vegetables and some fruits under open general permit-that is, without restriction.
In December, 1948, when the restrictions were substantially relaxed, I said that it was the government's intention to remove all remaining restrictions under the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act on fresh fruits and vegetables by the following July-that is, July 1949. This intention was confirmed in the budget speech of March 22 of this year.
It is hardly necessary for me to enlarge upon the grave uncertainties which confronted the government in July of this year arising out of the British exchange crisis. Under the circumstances the government considered that any further action at that time which might in any way adversely affect our exchange position should be postponed pending the outcome of the conferences and discussions then under way.
The government has now reviewed the position in the light of the Washington discussions, the subsequent realignment of exchange rates and the domestic supply situation and has come to the conclusion that it should now proceed to carry out its declared intention to remove all remaining restrictions under the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act on the import of fresh fruits and vegetables. I am hopeful that in due course other import restrictions can be relaxed and removed. But that will depend upon future developments in our exchange position.
Accordingly the government has decided to suspend the present import restrictions on all kinds of fresh fruits and vegetables in their natural state, and also on fruit juices, effective next Saturday, October 1.
No change is being made at present in the restrictions on canned or frozen or otherwise processed fruits and vegetables.



MEAT PACKING INDUSTRY


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to declare the meat packing industry works for the general advantage of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make that part of the meat packing industry which carries on operations in two or more provinces subject to section 53(g) of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. In matters of collective bargaining the industry will then be able to negotiate on a national basis, and the government of Canada will have the authority to deal with disputes in an industry whose smooth functioning is essential to the national economy.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY PROVISION FOR FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROVINCES

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (for the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to encourage and assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway and to provide for this purpose that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply

Proposed Legislation
may enter into agreements with any provinces providing for the payment by Canada to those provinces of contributions in respect of the cost of a trans-Canada highway; with provision also for the employment of temporary engineers, technical officers and other employees for the purpose of the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Colin Gibson (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to authorize the governor in council to establish as a national forest or as a forest experimental area lands belonging to His Majesty in the right of Canada and to exercise control and management thereof and construct works therein; to establish and maintain forest research laboratories; to assist provinces or owners of forests and to enter into agreements respecting the protection and development of forest lands. The Minister of Mines and Resources is authorized to appoint temporary officers and employees for the carrying out of the provisions of the act.
Expenditures incurred are payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to establish under the direction of the Minister of Transport a corporation to be called Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation to take over the property and equipment of Canadian Marconi Company, Limited, and Cable and Wireless, Limited, used in connection with the external communication services. These communication services to be operated by the corporation and co-ordinated with the services of other parts of the commonwealth.
The Minister of Finance with the approval of the governor in council to be authorized to pay to the corporation out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund an amount not exceeding in the aggregate four and one-half million dollars and in addition thereto such moneys as may be appropriated by parliament for the capital purposes of the corporation.
The Minister of Finance with the approval of the governor in council to be authorized to lend, from

time to time, moneys to the corporation out of unappropriated moneys of the consolidated revenue fund, for temporary purposes, the aggregate outstanding at any time not to exceed $100,000.
The amount of losses suffered by the corporation in any year to be paid to the corporation from moneys appropriated by parliament for that purpose.
The amount of the profits realized by the corporation in any year to be paid to the Receiver General of Canada.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Resources whether the government intends to introduce legislation at this session to amend the Indian Act.


Colin William George Gibson: A draft bill to amend the Indian Act is in the hands of the Department of Justice, but I am not able to say when it will be available for consideration by the house.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: We were told last session that the bill to amend the Indian Act was before the Department of Justice. When does the minister expect it will come to the surface? It has been there a long time now.


Colin William George Gibson: I am afraid the hon. member will have to address that question to the Minister of Justice.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the minister convey it to him? He is not sitting more than a mile and a half away.



IMMIGRATION


Colin William George Gibson: I should like to reply to a question asked on Friday last by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). The question was:
Has the government given consideration to relaxing the immigration laws in order to let into this country German nationals who have relatives in Canada?
I want to apologize to the hon. member for stating at that time that I had not received notice of his question. I found later that notice had been sent to my office, but unfortunately I did not receive it.

In reply to the question I can say that the matter has received the consideration of the government, but that no change has been made in the existing regulations. However, there has been some modification in the enforcement of the regulations, in that the government is now prepared to consider applications for the admission from Germany of first degree relatives of legal residents of Canada, provided that suitable settlement arrangements have been made, and they have been passed as acceptable in respect to health and character. Such applications, if approved, will be dealt with by special order in council.
Those eligible for consideration are: (a) the wife and unmarried children under eighteen years of age of a legal resident of Canada;
(b)	the husband of a legal resident of Canada;
(c)	the parents, age sixty-five years and over, of legal residents of Canada.


Mr. Fleming:: Is consideration being given to the admission of German fiances of resident Canadians, having regard to the immigration regulations affecting German nationals?


Colin William George Gibson: That matter has been under consideration. It is not felt that we should make any general regulation as to fiances because it is too easy for persons to claim that he or she is a fiance. However, I can tell the hon. member that when a case is made out that seems to be a reasonable one, the matter will receive consideration.


Mr. Wright:: I should like to ask whether the lifting of the regulations will apply to Germans living in the Russian zone as well as to those living in the other zones.


Colin William George Gibson: There has been no lifting of the regulations. It is merely that special cases, particularly those of hardship involving various families, are receiving attention, and, instead of a complete prohibition, the government is prepared to deal with individual cases by special order in council where it deems the conditions justify such action.



PANDIT JAWAHAHLAL NEHRU


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: May I supplement the answer I gave the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) on Friday last when he inquired whether or not arrangements had been made for a visit to Canada of Prime Minister Nehru. Mr. Nehru has accepted the invitation of the government to visit Canada this fall. It is expected that he will arrive in Ottawa on Sunday, 45781-16
Inquiries of the Ministry October 23, and remain until October 26. Mr. Nehru will be the guest of Their Excellencies the Governor General and Lady Alexander at Government House. Following the visit to Ottawa Mr. Nehru will go to the United States, but he will return to Canada for a brief visit to Vancouver on November 2 and 3 to meet the local Indian community.


Mr. Green:: May I ask whether or not arrangements will be made to have Mr. Nehru address the members of the House of Commons?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That question has been taken up with Mr. Nehru, and we hope, and I think I can say rather confidently, that he will consent to address the members of the houses of parliament.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask the Prime Minister if he has yet received replies to the letters he wrote on September 15 to the provincial premiers concerning amendments to the British North America Act, and, if he has, would he consider tabling them so that they may be printed in an appendix to Hansard?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have received provisional answers from three of the provincial premiers. It is the intention of the government to table the answers as soon as they have all been received. It was felt that it might be preferable to wait a few days and table them all at once rather than have them come forward piecemeal.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, September 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maurice Boisvert for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: This afternoon I should like to say a few words on the subjects of foreign exchange, Canada's foreign trade, and the devaluation of the dollar. Before doing so, Mr. Speaker, may I humbly extend to you my congratulations upon your election to the office which you now hold. As one who is still a junior member of this house I realize that I must express my congratulations with deference, and I do so, but although I am perhaps ill qualified to express

The Address-Mr. Fulton
my happiness at that choice, nevertheless the sincerity of my remarks is not to be measured by the humility of my address.
I should like to say a word or two about the constituency which I represent. In some respects I am making my maiden speech, because the constituency which I now represent, owing to certain changes brought about by the last administration for reasons best known to themselves, is a very different one from the constituency which I represented in the house in 1945. It differs mainly in that it has been enlarged by the addition of approximately half the area it previously had. Therefore I now feel that I have all the best of the interior of the province of British Columbia. I am delighted to have the opportunity to represent that section, but I think I should point out that the task of representing it adequately, owing to its tremendous size, diversity of interests, and the difficulty of communication, is greatly increased because of the change which was made.


John Lambert Gibson: You can
handle it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It seems like it. Somebody tried to take it away from me, but without success.
There are certain matters having to do with that new area which I think I should bring to the attention of the house and the government. I refer particularly to the part which is known as the Cariboo. Although there is a constituency known as Cariboo, I am referring to what is generally called the Cariboo in terms of the ranching country, the country behind that up the middle reaches of the Fraser river valley and in behind Lillooet. It is still a pioneer country, although it was first settled over a hundred years ago, and although in the 1850's it was subject to tremendous expansion owing to the great gold rush of those days. As a matter of fact in a recent publication I saw that at that time the city of Barkerville was the second largest on the Pacific coast. Therefore you can see that the area is one with a long history.
In spite of this long history, in many respects it is still a pioneer country so far as what we call the amenities of civilization- the telephone, postal service, electrification, and so on-are concerned. It is as hard as it was when it was first settled. As a matter of fact the mail service is no better today in many portions of that area than it was twenty-five years ago. In some ways the mail service is worse, because in the old historical days of the Cariboo stage coach they had a daily mail service up and down the Cariboo highway. After the Pacific Great Eastern Railway was built the P.G.E. got the mail contract. During the winter it runs twice a

week, and during the summer three times a week. Recently they put on a daily service for two months of the year. But the normal mail service of these people is twice weekly. It is a great hardship. I see no reason why there should not be a daily mail service for that area. They have a daily bus service.
I have discussed this matter with the predecessor of the present Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret). Investigations have been promised, and investigations have been made, but the investigations have not been equalled by the progress. It seems to me that if Canada can afford to have what we call all-up air mail service, the cost of which is contributed to by the people in the area I am describing -they pay the postal rate-then the people of the Cariboo district should at least have a daily mail service by bus. Furthermore, it seems to me that it is our pioneer districts which should now receive some consideration. After all, the people of our great cities, such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax, were already adequately served with respect to mail delivery, by train and bus. I am not against general improvement in the mail service, but I certainly believe that the people in the pioneer areas, who contribute to the cost of the all-up service, are entitled to have their service brought up to a reasonable standard before other services which are already adequate are given a super standard.
The same remarks apply to the question of telephone service. In that district the telephone service is provided by the federal government, and is now under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). Although it is supposed to be a public service, it seems to me that it is approached from the standpoint that before any improvement is made in the service it has to be shown there will be sufficient revenue to justify it. That is all very well in the case of a commercial company. That is what they look to first; they could not continue to operate unless they operated at a profit. But where the conditions are such that a commercial company will not go in there-because obviously it is not profitable-and it is undertaken by the government as a community service, I certainly believe they should change the criterion which at the present time is: Will the revenue to be obtained justify the expenditure? It seems to me that is quite a wrong approach to the question of improving service in these areas.
Hon. members know, without my going into detail, the hardships which some of these people undergo, particularly in wintertime when roads are blocked, and in the spring when rivers flood and bridges are washed out and they are left with absolutely no means

of communication with the outside world except by telephone. Their needs are obvious, but I submit that in past years they have not been given proper sympathetic treatment by the government. I am not blaming any particular government; I use the word generally. In past years they have not been given the consideration which their condition and their contribution to the welfare of this country would demand.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I turn back to the problems immediately before the house. In doing so I should like, if my colleagues will bear with me, to say a word or two in French.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fitting that I should express as I did at the beginning of the last parliament, feelings of gratitude and thankfulness to my fellow citizens of the province of Quebec for the courtesy and friendship they have always shown me. I also wish to tell a great many of them how glad I am of the opportunity to greet them in this house.
Those ties of warm and enduring friendship with my French-speaking compatriots were formed during the last world war, on the battlefields and on the general staff, when we fought side by side for a common cause, for our country, Canada. Friendly relations established under such circumstances cannot but last for a long time.
I would ask my French-speaking fellow citizens to kindly excuse me if I do not express myself as ably in their language as they do in mine. It is by striving to understand and talk another tongue that one succeeds, to a large extent, in getting the point of view of those who speak it. That also adds to the mutual feeling of confidence and good will, of which we find a striking example in this country and which, let us hope, will ever deepen.
For that reason, I am especially happy to welcome two new Progressive Conservative members from the province of Quebec. Perhaps it is not a good thing for a province to be nearly entirely represented by only one party. It is therefore very encouraging to see two spokesmen from the province of Quebec sitting on our side of the house. Their reputation, their past record, together with the speeches they have already uttered in this house reveal their qualifications and show how valuable their help will be to us. We English-speaking Canadians from the other parts of the country cannot, despite our good will and our keen desire to co-operate, express the point of view of the province of Quebec as easily and accurately as those who live in that province.
45781-16J
The Address-Mr. Fulton
These two members will therefore make known the views of the province of Quebec on our national problems, enabling us to solve them in that spirit of mutual confidence and co-operation which is so essential to national unity.
(Text):
May I now turn to a subject which I think is one of the most important that will be brought before the house this session, or indeed in many succeeding sessions. I refer to the matter of exchange control and currency devaluation. There is no more important topic than this at the present time, having regard to Canada's trade position, the recent devaluation of the pound sterling and the subsequent devaluation of the dollar, and the mass of inconsistencies and contradictions in government policy and in recent statements by ministers dealing with this question.
First I should like to review briefly Canada's trade position. It goes almost without saying that to Canada, more than to most countries, foreign trade is vital. It is generally agreed that of those gainfully employed in this country, in the neighbourhood of one-third derive their income directly from our export trade, with the other two-thirds directly or indirectly dependent for their prosperity upon the prosperity of the first third. Furthermore, Canada is far from being a self-sufficient nation. We must import a great variety of the things we need in our daily living; and in order to do that we must keep up a substantial volume of exports. In recent months we have been losing our foreign markets. Our favourable trade balance has been dropping at an alarming rate. The figures given in the latest Bank of Canada statistical summary show that our favourable balance has shrunk from an average of $42 million per month in 1948 to only $6-3 million in the months of 1949 for which figures are available, and the most disturbing aspect of the situation is that we are losing our markets in the sterling countries.
It is with the sterling countries that Canada's trade is vital, principally because in the past our exports to those countries have consisted of commodities having a high labour content. It has been estimated by economists that approximately seventy-five per cent of the commodities we export to the sterling areas have a high labour content, whereas our exports to the United States in general consist of such things as pulp and paper products, raw minerals and commodities with a relatively low labour content. Therefore it is vital, from the point of view of trade and employment in Canada, that

The Address-Mr. Fulton we should retain the sterling market; but this is the market that we have been losing at an alarming rate. Again, the figures of the Bank of Canada show that in the twelvemonth period ending in July, 1949, our exports to the sterling market had dropped by $100 million as compared with the figures for 1947.
In its recent business letter the Bank of Nova Scotia analysed the situation. That letter in turn has been analysed in the September 20 issue of Saturday Night; and since the picture given there sets out very clearly the difficulties in which the country now finds itself, I should like to read some extracts from page 34 of that issue:
Presumably every Canadian who can read now knows that Britain is in financial trouble that so far has proved too much for even her well known courage, doggedness and experience. But few seem to understand that Canada is in trouble too. Our trouble, like Britain's, is one of markets and means of payment. If we don't solve it-and no solution is now in sight-we could have a very unpleasant contraction in employment.
I pause, Mr. Speaker, to observe that I believe the writer is softening the blow. I do not think it is a case in which we "could have" a very unpleasant contraction in employment-referring to something that might happen in the future; I think we are faced with it right now.
After describing the measures taken to increase our exports to the United States, the article continues as follows:
The volume of exports to other areas has been decreasing; exports to Britain are now smaller than pre-war, and exports to the dominions and the British colonies and to western Europe have fallen substantially from the early post-war peak.
While the United States has provided an alternative market for a substantial part of the wood, paper and mineral exports which formerly went overseas, it is not providing any real substitute for the exports of the kind of manufactured goods which have been going to the dominions and colonies and Latin America. Nor does it offer any significant alternative for the products of the prairie grain fields.
This serves to confirm my statement, based on the Bank of Canada figures, that the volume of our exports to Britain is shrinking substantially. The article says that apart from exports of wheat and flour, which have been much larger than pre-war exports, and of eggs, wood pulp, pit props, plywood, aluminum and ferrous alloys, most Canadian exports to Britain are down substantially from the pre-war level. What I have read, and the figures which have been cited from the Bank of Canada summary, show that we are faced with a serious problem in the contracting sterling area markets. It is no exaggeration to say that the employment and income of the majority of the Canadian people are being threatened by the loss of these markets.
The reasons for this loss, Mr. Speaker, are fourfold: first, the currency restrictions which we have imposed as part of our foreign exchange control policy; second, the inability of the sterling area to acquire dollars; third, and bound up with these two, the non-convertibility of currencies. This means there are no free exchange markets; all exchanges are now controlled. Finally there is Canada's own exchange control policy, especially the parity policy which until recently was pursued by this government.
In order to understand this, I think it is necessary for us to analyse what has been taking place in Canada during the last eighteen months or so. As a convenient starting point one should perhaps refer to the statement made in this house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on September 19. When one analyses that statement, one is struck by the realization that within a space of six months the minister could so cheerfully, apparently blissfully unconscious of what he was doing, completely reverse his position.
We recall his arguments against devaluation last March, and his denials of our suggestions that Canada herself could do anything to restore any measure of convertibility. When we remember the loud and oft-repeated statements that the parity price was a realistic level in the best interests of Canada's economy, and compare them with the arguments now advanced to support devaluation, we realize just how empty and ill-advised were the statements then made. A sense of realism has been forced on the minister by the march of events. He is now compelled to do what should have been done a year or more ago, and, in doing so, to advance and defend theories which six months ago he was denouncing and ridiculing.
It is true that surrounding circumstances have changed. The pound sterling has been drastically devalued. We must make all due allowances for that. But even so, if we compare the statements of last March with the statement of this September we see in the minister's statement on the later occasion not only a recognition that devaluation on our part is doubly necessary as a result of the British action, but also a repudiation of the arguments and theories upon which Canadian devaluation was previously refused. Reading the words used this September, Mr. Speaker, some of us are confirmed in the view which we held at the time of the minister's earlier pronouncements, namely, that on the one hand their lack of real soundness or good sense and, on the other, their harmful influence on the Canadian economy,
[Mr. Fulton.1

were matched only by the loud voice in which they were delivered and the frequency with which they were repeated.
I am making this comparison between what was said this September and what was said last March for a very definite purpose, a purpose quite removed from what would be a natural desire to show that the minister was wrong on the former occasion. I believe our exchange control policy is still wrong. It is still hampering and harming the restoration of convertibility and the free flow of trade. It is therefore important for us to examine what has been said and done to see how wrong it was, in order that we may ascertain what can be done to put it right.
Two things must be borne in mind, Mr. Speaker. First, in considering the earlier statements and actions, may I ask you to bear in mind that it was not so much the relation of the Canadian dollar to the pound which was being discussed as the fixing of the dollar at parity with the United States dollar. It was our contention that that was an improper move. Second, I am not saying the dollar should have been kept at parity. I am not opposing the devaluation to ninety cents within the limitations imposed by the confines of the government's own crippled and reluctant thinking in terms of foreign exchange control. I am saying that their whole exchange control program is confused and contradictory. The government are not qualified to make a guess at where our dollar should be fixed-and they have just guessed at ninety cents. I say the price of the dollar in international exchange should not be fixed by the government at all.
Let us consider what has happened under this control policy. It is certain that one of the obstacles to trade is the lack of convertibility of exchange. In 1946 the government fixed our dollar at par, a rise in price of ten cents, not domestically, but for foreign countries wishing to buy our goods. It is certain also that we cannot buy from foreign countries unless they buy from us. To fix our dollar at a price higher than people have previously paid, and higher than many are willing or able to pay, can hardly be other than a further blow to convertibility. Shortly thereafter Canada lost a billion dollars of her exchange reserves. We found that we were buying far more from the United States than they were buying from us. The austerity program was inaugurated in November, 1947. Together with the continuation of parity, that was supposed to fix everything. Indeed, last March the minister said it had practically fixed everything. There is the first contradiction.
On March 17, 1949, the minister said that, as a result of the various government
The Address-Mr. Fulton measures, our position was much better and was improving all the time. These remarks will be found at pages 1564 and 1565 of Hansard of that date. He admitted that Canada was not yet in the clear, but he stated that things were vastly improved, and claimed that the credit for this was partly due to the parity rate, so he refused to alter it. Six months later, this September, the minister admits that when he spoke in March he knew things were getting worse, not better. On page 57 of Hansard of September 19, the minister is reported as saying:
However, at the beginning of 1949 it was clear that the worsening world dollar situation and our rising imports from the United States would result in a sharp reduction in our current account surplus. The current account surplus in our balance of payments has in fact been declining and it is now estimated that, for the year as a whole, it will in any case be very small.
A little further on in the same speech, he said:
In these circumstances, it is highly desirable to pursue policies which would help to prevent a deficit in our trading position.
These words show that the deterioration was known to the minister at the time he made his earlier statement in March of this year. But the astounding and disconcerting fact remains that he painted that contrary picture in March, and he used what he then stated as the facts of our trade and exchange picture to justify the continuance of parity fixation; whereas he now uses the so-called facts of our trade and exchange picture, quite apart from the pound devaluation, to justify a devaluation of our dollar in terms of the United States dollar.
In view of an apparently deliberate inconsistency of this sort, the minister can hardly expect us to have confidence in his qualifications to control and set the exchange value of our dollar. Indeed, contradiction follows hard upon contradiction. In the speech of last March the minister went on to say how favourable our trade position was becoming, not only with the United States but indeed with the whole world. After painting this glowing picture he used these words on March 17, to be found at page 1569 of Hansard :
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the light of our export position and our over-all balance of payments position, are my hon. friends-
Referring to the members of the official opposition.
-really prepared to maintain that the present official quotation of the Canadian dollar is not realistic? These factors would seem to me to lead to the conclusion, if anything, that the present exchange rate of our currency is too low, and that the Canadian dollar should be appreciated.

The Address-Mr. Fulton
That is what the minister said last March. Now in September, only six months later, he says that he knew at that very time that the situation was getting worse, because he used the words I have already quoted from his statement last Monday night, that at the beginning of 1949 it was clear that the worsening world dollar situation and our rising imports from the United States would result in a sharp reduction in our current account surplus. The very facts-if anything the minister says is fact-of Canada's balance of payments position which in March he used to justify his belief in appreciating the dollar, he uses to justify depreciation in September, quite apart from the question of any alteration in the value of the pound.
Again in March, 1949, he rejected devaluation of our dollar because, he said, it would make it harder for the British to export to us, and they need dollars. I think that position can be appreciated. Then he said-and I am quoting from page 1570 of Hansard of March 17 last:
. . . far from helping the situation, the action-
By that he meant devaluation.
-some hon. members opposite appear to have in their mind would, as I have said before, aggravate it and worsen the lot of these exporters.
That is, of the British exporters. Then in September, 1949, when Britain, desperate to get dollars, has devalued so as to help herself sell to us, he devalues too, which action, according to his own previous argument, would at least partly undo any good Britain had done herself and make it harder again for her to export to us. What are we to think of this when the same minister once more contradicts himself in the course of the very same speech on Monday, and, having praised the efforts and steps taken by the United Kingdom in devaluing, said, as reported at page 56 of Hansard:
The dollar countries on the other hand would have to follow policies which would enable that expansion in dollar earnings to take place;-
He was referring to the dollar earnings of sterling area countries. Then he went on to say:
__and wherever possible undertake the removal of
obstacles which stand in the way.
Then he turns right around and devalues, which action he earlier said would impose an obstacle in the way of British exports to us.
One could go on for some time, Mr. Speaker, pointing out further inconsistencies between the two statements, the one made in March of this year-when, as we now And, he had full knowledge of the deteriorating situation -and the statement made just a week ago tonight. We could recall the minister's earlier scornful references to what he termed "cur-

rency manipulation". It was a bad thing in March. Apparently it is a good thing in September. One could recall his contention that those who desired to see a reduction of our dollar in terms of the United States dollar wanted to offer it at "bargain basement prices". That is the expression he used to discourage a reduction to a ninety-cent dollar. One can only ask oneself now whether the minister has in fact sold out.
I have said enough to show that there is neither consistency nor intelligence in the government's handling of this matter, as revealed by the statements of the Minister of Finance. In spite of all the government's boasting about Canada's position of importance in international relations and in the realm of trade, a position which we on this side fully recognize, the minister's earlier refusal to act, and his stubborn contention that Canada could do nothing of her own volition, have once more left our country in the position of merely tagging along behind others.
My contention is that devaluation and fixing the dollar at ninety cents is but a stop-gap and is insufficient. We must go further and find the means of restoring convertibility, of enabling the sterling area to buy from us. In this connection may I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a statement made by Mr. Harold Wilson, president of the British board of trade I do this to show that Britain is desperately anxious to buy from us but is desperately unable to do so. The article appeared in the Montreal Gazette of September 22. It reports that Harold Wilson said on September 21 that Britain must continue to depend on Canada, and continues:
In a four-minute talk which he recorded today for broadcast in Manitoba and Saskatchewan next week, Wilson replied obliquely to reports that Britain is turning to other sources for her wheat.
"We are dead keen on your produce," he said. "Seventy-five per cent of our wheat comes from your prairie provinces, and we should have great difficulty in getting it anywhere else."
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think I should indicate what is needed. In my opinion what is needed is that the government and their experts must get away from their closed-mind type of thinking on this subject of foreign exchange. We need a change from the policy of tying up the dollar, of putting fences around it, which now makes it impossible for sterling countries to acquire dollars to buy from us. We must keep the sterling market. To do this we must enable them to buy from us. As I see it, this means that we must either accept sterling and have the Bank of Canada convert it into dollars, or find some other means of freeing the dollar so that it and the pound are freely convert-

ible. In detail, here are some recommendations that I should like to lay before the house and the government:
1.	We must buy from those who buy from us. And the people who buy more from us than they sell to us, the people who are our best customers now and have been traditionally, are the people in the sterling areas.
2.	We must accept sterling in payment until sterling countries are able to pay in dollars; and the Bank of Canada should convert sterling, if necessary, into Canadian dollars until the pound and the dollar are freely convertible.
3.	We must stop thinking of the artificial setting of exchange rates. Exchange is both the medium and the measure of foreign trade. That is all it is or should be. It should be allowed to function as such. Let currencies find their proper levels in the exchange field. We are talking about foreign exchange, not domestic levels. Let them find their proper levels in the exchange field as measured by foreign trade. If this works temporary hardship, then take other measures through the means now open, through official control of credit and currency-that is, through the Bank of Canada and the international monetary fund-to relieve hardship and to soften any violent fluctuation.
4.	We must approach sterling countries along these lines and work out a program whereby they will agree to remove their restrictions on purchases in Canada by their residents, so that trade can in fact begin to flow freely. And in my view we should even be prepared to contemplate some form of commonwealth clearing house to adjust the initial disproportion which would undoubtedly exist between the demand for Canadian dollars and the demand for sterling.
It must be admitted that these measures call for international co-operation. But, to go back to the point I made at the beginning of my observations, the welfare, employment and income of nearly every Canadian depends upon finding a solution to this problem. No longer, merely because it is a problem international in scope, can we allow our official attitude to be, as has been said by the ministry in the past, that Canada can do nothing. Canada's trade and employment are at stake, and Canada must act to protect them.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak in the debate on the address in reply. Occasion has changed events, however; and after listening to the excellent address delivered the other day by my good friend the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), I felt that perhaps the other eighty-nine new
The Address-Mr. MacDougall members might have felt, as I have, the symptom so well described by the hon. member. Consequently at this time I take the occasion to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, upon your elevation to the high office you now hold. I congratulate collectively all those who have thus far participated in the debate, and again I add my voice to that of those who have so far extended congratulations.
May I in my introductory remarks speak with respect to the riding it is my honour to represent in the House of Commons. No doubt hon. members are now conscious of the fact that there is one riding in British Columbia which is pre-eminently superlative in all Canada. Let me say, however, that there is another riding which equals the beauty, the magnitude and the importance of that of my good friend who represents the constituency of Vancouver South (Mr. Laing); I refer to my beloved riding of Vancouver-Burrard.
As we enter the portals of this parliament building we see inscribed above the doors these words:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both east and west.
That applies to my riding only unilaterally. I am sure, however, that whoever was responsible for this inscription must first have seen the riding of Vancouver-Burrard.
I know I speak individually and collectively for the membership of this House of Commons when I say that in all the congratulatory messages delivered since the opening of this twenty-first parliament there is one which up to now has not been included, one group which has not been sufficiently recognized. I refer to the group who, by the grace of God, have placed us where we are today. I refer to our parents, who would have been proud indeed if they had lived to see us here. Whatever we may have, whatever we have done or may do, we owe in large measure to the example set by them, to the knowledge we gained at our mothers' knees. I believe all will agree that anything good within us, anything worthy of our country and of the esteem of our electorate, is largely traceable to our inheritance, both by example and by blood.
Burrard, in particular, is similar to other constituencies in Canada so far as its basic composition is concerned. By this I mean that the electorate in all constituencies offer one of the most interesting studies in human nature. They are a cross-section of Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the people whom you and I, sir, are permitted to represent in this august assembly.
Before I deal in more general terms with

The Address-Mr. MacDougall the dominion, and those basic principles which have brought about the humanitarian policies of the government, may I humbly beseech and pray that the government, as quickly as humanly possible, may evolve legislation to bring about compulsory contributory retirement pensions for all, without a means test. When I make this plea I believe I speak not only for myself but for all Liberal members, and in all probability for many other members from British Columbia.
We on the Pacific coast feel that in some of our industries which are more affected by the winter weather than others we suffer from a degree of unemployment which is peculiar not only to British Columbia but, in some ways, to various other provinces throughout the length and breadth of Canada. We urge that in its wisdom the government may soon be able to evolve some improvement in the Unemployment Insurance Act. Having regard to human nature, and to the attitude which may be taken by many hon. members, particularly the new ones, I believe it might be wise and prudent to review some of the highlights in the history of the human race. We have come far from the days of the garden of Eden. Yet in a measure the troubles, the foibles and the heart-breaks of that ancient time have been handed down from one generation to another.
In the few moments I shall speak I shall do so with the realization that democracy is still the best kind of government for any free people. It is a method of true expression, through the members of this house, of the views of the electorate who are responsible for our presence here today. Therefore it has occurred to me that in discussing human nature it would be well to look back at our ancestral tree to see if we can possibly get closer to human nature as exemplified in the past. Undoubtedly, as the twig is bent, so is the tree inclined. Therefore we cannot hope to register all the foibles and follies and many of the heart-breaks that are part of the history of the human family, but we can refer shortly to some.
I know that I speak with understanding of all agriculturists when I say that Adam was an agriculturist, because in my family bedroom as a boy I saw a picture of Adam tilling the soil. That is truth enough for me. There he was on his primeval farm, living in the lap of luxury, his ways cast in pleasant places, tilling the fine alluvial soil tax free and also free of mortgage. Yet was he not satisfied. There was shown one of the first aspects of human nature which has been handed down to posterity-dissatisfaction.
However, Adam is not the only one whose mental facilities slipped at a crucial moment

in history. History is replete with the names of those whose fame and fortune have turned to ashes or Dead Sea fruit through an ill-timed word or an unfortunate gesture that by the grace of God I hope to avoid today. Lot's wife wanted a second look. Nero took his music lesson at a most inauspicious time. Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Peter the apostle played with the truth. Judas Iscariot sold his Master for thirty pieces of silver.
In more recent days we have other rare examples. There is Mr. Asquith's policy of "wait and see." We have Count von Beth-mann-Hollweg's "scrap of paper." There have been many examples, and the plot thickens with respect to human nature. The family is the backbone of this country today, and always will be.
It was not long before Adam and Eve found that they were not in complete possession of the garden of Eden. For was it not ordained that there was certain fruit of which they should not eat? This they did, however; and here enters stark tragedy in the form of expulsion and foreclosure. The things we have not and cannot get are still in this day the things that mankind desires most.
We pass on and come to Cain and Abel. Cain was an agriculturist, Abel the shepherd. Why do we stand aghast in the world today when one nation flies at the throat of another, as a result in many instances, no doubt, of overcrowding and lack of commercial trade expansion, when at the very beginning of time we witnessed this sorry spectacle of fratricide, arising out of petty jealousy because Abel's offering was more acceptable than that of his brother Cain?
The storm centre of civilization now shifts from the valley of the Euphrates and the Tigris to Asia Minor, and we find what remains of our illustrious ancestors perched high on Mount Ararat. We cannot follow, in the short space of time allowed to us, all the vicissitudes of the human family of that day, but we shall endeavour to catch a few highlights in the revolving sphere of human endeavour and human relations.
First there was Moses, the great teacher, the author of the Mosaic promulgations which are still adhered to by millions of people throughout the world. His teachings still stand the light of criticism, and suffer not at all in comparison with any other.
Then came the intellectual giants, Socrates, Pericles, Plato and Aristotle. These were men of overwhelming capabilities and mental activity. I know most hon. members will

recognize what used to appear in the early school readers when I quote:
By Nebo's lonely mountain,
On this side Jordan's wave.
In a vale in the land of Moab,
There lies a lonely grave.
And no man knows that sepulchre,
And no man saw it e'er,
For the angels of God upturned the sod,
And laid the dead man there.
These intellectual giants seem to come in groups. When they depart the earth is desolate, but sooner or later another group appears and once more intellect blooms like the rose of Sharon. Whether the intellectual giants produce the golden age or the golden age produces the intellectual giants is debatable. However, during the Socratic period we had a stellar aggregation of intellects which caused Byron to write:
Of the three hundred grant but three,
To make a new Thermopylae.
Then let us move the clock forward another thousand years or so to the glory that was Rome. Standing head and shoulders above his contemporaries was the mighty Michelangelo. His first great work in Rome was the Pieta, which depicted Mary the Mother supporting in her arms the body of Christ just after it has been removed from the cross. It created a tremendous sensation; thousands have flocked to admire it. His next great work was in the chapel of the church in Florence, which is so well known. While speaking of Michelangelo we cannot forget his work in the Sistine chapel, which stands as a memorial to his great achievements, skill and capacity, a monument to the true principles of Christian philosophy and Christian belief.
Such is a kaleidoscopic review of a few of the famous men of history. In making a critical analysis of their lives one fails in many instances to discern the chief element in their makeup which has marked them for fame.
I return now to the reference I originally made to an address delivered a few days ago by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). Who knows but amongst the members of the house, whether new or old, we may be sitting with, co-operating with, or fighting with some potential genius of the next five, ten or fifteen years? Therefore I bring those instances to the attention of the house because I believe there is something dynamic in the past that points the way to the future, and that if we are really cognizant of humanity's foibles, from which it has recuperated in the past, and its triumphs, we can go forward with greater courage and with a greater sense that we
The Address-Mr. MacDougall are going to be able to contribute something to the welfare of the individual and collective membership of the house, not only on the government side but in all groups represented in the first session of the twenty-first parliament of Canada.
It is with these ideas, Mr. Speaker, that I leave the thought with you that, whether or not we come down here determined that we are going to turn democracy upside down overnight, we have to be cognizant of the lessons of history. From the time of Adam down to the present there have been outstanding examples of men who have risen above any potential discouragement, any inhibiting factors in their way that might in any way have barred, hindered or impeded their progress toward greater things. I close on this note. I believe that, in spite of any minor frustrations that we may face either individually or collectively, we, like those who have gone before, will be able to rise triumphantly above them and contribute something to the greater development of the Dominion of Canada for all the people of Canada, for all electors, whether they have sent members to the government side or in support of the opposition. Through our endeavours we will leave our mark in and contribution to the future progress of those yet unborn in this vast dominion, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East!: Mr. Speaker, my first words are very pleasant ones to me, as they are words of congratulation to you on your elevation to your very honourable position. I have known the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Macdonald) since he came here in 1935. I have always had a high regard for his fairness, reasonableness, and modesty in dealing with the matters that came before the house. I hope he will enjoy his position, and I rather think, from what has happened earlier in this debate, and the sweet reasonableness of the official opposition, that he is going to have a very easy time of it. I hope, however-and there are signs that my hopes will be realized-that not all sections of the opposition will lessen any of the normal activities of opposition members just because the electorate, perhaps in a fit of aberration, elected the government with a very large majority.
It is a fact that the government has a large majority, and as a believer in the principles of democracy I accept the verdict of the people; but I only accept it in so far as the government has been elected with the rights and responsibilities of government. What I want to point out, not only to the opposition, but also to the members on the government side of the house, and those members of the

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis government on the opposition side of the house, is this. All that the election settled was the majority that the government received. All the problems that were facing us when we left here on the 30th of April last are still present with us and still have to be solved.
Let me point out that the cost of living, which has been one of the important subjects of debate in the house for two or three sessions, is still going up, and is now at an alltime high. That means that many of our people are sinking deeper and deeper into poverty at a time when the country is wealthier than it ever was before. The housing situation, which has been Canada's No. 1 headache since the end of the war, is worse than ever. I have before me a report of the housing association of my own city of Vancouver dealing with housing conditions in the city in 1949. This is what it says in part:
At the beginning of 1949, the housing situation in Vancouver was worse than it had ever been. As a result of the continued influx of population (22,000 into the city alone in 1948) and in spite of the high rate of building, the city was 5,000 dwellings shorter of its requirements than it was at the end of the war.
That is a problem that the election did not solve, and while it remains the opposition must not remain inarticulate.
Then there is the question of unemployment, which is increasing and adding to the hardships of an ever-growing number of workers. As to the social services of the country, there is an inadequacy which is becoming ever more glaring. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for people past middle age to find employment, and there is nothing in the speech from the throne to meet that situation, or to ameliorate their distress. Then I would mention one other item, foreign trade, which was discussed this afternoon by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). There our position is daily becoming more precarious.
These are only some of the problems which were with us during the whole of the last parliament and which the election did nothing to solve. It is very doubtful that the huge majority now enjoyed by the Liberal party will do anything to spur the government to greater activity. It has never worked that way before. It is far more likely that the large majority will lead to complacency and that the "social journey" will become an extended stop-over, at least until shortly before the next election. This, then, is no occasion for an excess of sweet reasonableness on the part of the opposition. As far as the party with which I am associated is concerned we shall always, Mr. 
Speaker, be reasonable, but you may not always find us sweet.
Now I want to deal with some of the questions which I said were not solved, questions which in an aggravated form affect the constituency I represent. Mine is one of the constituencies of the city of Vancouver. I am not going to say anything about its beauties, though it has its points. I will say that it is one of the most useful constituencies in Vancouver, because the great majority of its population are the people who do the useful work of the community.


John Lambert Gibson: I too was born there.


Mr. Maclnnis:: One thing I like about the constituency is that the hon. member did not stay there. Now a word about housing. This question will be before the house shortly in more definite form, and I shall merely touch upon it on this occasion. A few days ago the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) made a statement on the government's housing policy; but if that is the only policy the government has got I must say it falls far short of what the situation demands. It is not a new policy, as the minister was careful to point out in the concluding paragraph of his statement at page 121 of Hansard, where he said:
The policy as enunciated by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply in 1946 is the keystone of our present policy; that is, the creation of conditions favourable to a large housing program by private individuals and companies.
I think I have shown that as far as Vancouver is concerned, at least, that policy is simply not working. We are now 5,000 family units shorter than we were in 1945; and if the policy is working more effectively in other parts of the dominion I have yet to hear of it. In addition there is less house building going on. For the city of Vancouver itself the decrease is forty per cent and for greater Vancouver thirty-four per cent, as compared with 1948.
If anything has been made clear beyond the possibility of a doubt during the past four years, it is that private enterprise will not and perhaps cannot provide homes for that section of the population which needs them most; that is, the people with low and moderate incomes, who generally have the largest families and who make up a majority of the population of our cities. The government guardedly admits that low-rental housing is necessary, yet its housing policy is principally designed to help those in the upper third of the income bracket, who can afford to buy houses. Until that policy is reversed and we set out upon a program of low-rental housing for those who cannot buy homes at almost

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
any price, we are not going to solve our housing problem.
That is not only my assertion. Every authority on housing and every organization that has investigated the housing situation has been emphatic in stating that the only solution to the problem is an extensive program of low-rental housing. I could bring authority after authority to substantiate that statement, but I shall leave that for another occasion. Private enterprise has never provided and never will provide homes for the poorer sections of the population. The slums that have existed in every city since industrialization began are proof of that fact. That is not only the case in Canada; it is so all over the world. In no country has proper housing been provided for a large section of the working class until the government went into the housing business. No less a supporter of free enterprise than Senator Robert Taft of the United States said in the Senate of that country not so long ago:
While I am a great believer in free enterprise, housing happens to be in a field where it has failed.
. . . There is no alternative to public housing to provide homes for those with low incomes . . . Under private enterprise the slum condition has continued without improvement . . . Those opposed to public housing have done their own industry a disservice by their indiscriminate and unreasoning opposition.
That is the statement of one of the high priests of private enterprise on this continent. As I said before, I shall have more to say on this subject when the amendments to the National Housing Act are before us, so I shall leave it at that for the present.
The next point I wish to make concerns old age pensions. It is a subject which I have discussed many times in this house, as many other members have. On a number of occasions I have moved resolutions concerning it, and yet it is one of the problems the election did not solve. Speaking the other day, the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) expressed regret that, when the amendment was made to the Old Age Pensions Act last session, the amount of outside income was not increased. I should like to point out to the house that the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I tried to have this point recognized at that time. I have Hansard for April 27 before me and it shows that after a series of interruptions by several members of the official opposition, we got the opportunity to show the minister that the ten dollar increase to old age pensioners would not be of much value if the amount of outside income was not increased at the same time. May I say that the member for Vancouver-Quadra was not one of the interrupters. I am glad to see that the validity of our contention is now admitted.
Prior to the increase an old age pensioner was permitted an outside income of $240 before the amount of his pension was reduced. With the increased pension, the amount the pensioner receives will be reduced if he has outside income of more than $120. As a matter of fact, it means that the old age pensioner must be indigent before any pension is received. In my opinion, this shows that we should take another step forward and eliminate the means test.
May I bring to the attention of the house another point in connection with old age pensions which I have brought before this house again and again? There should be some allowance for the wife of a pensioner when her husband receives a pension but she is not of an age to be eligible for one. If that is not done, what is happening now will continue. If there is no other income, and there can be very little, the husband and wife must exist on $480 annually. Everyone must agree that is not an income on which a couple can live in Canada with the cost of living as high as it is today. On the first of August the cost of living index reached the all-time high of 162-8; that is, the general index. On the first of July, the food index reached 207-2. The increase in the price of food caused the increase in the general index, and I believe it is somewhat higher than that now.
I should like to impress upon the members of this house that every increase in the cost of living lowers the living standard of all low-income groups; that is, of all who are not in a position, by their own efforts, to raise their level of income. It means that, every time the cost of living goes up a point, the standard of living of our old age pensioners goes down a point. Now that the government has this huge majority, that is something for them to consider and act upon.
The high cost of living is a question that has been before this house ever since the war ended. A parliamentary committee investigated it, and so did a royal commission. The reports of these bodies have been before the house and the cost of living is still rising, even though the market is becoming oversupplied with goods. Unemployment is on the increase. This proves that those who were telling us the law of supply and demand would take care of the high cost of living have been wrong in their calculations. The law of supply and demand no longer operates, as has been demonstrated by the investigations of the combines investigation commissioner. In certain important industries prices are set arbitrarily, and every effort is made to see that all members charge the same prices. The law of supply and demand does not operate freely in our economic life.
There is one other point upon which I should like to say a word. I refer to the

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis question of trade, which, whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, was ably discussed this afternoon by the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I did agree with his concluding remarks to the effect that there would have to be co-operation among the nations in this regard. I made my notes before I heard the hon. member this afternoon, and that was my conclusion. I believe it must be the conclusion of anyone who realistically studies the crises in world trade.
A few weeks before this session of parliament opened, the representatives of Canada, Britain and the United States met in Washington to discuss what was supposed to be Britain's dollar crisis. I said "what was supposed to be," because I think it has been admitted since the conference was held that that crisis is not one which affects Britain alone. It affects all the nations in the sterling bloc and Canada as well. It has become increasingly clear that the immediate crisis was not caused by anything which happened in Britain, but by what happened in the United States.
I have before me a copy of Foreign Affairs, a United States publication, October, 1949. The article to which I wish to direct attention is written by Professor John H. Williams, a professor at Harvard university. I would recommend his article to members of the house. It is worth reading. I do not agree with all of his conclusions, but on page 9, referring to the present depression in the United States, he says this:
Our present depression is not large, by comparison with depressions of the past, and for us it will probably prove salutary. Yet-whatever the other considerations-it is certainly the main immediate cause of the present British crisis. It has depressed not only Britain's direct exports to us, but . even more importantly the exports to us of primary products from the other sterling area countries the dollar earnings of which go to build up Britain's reserve. This in turn reacts on British exports to those countries: and it will be surprising if it does not also affect continental exports round the whole circle.
It should be noted in this country, and I think it was, that since the depression in the United States where a few weeks ago there were, if there are not now, some four million unemployed, as soon as unemployment began there was a curtailment of the buying of certain goods, mostly luxury goods, in the markets there. This of course resulted in a diminution in Britain's dollar reserves, and in turn Britain had to reduce her buying in the United States. The result of the Washington discussions was the devaluation of currency in the sterling area and a ten per cent devaluation in Canada. Personally, I do not agree that this is any solution to the problem. Devaluation will help those countries which devalue first. It will enable them to get an

advantage in the market. But as long as our trade is based upon competition, each country in turn will attempt to get the better of its competitors, either by devaluing its currency or by some other means: hence the advantage gained by the first country will in time disappear.
About the same time as the Canadian-British-United States talks on the dollar crisis were taking place, another meeting was held in Washington. That was a meeting of the nations that signed the Atlantic pact. They met there for the purpose of co-ordinating their military defences or, shall I say, our military defences. In military matters we have already come down to the realization that co-operation is our only salvation. I now submit this thought to the house. If co-operation is necessary in military affairs-and I agree that as long as we have to build up our military defences, and we have to do that at this time, co-operation is necessary-how much more necessary is co-operation in our economic affairs. That is why I agree with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr Fulton), who said there would have to be co-operation in trade affairs. As a matter of fact, our trade difficulties are fundamentally due to the world's economic development. They are not due to what is done by this country or that country. What is done by the various countries to gain a trade advantage is a result not a cause.
Trade means the exchange of the things we have in surplus for the things we need. As a matter of fact, trade is more important to the country that must buy than- it is to the country that must sell. That is why trade is much more important to Britain, who must buy her food, than it is to the United States, who would like to sell some of her surplus products. Trade is therefore important not only because we want to sell. It is twice important, because we must also buy. Trade is important to Canada because, if we cannot exchange our surpluses, our standard of living will fall materially. I repeat that trade difficulties are not fundamentally due to something that one country or another has done; they are due to the general economic development of our world. The fundamental obstacle to trade is the fact that too many nations are producing the same things and are trying to exchange them in a world in which there is no longer a market for them.
In conclusion, I should just like to say that we shall have to remember that the world does move, and that any attempt to go back to the old trading forms that have disappeared is an attempt to turn back the clock. And it will fail just as every attempt to turn back the clock in any other field has failed. Whether

we like it or not, there is therefore nothing left for us but co-operation in economic as well as in military affairs.
(Translation):


Mr. H. A. Gosselin (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have the privilege of speaking in this house, and I do so with great pride.
My first duty is to join with those who have already congratulated you on your appointment to the speakership of the house; my second, to tell you that the constituency I have the honour to represent here is located on the United States boundary and adjoins the eastern townships.
My constituency is above all deeply concerned with industry and agriculture, as also with all the great principles on which the progress of the country is based.
Brome-Missisquoi county is made up of French - speaking and English - speaking Canadians. I am the spokesman of both, undiscriminatingly. For years, we have quite successfully maintained friendly relations between these two elements. Unity exists among them; we are convinced that a country's greatness is based upon mutual understanding. We feel that proof of this was furnished during the last electoral campaign, for the honour and welfare of Canada.
The success obtained by our soldiers overseas is due to mutual understanding and devotion to those great principles that go to make up unity. The extent of Canada's effort was shown by the quality of her military personnel and the untiring labour of those who remained behind to produce weapons for our men overseas.
Mr. Speaker, in my constituency may be found all that tourists may wish for in the way of mountains, valleys or wide open spaces. The main highway takes them through mountains and plains where dairy farming is the main pursuit, coming immediately before agriculture. Our green fields, great orchards and vast sugar bushes remain forever impressed on their memory, so much so that their one wish afterwards is to return to us.
I am proud to tell the members of this house that I am a farmer. Having been in the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway for several years, I may say however that Canada has a railway transportation system, for freight and passengers, which offers advantages and resources that can only help to make Canada a great country. I might say that Canada has the best transportation system in the world, considering the population of the country.
Our agricultural class is definitely well developed. Western Canada grows wheat
The Address-Mr. Gosselin but in eastern Canada the dairying industry is foremost. Those two branches of agriculture are for us a guarantee. In fact, the farming population is the fundamental basis of a country's prosperity. It is a financial guarantee and a protection for the people since it provides all their needs. I believe it is my duty to request the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to carry on his useful work on behalf of our farming population and to provide the required incentive so that our young men may be interested in remaining on the land of their forefathers; otherwise our young people will be driven to the cities, which will spell disaster. It is imperative, as I said, that the Minister of Agriculture should continue his admirable work, so that the farmers will not be neglected and that they may have every possible inducement. It will be the only means of keeping our young people on the land. Failing that, they will migrate to cities, abandoning the family farms. I am happy to say that the farming community is made up of proud people, ready to ensure the plentiful production on which depends our survival as a people.
If every possible help is given to them, the farmers will be able to produce much more, and sell a much larger quantity of products, which will enable them better to balance their family budgets.
I have often been told, Mr. Speaker, that the agricultural class are not prosperous. I do not share that opinion. On the contrary, being myself a farmer, I note that they are prosperous. However, they will continue to be prosperous in so far as they are ensured and guaranteed a reasonable remuneration for their work. Otherwise the agricultural class will disappear, which will spell great disaster. May I say again that we have to give that class some guarantee by granting subsidies, building warehouses where our products can be stored, and sparing it from excessive taxation. We also have to guarantee the farmer prices at least equal to his production costs.
I know that the Minister of Agriculture has taken the necessary steps to build these warehouses all over the country. On behalf of the constituency I have the honour to represent, I also wish to congratulate and thank him for having undertaken various projects in the east.
In our farming district of eastern Canada, various people connected with the sale of dairy produce are sacrificing our goods to the canning industry. I know that the minister is investigating the sale of these products in order that our farmers may face a brighter future.
There is a disease which is proving most harmful to cattle in every province. The
24G

The Address-Mr. Gosselin number of animals that have died of Bang's disease has greatly increased. Our exports have therefore been reduced. We must at all costs curb this evil.
I hope that the minister is already taking steps to prevent that disease, for instance by having our young cattle vaccinated, as is done for the control of tuberculosis.
Before concluding my remarks in French,
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the excellent results of the method inaugurated since he took over the administration of that department. He has taken a keen interest in the farming population and I am delighted to note that he is doing everything in his power to protect our farmers.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak for the riding of Brome-Missisquoi, which is situated in the province of Quebec, and in doing so I believe it my duty to express my congratulations to Your Honour upon your elevation to the chief office of this assembly.
My next duty is to refer briefly to the riding which I have the honour to represent. The riding of Brome-Missisquoi is situated on the state borders of Vermont and New York, and it also borders the eastern townships. As other hon. members have said of their ridings, I submit that Brome-Missisquoi is the most beautiful riding in the Dominion of Canada.
The beautiful lakes of this district are a great attraction to tourists. A large percentage of the population is engaged in agriculture and there is also a considerable industrial population. The Green mountains of Vermont extend up into Brome-Missisquoi. On the slopes of these hills are to be found many flourishing apple orchards, and I think we can compare their product with those of any other province.
We want the products from Quebec to be as well known in all markets as those from other provinces. We must strive to produce products which grade No. 1, in order that they will be in demand in the European and other markets. The only way that we can induce foreign countries to buy from us is to produce No. 1 grade.
I was most interested in following the speech from the throne. The speech indicates that it is the duty of all hon. members, regardless of politics, to play the game with sincerity so that Canada will continue to prosper and grow. We have a beautiful country with immense natural resources. We have all that is required to make Canada one of the largest and best known countries in the world. We are able to produce sufficient for our own needs, with a surplus for export.

It is the duty of every one of us to consider the future generations. If we default in applying our full energies we shall be lacking in our duty to those who come after us. They will say, "Our fathers neglected to benefit by that which Providence put before them for the good of future generations."
Our men fought gallantly during the last war and the one before. They fought with all their energy and confidence in the belief that they were making possible, in Canada and the other countries which were allied with us, the practice of those principles of liberty and unity which are the only guarantees for the future and the only principles that will ensure prosperity for everyone in Canada. There is the principal basis of the speech from the throne delivered by the governor general. He has asked the house to consider these matters with all our sincerity and all our energy in order to safeguard the welfare of our population in the future, so that Canada may continue to grow and increase in the understanding which, if I may repeat, is the present guarantee for the future.
During the war our soldiers demonstrated the unity of Canada, and in that unity lies the assurance and guarantee for any commercial enterprise. In the speech from the throne the governor general asks us to consider ways and means of maintaining this guarantee for our future. As everyone knows, we have advanced a century as a result of developments arising from the energy and spirit of our war effort. I have no doubt that all hon. members will give to every measure that comes before parliament the most careful consideration, without regard to politics. We are not here to talk politics; there are appropriate occasions for such discussions. We are here to discuss principles and to submit ways and means of carrying out those principles, so that we may prove to the world that Canada is still growing, and, with its energy, its devoutness, and its prosperous younger element, will continue to grow.
I should now like to state what I believe are the fundamental bases of the prosperity of our country. I will not attempt to deal with financial matters. I have followed with pleasure what other hon. members have had to say on that subject, and I congratulate them. Many members have stated their views on the financial situation, foreign exchange, and so on, but I will not attempt to follow them.
I believe it is my duty as a farmer, and also as one who was a railroad man, to congratulate our transportation companies on their own efficiency and the efficiency of their equipment. Comparing other countries

with Canada and its small population, I believe that our transportation facilities and equipment are far above those of any other country in the world. Our transportation companies are doing their best to provide rapid freight and passenger service and to furnish passengers with every comfort. I feel that we can depend upon them.
Speaking as a farmer, I believe that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and former ministers, have recognized that in that industry is the basis of financial security in every nation of the world. Under all governments, farming is the guarantee of finance. We often hear it said that the farmer is the king of the land. As a farmer, I assure hon. members that, though we may feel like kings, we are kings who must be on the job if we want to be successful. The farmer works twenty-four hours a day. He is tied to his duties all the time if he wants to be successful. As farming is recognized as the basis of success, I believe it is the duty of the government to give farmers all the protection that is necessary in the disposal of their products, and create markets in different countries, so that surpluses may be sold. The government should see that a proper refrigerating system is provided for the products of the farmer, and should also protect him in every possible way so that he may improve production.
I have listened with great interest to hon. members who have talked about the farming situation in the west. If I understand them correctly, the western provinces have applied to the government for protection for their grain. I believe that is their duty, and I congratulate them; but I also believe that in the east, where farming is carried on on quite a large scale, the products of the farms should be protected. The people of the east and the people of the west must work together on the principle that unity is essential to success in Canada. We must produce as much as possible in order that our quality products may find their place in the markets of the world. Quality is necessary in order to meet competition. We know that in the European markets our products are regarded as of superior quality, but we must preserve that quality. This applies as well to other products which we sell in European markets. All Canadians wish to continue that policy.
In the east our land is depreciating gradually. The Department of Agriculture should provide the necessary chemicals at reduced prices so that every farmer who is interested in the future of the soil may obtain the best results from the work that he and his family do on the land, and may be encouraged to remain on the soil. I know that
The Address-Mr. Gosselin the Minister of Agriculture has already studied ways and means of improving the production of dairy commodities and of giving further assistance.
We in the east who are interested in dairying have found that Bang's disease is increasing among our cattle; and I believe this condition exists also in certain parts of the west. This has affected me personally, along with many other farmers, because the United States will not permit the importation of animals suffering from this disease, animals which in French are known as contamines.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time. He may continue if he has the unanimous consent of hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr, Gosselin:: I have just a few more words, if hon. members will permit me. I believe everything possible should be done by all those concerned to control and eventually wipe out this disease, which is affecting the revenues of our farmers and also causing them a great deal of discouragement.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have every confidence that all members of this house will co-operate to make this session of parliament one of unity and good understanding, adopting principles which will promote the welfare of both the present and future generations.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, my first desire is to join with those others who have expressed to you their congratulations upon being elevated to the position of first commoner in this dominion. My pleasure at your appoihtment is enhanced by my recollection of the gallant service you rendered with the Canadian expeditionary force in the first world war.
Today I wish to offer a few comments on the paragraphs in the speech from the throne dealing with national defence. I am sure hon. members of this house and indeed everyone in this dominion will realize with profound regret that it was necessary for a grave warning to be given in the speech from the throne that the hopes for peace and security held out some four years ago have not yet been realized, and that the menace of communism remains with us. However, there will be some measure of reassurance in the promise that this government will pay special attention to the development of research, and that it is the intention of the government to provide the forces with the most modern equipment suitable for present requirements. Members of this party have always endeavoured to adopt a realistic point

The Address-Mr. Pearkes of view on this question of national defence, and I can assure the government that we shall support every effort that is made to supply the forces with that modern equipment the possession of which is so essential to the fulfilment of their great tasks.
Our needs in connection with defence, both as a separate nation and as a signatory to the North Atlantic treaty, have been called to the attention of the house. There is also reference in the speech from the throne to the unification of the services that has taken place already. Rather glowing terms have been used to describe the progress that has been made in this respect. It is a step in the right direction, but so far only the first step has been taken. Old prejudices die hard; and while unification is taking place in regard to the young entries into the services at such points as Royal Roads and Royal Military college, still there is room for much further development along these lines. There has been some unification among the administrative services; yet in the higher ranks, in the realm of command and in organization, we still have three distinct services.
Events which have transpired since the speech from the throne was read have emphasized, if anything, the importance of national defence at the present time. I refer, of course, to the meeting of the North Atlantic council at which representatives of Canada were present, and also to the statement in this house last week by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in connection with the announcement by the President of the United States that an atomic explosion had taken place in the U.S.S.R. It would be interesting to learn whether any of the scientific instruments in our observatories and other scientific centres across the land were able to pick up any echoes of that explosion. I do not think it is beyond the realm of possibility that some of those faint earth tremors recorded last summer may in fact have been the actual results of the explosion which took place in Russia. We have no indication of the date of that explosion, but it is hardly likely that it was a very recent occurrence. There is no reason why scientific instruments could not be developed, if indeed they have not been developed already, which would be able to detect such explosions.
As far as the North Atlantic council is concerned, there is no doubt that soon they will be able to determine the roles the various member nations must play within the broad framework of the defence pattern they are drawing up. According to that pattern it would seem that our contribution might consist in the provision of a strong anti-sub-

marine fleet on both oceans; a limited number of fighter and transport squadrons of the R.C.A.F.; and the maintenance of an airborne brigade of our active army, backed up by a limited number, perhaps four or five divisions, of the reserve army.
As I mentioned, there is a reference in the speech from the throne to the defence needs of Canada as a separate nation. The changes which have taken place within the last few years in the realm of national defence have made it quite clear that, in the event of a third world war, Canada might become a theatre of operations. In recent months considerable attention has been paid to the northern approaches to our country. We have heard descriptions of the extended network of radio and wireless stations which have been established in co-operation with the United States along our northern frontiers.
During the latter months of this summer Exercise Eagle was carried out in the northwest part of our country. This provided an opportunity to study counter-attack methods which might be employed if an enemy made a lodgement on one of our airfields in that part of our territory. In the far west there is a scattered chain of airfields which link Alaska with Canada. The great airfield at Whitehorse is by far the most important link in that chain. The distance from Whitehorse to the Pacific ocean, from which aircraft might be launched from some carrier or even from the fringes of Siberia, is not very much greater than the distance between that airfield and the city of Vancouver or the city of Winnipeg. The distance can be flown within a comparatively few hours.
Exercise Eagle was carried out with a very realistic background. It is possible for an enemy to land airborne troops in that great airfield of Whitehorse if it is not defended. So far as I know there is no ground defence for that airfield today. It is available to any aircraft that may arrive at Whitehorse. During the war it was considered desirable to establish special air defence units consisting of a small highly trained group of men who would be capable of dealing with any parachutists arriving at that field. There were anti-aircraft guns which would have acted as a deterrent to hostile aircraft that might be tempted to land. No such provision is made today. There are no anti-aircraft guns or airdrome defence units at Whitehorse. In this case an ounce of prevention would be worth a pound of cure, as the old adage says.
The country was shocked by the reports which were published by experienced war correspondents who had witnessed Exercise Eagle. They described how the attacking

force was able to hold off the counter-attacking troops, known as Can. Force, which were supposed to represent our troops sent to restore the situation. I do not become unduly alarmed because an exercise discloses certain weaknesses. These exercises have always been so arranged that lessons may be drawn from them. These experiences show whether the equipment provided is adequate, or the training of the troops is such as will meet the particular situation depicted in the narrative leading up to the exercise. There would be no point in having these exercises if there were no lessons to be drawn from them.
As I say, the country has been disturbed by these reports. I hope the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) will take the first opportunity of reassuring this house and the country that any errors which were disclosed or deficiencies which were noticed are being corrected and will not be continued in the future. In particular, I would ask him to assure us that the training of the whole airborne brigade will now be accelerated. This was the first battalion exercise carried out by the one battalion of that brigade which has had any serious training in airborne tactics. Will he give assurance also that the shortages in equipment which were reported, the shortage of parachutes, the shortage of jumping suits are being remedied? Will he assure us also that the right type of aircraft is now being provided both for the fighter squadrons that might accompany such a counter-attacking expedition as was visualized in this exercise and for the transport equipment with the special provisions required for efficient parachute jumping?
There is the additional question of radar sets. I was pleased to note in a report tabled by Canadian Arsenals Limited the other day that developments are taking place in the No. 268 marine set. I hope a similar adaptation is being made so that that set or some other set may co-operate with these mobile forces upon which Canada will depend so much should a raid be made upon our northern frontiers. I come from the Pacific coast, and I may say that we are anxious about the western approaches to our dominion.
Many of the forts which have been established to protect our harbours now have their guns dismantled. The old fifth British Columbia coast regiment of artillery has been changed into a heavy anti-aircraft regiment. I believe that consideration is being given to the reorganization of that regiment. I hope that reorganization will be proceeded
The Address-Mr. Pearkes with so that there will be personnel from the reserve army available to man those forts should they be needed again. Our aerodromes and airfields are few and far between, having regard to the extent of our territory. We are anxious about those approaches. Those approaches must be watched. I think it is therefore high time that a special plea should be put in now for the stationing on the Pacific coast of the second aircraft carrier, a sister ship to H.M.C.S. Magnificent, which is stationed mainly on the Atlantic seaboard. Such a vessel would be able to co-operate with the anti-aircraft school of artillery located at Esquimalt. It may be comparatively easy to borrow a submarine, but it will not be so easy at a moment's notice to borrow an aircraft carrier.
This summer I had the opportunity of inspecting one of the United States coastguard cutters which was visiting our harbour of Nanaimo. Those United States ships are used mainly for watching the approaches. They are stationed from five hundred miles to one thousand miles out in the Pacific off the coast of Oregon but a gap exists between those ships stationed off the coast of Oregon and the Aleutian islands in the north. The vessel I inspected was a magnificent one, fully equipped with the latest radar and radio apparatus. One of its functions in peacetime is to plot the route of all aircraft passing within range of its instruments. By that method it was able to report, to an aircraft which might have lost its direction, its exact location. It had the means of assisting in air rescue work at sea. Amidships of that vessel was a huge compartment in which the weather balloons could be blown up and from which they could be released, enabling reports to be made upon weather conditions in the Pacific. Those meteorological reports of course have great value in peace or in war. I say a gap exists between those watchers of the approaches from the Pacific off the Oregon coast and the Aleutian islands. The time has come when we can no longer depend solely upon the United States, not only to provide the information which they send in with regard to the weather and planes which pass over them, but also for the services they continually render in saving lives and saving our ships at sea.
In this gap there is also a shortage of aircraft to report upon the approach lines. It is beyond my comprehension why there are such great delays in authorizing the auxiliary squadron of the R.C.A.F. at Victoria. For years now, representations have been made from the southern portion of Vancouver island from young men of the finest possible type who wish to serve voluntarily in such

The Address-Mr. Pearkes an auxiliary squadron. Years are going by and these men are beginning to lose heart. They are wondering whether a squadron will ever be authorized.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned for the dinner recess I was speaking about the lack of support which had been given to the formation of the auxiliary R.C.A.F. squadron at Victoria. These auxiliary or reserve units were in previous years the medium by which the miracle was worked whereby great masses of citizens from Canada were welded into military formations and were able to make so grand a contribution to the successful conduct of the first and second world wars.
It was the willingness of innumerable Canadian citizens to give up their spare time, their holidays, and their evenings in order to learn voluntarily the rudiments of military science, and something by way of a smattering of the art of leadership, that enabled them in the hour of crisis to develop those great masses of Canadian citizens who came forward into, as I said a moment ago, a really effective fighting force.
I feel the time still continues when every possible encouragement should be given to our non-permanent sailors, soldiers and airmen; and I regret it has not been possible for the government to encourage those young men from the southern part of Vancouver island, who are anxious to continue their service in the auxiliary arm of the R.C.A.F.
The government has given greater encouragement to the reserve army units than was ever given before. I say it is imperative upon the government to see that the policies which they have enunciated regarding the effective training of the officers and non-commissioned officers of those units are carried out to the letter. Before the last war, and for a number of years, the non-permanent units of this country were kept alive through the work done by the corps of officers and non-commissioned officers in those units. It is important that every encouragement be given to them to train along up-to-date lines. 1 believe encouragement is being given, but in some cases there is a tendency to emphasize the importance of recruiting, administration and keeping alive the traditions of the various units rather than going ahead with effective and up-to-date training.
In connection with the anxiety felt on the Pacific coast regarding the state of our defences there, as may be felt in other parts of the country as well, it was only a couple

of years ago that Major General Worthington was appointed director and organizer of the civil defence of this country. If, as I claimed earlier in my remarks, Canada is in a position where it might become an active theatre of war, if war broke out again, then the importance of civil defence is such as has never been experienced in this land before. Some two years have elapsed since that appointment was made. I hope the minister will be able to tell us what progress has been made along these lines.
I have heard some talk about the importance of standardizing fire-fighting equipment. Unfortunately the fire departments of the various cities find their equipment is not co-ordinated. The result is that frequently when a fire occurs the fire brigades from neighbouring towns are unable to assist because their hose reels are not of the same standard or same make or size as those in the town where the fire has occurred. That is one direction in which it is imperative that some action be taken.
Also I would suggest that, in so far as the training of medical service is concerned, thought might be given to the type of casualties and injuries which might occur should this country be subjected to some modern form of attack.
I believe that in the majority of reserve units recruiting is going reasonably well. I would put forward one suggestion, however, namely that as a result of the extension of the franchise at the last general election many new groups of Canadians have now been brought within the realm of full Canadian citizenship. I feel those new groups should be encouraged to assume their responsibilities in every branch of citizenship.
On the Pacific coast we have thousands of young men of East Indian origin, their forebears having come from India, or from what is now called Pakistan. They come from martial races. These young men, born in Canada, have inherited those qualities of loyalty and courage which were so marked among the Hindus and Sikhs in the various units of the Indian and British armies. I hope a definite effort will be made to encourage these new Canadians to join with our defence forces. I know of no means whereby communism among the ranks of those men could better be combated than by having them assume the full responsibility of citizenship.
Only a few days ago I was advised that the Royal Humane Society in Canada had seen fit to recognize a young Hindu boy who had been responsible for saving the lives of two other boys in lake Cowichan. He is the son of Bal Singh, an East Indian resident of

Vancouver island, who served during the first world war, and is now an active member of our branch of the Legion.
I mention that only to show that these Canadian-born East Indians have inherited the qualities of courage and valour and loyalty which made their sires so famous in the annals of the military history of the British empire.
In closing, I should like to say one word with regard to the veterans of this land, the old soldiers. Since the opening of the session we have heard that the pound has been devalued. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) say that those veterans who are drawing an imperial pension, and at the same time have that pension brought up to Canadian standards by a supplementary Canadian pension, will have that supplementary pension increased so that they will not suffer from the devaluation of the pound.
Of course there are still hundreds, perhaps thousands, of imperial ex-servicemen in this land who are not qualified for that supplementary Canadian pension. If they are drawing a pension from the British ministry of pensions, that pension is pitifully small now. I believe I am correct in saying that a widow's pension is 45 shillings a week, which, before devaluation of the pound, would have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of $9 a week. Now it is less than $7. It is pretty hard for a hundred per cent disabled pensioner, or the widow of a service man, to exist with a reasonable standard of living on that small pension. I do hope that something will be worked out, either by an extension of the War Veterans Allowance Act or by agreement between this government and the government of Great Britain, whereby our comrades who served with forces other than Canadian forces will be able to maintain themselves and their families in a position which is not infinitely inferior to that in which this government permits Canadian exservicemen to maintain themselves. Of course I am referring only to those veterans of the imperial forces who have lived for a long period in this country.


Mr. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all congratulate you upon your election as Speaker. Your knowledge of parliamentary law, your distinction and your dignity designate you for the high office to which you have been elected. The applause which marked your acceptance of your position demonstrated the unanimity of satisfaction which existed in the hearts of all of us.
The Address-Mr. Lesage (Translation) :
I wish also to pay tribute to the mover (Mr. Boisvert) and the seconder (Mr. Laing) of the address in reply. Their reputation had preceded them in the house. Living up, from the very start, to such a reputation, which was quite definitely to their credit, is always a risky job.
They have discharged to the general satisfaction the responsibility devolved upon them by the government. I am sure those two very eloquent speeches are but a foretaste of their active and intelligent participation in the debates of the house.
I am well acquainted with the member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert). After hearing him, I felt proud and happy to be a fellow citizen of his and his colleague at the Quebec bar.
I also wish to pay tribute to the head of the government who undoubtedly has won the most brilliant personal victory any head of government has ever won in this country.
The right hon. Prime Minister outlined his platform in the remotest areas of the country. He made himself known to all Canadians and advocated a doctrine of Canadian patriotism and national unity.
I also wish to pay my respects to his charming and gracious wife, a charming and distinguished first lady, who accompanied him. He won the heart of every Canadian and rallied nearly everyone to his policies. He can now vigorously lead the Canadian people to an even brighter future.
May I be allowed at this point to raise a question which I would have preferred to bring up in the absence of the Prime Minister, but which I wish nevertheless to discuss. If heretofore, because of special circumstances, an official residence for the Prime Minister was considered unessential, surely the situation is now such that this lack should be remedied without further delay.
When Canada receives distinguished visitors, the Prime Minister as such has no home in which to welcome them, while ambassadors have all they need to honour not only foreign visitors but Canadians also. Abroad, in every capital city of the world, Canada is in an excellent position to entertain these guests. We should therefore provide our first citizen and his distinguished lady with what is needed to enhance the prestige of the name Canada and of the Canadian capital.	It
would, of course, be easy to appeal to the generosity of the public; I have no doubt that the funds required for the purchase of a suitable residence would immediately be

The Address-Mr. Lesage forthcoming. I feel, however, that every Canadian should participate in the offer of a house which our Prime Minister would occupy in his official capacity, and which would then be at the disposal of all future Canadian prime ministers.
As we shall see, Canada is well on the way to self-government. National pride therefore makes it imperative that we provide the Prime Minister and his wife with an official home where, henceforward, they may entertain important guests.
With the hearty commendation of the house, I therefore beg the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) to include without further delay, in the supplementary estimates that will be brought down this autumn, the sum required for the purpose I have just outlined.
Mr. Speaker, extremely interesting proposals, from the constitutional and legal viewpoints, are to be found in the speech from the throne. Last Friday, those proposals were explained from a constitutional point of view by the Prime Minister in the following words, and I quote from page 197 of Hansard:
From time to time modifications have been made in provincial constitutions by those who had the authority and were concerned about them, and no one else was consulted or had to be consulted. What is forecast in the speech from the throne Is that there will be an application to the parliament at Westminster to say that such amendments to the Canadian constitution as do not affect the jurisdiction of the provinces, or the rights or privileges secured to the provinces, or the minority rights I referred to previously, can be made here in this parliament instead of being made in the parliament at Westminster on motions or addresses adopted by this parliament. That is the only purpose and effect of the measure forecast in the speech from the throne. But that measure would leave to the courts the responsibility and the burden of deciding what is within provincial jurisdiction or constitutes a provincial right and what is of concern only to the federal authority and their decisions will be binding as they have been in the past.
The right hon. the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech that since confederation, on ten separate occasions, addresses have been forwarded to the parliament in London by this parliament, with a view to amending our constitution. Never did the parliament at Westminster refuse to accept these addresses and to amend the Canadian constitution. Yet the provinces were never consulted in any one of these cases and the British parliament simply approved the proposed amendments in the manner of a formality. Experience has shown that it will refuse none of this parliament's requests for amendments to the constitution. Who would dare suggest that this can change now?

This situation has come about in practice as Canada acquires in the world an ever-increasing importance, not only in the economic field, but on the international scene. That is why, as a matter of fact, the Prime Minister, a year or two ago, expressed the fear that the parliament at Westminster could, in the manner of a formality, approve an address from this parliament requesting, for instance-that is the example he chose- that section 133 of the British North America Act be abolished.
In practice, the present position is that the federal parliament, I repeat, may ask for and obtain any amendment whatsoever to the constitution. But the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, suggests that we, ourselves, limit the powers granted the Canadian parliament through constant practice. In fact, this approval by the British parliament has become a mere formality. The Prime Minister has suggested that in the future the law should take precedence over practice and absolutely guarantee the rights of the provinces and of the minorities. The law would state that the federal government shall be free to amend the constitution within the realm of its exclusive jurisdiction and that each of the provinces is free within the realm of its exclusive jurisdiction. But the federal government may not now amend the constitution in matters pertaining to the rights of minorities and the rights of the provinces, in matters concerning only the provinces or in questions of mixed jurisdiction.
Thus, for instance, the field of direct taxation is a field of mixed jurisdiction where both the central authority and the provincial legislatures can operate. The prime minister of the province of Quebec expressed certain fears on that subject. Now, Mr. Speaker, parliament will not be able to amend the constitution with respect to that field, and Mr. Duplessis will certainly have the chance to discuss the question and to assert the needs of the provinces at the conference he has been invited to attend by the Prime Minister of Canada, in order precisely to come to an understanding on the possible means of amending the constitution, in a way satisfactory to all parties, in fields of mixed jurisdiction, such as direct taxation.
Therefore, the law will henceforth tell the parliament at Ottawa that it can amend the constitution only in matters coming under its sole jurisdiction. And as that will be written into our statutes, the party that deems itself injured will be able to appeal to the tribunals, whereas up to now a province which believed its rights had been encroached upon could

not appeal to the tribunals as long as the proposed amendments had been ratified by the British parliament. Thus the provinces gain an additional right. -
All things considered, far from being an encroachment upon provincial and minority rights, such a reform constitutes a further double guarantee, based on law and justice. Indeed, the written law will replace a constitutional practice fraught with danger for the minorities and the provinces. Efficient legal remedy will be afforded to minorities and provinces if they believe that their rights have been infringed upon.
It is perhaps on account of that new remedy that most objections have been and are still voiced against the abolition of appeals to the privy council. Last year, during the discussion on a bill introduced by Mr. Jaenicke, I went fully into that matter. I maintained that the privy council was a political court, that its members were politicians and that they had not the independence which our supreme court judges enjoy. I claimed that the members of the privy council are not familiar with our customs and that, in the last analysis, the members of the supreme court are more qualified to mete out justice and equity to Canadians than are the members of a court which sits outside this country. I also went at length into the jurisprudence of the supreme court and the privy council on constitutional cases, and I came to the conclusion that past experience proves, beyond any doubt, that the supreme court affords more safeguards than the privy council as regards the protection of minorities and the defence of provincial rights.
Moreover, let us not forget that, through the bill which is now before the house, the supreme court will now be composed of nine judges, three of which will be from the province of Quebec. That constitutes an extremely important additional guarantee for the rights of minorities. But after all what counts most is that, thanks be to God, my country's courts are second to none, as far as the judges' integrity is concerned. Breaches against justice, and when I say justice I mean justice, have perhaps brought many Canadian citizens to believe that such a virtue tends to disappear. Claims held in totalitarian countries to the effect that might is right have perhaps shaken faith in justice. But I can assure my fellow citizens that our magistrates have that virtue of justice engraved in their hearts and wish to give everyone his due, whether individuals, corporations, municipalities, provinces or central government are concerned. They are fully aware of their responsibility in the
The Address-Mr. Lesage accomplishment of the most important function the state has delegated to them as one of its foremost prerogatives.
According to Aristotle, the prince is the keeper of justice. Justice is an outgrowth of the essential attribute of the state. It is one of the three functions, of the three powers of a sovereign country, namely the executive, the legislative and the judicial powers. We shall not be autonomous so long as we are unable to amend our own constitution. We are not in full possession of our legislative powers and we do not enjoy complete judicial independence. We only enjoy one power, the executive power, and this on account of the legal friction pertaining to the divisibility of the crown. We do not enjoy the two other powers, namely full legislative and judicial powers. Mr. Speaker, over twenty years ago, when I was only sixteen, I took part in my first public debate, together with my good friend, who is now my colleague, the member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard). We did not consult each other, because I was in Quebec and he was in Montreal, but we both discussed the following subject: "Canada among nations". Both of us, without consulting each other, claimed for Canada all the attributes of sovereignty. That was prior to 1931, before the enactment of the Statute of Westminster.
At the time, we may have been looked upon as dreamers. I am not sure whether this speech I had written when so young had inspired me with a particular feeling of national pride or not, but later on, whenever I addressed the public, I felt it my duty to claim the attributes of sovereignty for my country. At every step Canada took towards autonomy, whether in the international or in the national field, I felt deeply moved, my patriotism fired me with enthusiasm. When I heard the Prime Minister outline his constitutional platform over the radio, which has been stated in the speech from the throne, I was deeply moved and proud of my country, after the years I had spent claiming its autonomy, after I had asked my electors for a mandate in order that I may claim here my country's sovereignty. I was indeed very happy.
When the Prime Minister outlined his program to my electors at Montmagny, on May 22 last, I was proud to be a Canadian and a fellow citizen of our leader. That is why I asked my constituents to give him an unequivocal mandate.
He obtained that unequivocal mandate not only from the electors of Montmagny-L'Islet, not only from the whole of the province of

The Address-Mr. Lesage Quebec, but from the constituents of nearly every electoral district throughout Canada. It is therefore with an unequivocal mandate that he now comes before parliament to ask both houses for their approval of the program which has already been sanctioned by the people who sent us here when they voted for us last June.
Some people would like to see these measures postponed. No good ever comes of delaying too long, Mr. Speaker. In the past, important problems were submitted to a dominion-provincial conference. Without censuring anyone, I point out that unfortunately certain interests availed themselves of that occasion to boost their political capital and gain the confidence of the electors. Why did that happen? Because the subject under consideration at those conferences was so broad that the delegates could go off at a tangent. On the other hand, we have held many dominion-provincial conferences quietly, smoothly and without fanfare, at which federal and provincial authorities were in agreement. For that reason, I feel that in recommending that the debate on amendments to the constitution be restricted to problems involving joint jurisdiction or relating to minorities, the Prime Minister has made an excellent proposal.
I fail to see why we should require the assent of the provinces when dealing with matters that concern only the dominion any more than they would need the concurrence of the federal parliament in spheres entirely under their control.
If a federal-provincial conference is being planned to deal with so broad a matter, I feel sure that, after our experience of the past, it will lead to no practical results. Inevitably, passions will be aroused, the issue will be dodged and this, finally, can only lead to the failure of such a conference, whereas by concentrating on a given question, the Prime Minister has already laid the groundwork of an almost certain success. After all, a spirit of co-operation, of tolerance and of justice, is all that can be required of those attending such a conference.
I would not want anyone and especially those who represent the minority, of which I am a part, to concede a single one of the rights guaranteed by the letter of confederation and which are today, I insist, threatened because of a constitutional practice which has forced itself upon us since 1837. Not for any consideration would I want one single shred of minority or provincial rights to be transferred to this parliament. I am confident that the autonomy of the provinces will be

safeguarded, but I also hope that, in order to ensure Canada's continued growth, those fields which were given to the federal government by the fathers of confederation will also be protected. After all, if the provinces are entitled to their autonomy, we are also entitled to ours. The parliament of Canada must be free to act in those fields which are its sote responsibility and on no account should those who represent the central authorities be willing to abandon even one single shred of its rights. But each delegate, while prepared to defend the rights of those whom he represents, should come to this conference in a spirit of tolerance, co-operation and Canadian patriotism. Thus, we may be sure that this conference will meet with success.
If agreement is reached on the manner in which our constitution can be amended in all fields, only one additional step will be required to make it truly Canadian, one to be written in the statutes of this parliament and in those of the various provinces of Canada. Then we shall have achieved complete sovereignty, a dream that has been with us for so long.
(Text):
Mr. T. G. W. Ashbourne (Grand Falls-White
Bay): Mr. Speaker, I should like my first remarks in this house to be words of thanks to the electors of the riding of Grand Falls-White Bay in Newfoundland, which riding consists of the electoral districts of Grand Falls, Green Bay, White Bay and Labrador, the last named including an area of some
113,000	square miles. I want to thank the electors for the confidence they have expressed in sending me to this historic House of Commons, and I am very happy to be here.
To you, sir, I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed by other hon. members on your election as Speaker of this house. There is an air of permanence about this august chamber. I trust that you will long be spared to fulfil the duties of your exalted position which, I hope, will prove a delight to you and of benefit to us. I am delighted to congratulate our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the leader of the great Liberal party, on the success of our party in the election of June 27. His outstanding qualities of leadership played an important role in the magnitude of this great victory.
I should like to offer my congratulations also to the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) on the excellent

speeches they delivered as mover and seconder of the motion which is now under discussion. As yet it has not been my privilege to visit Vancouver, but after listening with rapt attention to the address of the member for Vancouver South, I feel that, as soon as I can conveniently do so, I should like to visit that part of Canada.
The visit of His Excellency the Governor General and Viscountess Alexander to Newfoundland was greatly appreciated by our people. This visit afforded many of them an opportunity of meeting the representative of His Majesty the King, whose health we trust will continue to improve. I sincerely hope that the welcome accorded to the governor general, and the repeated desire expressed by the people of Newfoundland for a return visit by His Excellency and his good lady, will promote an early return so that the places not yet visited by them may have an opportunity of greeting them.
We were honoured by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who, practically speaking, ended his election campaign tour in Newfoundland. I feel sure that the remembrance of the deep interest displayed by the right hon. gentleman in the province of Newfoundland, and his constant efforts to bring the union of Newfoundland and Canada to a satisfactory consummation, was in the minds of the people of Canada.
Since I had the honour of being elected by the people of Newfoundland to be a member of the national convention which met in St. John's on September 11, 1946, I can speak with a certain degree of personal knowledge about the work of that convention. It happens that I was also a member of the delegation elected by the national convention to come to Ottawa in the summer of 1947 to confer with representatives of the Canadian government about the possible terms of union. I want to pay tribute to the ex-Prime Minister, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, who welcomed us at that time, as well as to the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent, who acted as chairman of the meetings that were held at that time.
We arrived in this city on the 24th day of June, the day on which the people of Newfoundland were celebrating the four hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the landing of John Cabot upon the shores of that province. The delegation remained here for a period of three months, during which time meetings were held, concluding on September 29, 1947. One month from that day the Prime Minister of Canada wrote to His Excellency Sir Gordon, now Lord Macdonald, the Governor
The Address-Mr. Ashbourne of Newfoundland, enclosing a statement of terms believed to constitute a fair and equitable basis for union with Canada. Those terms were discussed at length by the members of the national convention and were before the people in the referenda which followed.
The national convention had been elected by the people of Newfoundland to examine the financial and economic condition of the country and to make recommendations to the British government as to the forms of government to be submitted to the people in a national referendum. The first referendum was held on June 3, 1948, the results of which are as follows: for continuation of commission of government for a five-year period, 22,311; for confederation with Canada, 64,066; for restoration of responsible government, 69,400. As no form of government had received a majority of the votes cast, a second referendum was held on July 22, 1948. This resulted in confederation with Canada receiving 78,323 votes as against 71,334 votes for responsible government.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. F. G. Bradley, the Secretary of State for Canada, was the chairman of the delegation that came to Ottawa in the summer of 1947. When we returned to the convention in Newfoundland both of us, in common with fourteen other members of the convention, felt that the people of Newfoundland should be afforded an opportunity of voting upon the matter of confederation with Canada. I can assure you we were very glad when the British government decided to place it upon the ballot paper. Confederation, I am happy to say, is now a fait accompli. On the 15th day of September, 1949, when this twenty-first parliament assembled, we saw the representatives of Newfoundland seated in this chamber with the representatives of the other nine provinces.
We are proud and happy to take our places in this great land, and delighted that at long last the representations, discussions, conferences and negotiations have borne fruit. As a result of the choice of the people, on whose judgment we can safely rely, I am happy that we are now part and parcel of this great dominion which is, if I may be allowed to say so, greater now that the resources of Newfoundland have been pooled with those of Canada. We can appreciate the fact that the majority of the people are never far wrong when their voice can be heard or when an opportunity is given them to express their considered will on issues concerning their future and their welfare. As time goes on, and as the needs of Newfoundland become
258	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Ashbourne more apparent, I have faith and confidence that from the people of Canada, and from their representatives in this parliament and other assemblies, we shall receive the utmost consideration commensurate with the ability of this dominion to satisfy the needs of Newfoundland as they may arise.
I wish to voice my warm appreciation of the words of welcome contained in the speech from the throne with regard to the advent of Newfoundlanders in this parliament, and to place on record my own high regard for that spirit of friendliness, harmony and good will so pleasantly manifested since the beginning of this session. We in Newfoundland have not been unaccustomed to the storms which have swept our province as well as other provinces represented here. We have felt the tremor of the earthquake. We have been shaken, as it were, by convulsions. Yet, undaunted, we have carried on as well as we could. When the great depressions struck our economic structure we were unfortunately not able, unaided, to carry on alone. For a time we were governed by the commission of government, which I believe did a good job as a whole in Newfoundland. But it was not a democratic form of government; while at the time it seemed to be a good expedient, it was only to be expected that the people of Newfoundland would want responsible government. Today we have responsible government, not on our own but backed up with the resources of the great Dominion of Canada.
Newfoundland is a country of proverbial beauty. We have our majestic headlands, some of them rising in sheer grandeur hundreds of feet, and down the steep slopes come tumbling the waterfalls. I have not yet had the privilege of viewing the Grand Falls of Labrador. I have not yet visited Labrador although I have the honour to represent that great area. But it will be my duty and privilege some day to visit that great country. We know something of the tremendous assets to be found in Labrador, of the rich mines and of the virgin forests which are hers. In imagination we look back to the sight which must have met the eyes of John Cabot when, on the far-away day, coming to the shores of Newfoundland, he and his fellow voyageurs exclaimed, "Buena vista!" I may say that the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) resides in Bonavista and represents that historic district as well as the district of Twillingate.
I believe there is a widespread belief that Newfoundland is a land of fogs and ice, but that is not correct. Because of the Arctic current, which flows from the north down
[Mr, Ashbourne.)

toward the gulf stream, a certain amount of fog is naturally generated. But I can assure hon. members that the climate of Newfoundland as a whole is exceptionally good. I might say that right here in this House of Commons I should like to feel some of those sea breezes that I have felt in the past. I mention the climate of Newfoundland because I realize what a tremendous asset it is to us. To those people who want to get away from the sweltering heat of the city in the summertime I would extend an invitation to come down and enjoy the climate of Newfoundland. We have our beautiful days of sunshine and nights that are cool, so that one can lie down and have a decent rest. We in Newfoundland realize that in our climate we have an attraction which I hope will bring many tourists to our shores.
We have as well the salmon fishing about which a good many hon. members know. My good friend the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) will be able to tell you more about that attraction. I have never yet had the thrill of catching a salmon. Now that I am a member of the House of Commons I do not know whether I shall have the time to go salmon fishing. Up to the present time my life has been so crowded that I have not been able to indulge in that sport. I mention it, however, because there may be some who would like to come down and enjoy the salmon fishing in Newfoundland.
It is true that we have some fog, particularly at certain periods of the year, especially in the spring. Later on I shall be making requisitions to the government for some fog alarms and also for some lighthouses, which are most necessary for the people residing in the districts I have the honour to represent. As they go north in quest of the harvests of the deep, these fishermen are oftentimes impeded by fog in the spring of the year. I feel sure that my request for a certain number of fog alarms and lighthouses will not fall on deaf ears, and that the people of Canada will see that these are provided for our fishermen. We know these men who are seeking to provide food for the people of the world will be helped in their endeavours, and I can assure the house that it will be highly appreciated by them.
Newfoundland's strategic position, being so to speak the Gibraltar of the North American continent, is well known. I am happy that our lot is now cast with the rest of the people of Canada, and that this dominion is now rounded out by the inclusion of Newfoundland. We are primarily a fishing country. The prolific cod fisheries of Newfound-

land have meant bread and butter to our people. We have also our salmon fisheries, our lobster fisheries and our herring fisheries.
I was greatly taken with the desire of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) to give aid to the fishermen. In Newfoundland the fisheries have been our chief mainstay and, as I said before, they offer much by way of food to the people of the world. For example, let us consider the herring fishery. The herring is one of the most important of food fishes, and they are found in our bays and along the Labrador coast. We realize that at the present time, on account of the devaluation of the dollar, if we are to keep up consumption in the export markets we may have to reduce our fish prices. On the other hand we sell a considerable quantity of codfish to Puerto Rico. There we shall receive American dollars which, I trust, will offset some of the loss which may be incurred by the devaluation of other currencies.
In Newfoundland we have an organization called NAFEL. This is the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters, Limited, which organization handles the sales of codfish for the exporters of Newfoundland. We have learned from experience the evils of consigning fish to markets without receiving payment beforehand. We have also learned to our sorrow of the cutthroat competition when, in order to make a sale in a market, one exporter might be inclined to undercut another. I am happy to say we now have NAFEL, which is looking after the exporting of our codfish.
I should like briefly to refer to a few of the matters included in the speech from the throne. In my opinion this was a good speech, forecasting as it did important legislation, some of which has already been placed before the house. It is my hope that the dominion-provincial conference, which in my opinion is a worthy project, may result in profitable progress, and may achieve the desired end, with each participant actively motivated toward a common goal. By that method I am sure the best possible results will flow for the people and the nation.
The right to amend our own constitution should surely be our own prerogative. It seems to me we must continue to strive with determination and in the spirit of cooperation not merely to find temporary solutions for our problems, but adequate and lasting ones, in all the matters which we undertake. I am pleased to see the increasing interest taken in national health, which primarily, I understand, is a provincial matter.
May I say that in my first speech in the house I realize that I have much to learn. I am only a beginner here, and there are 45781-17
The Address-Mr. Ashbourne many directions in which I shall have to make progress slowly. It is not easy to change quickly from one course of procedure to another. The amount of $30 million voted at the last session of parliament to be divided among the provinces was, in my opinion, a proper step. I am afraid, however, Newfoundland may be unable to participate in all the various grants.
For example, I am not sure that we shall be able to take up the amount of money which was voted for cancer research. It would be, I think, a great pity for any amounts that we could not possibly take for the different sections for which the votes were granted to go into a dropped balance. I trust that if there are any such amounts which cannot be used for grants as indicated, they may be credited to Newfoundland, and given to us for certain other medical and health purposes. For instance, I have in mind hospital construction. We have in Newfoundland a health problem. Those grants in toto could be used for various purposes in Newfoundland to which we could profitably put them. We have several cottage hospitals, as well as private hospitals. We have the hospitals in the north operated by the International Grenfell Association, which operates a large hospital at St. Anthony, and also on the coast of Labrador. We have at my home town of Twillingate a memorial hospital built as a memorial to the men in world war I who laid down their lives in that great conflict.
On August 17 last we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the opening of the Notre Dame Memorial hospital. Newfoundland being an island, our main means of transportation is by boat, and in Newfoundland the people are scattered among the various outports around the coasts. I was talking to Dr. Olds, the superintendent of the hospital in Twillingate, just shortly before I left. It might be interesting to note that he is a graduate of the Johns Hopkins university. He has been at Twillingate for quite a period. He is the missionary type of doctor and at one time during the war he practically carried on single-handed at this 130-bed hospital. He was telling me how much he would like to have an aeroplane in order that cases might be brought to the hospital more quickly. We were delighted to hear that the United States government has donated a large sum of money for the building of a hospital at St. Lawrence on the southwest coast of Newfoundland.
We in Newfoundland are looking forward to the building of the trans-Canada highway and we hope that a highway will also be built across Newfoundland and Labrador. We understand that a ferry service across Cabot

The Address-Mr. Ashbourne
strait will be instituted in time and this would permit many people to come from the mainland to visit our beauty spots and enjoy the fishing and hunting available in Newfoundland. There are herds of moose and caribou on the island which are increasing all the time, but I think we shall have to bring in some deer from the mainland, which would add greatly to the attractions of our hunting.
We have heard much said about the premium on gold, but may I suggest that a premium on food would not be out of order. In the final analysis, is not food of greater value than gold? We in Newfoundland have helped to feed the people of the world. Our climate is such that we are able to dry the salt cod which we have exported, not only to the Mediterranean, to the West Indies and to Puerto Rico, but to Brazil.
While we look forward to a further development of the fresh fish industry we realize that there is a great demand for the salted product. I hope and trust that Europe will still be able to take large quantities of our codfish. Unfortunately we have not been able to sell any cod in Spain for two years. There may be a necessary curtailment in our exports of fish owing to lack of currency, but it would be a great thing if we could once more sell our products to Spain. I remember one time being told by a fish merchant there that if we could produce a certain quality of fish it would sell in that market no matter what other cargoes might be offering. This question of exchange has hampered our exports to the extent, as I have stated, that we have not been able to make any sales of fish in Spain for quite some time.
Shipbuilding is mentioned in the speech from the throne. This is a most important industry, a most essential industry to Newfoundland. Being an insular and maritime country we must depend upon shipping. If it is the intention of the government to foster the shipbuilding industry I hope they will also consider the matter of repairs to existing hulls. It is a well-known fact that the bottom of a vessel will outlast two top structures. Not having a great deal of hardwood in Newfoundland, we must use the softer varieties, and we find that the topsides give out first. The bottom of the vessel, being in contact with salt water, is quite often perfectly sound when the upper part must be condemned. If repairs, under supervision of course, could be carried on I know that the fishermen would be delighted and I think provisions for such repair work might well be coupled with the measure proposed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired but he may continue with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Mr. Ashbourne:: I wish to thank hon. members of the house for their indulgence. Mining is a great asset to Newfoundland. The mines at Buchans provide considerable employment and we are looking forward to the development of the mineral resources in Labrador.
The production of newsprint at Grand Falls and Corner Brook has been a means of reducing unemployment throughout the island and also of obtaining United States dollars.
Then a word with regard to the air agreements. No doubt the acquisition by Canada of Gander airport, which is in my riding, strengthened the hands of the government in the finalization of these agreements. If further details have not yet been decided upon, or remain to be ironed out, I trust that in the final analysis no undue friction will develop, but that the result will be expanded services and greater employment with a consequent need for additional Newfoundland personnel. The large airport at Gander, the centre of international air travel, the crossroads of the world, will, I believe, play a most important role in the development of our country.
The matter of forest conservation is most essential. Fire, that great menace, has been a constant threat. The change-over from coal to oil burning locomotives in Newfoundland has resulted already in fewer fires. Newfoundland, if denuded of her forests, would become in time a bald rock. Then our fisheries would disappear and storms would likely sweep over her.
I sincerely say "amen" to the prayer that Divine Providence may bless our deliberations on behalf of this great Dominion of Canada.


Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, while I intend to be very brief in my remarks, I want to discuss certain matters of particular importance to my constituency, and to Canada as a whole. One of those subjects is irrigation.
Before discussing it may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Speaker of the house and also you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on being elevated to your high offices. May I congratulate the mover (Mr. Boisvert) and the seconder (Mr. Laing) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I regret that I was unable to follow the speech of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska owing to my meagre knowledge of the French language, but I certainly enjoyed the address of the hon. member for Vancouver South. I think he did a wonderful job, and I am sure that we are going to hear more good speeches from the same hon. member.

Coming over to this side of the house, may I offer my congratulations to another member from the other end of Canada, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins). I enjoyed listening to his speech, and I am sure everyone else did. I believe that he is another hon. member who will certainly be heard from in the future. I am sure that we will take pleasure in the contributions that he will make to the debates of the house.
The subject of irrigation is one that is certainly not new to most hon. members, and it is one that is not new within the walls of this chamber. I hope that the word "irrigation" will ring through this chamber until our wish to see our western plains well supplied with water has been fulfilled. During the past week we have had several celebrations in Lethbridge in connection with irrigation. The Lethbridge chamber of commerce was celebrating their seventy-fifth anniversary, and at the same time they had a celebration in connection with irrigation, a subject in which they have taken an interest ever since they were first organized. They have done a wonderful job in promoting irrigation, not only in the Lethbridge area but also in the Medicine Hat area, and other areas as well.
I might mention in passing that Mr. John Fisher, the noted C.B.C. commentator, covered the celebration last week. I am sure that many hon. members of the house must have heard Mr. Fisher either on Saturday afternoon or yesterday when he gave Canada the story of irrigation, and what irrigation has done for the Lethbridge community. I find that many members of the staff of the house also listened to him. I am reminded that he told a little story, and I think it is worth while repeating it because we do have Chinooks out there, and we have quite a variation in temperature. Mr. Fisher told a story of a couple driving into Lethbridge one day during a Chinook. It was in the middle of winter and the front end of the sleigh was on snow and the back runners were on bare ground. Many hon. members may not believe that situation exists. I agree that it is not quite that bad, but we have changes in temperature of 60 degrees in about two hours, and the unfortunate part of it is that it does not occur only in the wintertime. We have the same thing in the summer. When we get the dry Chinook winds in the summertime it is just as hot at night as it is during the day, and no crop can stand up under those conditions unless we have water for the soil.	.
There was another meeting in Lethbridge last Thursday, a meeting of the Western Canada Reclamation Association. It is an organization made up mostly of Medicine Hat 45781-17 i
The Address-Mr. Wylie residents who spend their time promoting irrigation. There was also another very large meeting in Medicine Hat last Tuesday night which was addressed by a former member of this house, Mr. John R. MacNicol, a man who has spent years studying irrigation, and the benefits that can be derived by supplying water to the land. We were very glad to have Mr. MacNicol in Medicine Hat at this time of the year, especially just after an election in which many promises were made as to irrigation. Mr. MacNicol addressed an audience of 650 irrigation enthusiasts who filled the Empress theatre. They must have been enthusiasts to have attended a meeting at this time of year. They were people who had the interests of the district at heart. Mr. MacNicol also spoke in Lethbridge; and while he is not now a member of this house I wish him all the success in the world in promoting irrigation in western Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, while I do not wish to rehash election promises, in view of developments that have taken place since the election I find it necessary to refer to a few matters and a few promises that were made to the residents of my constituency before the election. We had plenty of promises. As I said, irrigation is not a new subject in this house. I am going to go back to September 18, 1945, and read a very short editorial from the Medicine Hat News of that date under the heading "A necessity":
Last week Senators F. W. Gershaw and W. A. Buchanan stressed the need of an early start upon the irrigation projects in southern Alberta.
At the week end the local trades and labour council voiced a strong protest against the delay in commencing work on the Redcliff-Ronalane project. These representations are the latest in a steadily growing volume of protest against the apparent inability of Ottawa to recognize the emergency which is developing in southern Alberta as a result of drought conditions. The memory of the dry thirties is still vivid in this part of the country where its people are anxious to avoid having to undergo another heart-breaking experience of that kind, especially as it can be averted to a great extent by placing water on the land.
In that editorial I went back to 1945, but I could go back to 1920. The necessity of having water on the land was recognized at that time; the issue has been fought in every election campaign since, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as long as I am able to do so I shall continue to fight it in every election campaign until these irrigation projects are completed.


Mr. Gardiner:: And this Liberal government, through the Minister of Agriculture, has done more about it in the last few years than was done in all the other years you have been talking about.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Yes, since I have been elected; not before. In our part of the country every

The Address-Mr. Wylie year is a dry year; we have never known a wet year. The only difference is that one year may be a little drier than another, and this happens to be one of the driest years we have ever had. This year in that area thousands of acres will not be harvested; there is nothing on them to cut. Thousands of acres are averaging only from two to four bushels to the acre. Many farmers sowed 250 to 400 acres of wheat and did not thresh one bushel of grain. Those are the conditions that actually exist. The people of that district know we have the solution if only we will adopt it, but apparently those in charge are not so anxious to see some of our natural resources used or to have water put on our land. I was quite proud and happy to have the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in my constituency three times before the election-


James Garfield Gardiner: And I shall be back three times more now that it is over.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I assure the minister we shall be very glad to have him there at any time, as long as he leaves his promises at home, but we do want some action. Now I am going to read some short articles that appeared in the newspapers. Here is one dated May 2, from the Calgary Albertan, under the heading [DOT]"Land purchase money in bank." It goes on to say:
The Liberal candidate for the Medicine Hat riding revealed Friday that $2,350,000 is in the bank for purchase of Canada Land and Irrigation Company holdings.
The price includes a 200-mile canal system and an estimated 160,000 acres of company lands. The 'Liberal candidate said that if the price was accepted he had agriculture minister J. G. Gardiner's assurance that the Bow river irrigation scheme would be undertaken immediately and made available to farmers at $10 per acre.
Then I have another short extract from the Calgary Albertan of May 9 under the heading "Irrigation company agrees to sell out." My only purpose in bringing these articles to the attention of the house at the present time is to show that these promises were made before the election on June 27 and nothing further has been heard of them since.


An hon. Member:: Were you surprised?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Not a bit. This is what the article states:	.
The Canada Land and Irrigation Company, owner of a large irrigation system south of the Bow river and between Calgary and Medicine Hat, has agreed to sell out to the dominion government, according to Right Hon. James G. Gardiner, federal Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Gardiner made the statement in a long distance telephone conversation with Harry Veiner of Brooks, Liberal candidate. He asked Mr. Veiner to arrange an appointment for him May 17 with D. W. Hays, general manager of the company.

Acceptance has been made in principle, while negotiations are needed to work out details of the agreement, said Mr. Gardiner.


James Garfield Gardiner: No promise in that; it is just a statement of fact.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Now I come to June 13 and something out of our local paper, getting right back home. The heading is "Gardiner backs irrigation deal," and the article states:
The audit' and engineering investigation of Canada Land and Irrigation Company's assets and holdings on the Bow river extension has been completed, said agriculture minister James G. Gardiner here today.
"I have the copies of the report now," added Mr. Gardiner, in Medicine Hat to make two campaign addresses, one in Bow Island this afternoon, the other in the city tonight, in the interests of the Liberal candidate.
"The advisory committee of the PFRA viewed the project recently and is recommending it to the government. I am prepared to recommend it and back it."
Those are the minister's words.
The government, through Mr. Gardiner, offered to buy the company outright early in May. The offer was accepted by company directors and a written undertaking given that the company would sell. The Canadian cabinet has endorsed the agriculture minister's proposals.
Now that was on June 13, some time before the election. We are still waiting to hear what has happened.


James Garfield Gardiner: Will you be surprised if it goes through?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I shall be glad; I hope it does.


Mr. Quelch:: Will the minister be surprised?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Probably he would.
This article continues as follows:
Plans are developed for a big political rally in the city tonight, starting with what has been called a Gardiner-Veiner victory parade. This will move off from a point by Cory Implements, south of Railway street, at 7 p.m., and will cover all downtown streets, ending at the Empress theatre at eight o'clock.
The parade will feature some of the Dailey Bros, circus menagerie, in the city today, and the sixteen-horse hitch circus calliope. There will be floats, decorated cars and decorated bicycles.
May I say this, Mr. Speaker, that there was no parade with any part of the circus and the people of Medicine Hat were disappointed that evening, as the minister will recall. This parade was advertised over the radio for a week. That night the ladies rushed through doing the dishes and got the children ready to go down to see this circus parade. What happened? When they arrived on the scene they found the only parade was the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the Liberal candidate riding in the first car, with a few of their friends in two or three cars behind them. The people returned home disgusted and I do not blame them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of them came to the meeting.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: The minister says "Most of them came to the meeting." He had a meeting that afternoon in Bow Island and while the newspapers reported the theatre was packed, actually there were forty-one people at the meeting.


James Garfield Gardiner: Better than that; it was not packed, but I was running opposition to a circus, you know.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: May I say this, Mr. Speaker, that we are proud of our city. If 600 people is all we can get to a parade in Medicine Hat, we are bitterly disappointed. There were not that many at the minister's meeting.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I shall read you what the Moose Jaw Times-Herald of June 28, 1949, says. This is the day after the election. The article is headed, "Jimmy and the Circus".
Never before have we heard of a politician sharing a night billing with a circus. That is what happened to Hon. Jimmy Gardiner at Medicine Hat.
Of late years the circus managements have shunned parades, but whether it was the persuasive ability of the Medicine Hat Liberals or the fear of competition from Mr. Gardiner, there was a circus parade through the streets of Medicine Hat prior to the night performances of both. The elephants, lions, tigers, camels, riding horses and the circus band took part in the "Gardiner-Veiner victory parade," tracing a figure eight through the business section of the Alberta city. The Liberal committee organized the victory parade which was comprised of floats and decorated cars and bicycles, with "Veiner balloons" distributed en route. Mr. Gardiner and the Liberal candidate Veiner shared the honours with the beasts of the jungle and the polar bears from the far north.
You will observe from this that you cannot always believe what you read in the newspaper. There was no parade.


James Garfield Gardiner: You have not read it all yet.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I can read some more if you wish. I might read also, Mr. Speaker, what a Liberal newspaper said the day after the election. This editorial is headed, "Irrigation gets a Setback". This will show you whether they were playing politics. The editorial reads:
The cheering is over, the laments are known, and the people have spoken. Re-election of William D. Wylie, Social Credit, by an overwhelming majority in the Medicine Hat constituency was a confirmation of faith in Alberta doctrines by the common people. Across the country it was a predictable win for the Liberal government but few can claim to have foreseen such a decisive sweep. It was an unprecedented steamroller victory in nine of the ten provinces, Alberta being the only exception to a trend which was early established after the closing of polls.
More than national affairs were at stake in this constituency and the flaunting of the proposal
The Address-Mr. Wylie made by agricultural minister Gardiner for the purchase of Canada Land and Irrigation Company Limited to complete the Bow river extension raises a big question over the future course of developments.
The election was fought locally on irrigation, although some minor issues were raised during the hard-fought campaign. Gardiner said he would recommend, and back in cabinet caucus, purchase of the company at a price of $2,250,000. In addition, it would have cost the federal treasury some $3 million to complete its portion of the engineering development. The fate of this program is now problematical. We do not make this statement in any spirit of mischievousness but in the full knowledge of how practical politics are played.
According to that article the irrigation program will not be considered unless a Liberal is elected.
I have another article to which I wish to refer, as I believe it is worth while. This one is dated July 14 and is an editorial which appeared in the Medicine Hat News. It is headed "Irrigation and Politics".


James Garfield Gardiner: From what other paper were you quoting?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: That was the Medicine Hat
News of Tuesday, June 28.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is that a Liberal paper?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: It is still a Liberal paper. This is what that newspaper said in an editorial on July 14 which is headed "Irrigation and Politics".


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not a Social Credit newspaper, but that does not mean it is Liberal.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: This editorial reads:
If the Liberals are to claim any right to honest government at all, they will decide the irrigation issue on its merits. Either the irrigation of southern Alberta is a good thing for the country as a whole or it isn't. If it is, then politics ought not to enter into it at all; if it isn't, then why was Mr. Gardiner so keen on the idea before June 27?


Mr. Low:: Let him answer that.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend wishes to have an answer to that question, I can tell him that his organization wrote me a letter challenging me to go out there and discuss the question.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I did not hear what the minister said.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said the hon. gentleman's organization, the Social Credit organization for that area, challenged me to go out there and discuss the question with the people. I went out and discussed it.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Mr. Speaker, any time an organization has a candidate in the field, there is an implication that there is an invitation for any minister to enter that constituency and debate any subject.

The Address-Mr. Wylie


James Garfield Gardiner: They wrote and asked me to come.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I am glad they did, and where did we get when we did get you out there?


James Garfield Gardiner: You do not know yet what you are going to get.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We shall wait and see.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say this, though, to my hon. friend, on the question of what they get by voting. In recent years Medicine Hat has elected more Liberals than anything else. They did not get irrigation for electing Liberals and they will not be refused irrigation because they elected somebody else.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I am glad to hear the minister make that statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the same statement I made when I was out there.


Mr. Lennard:: Make your own speech.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We have believed that of the minister, but his organizers in Alberta do not believe that, and the papers supporting the minister talked differently. I think it is time they got behind the minister instead of opposing him, and gave him a hand to get our irrigation.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are doing that all the time.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: They may be saying that all the time; but just the same, what we want is irrigation. I am going to go a little further and read an article that was in the Brooks Bulletin in order to show that irrigation is being discussed farther afield than in this country. I shall read from a recent issue of that bulletin, the one of September 15, 1949. The heading is "Planning increased irrigated acreage" and the article reads as follows:
New projects will increase the Canadian irrigated farm acreage from about 1 million to more than 3 million acres said Gordon MacKenzie, addressing a United Nations conference in Lake Success, New York.
No doubt the minister knows who Gordon MacKenzie is.
"Canada will in the near future triple her present irrigated acreage and thus be able to contribute her share to the world's population and food requirements," said Mr. MacKenzie.
He stated Canada's irrigation development will be limited only by the available water supply. The suitable land is almost unlimited.
Mr. MacKenzie spoke before the water-development section of the U.N. scientific conference on the conservation and utilization of resources where 535 scientists from 49 countries are exchanging ideas and experiences on how to boost world living standards.
He was commenting on a paper concerning recent developments in irrigation, presented by Michael W. Straus, commissioner of the United States bureau of reclamation.
[Mr. Wylie.1
Straus said it is an old human practice to pray for rain, but the country where the farmer can order his "rainfall" via the irrigation ditch is the one whose people will eat. Only recently had the responsibility of national governments in development of water and related resources received national recognition.
Commenting on this point, Mr. MacKenzie said this responsibility has been recognized in Canada since 1935.
There is a man who is entirely out of this country and who is making a speech of that kind. We in the southern part of the province want to see these irrigation projects completed as soon as possible. No one realizes the hardship that these farmers are putting up with until he goes out and sees some of the crops that have been put in and has watched them burn up.


An hon. Member:: And the dust blow in.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: And the dust blow in, as my hon. friend says. I know a young chap who put in two hundred and fifty acres of wheat. He got three loads of feed off that two hundred and fifty acres. He is milking thirteen cows at the present time and is supplying badly-needed milk to our city and other parts. This winter he must dispose of his cattle. It is impossible for him to ship in feed with alfalfa at $28 a ton; and that is what he would have to pay. This man is settled right in the land that will be in the irrigation district. He is in the Sevenper-sons creek area. The land has been surveyed. We know where the water will be. That is only one case and we have dozens of them. When you go out and see a man putting a $4,000 combine over a field and then getting only three to four bushels an acre, you wonder why he is doing it. But he must.
Before I go further may I say that the P.F.A. Act has assisted the farmers in that area; it has assisted all the farmers in all the drought areas. For many of them it is their only means of living. If it were not for the P.F.A. payments they would be on relief today. I notice that the P.F.A. Act is coming before the house for amendment. I hope the payments can be increased to the farmers in those areas where they have suffered a complete loss.
In closing, may I say to the minister and to the government that we have just about reached the end of our patience with playtime talk about what should be done with respect to irrigation projects. Water is the key to prairie industry and prairie prosperity. Who cares who gets what credit for what, as long as we get action on irrigation? Let us have that action with the least possible delay.


Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, in rising in the

house this evening to make my first speech I want to say that from the beginning of the session I have been all eyes and ears, and I assure you that this evening I have no intention of being all mouth.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Speaker and other members of this house upon their election to the high positions they hold. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister upon his great victory on June 27. A small part of that victory brings me to this house to represent the constituency of Moose Mountain as a member of the government party. Being a new member, I have had many "wonders"; and one that is still with me is this. I wonder when some hon. members will get through licking their election wounds.
Much has been said about the results of the general election. I intend to speak for myself and for a good many of my colleagues from Saskatchewan. We out there ran our campaign fairly well on the past policies of the Liberal government. My colleagues and I were elected to this house under the policies of the Department of Agriculture. Much also has been said in this chamber about election promises. I cannot speak for all of Canada but I think I can speak for myself and also for a large number of my colleagues from my province. We in Saskatchewan made few if any promises because we knew that, if we promised the moon, our opposition out there would promise something bigger.
Much has been said about the government's majority in the House of Commons. As a new member I do not know a great deal about majorities or strong oppositions. I do believe however that a large majority is not something which need go amiss, because it gives hon. members supporting the government an opportunity to criticize that government, and to question it freely. I would suggest that criticism from that source would be just as beneficial as if it were to come from the opposition benches.
Much has been said about housing. I shall not linger long on that subject, but there are some brief observations I should like to make. I believe all hon. members will agree that the housing situation in Canada is not in as satisfactory a condition as we would like to see it. However, some of the speeches which have been made have pictured a backlog in housing which, in my view, is not as grim as it has been described.
I believe I can speak for a large section of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and for cities in those provinces. True, there is a backlog in housing; but if we were to consider the situation in Winnipeg, which all will agree is a large city in which more than half the population of Manitoba lives, we would find
The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith that we could drive down street after street, avenue after avenue and see on each street or avenue new houses, either already completed or in process of being built. Any man in Winnipeg who can carry a saw or drive a nail can get full employment in the building program. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) has said that there were less houses built under the federal housing program than there were marriages. Perhaps the hon. member is correct, but I know of scores of young people who have been married and who have built their own homes. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had nothing to do with it.
In the rural areas of Manitoba and Saskatchewan we are having a vast program in the building of new houses. These are being built by people who during the forties enjoyed good prices for their crops-when they had them. These people are either rebuilding their own homes or building new ones. As time goes on I am convinced we will catch up on the backlog in housing.
One other matter I shall mention only briefly. I expect soon to have friends from the United States, a few friends from overseas and possibly some relatives visiting me in this city. It will be my opportunity and honour to show them around these parliament buildings, and to show them those facilities with which we have provided ourselves in order that we may have government.
I trust however that I shall not be asked that most embarrassing question, as to what facilities we have for the residence of our first citizen. In my opinion we have a disgraceful situation when our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has no official residence. I trust that before long this error will be corrected. Our Prime Minister is a family man and I suggest that we in Canada should at least provide him with a place in which to live.
May I now turn to a discussion of agriculture. I represent an agricultural constituency located in the southeastern part of Saskatchewan. My constituency is agricultural, with the exception of the coal fields at Estevan, which take up a small area. However, since coming east I have come to realize that not only am I a new member but that I am a new person in the east. I have heard much about eastern Canada, because my mother came from Quebec and my father from Ontario. During the last two week ends I have visited farms in this district. Last week end I visited a farm in Carleton county about thirty-five miles northwest of Ottawa. This fall it is my intention to plow some soil on one of those farms.
264	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith
Yesterday morning I had the pleasure of helping to milk a dairy herd, and to deliver the milk to the cheese factory. This was all new and interesting to me. Those of us who come from western Canada have an advantage over members from eastern Canada because we have this opportunity to come east and to get acquainted with the people in this part of the country. We visit the rural areas, the towns and the cities, and in that way obtain a better understanding of the problems in this part of the country.
I admit it would be impossible to hold a session in western Canada, because we have not the facilities. However, if it were possible to come to the west, hon. members from the east would enjoy these same advantages. They would visit our rural areas, our towns and our cities and would learn about our problems.
Let me refer briefly to the agricultural set-up in western Canada. It is true that western Canada is new. But it will not always be new. I believe we could take a page out of the book of the eastern farmers. We will have to do as they are doing, namely reseed our lands to grass. I am told that right here in the Ottawa valley, where there is great fertility and plenty of rain, the farmers cannot grow crops continually. Occasionally they have to sow their lands to legumes and grasses. Sooner or later we in western Canada have to follow a similar course.
It is true that some farmers in the west are beginning to follow that procedure. However, if we are going to keep our land young we will have to sow grass. We have suffered from drought, insects and soil erosion. I believe that, thus far, we have succeeded in coping with the situation. However, the agricultural set-up of our dominion, whether it be east or west, is important. I believe it is said that for each member of the world's population we have two agricultural acres. Let us keep in mind that people must eat.
Much has been said about decreases in farm prices. Some of those prices have gone down; but the average for the first three months of 1949 showed an all-time high. We are still enjoying prices which are two and a half times higher than in the pre-war period.
It is my belief however that prices are bound to come down. In my view that is essential, because it will be agreed that when prices get too high they are bound to react to a point where they are too low. We know that, under the world wheat agreement, from year to year we are going to take less for our wheat. I do not think there is a wheat grower in Canada who, if he gave the matter serious consideration, would not admit that that is a satisfactory set-up. What we want


is stability. We do not want a high price one time and a low price the next time.
Much has been said about oil production in Canada. The oil experts tell us that there are over 36 million acres of land in Saskatchewan, mostly farm land, where there are good possibilities of finding oil. This year I leased 640 acres to Imperial Oil Limited for oil research.
I think this is about all I want to say this evening. There are a few other comments I wanted to make but I shall make them later on.


Mr. F. H. Larson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my congratulations to those offered by hon. members to the gentlemen who have been newly appointed and elevated to various positions. Other hon. members probably know these gentlemen much better than I do and therefore their congratulations may be more heartfelt. However, I am looking forward to working with these hon. gentlemen and I am sure that everything will go quite nicely.
I understand that in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne it is the prerogative of a member to say something about the part of the country from which he comes. I represent the rural constituency of Kindersley, which contains some of the best grain-growing land in Saskatchewan and probably in all western Canada. It also includes land on which people were settled years ago and which perhaps was the wrong type of land for that purpose. By the policies carried on under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has created community pastures in these areas, and where at one time the people were in serious difficulties in trying to grow wheat, at the present time they are carrying on a profitable cattle industry and the country is being rehabilitated.
The Minister of Agriculture under this same prairie farm assistance has been able to take care of certain people living in areas where it has been impossible to grow grain or raise cattle, and it is to be hoped that in the not too distant future it will be possible to provide in the province land to which these people may be moved where they will be able to be self-supporting and lead happy lives without any economic worries.
Another reason for my speaking on this motion is to correct some impressions. Driving from my constituency of Kindersley to Ottawa, I feel after driving for about three days that I am never going to get here. When I get here I realize that when I am at home I am over a thousand miles from the west coast and when I am here I am still another thousand or more miles from the new

province of Newfoundland, which I wish to welcome at this time. I then realize how impossible it is for the people of this country to get to know one another intimately.
There are two great land barriers and one fairly extensive water barrier between the various parts of the country. The only way people can get to know one another is through impressions that are created. How do I, coming from the west, impress people who come from the far east or from central Canada?
During the last session the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and one other supporter of the government from Saskatchewan helped to implement sound agricultural policies which had the approval of all the people in western Canada, for whom I shall speak until I conclude. On the other hand, there was another group in this house which, as far as I could see, did absolutely nothing except criticize the policies of the Minister of Agriculture and the government. Down through the years the Minister of Agriculture has represented the west, indeed all of Canada, in this house. He has implemented policies which have received the wholehearted approval of the farmers throughout the west and those of Saskatchewan particularly, as is evidenced by the seating arrangement in this house. Every rural constituency in that province with the exception of two, and one urban constituency, indicated that they endorsed the policies of the government and were behind the Minister of Agriculture. We must conclude that those are policies that the people of the west, particularly those of Saskatchewan, want.
The government headed by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) received a mandate from the people of Canada. The Prime Minister is to be congratulated because he did not look to any particular part of the country or any particular group of the people and say that he was going to further their particular interest. He looked at Canada as a whole. He realized that if Canada was to continue to play the part she has played in the past we must work together as a unit.
The western provinces, which are not so large in population or so well developed as those of central Canada, were inspired by that attitude. Instead of always wanting something more, they desire to pull their weight and add to the development of Canada rather than to continually criticize the government and complain that it is not doing enough for them.
The riches of the vast plains of western Canada can fulfil a destiny which is nationwide if not world-wide in its implications. It has been said in many quarters that the 45781-18
The Address-Mr. Larson population of Great Britain is too large. From my travels across this country it would appear that if Canada is going to absorb large numbers of suitable immigrants from the old country they must come, generally speaking, to the vast plains of western Canada.
We have heard a good deal in this house about the over-production of wheat, but I think that if the world food situation is reviewed it will be found that there will be plenty of mouths to consume even the maximum food production of this country, provided the mechanics of international trade can be adjusted in order to permit that food to be sent where it is needed. I have every confidence that this government will in the future, as in the past, find means to distribute this food throughout the world, thereby doing a great service to humanity. We have just come through one terrible war and we abhor the thought of another. I believe students of international affairs will agree with me that people who are well fed and have room to live in and expand are hard to stir up to that point of dissatisfaction where they can be recruited into large armies of aggression.
As I have said before, western Canada has the space and is anxious to take its place in the development of the whole country. There is one important factor, however, which has to be taken into consideration before these vast spaces can be utilized to their fullest extent. To put it in simple words, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in the main have too small an annual rainfall to permit intensive cultivation in small acreages. While nature has not endowed the west with rainfall, she has endowed it with facilities so that man can create, and is creating, under the leadership of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), conditions whereby small acreages of land can be intensively farmed, thus making many homes for people who are still awaiting the day when they can leave their crowded mother country and come to this great dominion.
These conditions are provided by the water development projects that either have been completed or are under construction on the prairies at the present time. Some hon. members are fully aware of the increased production of various kinds of crops on small acreages which has been going on in Alberta for some time. These projects were started by private companies, but through experience it has been found that this type of development lends itself more to government than to private operation. Consequently the prairie farm rehabilitation organization has taken over most of the Alberta projects at the present time. There is a large area of ideal country in Saskatchewan which will lend
266	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dumas itself to irrigation if the final investigations prove the area as promising as the preliminary investigations have done. This area of land can be brought under irrigation by the construction of a dam on the south Saskatchewan river. A good many hon. members have already heard of this project and will probably hear more of it in the future. The attitude of the present representation from Saskatchewan, and indeed the whole of western Canada, is not one of being down and out and wanting the dominion government to be continually spending money on them, as a good many members who came down here in the past few years would apparently have had you believe.
The taxpayers of Saskatchewan realize that, whatever money is spent, they have to pay their share of it. Consequently we are not asking for anything where we do not see a return. What the people of the west are asking is that the dominion government continue to provide the capital cost of various projects so that we can better equip ourselves to meet the problem of the lack of rainfall, and thus provide a place where new Canadians can come and build their homes in the land they have chosen. In this way we can help Canada to fulfil its destiny by helping to provide space for new Canadians, and also help Canada to fulfil its destiny as the provider of adequate food to people who live in overcrowded countries where they cannot adequately provide their own.
(Translation):


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to tell you how thrilled I am at this moment to have the honour and the privilege of making my maiden speech in this house. The distinguished members who have preceded me were much more eloquent than I shall be, and those who follow will surely outdo me in this regard. I crave the forbearance of hon. members, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall make my remarks as brief as possible.
(Text):
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, not because I wish to do so as a formality but because I think it is my duty to pay my respects to the Speaker of this honourable assembly, I congratulate you on the very high honour which was bestowed upon you when you were elected to that office. The duties of one who must preside over the debates of so imposing a gathering are numerous, sometimes difficult, and very often it is a thankless task. Your great tact and the experience you have acquired in the past are the guarantee that our deliberations are in very able hands.


(Translation):
I also wish to congratulate my leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), for his personal victory of June 27 last. Another pleasant duty of mine, Mr. Speaker, is to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply, the hon. members for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) and Vancouver South (Mr. Laing).
I am happy to start my parliamentary career with the advent of Newfoundland as a tenth province of our great and beautiful country. I am pleased to greet my hon. colleagues, our friends from Newfoundland, who are here to speak on behalf of their electors.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay a tribute to the memory of the late member for Pontiac, Mr. Wally McDonald. No doubt if he were here now he would be pleased to see that my hon. friend from the new riding of Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Proudfoot) and myself have brought back the old Pontiac county into the fold, and on the right side of the house.
(Text):
I think it is appropriate to acquaint hon. members of the house with the new constituency which I have the honour to represent. It came into being in 1947 by virtue of an act of parliament. The name is familiar to all hon. members. It was named after the late Cardinal Villeneuve, a prominent clergyman, a great Canadian, and a prince of the Catholic church, who went out of his way to preach Canadian unity. The new constituency is composed of the northern part of the old riding of Pontiac and includes the whole of the provincial riding of Rouyn-Noranda, part of the riding of Abitibi East, and part of Abitibi West. It is 100 miles in length and its greatest width is 60 miles. In it are to be found the following cities and towns: Rouyn, Noranda, Duparquet, Cadillac, Malartic, Val d'Or, Bourlamaque, Sullivan, and Perron. There are also numerous villages. When one hears those names one realizes that the riding of Villeneuve must have within its boundaries most of the gold and base metal mines of northwestern Quebec. Of twenty-four operating mines, twenty-two are in the constituency of Villeneuve. Twenty-five years ago, within the territory now included in that constituency, there were not more than 1,500 to 2,000 people. Today that area has a population of approximately 60,000. The main industries in my constituency are mining, agriculture and lumbering.
The speech from the throne deals with very important legislation which is to be enacted by this parliament, but it is not my intention to analyse that speech. The mover

and seconder of the address, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing), the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and many other distinguished members have reviewed that legislation, and I only wish to say a few words about two or three items. No doubt you have guessed that I would like to say a few words on the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. Since His Excellency opened the first session of the 21st parliament many countries, including Canada, have devalued their currencies. The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Gibson) gave a statement concerning the continuation of aid under that emergency act, in which he said that the legislation would be amended at the end of the calendar year 1949 and would be abandoned at the end of 1950.
I want to point out to hon. members that the mining industry is very important and should not be permitted to decline; that nothing should be left undone to encourage the discovery of new mines. Prospecting has been on the decline for the last three years or so, owing to the fact that the real prospector, the artisan, the man who may discover a new mine, has not been able to go into the field because of lack of funds and also because of a lack of support on the part of the public. We hope that a revival of public interest will provide prospectors with the necessary money to continue their work and find new mines. I do not believe most people realize that base metal mines are found when the prospector is looking for gold mines. We do not know the exact reason for that, but it is a fact, especially in northwestern Quebec and I believe also in northern Ontario, that all the base metal mines have been found by prospectors looking for gold. We have a good example in the Noranda mine, which was found by a prospector looking for gold. Similarly the Waite Amulet mine, the Golden Manitou, and recently the East Sullivan mine, all were found when prospectors were looking for gold. So it is important that we encourage prospecting.
During the last two or three years many mines in process of development have had to close because of increased costs in wages and materials, and also because the price of their final product was too low. Most important of all, but for the aid given under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act many other producing mines would have been forced to close. Fortunately, however, our government came to their aid.
The bonus given by the government under this emergency legislation may be wrongly interpreted by some hon. members, but I 45781-18J
The Address-Mr. Dumas would like them to understand that this industry is very important in my constituency and those surrounding it. Many cities depend upon the gold mines, as well as many towns and villages, so you will realize the importance of keeping them in operation. I hope they will also realize that some day these mines will be a great asset to the country, because mining has become an integral part of the Canadian economy, on which it has an important stabilizing influence.
Immediately following mention of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act in the speech from the throne we see, "Prairie Farm Assistance Act." I wish I might also find mention of a clay belt farm assistance act. I would not want to paint the position of our farmers in black, but I would like to explain to the best of my ability the situation that exists in my constituency and in others along the clay belt which extends from Senneterre in Quebec to Hearst in Ontario. In the riding of Villeneuve farming is a relatively new industry, having been established only some twenty-five years ago. Now many of our farmers are at a stage where they need help and guidance! They need help in connection with their livestock, and in connection with the classification, storage and distribution of their products. Studies of these various problems are now being made by local organizations, but it is only with the help of duly qualified technicians and financial aid from the government that a program of such breadth can be carried out. We have the markets. There are over forty thousand people in the cities and towns I have mentioned. Carloads of such commodities as meat, vegetables, dairy products and poultry come from outside the district and are distributed by many merchants in the different localities. In such a situation you would think the local products would find an outlet. I believe hon. members are aware of the fact, however, that a grocer cannot buy products that are not classified. If he is not assured of a steady flow of products from these farmers, he cannot buy from them.
Our farmers need a distribution centre in which they can find facilities such as slaughter houses, cold storage and good management for the distribution of their products. These facilities are lacking, so the flow of products is not steady. This is partly due to a lack of guidance in distribution. Further progress could be made by a livestock improvement program, jointly operated with a program for the development of grasses. This would enable the farmers of the district to continue the production of livestock on a sustained basis. This applies to other areas along the clay belt as well as to the grey wooded soils of western Canada.
268	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Kent
I should like to say a few words about forest conservation, Mr. Speaker. In our district there are many areas of waste land which are called muskegs. These muskegs could be drained and some time in the future covered with a lovely forest. When roads were built and ditches dug through these muskegs, it was found that the water "ran away and trees started to grow. In a few years extensive changes were noted in such areas. If studies were made and experiments were undertaken in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, as well as the many other portions of Canada in which we have such waste land, I believe it could be made productive. It is something that should be done.
(Translation):
I do not wish to try the patience of my hon. colleagues. We all have problems, but I intend to emphasize ours because they also happen to be yours.
It is said that the future belongs to Canada.
I contend that Canada's future lies north of the 48th parallel. Our fabulous mining resources are as yet virtually untapped. We have huge forests, of incalculable wealth. Agriculture is doing well; with a little assistance, at least of a temporary nature, that part of the country will boast farms second to none.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank you for your kindness.
(Text):


Mr. W. R. Kent (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, as another of the elected representatives of the new province of Newfoundland,
I trust you will think it not inappropriate if I crave the indulgence of the house while I say a few words on the occasion of my being admitted to the fellowship of this house. I say "fellowship" advisedly because of the warm reception I have received from all hon. members I have met since coming to Ottawa. I wish to thank them for the many kind offices that have been performed for me. I may say that I am quickly getting to feel that I am not a new member, but an old member. I wish to thank all those who have given me such a warm reception and to say that I feel the welcome to me is not only a personal welcome, but a welcome to Newfoundland as well.
May I be permitted to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation to the high position you now hold? I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing), the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Not making any
'Mr. Dumas.]

claims to being a speaker myself, I can well appreciate the eloquence and the delivery exhibited by these speakers in the excellent addresses they presented.
May I also place on the record my congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the splendid victory which he achieved on June 27. I can assure him that the radio reports were enthusiastically received in Newfoundland.
I think it a thrilling and splendid thing that the dream of the fathers of confederation has at last been realized. Newfoundland is now a part of Canada and Newfoundlanders can join hands with the peoples of the other provinces from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Vancouver island as a united Canada, truly from ocean to ocean, and play their part with them as fellow Canadians.
During the war years when members of the Canadian forces were part of the visiting forces in Newfoundland, strong individual friendships were formed between men and women of the armed forces of Canada and Newfoundlanders wherever in that country those forces were stationed, and although some time has elapsed since then, these warm friendships still exist and will continue to do so and serve further to strengthen in a personal way the ties of our political and economic union. Yet another bond is that forged in war between the men and women of Newfoundland who served side by side with Canadians in the armed forces of Canada.
At this time, perhaps I may be permitted to say something of the facts which led up to the union of Newfoundland with Canada. As all hon. members no doubt know, before the union with Canada Newfoundland was governed by a form of government known as a commission of government. This government took office in 1934 when the letters patent of Newfoundland were suspended by act of the United Kingdom parliament and a commission of government was set up under new letters patent. It was never contemplated that commission of government should be a permanent form of government in Newfoundland. On or about December 11, 1945, Prime Minister Attlee announced that, to enable the people of the island to come to a free and informed decision as to their future form of government, a national convention would be elected to inquire into the financial and economic position of the island and to make recommendations to His Majesty's government with regard to possible future forms of government for submission to the people in a national referendum. Accordingly in 1946 the national convention was set up in Newfoundland. The act setting up the

national convention was Act No. 16 of 1946. Section 3 of that act reads:
It shall be the duty and function of the convention to consider and discuss among themselves as elected representatives of the people of Newfoundland the changes that have taken place in the financial and economic situation of the island since 1934, and, bearing in mind the extent to which the high revenues of recent years have been due to wartime conditions, to examine the position of the country and to make recommendations to His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom as to possible forms of future government to be put before the people at a national referendum.
The national convention was then set up and its deliberations began. During the course of those deliberations a delegation was sent to Ottawa to discuss the possible terms of confederation.
On motion of Mr. Kent the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull) moved: the adjournment of the house.
Business of the House
He said: On the order paper tomorrow will appear a bill to amend the Criminal Code. This is a bill coming from the senate. The purpose of these amendments is to adapt the Criminal Code to Newfoundland. I understand that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gar-son) has consulted the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leaders of the other parties, and that tomorrow he will ask for the unanimous consent of the house to proceed with the various stages of this bill. I understand there is some urgency for the passing of this measure. We shall then take up the debate on the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Supreme Court Act, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Drew. Later we shall move to go into supply, bringing in three or four new departments, and shall proceed with the estimates of the departments of Agriculture and Justice.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.57 p.m.

Tuesday, September 27, 1949