1949-02-01

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the statement of the parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister, reported by the press as follows-
"War with Russia may be an outcome of the signing of the north Atlantic security pact . . ."
Mr. Harris, parliamentary assistant to Prime Minister St. Laurent foresaw the possibility of war when the pact is signed in about three months' time.
"If the Russians feel they must make war, it will come at that time," he said.
-and the duty of the government to place before this house immediately all the facts and circumstances upon which this statement was based.


Mr. Speaker:: I would call the attention of the mover of this motion to paragraph 3 of standing order 31, which reads as follows:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has leave of the house.
Hon. members know that the reason we have a standing order making it possible to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance is to take care of a situation in which the business already on the order paper does not give to hon. members any opportunity to discuss such a matter. In this house the practice has always been that during the debate on the speech from the throne hon. members have an opportunity to discuss practically any matter they may wish to discuss. Moreover, there is already before the house not only the motion to thank His Excellency the Governor General for his message, but an amendment and a subamendment. Since, therefore, it is possible for hon. members to
discuss this particular question during the course of the address in reply, I believe it is my duty not to put before the house the motion made by the leader of the opposition, and to ask the house to proceed with the business which is already before it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the ruling is not debatable. I would point out, however, that we have no knowledge of when the vote will be taken on the motion for an address in reply. For that reason, with respect, I appeal your ruling.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been the practice in the house that there shall be no appeal from the opinion expressed by the Speaker under paragraph 3 of standing order 31. It is not a ruling the Speaker is required to indicate whether he thinks the motion is in order and whether the matter which it is proposed to discuss is one of urgent public importance. The practice, as I say, has been that there is no appeal from that expression of opinion. Moreover, the Atlantic pact is referred to in the speech from the throne. It is a matter which can be discussed in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. If the hon. gentleman who has made the motion fears that he may not have the opportunity of discussing it because he has already addressed the house in the debate, I would remind him that he has not yet spoken on the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), and therefore is not precluded from again entering the debate. The subamendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was moved after the leader of the opposition spoke on the main motion; therefore he can be heard at any time the subamendment is under discussion.
I have not seen the statement which the leader of the opposition has handed to Mr. Speaker. I heard it read. Apparently it refers to some statement made outside the house by a member of the house with respect to the Atlantic pact. I do not know that that is a matter which it would be in order to discuss in the house. But if an hon. member has expressed outside the house opinions which do not coincide with those held by others in the house, there will be full opportunity for expression of their opinions in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

North Atlantic Security Pact


George Alexander Drew: Since the Prime Minister has explained the circumstances at some length, may I say that the matter under consideration is not the Atlantic pact, but rather a statement by his parliamentary assistant, to the effect that war with Russia may come within three months. The parliamentary assistant has pointed out that the most important consideration in the mind of the government is the problem of external affairs. If there may be war with Russia in three months' time, nothing should take precedence over the placing before this house of the information upon which that statement is based.
(Translation):


Mr. Maxime Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss the merits of the motion brought forward by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). However, the Prime Minister stated a few moments ago that there was no appeal from the Speaker's decision in such a case. I do not know that any one of the standing orders prescribes that there is no appeal from a decision given by the Speaker. In the past, the Speaker decided to rule out certain motions which were perhaps not unlike this one, but it has always been recognized that parliament makes its own rules, and not the Speaker. The latter may interpret the rules but it behooves the members of this house to maintain or overthrow the decision. Now, when the Speaker gives a decision and decides afterwards that there is no appeal from his decision, it is up to parliament to decide itself whether the Speaker has given a good decision or otherwise in stating that there was no appeal from his first decision. In the past, we have been placed in similar circumstances and I, for one, would not like that to occur again.
(Text):


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: May I ask
the Prime Minister a question? Is it not a fact that already some of the parties to this pact have been making secret arrangements with Russia outside the pact? It looks to me as if it is a lot of moonshine. It binds Canada for fifty years; it gets us nowhere. It gives us no security whatever at a time when Russia is conducting a cold weaponless war and has already captured a large part of Asia and Europe and other parts of the world. This pact is all pact and no security.


George Alexander Drew: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that in Beauchesne's parliamentary rules and forms, third edition, 1943, at page 747, the following appears-at that time Mr. Black was Speaker:
The Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision that it is not urgent to adjourn the

house for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter of public importance being appealed from was confirmed by the house.
Mr. Ralston, from his place in the house, asked leave, under standing order 31, to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and stated the subject to be . . .
If hon. members wish me to read the content, I shall; if not, I will proceed:
Mr. Speaker ruled that the statement was not in order and that the matter was not one of urgent public importance, and moreover that there was no appeal from his decision.
Mr. Ralston appealed from the Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision.
And the question being put by Mr. Speaker: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained; it was decided in the affirmative.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this clearly establishes the precedent that the ruling is subject to the test of a vote of the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I agree with the leader of the opposition that if the Speaker rules that there is no appeal from the opinion he expresses, that is a ruling from which there can be an appeal. There is no appeal on the substantive opinion expressed by the Speaker that the matter is not in order and is not urgent. It is a roundabout way to get an appeal on what does become a ruling, if the Speaker rules that there is no appeal from the opinion he expresses.


Maxime Raymond: C'est exact.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: But he has not so ruled
yet.


George Alexander Drew: So that there may be no confusion in the matter, may I point out that my remarks were directed to the fact that this was not the practice. I would now ask you, sir, to make a ruling on the first point, so that it may then be dealt with in the customary way. The Prime Minister agrees that it can be done.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: have always taken the view that a ruling of Mr. Speaker sustained by the house in a previous parliament should not be binding on a succeeding parliament. Therefore I agree with the point made by the Prime Minister. But the substance of the motion moved by the hon. gentleman who leads the official opposition is such that We have to decide whether it is a matter of urgent public importance or not. While the statement of the parliamentary assistant is one which should be questioned, there is ample opportunity in the debate on the address to discuss it fully. Therefore it is not a matter of urgent public importance in the sense in which the word "urgency" is used in the rules of the house.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: The leader of the C.C.F. will be prevented from speaking on this

subject of war until after his amendment to the motion for an address in reply is disposed of.


Major James William Coldwell: While I do not like the decision made by a previous Speaker disallowing an appeal from his ruling that a matter then before him was not of urgent public importance, in this instance there is no question of urgency; therefore I believe the Speaker's ruling should be supported.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows: The question before the house is an appeal from the Speaker's decision, Mr. Drew having moved the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing the following matter: A statement of the parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister, reported by the press as follows: "War with Russia may be an outcome of the signing of the North Atlantic pact."
I decided that there was no urgency for the discussion, as the matter referred to was included in the speech from the throne now under debate.
From this decision, Mr. Drew appealed.


Mr. Pearkes:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mayhew). Had I voted I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Johnston:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted I would have voted to support Your Honour's ruling.



BIRTHDAY GREETINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called may I personally-and I am sure I speak on behalf of all those who are

Inquiries of the Ministry associated with me in this house-extend my very best wishes to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the occasion of the anniversary of his birthday. I was not sure at first whether the bowl of roses on the desk before him was a birthday tribute or was simply a collection in one bowl of the many roses we saw on an earlier occasion. But on looking up the Parliamentary Guide I found that this is the Prime Minister's birthday, and I desire to wish him many happy returns of the day.


Major James William Coldwell: May we also join in those congratulations?


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: This group also joins in the expressions of congratulation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I sincerely thank the leader of the opposition and all the other members of this house for their cordial good wishes.



PRESS REPORT AS TO SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['My hon. friend says they have no dollars. In reply let me say that we have had a dollar problem in our own country, brought about to a large extent by the fact that we have given and loaned materials to Britain which we might have sold elsewhere for the dollars we lack today. That is my personal opinion. I was very much discouraged to discover that apparently we in this country have little chance of benefiting from the British market for some time to come. When it is remembered that this country, with a population of twelve or thirteen million, has contributed in loans and gifts to Britain over five billion dollars, one might be justified in the hope that first consideration should be given this country, but that is not being done at the present time. I know other delegates who discussed these matters with members of the British government left Britain with the same feeling.\nAs I said before, and I want to emphasize for just a moment, trade that passes through a one-way street can never be successful; and this one-way trade has been going on for some years. I believe the time has come when this country must find some other place to do business. Perhaps we will have to go further afield and find other markets; but there is a limit to just how far a country of twelve or thirteen million people can go in the way of gifts and loans, with nothing in return.\nOn motion of Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) the debate was adjourned.']
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Newspaper reports, the accuracy of which I have checked, indicate that nails are in short supply.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am glad that hon. members see the point. Nails are in short supply even for the winter demand. What does the department intend to do to speed up production for summer and fall work?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: May I say that my hon. friend's complaint is the first I have heard about the nail situation for some months. Production has improved considerably, and so far as I know, distribution is fairly adequate in relation to requirements.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Production was up 8,000 tons last year.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This is important.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a supplementary question to ask, I suggest that he put it without any comment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I would ask the minister if he has had his ear to the ground. Evidently he has not, otherwise he would know that nails are in short supply. I shall send him the newspaper which makes that statement.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thaicher (Moose Jaw):: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of Mines and Resources. Has the government


given recent consideration to relaxing the immigration laws in order to admit to this country German nationals who have relatives in Canada?


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Towards the close of the last session I was asked the same question, and I gave a somewhat extended reply. All I can say at the moment is that so far no other decision has been arrived at. Frankly, the majority of the applications of German nationals for entry into Canada that have come before me in the last few months have been from Germans who fought in the enemy forces against Canada and our allies. We believe that there are many people anxious to come to Canada who have a greater priority than persons such as those to whom I have just referred. Nevertheless, the question is before us, and will be dealt with just as soon as circumstances warrant.


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: I should
like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Is a United States air force officer in command of the airport at Mingan in the province of Quebec?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I shall be glad to look into that. I had no notice of the question.


Mr. Julian H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: May I address a question to the Minister of National Defence? At this time has anybody in Canada, other than the minister himself, the power to appoint a United States officer as commanding officer of any depot of any arm of the Canadian forces?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, if it were considered desirable in the interests of our common defence that that course be taken, it could be taken.


INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I should
like to ask the government this question: When may we expect the report of the Curtis commission on the high cost of living? All they seem to know about the high cost of living is in relation to what they consume themselves. It seems to me that all these commissions are a waste of money.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member will read the
speech from the throne he will find the answer to his question.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the royal commission on prices submitted a report to the government? If so, when will it be tabled in the house?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The chairman of the royal commission has written me that the report is in the printer's hands, and that he is urging the printer to get it out as soon as possible. As soon as it has been submitted to the government, it will be brought to the attention of the house.


FISHERY REGULATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries of which I gave him notice this morning. Has the United States fishing vessel Araho been released from seizure? If so, was any deposit made by the owner of such vessel?


Mr. J. W. MacNaughi (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: In the
absence of the Minister of Fisheries, I will reply to the question of my hon. friend. As to the first part of the question-has the United States fishing vessel Araho been released from seizure-the answer is yes. As to the second part of the question-if so, has any deposit been made by the owner of such vessel-the answer is no.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply if he is prepared at this time to answer the question I asked him yesterday concerning housing in Calgary.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I have not the information, but as soon as I have it I will answer the question.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I have a question I should like to ask, of which I have given notice to the Minister of Public Works. Has the Department of Public Works selected a definite site for the proposed dominion building at Charlottetown?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The answer is yes. The location is in the block bounded by Richmond, Pownal, Sydney and Queen streets. There are twenty-one different properties, and expropriation proceedings have been authorized and are proceeding.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Nearly a year ago a delegation representing two major labour organizations in Canada waited on the then minister of justice and asked that the government disallow the Trade Union Act (1948) passed by the legislature of Prince Edward Island. Can the minister tell the house whether the government intends to take action to that end?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The hon. gentleman was good enough to give me notice of this question-but, as it happens, not quite sufficient notice, because it came to me about ten minutes ago. Nothing has transpired in connection with this matter in the Department of Justice since I became minister. I have made some rapid inquiries, but I would prefer to have the matter come down in the form of a return, or speak to it after I have ascertained the position from the other departments concerned.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. D. F. Brown for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, last evening when the house adjourned I had about concluded what I have to say. There is one point I want to clarify. During the course of my speech I raised some objection to the scrapping of our merchant marine. I made particular reference to the fact that as we were selling ships to other governments, other seamen were displacing Canadian seamen in the coastal trade. At that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and myself had a difference of opinion as to whether or not that could be done. I made the assertion that it was being done.
122	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gillis
Since last night I have looked at the act, and I find it is even worse than I thought it was. The fact of the matter is that the Canada Shipping Act gives absolutely no protection to Canadian seamen in the coastal trade or otherwise. It is just the reverse. It makes provision whereby British crews can [DOT]displace our own seamen without any regard for Canadian ships plying the coastal trade. The Canada Shipping Act is chapter 44 of the Statutes of Canada, 1934. I should like to refer to subsection 1 of section 663 thereof, which reads:
No goods shall be transported by water or by land and water, from one place in Canada to another place in Canada, either directly or by way of a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation in any ship other than a British ship.
Not only does that not offer any protection whatsoever for our own seamen, but it makes provision for British ships to ply in the coastal trade. That is exactly what I was complaining about last night. Our own ships are being sold and are now under British registry. Our crews will deliver a ship at some port and they are then displaced by either British or Greek crews. That was my information.


Mr. Chevrier:: May I interrupt the hon. member? The position he was taking last night was that a foreign ship could operate in the coastal trade of Canada. The position he takes now is somewhat different. A foreign ship cannot operate in the coastal trade.


Clarence Gillis: I am taking exactly the same position I took last night. I am talking about building up a Canadian merchant marine. Last night I pointed out that one-third of Canada's production was exported; and if there is any country in the world that should maintain a merchant marine, it is this country. I am objecting to ships of British, Greek or any other registry plying our coastal waters, operating from port to port, displacing an industry we built up during the war. That was the objection I made last night. At that time I suggested an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act. I pointed out that Britain protects her own coastal trade. No ship, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or any other, can engage in that trade.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, but that is not the position; Canadian ships can operate in the coastal trade of Britain.


Clarence Gillis: You cannot. I am telling you that I discussed this matter only recently with merchant seamen who have been in Britain from time to time, and they have pointed out that in Britain you are prohibited from taking a cargo from port to port. The same thing applies in the United States. That is not the position in Canada. Instead of pro-


tecting our own seamen, the Canada Shipping Act makes provision for handing over the coastal trade of this country to ships of British registry. The information given me before I came to this session was that not only British crews were displacing Canadian seamen, but that the same thing was being done by ships of Greek registry.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Clarence Gillis: In my opinion, a British ship is a foreign ship, absolutely. Whether or not the minister knows it, that information came from men actually engaged in the industry, who complained to me only a couple of months ago.
I still suggest that our shipping act leaves much to be desired in the way of protection for Canadian seamen even in our own export trade; and I strongly urge the minister to bring in some amendments to the Canada Shipping Act before the conclusion of this session. I should like also to leave with the minister responsible for the construction of ships the thought that we should develop in this country a Canadian shipping policy. We talk about making Canada a great nation, an industrial nation, and so on; but having in mind the fact that we are an exporting nation I think one of the first things we must do is see to it that we have ships that will carry our goods to the four corners of the world and bring back anything it is necessary for us to import. I believe the policy we are following is wrong. We followed it after the first war; we repeated it after the last war. We built up an industry and trained personnel, but as soon as the emergency of war was over we scrapped that industry, which would have meant so much to this country, and sent back to the woods, the fields and the farms from whence they came the personnel we had gone to a great deal of trouble to train.
Last night in my discussion I left with various departments several problems I thought should be handled immediately. I am going to mention them again so that they may be on the record.
First I suggested the development of a shipping policy for Canada and the building up of an adequate merchant marine. Then I pointed out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) the fact that the speech from the throne mentions assistance in the expansion of industry. I pointed to the great concentration of industry in this central province, and put on record some figures to support my statements. I suggest now that if you are going to assist further in the expansion of industry in this country you should give some thought to the decentralization of what you have now in the province of Ontario, because the power simply is not

here to handle any further requirements. Industry in this province has been overdeveloped to such an extent that we had blackouts this winter. So I believe some regard should be given to leveling up our whole economy by spreading whatever future expansion there is over the east and west, depending upon the resources available. I believe the concentration of industry in the central part of Canada is absolutely wrong.
Then I suggested a national fuel policy, something which is long overdue. I believe the national coal board is quite capable of working out something along that line, and there are members of this house who could help. I definitely believe we should get down to business and not only zone our own markets and arrange for the marketing of our own coal, but proceed with the further development of our own resources.
I suggested to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), who was not in his seat last night, that the national labour code should be opened up again. I believe that check-off provision should be corrected, and that the committee on industrial relations should be *convened to deal with that matter. As long as that code remains as it is, without that check-off provision, at least eight provinces [DOT]of Canada cannot accept it, because it would be a backward step in relation to the provincial codes already in existence. Therefore I believe that change should be made.
I also suggested that certain key industries in the country should be designated as national industries. One such industry is the meat packing houses from coast to coast. You all know the difficulties we got into last year because of divided jurisdiction. You could not get all the provincial premiers together and the federal government could not step in. As a result serious injury was done, not only to the industry itself but to the consuming public right across the country. I suggested steel as another industry that is basic to our whole economy. Fuel is another. I believe those three industries should be brought under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I believe that councils in industry made up of labour, management and the government, should meet from time to time for the purpose of ironing out the everyday problems of these three industries. Last night I suggested that the time may come when certain organizations in this country will have a policy aimed at sabotage and the bringing about of strikes. If that should happen, with the set-up we have today the federal government would be powerless to step in and do anything about it.
The Address-Mr. H. O. White
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that I am a little over my time so I must conclude. I seriously suggest that the matters I have just mentioned be gone into, and finally I would urge upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that he have a look at our shipping act, because there is nothing in it to protect the merchant marine in Canada as a Canadian industry. The fact of the matter is that it makes provision for British ships to come in and take over our coastal trade.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate-


Mr. Caouette:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know if all members of this house have the same rights. Last night my name followed the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), and I was supposed to follow him. Today I find that three names are ahead of mine. I should like to know how the mistake occurred, if we all have the same rights; or if we do not, I should like to know it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I saw the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) when he rose; therefore it is my duty to call upon him now.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I wish first of all to extend my best wishes and congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). They have a difficult task before them. Perhaps because we are so close to current events we do not attach as much importance as we might to the role they have to play in Canadian affairs. I wish also to extend my best wishes to the new members who have come into this house, and who in due time will play their part in the affairs of this assembly.
I was glad to see in the speech from the throne a reference to the beginning of a national library. I recall that I mentioned this matter on a previous occasion, and I am glad the ministry has seen fit to make a start on it. It may not be a massive building of stone and mortar, but it can be an institution of learning for all Canadians.
I wish to say a word or two about national defence. I do not mean to say that I am any great authority on national defence, but there are some angles of the subject which I think we should examine fairly closely. What I have to say has no bearing whatever on the motion to adjourn the house this afternoon to discuss a matter of that kind. Possibly that emergency was in Nicolet-Yamaska and not in the House of Commons.
I have in my hand a clipping taken from a statement made by Benjamin Franklin in 1777. As I read it I was struck by the

The Address-Mr. H. O. White similarity of conditions existing then and now and the applicability to the present of the words he then used. This is the quotation:
All Europe is on our side of the question as far as applause and good wishes can carry them. Those who live under arbitrary power do nevertheless approve of liberty and wish for it; they almost despair of recovering it in Europe; 'tis a common observation here, that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own.
How true that is today.
I have three observations to make about national defence. One is to ask for preparedness. The price of preparedness is not too great if it will avert wars. One of the things that helped to bring on two other world wars was the fact that our enemies thought we were weak. Another was "too little and too late." I am wondering if that phrase does not apply to our own conditions and those of our friends even today.
I wish to say a word about co-operation and understanding between the military and the civilian. I happened to visit Brigadier Sparling in London, Ontario. He is in charge of militia affairs there. He was inviting the civilians and the military to get together to see what the army, navy and air force business is all about. I think we might have a better appreciation of what the military are trying to do if we would do just that.
I wish to say a word or two in support of the flying clubs across the dominion. It is often through these flying clubs that many young men of ability are attracted to the air force, which is one of the great wings of our defence forces. At the moment, support of the flying clubs is meagre, and I think the Department of National Defence should pay a little more attention to the work that these flying clubs are trying to do throughout Canada.
I was glad to see in the speech from the throne mention of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. The cost may be great, but we seem to have millions of dollars to spend abroad, which we shall never have returned to us, and possibly we had better spend some of that money at home in developing our own country. After all, the building of the Welland canal many years ago helped to develop this country. Why would not the St. Lawrence seaway and power project be another great step forward for this nation?
While I am speaking about the seaway and the power project I should like to say a word or two about hydro, although probably there are some in the house who are greater authorities on the subject than I am. I am now considering hydro as part of the scheme of national defence; it is from that point of view that I approach this problem. If we are

attacked, we must try to imagine what places are most likely to be attacked, thinking more particularly of the North American continent than of Canada alone. One of those places would be the Windsor-Detroit area, because of the vast industries that are located there for the manufacture of motor equipment of all kinds. Another would possibly be Sarnia, where our rubber plant is located, and Port Huron. Another would be Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Ontario, with its power development, and another the Hamilton-Toronto area.
I have here a couple of quotations or newspaper clippings that I wish to use. They speak of the building of auxiliary steam plants in those areas for the production of electric power. This would seem to me to be a foolish move. We hear a great deal about decentralization and how vulnerable might be the concentration of power in certain areas. Without beating about the bush, I say that in my estimation the place at which to build the steam plant is Port Stanley, Ontario, midway between the Windsor-Detroit area and the Buffalo-Niagara Falls area. It is close to the supply of steam coal, has a harbour, and is close to the Westminster power transformers and transmitters, which have recently been built. Power could be transmitted east, west or north without difficulty. Should a breakdown occur on any of the other power lines, this plant could be used to advantage in every direction. I seriously urge all those who have anything to do with considering plans of this kind that they consider also the aspect of national defence as well as some of the other aspects.
I now wish to refer to these clippings. One is from the London Free Press. It is an editorial discussing the St. Lawrence development and other plans. It says:
Ontario can now go ahead with its plans for the construction of steam plants-and should waste no time.
Another editorial quotes the annual report of the dominion Department of Mines and Resources on hydroelectric progress in Canada during the year 1948, and goes on to say:
These various developments and a steam-electric plant at Windsor with an ultimate capacity of 322,000 horsepower-
-are planned. Then further on it says:
The federal department's report states that in addition to the building of the plants mentioned, the Ontario hydro is considering the building of a major steam-electric plant in the Toronto-Hamilton area . . .
I feel that this is an opportune time to have the matter looked into with a view to its application to national defence.
I want to deal for a moment or two with our present economic and monetary position.
Prior to the two world wars Britain was able to finance world trade. She had invest-

merits abroad; she had a merchant navy which transported raw materials from the various countries of the world to her shores where she processed them and exported them abroad. Through these investments she was able to finance world trade. That day has gone. Whether or not it will return, I am not in a position to say. In the period since those two wars no one nation has actually been able to take up the task that was laid down by Britain. Consequently we hear of dislocations in trade and a scarcity of dollars. We find our markets slipping from our grasp.
I shall use two or three quotations to emphasize my point. After all, money is a medium of trade. What we require today is a more flexible medium of trade than we now possess. Trade is stagnating because of the lack of a flexible monetary system. We would all benefit if we had a flexible monetary system. I would suggest that these bright boys in the various departments of finance of the world look into this question. Do not leave it until it is too late and we have a collapse.
The first quotation I shall use is taken from the London Free Press of October 1, 1948. It is taken from remarks made by Morris Sayre, president of the Corn Products Manufacturing Company. He said:
Along with trade barriers, Mr. Sayre indicates that one of the obstacles to world recovery and international prosperity is the unstable condition of most of the world's currencies. "For such stabilization," he declares, "it is necessary that there be some currency of unquestionable stability which can serve as a point of reference. Only the United States is today in a position to provide such a currency.
"The United States, then, should accept-as the world's greatest creditor nation-the responsibility for establishing free convertibility of United States dollars into gold."
The next quotation is also an editorial from the London Free Press. This paper was dealing with the bacon contract which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) mentioned on January 5, 1949.
The muddle underscores the iniquity of the whole artificial pyramid permitted to rise and to obstruct the movement of foodstuffs from Canada-and from other producer states-to those suffering from shortages or from actual want. It underlines the need, as agriculture minister Gardiner pointed out a week or two ago, for a new basis, a new approach to the whole problem of marketing.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said in Boston, as reported in the London Free Press of November 18:
"Too often we find that the tariff structure of your country makes it difficult, often impossible, for our goods to flow into the United States market. At times this is due to the nature of your customs administration rather than to the tariff itself, although generally your tariff is much more protective than ours."
Canada could supply manufactured and processed goods at a competitive price.
The Address-Mr. H. O. White
"We hope you will make it possible for us to sell them. We hope you will be prepared to import on a much larger scale. If we cannot expand our exports to you, we will have to achieve a better balance by curtailing our expenditures for your goods, services and tourist trade. It would mean less business for both of us."
These quotations emphasize what I have tried to say, that this lack of flexibility of currency is throttling world trade.
Some time ago nearly all the newspapers of Canada carried the story of an agreement that was entered into between this country- I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) signed the agreement-the United States and the United Kingdom. It was heralded as a step in the right direction. That step was the signing of an agreement to standardize the threads on nuts and bolts and other parts that are used in our military machines. If they were able to do that, it would seem to me that they ought to be able to standardize a currency that would be acceptable to these three countries and possibly to the other western democracies of Europe.
We hear that Newfoundland is coming into the Canadian confederation. We are not going to be poorer, neither is Newfoundland going to be poorer, because of that. We can use their money and they can use ours. We are going to buy their goods and we are going to sell them goods. The same thing applies to the other nine provinces. I cannot see any reason why we cannot do the same thing with other countries. While I am dealing with this Newfoundland question I should say that every Canadian welcomes the completion of confederation. We hope that we shall become better acquainted with our neighbours, and that we shall mutually benefit from this union.
Last session reference was made to the need for haste in getting certain governmental business before the house, and I shall refer to it again. The speech from the throne was somewhat curtailed at that time and it was not as effective as it might have been. This week the same thing has occurred. I might mention that for eighty years we have been hoping that Newfoundland would come into confederation. It is now to be rushed in, in a week. There did not seem to be any haste for a long time, but all of a sudden it is a hasty matter.
We were summoned here a year ago to discuss the Geneva trade agreements, and after a long session they are still to be discussed. Therefore that haste was apparently just a joke.
Another thing that is worrying many Canadians is government by royal commissions. We had a royal commission on prices; nothing was done about the high cost of living, but

The Address-Mr. H. O. White it got a problem off the government's doorstep. The government got rid of it for the time being. That may be a way to get rid of problems, but it does not solve them. The difficulty and the blame are still on the doorstep of the government. We have a commission on freight rates, but we also have the board of transport commissioners. It seems to me that they should not be afraid to go ahead and do the work for which they were established. The government should not pass over its duties in that way. After all, what is a government for, if not to carry on the business of the country? And the question of freight rates is the business of the country.
In the speech from the throne we notice that we are to have a commission which will cover everything from the cradle to the grave, and it will probably last until we are all in the grave. That seems to me to be another attempt to get rid of responsibility. Yet we come here and talk about such trivial things as the government chooses to worry us with.
I notice that they very kindly offer to return rental control to the provinces. If they wish on them a dead horse, the provinces will have to pay for the funeral.
I am pleased to extend congratulations to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) upon his appointment; it has proved to be a popular choice. We wish him well in the task ahead of him. It is a difficult one; and at this time I would point out to him, and to other hon. members opposite, some of the problems our people back home are worried about.
We hear a good deal from our friends to the left about the meaning of subsidized housing. All that subsidized housing means is that every farmer in Canada will not only pay for his own house but help pay for somebody else's.
I have another quotation from the London Free Press which I should like to place on record-and it may be that hon. members will form the impression that this is a pretty good newspaper. This is the report of a meeting of city council of June 30, 1948, when the mayor of that city used these words:
We have had several housing schemes in London -and they were schemes all right . . . That's all federal government building has been-one experiment after another, and the people are the guinea pigs.
They have a lot of high-paid help working on these schemes down at Ottawa and they have to keep those birds working . . .
The private contractor doesn't ask for anything. He goes out and builds a house and pays his taxes and is a good citizen of London. Some of these other fellows aren't; they are just fly-by-nights, and they are not interested in London.
The city contractor builds cheaper than a government contractor, and when he is finished you have a more desirable house.

I hope the new Minister of Reconstruction and Supply will take that into consideration.
Nothing was said in the speech from the throne about the creation of more consumer goods. So far as I could see, there was no reference whatever to labour. I did notice something about forest conservation, and that brings up an important problem, because we realize that in this country our forests produce an enormous amount of wealth. Much has been said but little has been done about that matter. The forests in western Ontario-are rapidly diminishing.
In the setting up of income tax provisions for the future, allowance should be made for farmers who are prepared to set aside certain areas of their land for the development of wood lots. Hon. members will realize, as I do, that any farmer who will set aside a tenth or some other fraction of his acreage will not in his lifetime reap any great benefit from so doing. He will be dead and gone; but the generations following him will reap the benefits of his foresight. For these reasons I say that provision should be made in the income tax regulations to take care of planning of this kind. If the government were to do the same type of work on the same land, someone would be paid for it; but it expects the farmer to do this work for nothing.
I do not happen to be a lawyer, and for that reason what I shall say about the law must be limited. However, the changes made last year in the Criminal Code will be costly to the counties in Ontario. I refer to the amendment permitting trial by jury of petty offences. Costs will be extensively increased.
This is what Judge Ian MacRae said to county council in London, Ontario, respecting this matter:
Wednesday night council heard Judge Ian MacRae outline the changes in the code, which would give persons charged with theft, false pretences, receiving and retaining stolen goods under a value of $25, assault (including assault occasioning bodily harm and common assault), obstructing a police officer, keeping a disorderly house and betting offences, the privilege to elect trial by judge and jury, or by a county judge only.
He pointed out that if those so charged were allowed to elect trial by jury, it would slow up procedure and delay justice.
Nothing is causing greater worry to the people of Canada today than the matter of taxation; therefore I shall take a moment or two to discuss this important problem.
I have before me a further quotation from the words of Benjamin Franklin, which, I suggest, we might well take to heart. He said back in 1758, a long time ago:
Friends and neighbours, the taxes are indeed very heavy, and if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might more easily discharge them; but we have many others, and much

more grievous to some of us. We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly; and from these taxes the commissioners cannot ease or deliver us.
I read the other day in a newspaper article that while Canadians pay $40 per person for alcoholic beverages they pay only $22 per person for milk. Probably the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) can do something about that.
In the field of taxation the man who is thrifty and hardworking is penalized. We penalize the worker and reward the shirker. Try to get away from that if you can.
We know of many nuisance taxes. In one small village in my constituency, a radio inspector created considerable disturbance, and I am sure the few dollars he picked up were more than lost in the cost of administration. In my view, radio licences should be abolished, as should be also the taxes on soft drinks and candy used to such a large extent by children. Surely we could remove these nuisance taxes.
In my view a curb should be placed on the procedure of forecasting budget proposals. We now see this practised to the extent that it appears in the speech from the throne. I hold in my hand a clipping from a much-quoted newspaper which points out that at Petrolia, Ontario, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture went out on a limb in his predictions of what the budget was going to contain.


Mr. Graydon:: Not another one, surely.


Harry Oliver White: I shall read a part of what he said:
A "sunshine" budget for Canadians in 1949, and in particular for the rural communities was forecast here today by Robert McCubbin, M.P. for Middlesex West and parliamentary assistant to Minister of Agriculture J. G. Gardiner, ... "I realize there have been some hard feelings about income tax," said Mr. McCubbin, "but there is no need to fear. There is going to be some redress given to those in the lower income brackets."
For three years I have been asking for that very thing. If the Minister of Finance had come to me three years ago I would have told him what to do. It would have been done three years ago instead of waiting until there was an election. Some have said that this is an election year, but as far as I can see this is just a deathbed repentance on the part of the government opposite.
Just how serious is this matter of taxation? The government now taxes thirty cents out of every dollar the worker earns-nearly one-third. No wonder the worker does not have enough money to buy butter, milk, bread and some of the other necessities of life. No wonder he is complaining about high prices. The fact is that they are not as high
The Address-Mr. H. O. White as they seem, because nowhere in the world will so little labour buy so much food as right here. But that is just an indication that the farmer is not getting all he should.
A good deal has been said about the simplification of the income tax form, but the one I got did not seem to be any simpler than the previous ones. They are all simple when you have the answer.
When the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) moved the address in reply he stated that there should be more publicity men in the government. I suppose they are needed to bring out the good qualities of the government. They certainly will need a lot of them, even though there are hundreds employed already grinding out government propaganda. One of the most recent examples was in connection with family allowance cheques. This came out last week with a cancellation mark on the envelope reading "Recreation pays dividends".


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Mr. Martin:: That depends on the point of view.


Harry Oliver White: I think the name of the department of immigration should be changed to "department of frustration". This is an example of bureaucracy in reverse. For three years I have been trying to get permission for a family to come from Europe. There was a farm and a house all ready for them, but it took three years. I notice from the papers that a large number of displaced persons were brought into Manitoba under order in council. There was not even decent housing for these people. Blanket orders in council are being passed to admit nearly everybody under the sun. I do not know of any department that is so discouraging to work with or from which you get so few results as the department of immigration.
Agriculture is in a serious condition today. During the war years, glowing pictures were painted of what the government would do for the farmer when difficult times came along. He was told that he would be protected, but the story now is a little different. It does not take any great ability to sell scarce goods for less money than they are worth, and that is what has been done since the war began.
The reference to the by-election in Digby-Annapolis-Kings the other day was a good illustration of just how disappointing this can be. The government spent money down there with no results. We gave food to Europe with no results. They do not appreciate what was done for them. We have lost those

The Address-Mr. H. O. White markets. I feel rather sorry for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).


Mr. Gardiner:: Don't feel sorry for me; feel sorry for yourself. We will be around when you are gone.


Harry Oliver White: That is what you think.


Mr. Harkness:: Are you going to starve us out of the farming business?


James Garfield Gardiner: You made enough out of your hogs.


Harry Oliver White: The gamble has been lost. If ever there was a gamble in food, it was the action taken by this government. It is not so bad to gamble, but it is bad to lose. What has happened in connection with the contracts for foods that have been consummated? Two thousand million dollars lost. Our farmers are worried. For a few minutes I should like to refer to the position in which the Canadian farmer finds himself.
Who has these contracts now? Poland has one for $600 million, and other iron-curtain countries have other contracts. By the way, we could use some of the steel that is being sent to iron-curtain countries. We could exchange wheat, poultry products and other things for that steel. What about these pacts with the U.S.S.R.? I should like to quote an article which appeared this morning in the Ottawa Journal, as follows:
Secretary-General Harry Pollitt of the British communist party said here today that soviet exports would be "an important factor in bringing down exorbitant American and Canadian prices for wheat."
Addressing a meeting, he said the world "may get a surprise shortly at the amount of wheat the soviet union could put into the wheat pool."
Would socialist Britain like to destroy the free economy of Canada and the United States? If so, will the failure to buy our products help to bring that about? What about this myth of stability in connection with cheese, butter, flax, soybeans, wheat and white beans? The farmers of southwestern Ontario are worried about markets for their special crops and I should like to say a word or two about white beans.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: I would remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Harry Oliver White: If I may be
allowed to conclude, I shall be very brief.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: By unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harry Oliver White: The bean
marketing organization has a quantity of beans. A market was found in Australia for


between 50,000 and 75,000 bushels of Canadian beans. The money was available and the price satisfactory, but the socialist Australian government refused an import permit. They decide, as they do in all other countries, what they think is good or bad for their people. The Australian people lost the opportunity to obtain these beans, and Canadian farmers are stuck with beans they would like to sell. That is an indication of what is going on in the world when a government can decide what they think people ought to have.
While the minister and his assistants were abroad seeking more contracts for Canadian food products, the Supreme Court of Canada kicked the Canadian farmers on the shins over the Dairy Industry Act. I would suggest that the supreme court take a look at some of the laws this government has passed in the last few years. I do not believe any of them would stand the acid test. One instance is that of the jeweler in Pembroke who was fined for not collecting money for the government when he was not being paid to do so.


Mr. Sinclair:: Did the Tories not have a
resolution on margarine at their national convention? You agreed with the supreme court.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Order.
The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Roland Beaudry (Si. James):: Mr. Speaker, the other day the official opposition expressed some surprise at the frankness with which we speak on this side of the house. Today, even at the risk of again jolting the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), I am going to speak my frank opinion on one or two topics. First, I will be frank with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). When the time has come to deal with minor matters I will resume with the member for Carleton (Mr. Drew) the discussion on frankness which he opened the other day with the member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), and which I understand was more or less kept alive by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) yesterday afternoon.
Let us tackle important matters first. I should like to be candid and frank with the Minister of Finance, and I am very appreciative of the fact that he is in the house now. I do not like his income tax policy, and my constituents do not like it either, which makes it unanimous in my constituency. I did not like it last year; I did not like it two years ago, and I told him so in the house. I am glad to be able to say that my words bore fruit because last year the Minister of Finance found it advisable to grant certain measures of relief which I had advocated for those Canadians getting along in years.

This afternoon I should like to offer another suggestion, and I do so purposely at this stage of the session. I suggest that the minister give full implementation to this suggestion in his coming budget. It springs in part from optimism, but it is about time that we on this side of the house were optimistic. One look across the aisle surely justifies it. We were told to expect world beaters, but we have come up against nothing but almost obsolete prize ring technique. We are sold Gorgeous George, and all we find is a new hair-do. We are told about the big apple from Carleton, so different from the Neepawa brand, but all we find is the same pippin next to the same Peel.
It is time we on this side of the house were optimistic in money matters. Three years' official pessimism has brought us a total surplus of almost $2 billion. I do not think we run any great risk of being tagged as spendthrifts if we should err slightly through optimism. During the last three years our ministers of finance have demonstrated that surpluses are an excellent commodity. But that has not made them any more digestible to the Canadian stomach. Today I should like to suggest that a change of diet is definitely indicated, and that, of all social legislation, advanced as we are in that field, thanks to this government, perhaps none would be more to the point than that which would recognize the sometimes overlooked rights of the present as against the future.
No legislation would bring more clearly to the people of Canada the almost phenomenal achievements of this government in the field of financial administration than such legislation as would substantially decrease the burden of the Canadian taxpayer in the face of our present commitments, both for social purposes and perhaps for the defence of our country. I have enough faith in the skill of our administration to warrant, in the year 1949, the introduction of substantial tax reductions, and when I say substantial I mean substantial. More concretely, I am about to advocate that in the next budget the Minister of Finance be prepared to decrease the total individual income levy by slightly less than 50 per cent in the over-all amount.
Here may I say this. Three years ago the Minister of Finance and his experts missed the mark-to their advantage, mind you, and to the advantage of the people of Canada-by some $300 million. Two years ago they overshot it by almost $700 million, and in the year now ending it seems fairly safe to foresee that our surplus will equal the previous one, if it does not exceed it. There is little consolation in that for those on the opposite side of the house who would like to tell the country that they can do a better job of Canadian economics. We sometimes overlook the fact
The Address-Mr. Beaudry that this has been achieved in spite of most considerable tax reductions since the end of the war. While we grumble we forget to look at the facts, but it is a fact that for those who constitute the largest single group of taxpayers, by marital status and income brackets, the group of single taxpayers earning between one and two thousand dollars a year, the average tax, which in 1945 amounted to approximately $215, was successively brought down in 1946 to $165, to $127 in 1947, and in 1948 to approximately $100. It is $100 in 1948 for the taxpayer who paid $215 in 1945. That is quite a reduction, but he still pays $100.
I stated at the outset that I should like to urge the Minister of Finance to continue his policy of decreased income taxation for the individual by bringing down a budget which this year would levy approximately half of what has been levied in the last few years. I well appreciate that this seems a drastic departure from his carefully considered decreases of the past, but I am also thinking of Canadians throughout the country who feel more and more that this country was not built in a day, and that it does not necessarily follow that because one generation incurred the expenditure of war that same generation must also bear the brunt of its cost.
The current method of computing the net taxable revenue of Canadians has been in use since the introduction of income tax for war purposes in 1917. During the intervening years various rates of taxation have been enforced, and various scales of deductions have been set to establish the net taxable income. These deductions, however, have constantly been uniform for all categories of taxpayers regardless of their income and their responsibilities towards dependents. They have failed to take into consideration certain vital factors which have become more obvious than ever in recent years. The only departure from the general rule happened in the years 1942 and 1943, when the exemption for dependents was granted on the amount of tax payable instead of from the gross amount of the taxable income, as is again the rule.
At all times this process has failed to recognize the actual basic needs of each taxpayer translated into dollar values on a day-to-day basis. Nor have we allowed for the fluctuation in the dollar value, computed on the basis of the cost of living and its corollary, the scale of wages a.nd salaries; nor have we established a difference in the actual needs of each taxpayer and his dependents in relation to the taxpayer's income. In recent years this omission has brought about further hardship to the taxpayer because of its failure to recognize the very swift changes in the cost of living and the swift modifica-
130	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Beaudry tions in the wage scale, with the result that to a large extent wage increases have been nullified by the operation of the income tax assessments.
Since earning power and earned revenue have shown a tendency to move with the cost of living, in recent years at least, and more so in the lower brackets, it follows that the arbitrary, inflexible exemptions tend to penalize the taxpayer during periods of high wages and high cost of living. Furthermore it has been shown that under these conditions the present method of taxation has had the effect of discouraging increased production in terms of man-hours. Since the elaborate plans of the present government for the industrial expansion of Canada find their most valuable adjunct in the resources of labour, it is in the interests of this country as a whole that the income tax structure should not deter the wage earner from increasing production.
I am fully aware that no perfect method can be devised to provide each category of taxpayer with a full measure of equal justice. The application of two principles I am about to advocate, however, would have some immediate results. The first would be that of recognizing and effectively dealing with the fluctuating dollar value in terms of wage rates and purchasing power. In the second place they would provide for the difference in the obligations of various categories of taxpayers by income brackets, in keeping with their income.
So I would advocate-and I bring them to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)-two principles. First, that an earned income exemption be added to the basic exemption granted each taxpayer according to his marital status, and that in this case it be an amount equal to 20 per cent of the taxpayer's earned income, with a maximum deduction of $1,500 for a single taxpayer and $2,000 for a married taxpayer; in other words that this exemption on earned income should apply to a maximum of $7,500 earned income in the case of a single man or woman and $10,000 in the case of a married taxpayer.
Second, that the dependent exemption, now set at $100 or $300 depending upon the reception or non-reception of the family allowance, be discarded; and that the dependent allowance be set at 10 per cent of the taxpayer's earned income for the first three dependents and 5 per cent of that same income for each dependent above three, again with the limitation of $10,000 upon earned income.
May I take this opportunity to quote to the minister some result.'; which would be brought about by the application of this principle,


based upon the rate of taxation for 1947-48. In the case of a married man earning $1,500 and paying in 1947 some $83 and a somewhat but not considerably smaller amount in 1948, the extension of this principle would involve the payment by that taxpayer of $6 in 1949. It would also imply, by the operation of both the dependent and earned income allowances, that in practice no single wage earner receiving less than $960 would be taxable, and that no wage earner with marital status earning less than $1,960 would be taxable. It would also mean, going a little higher in the scale, that a married man with one dependent would be taxed $17.50 on yearly earnings of $2,300; a married man with two children would be taxed $3 when he reached an income of $2,550, and a married man with three children would not be taxable until his earnings reached $3,000.
I appreciate that the application of this principle may not deal a full and equal measure of justice to certain taxpayers, but in my opinion it provides a great deal more than is provided now by the system under which we have been operating since 1917; and there are instances of this. The operation of the exemptions, set at $100 or $300, means that in what you might call the comfortable middle class bracket, each taxpayer gains from the state an actual amount of $20 for each child he has to feed, clothe, bring up and educate. It is true that we brought in the family allowance legislation in 1945 in order to help each Canadian family bring up, clothe and educate its children; but it is also true that to a considerable extent the operation of our income tax legislation has foiled the purpose of the family allowance provisions, at any rate in those brackets over the $4,000 mark.
I would point out that the growth of Canada in essence is based upon the growth of our families. I believe the Minister of Finance should find it, not only possible, but easy, to grant the application of my first principle, because while it may be new in Canada it is not new elsewhere. It has been applied in many other countries for a great many years, notably in Great Britain. And I think it would follow that if the application of the first principle is sound for Canada, the application of the second principle, which is based on the theory of aiding the growth of Canadian families, should also be found very easily justifiable.
There will be other opportunities to discuss this point at greater length. I am introducing it today, however, in order that the minister may give it full consideration; and before concluding on this topic I should like to bring two or three points to his attention. Apply-

ing the income tax legislation in this fashion would immediately mean, that on the basis of the Department of National Revenue statistics for 1947 we would immediately lop off from the taxation rolls of this country the names of 724,025 taxpayers. I also contend that since, in all categories or in all brackets under $3,000, the amount of collectible taxes would be extremely low, we could also eliminate the necessity of weekly payroll deductions and thereby eliminate not only the inconvenience but the expenditure which it brings both to the Department of National Revenue and to every Canadian employer. I do not need to add that the operation of this plan would create a much more rational difference between taxpayers according to their incomes and their responsibilities. The minister may argue that this application would lop off too much revenue. We shall get into that subject when we discuss the budget. But let me say here that the extension of the 1948 figures, and those of 1947 for that matter, based on this application, proves to us that under the same scale of taxation as that used in 1948 our national revenue would still be quite sufficient to provide us with a surplus.
I should like to resume the discussion on frankness which the hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr. Drew) opened up the other day. I am sorry to see that he has not seen fit to remain in the chamber, although I told him at the outset that I should like to discuss frankness with him.


Gordon Graydon: No aspersions, please. The leader of the opposition has been called out on urgent business, and I do not want any aspersions made with regard to his motives. The hon. member hardly does himself justice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Roland Beaudry: May I point out that the leader of the opposition went to some pains 9n the first day of the session to stress his knowledge of the rules. His statement seems to have been highly restrictive. There is one rule which he apparently does not know; and it puts his frankness at a small disadvantage: That of not being believed.
There is one rule which is paramount in this country. It is a rule that has been rigidly followed by the one who was Prime Minister of Canada for dver twenty-one years, and by the one under whom I now have the honour of serving this country. This rule is this:	Throughout the breadth of this
land, whether it be in British Columbia or in the maritimes, in Quebec or in Ontario, it is considered good form to translate one's thoughts and one's statements literally; to show no divergence of thought or of expression according to the setting. And to be recognized as a man of political honesty in 29087-91
The Address-Mr. Beaudry whom Canadians can place their faith, one's sequence of statements should at least dovetail. This is a rule which has been followed in the house by most hon. members who for years have striven to achieve and attain Canadian solidarity. It might be well for the leader of the opposition to acquaint himself with that rule. It would be too late to serve his party's purposes, but he will at least be in step with the rest of the country, even if only in the rear ranks.
My constituents, and those of a great many other members of this house, were not a little amazed last week when they heard of the leader of the opposition entering into a discussion on frankness. They are aware that he has recently become the official prize profferer of the pro-cons and that, as such, he has let it be known that he and his followers would revise the family allowance upwards. When they read this, my constituents were amazed that the hon. member would discuss frankness, because they think of him, they remember him, they know him, as the man who in 1944 stated, and I quote the Globe and Mail for August 10, 1944-


Mr. MacNicol:: That is a good paper.


Roland Beaudry: It is good enough for this
purpose.


John Ewen Sinclair: Accurate reporting.


Roland Beaudry: The quotation is as follows:
"But I assure you", said Premier Drew, "that the government of Ontario intends to do everything within its power to make sure that this iniquitous bill does not go into effect. It is not this bill alone, but the whole principle involved which we intend to resist."
Perhaps the hon. leader of the opposition is as well read as he claims to be well travelled and well informed in the customs and mores of the various parts of our planet, in which case he will have no difficulty in recognizing the following quotation:
"Men live by potatoes. . ."
The quotation is from Lin Yutang, from a book which is appropriately entitled "Between Tears and Laughter." It follows a chapter entitled "Government by music" which, for our purpose, we would change to "Government by glamour."


An hon. Member:: What about yourself?


Gordon Graydon: We have it already, with the present government.


Roland Beaudry: The hon. member may
peddle his potatoes from province to province. He may extol their merits and tell us how good they are for us. But there is one thing that he cannot do. He cannot force us to like them. And when Canadians do not

The Address-Mr. Beaudry like something, they have their own way of showing their dislike. Our potato peddlers will find that out very shortly.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member and the communists are together on that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Order.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Peel cannot take it.


Gordon Graydon: Oh yes, he can. It is easy to take.


Roland Beaudry: I wish to quote from a radio broadcast of August 10, 1944.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come up to date.


Roland Beaudry: I will. Too soon for you. The quotation is as follows:
Mr. Drew termed the family allowance bill an "obvious bribe" and said "there was every reason why this measure should meet with approval in Quebec where there was a very important election approaching."
The premier asked: "Are we going to permit one isolationist province to dominate the destiny of a divided Canada? I hope that each one of you will answer with a resounding 'no' which will be heard in every part of the province of Quebec."
Is that the basis on which the leader of the opposition would establish his provincial-federal relations? If it is, he may find some slight disturbances on the benches behind him. What will the hon. member for Charle-voix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon), and the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) say to their constituents? Will they explain to them that their leader's attitude in the matter of federal-provincial relations is that Ontario or British Columbia or the maritimes should not each take its share of federal responsibilities if it entails Quebec participation in benefits?
And what applies to Quebec and Ontario can apply just as well to British Columbia and New Brunswick, to the prairies and the maritimes. Or will they tell their constituents that their duty to them-and that is their first duty-cannot abide their leader's peculiar philosophy? Or will they, in the interests of their party, sacrifice what vestiges of pride are left among those sitting opposite us and urge them to follow him who had naught but contempt for them in 1944? It matters little what attitude they take. Those potatoes are not palatable in Canada.
"An iniquitous bill," according to the 1944 version. "Family allowances should be increased," according to the 1949 version. Frankness! That is the type of frankness which brings melancholy tears to some but to most only a derisive smile. Frankness-with whom? Surely not with himself, unless the hon. member would plead that he has not attained sufficient maturity of judgment to


pass on the merits of a question at the outset, and that in all things this country may expect from him that his positive opinion today may become his negative opinion tomorrow. Frankness with whom? Surely not with the people of Canada, unless the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) would plead that his original judgment had been erroneous. But can the people of Canada accept the plea of error in a matter that is vital to every family in Canada, and from a man who would seek to lead the people of Canada?
To lead this country into error has been the fate of his party in the past. We recall the 1930 bombast and the 1935 repercussions; but at least in those days error was not a premise but an unfortunate conclusion. Today, however, error becomes a premise, for the leader of the opposition, wooing votes, has to answer two counts before the opinion of Canada: extreme fallibility or extreme disregard for frankness; because either the hon. member for Carleton expressed in 1944 some views which he has completely reversed in 1949, a fact which would betray a strange immaturity of thought and judgment in one who would be presented to us as an oracle; or without having changed his 1944 views, "I shall never allow this iniquitous bill to pass", he becomes what he might term candidly frank in expressing the opposite thought. But that type of candid frankness smacks too much of something else to induce the people of this country to follow him in the path of unadulterated truth.
A gentleman outside this house whose command of the English language is much superior to mine said to me one day, "I am utterly but not unalterably opposed." That is one explanation the leader of the opposition might give Canada. But let me say this.


Gordon Graydon: Do not let him get under your skin in that way.


Roland Beaudry: It will be lost upon all those people throughout Canada upon whom the subleties of the English language are sometimes lost, and the fully bilingual ones will find it extremely difficult to reconcile the siren's voice, in French, with the original English version. I will assure the hon. members who are sitting with and behind the leader of the opposition that they will be given excellent cause to realize the reason for the motto of the province of Quebec "Je me souviens"-I remember.


Gordon Graydon: That is what you said last July.


Roland Beaudry: The cause of frankness
which the hon. member and his cohorts served so well in 1944 will be served again

in the next election. The suit of armour of that valiant knight of frankness gapes a little bit at the seams and discloses just a speck of the electoral singlet which it covers. Canadians from all parts of Canada, and Canadians from Quebec, side by side with Canadians from the other eight provinces, will judge that pure unadulterated expression of sentiment shone forth a great deal more clearly in the provincial era than it does in the federal arena.
This country has a way of expressing itself, and he will be condemned because he withdrew in 1944 what he drew in 1949, because he proffers now, in the interest of a lost cause, what he scoffed at five years ago. He will be condemned because he has shown conclusively to this country that either his judgment or veracity is not above reproach. I am not imputing motives, nor am I questioning the veracity of the hon. gentleman. He can establish both his veracity and the soundness of his motives. All he has to do is to tell the people of Canada, in this house, that he was right in 1944 and that he spoke his opinion frankly, and that he is right in 1949 and that he is still speaking his opinion frankly. No one will question his word, but many will doubt his wisdom and his ability to see much farther than his press notices.
Perhaps I should remind hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house that when this country looks for a leader it expects to find in him not only frankness and wisdom and farsightedness-


Gordon Graydon: That was all threshed out in Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


Roland Beaudry: Yes! That explains why we sit on this side of the house and why the hon. gentlemen led by the versatile member for Carleton still sit on the other side in spite of that impressive curtain raiser.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that curtain raiser reminded me somewhat of the old days of vaudeville when the curtain raiser was inevitably devoted to the acrobats. The featured stars waited until they were sure that they would not be dazzled by the footlights. But they were the ones who brought the house down. The hon. member's acrobatic handlers of the twenty-four sheets might well keep that in mind.
When the hon. member's wisdom or foresight is questioned, perhaps the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) would constitute himself the explanatory ambassador. Last September he professed to have a great deal of familiarity with my constituents' desires for both veracity and sagacity.
Or shall it be found preferable to have an uxorious explanation.
The Address-Mr. Beaudry
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has put up quite a case for the rights of man, might not like that. It might, in fact, bring tears to his eyes, with or without benefit of photographer.
Let me put their minds at rest.
Neither Catherine the Great, nor Ivan the Terrible, nor the consort of Catherine, have much influence on our schools of thought in this country. Canadian thinking is uncluttered by side issues. In Quebec, as in Ontario, we deal with facts more than with explanations. And there are so many facts to the credit of this side of the house and there will be many explications boiteuses coming from the other side.
The best we can expect is that Canada will charitably comment that the hon. member for Carleton is quite a jokesmith, which will no doubt add to his acrobatic lustre.
This should bring some balm to Neepawa, and it should encourage Eglinton and Lake Centre to hope that the flowers that bloom in September are not necessarily perennials.
Since the well-travelled member for Carleton claims to know something of the customs and mores of Rome, as was evinced earlier this session, may I suggest to him that when he rises again to uphold his motion of nonconfidence he add a preface to it: Ave Caesar, morituri te salutamus!
Since his versatility does not extend to languages, may I offer him a translation.
(Translation):
Mr. Prime Minister, we the Conservatives, who are about to disappear through a lack of frankness or of judgment, bow to you.
(Text):


Mr. William Irvine (Cariboo):: I can at least agree with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat in one particular thing that he said. I think perhaps I shall hardly have as much faith in it as he seems to have. He said that Canadians deal with facts. I hope they do, and in that hope there are one or two or more facts that I want to bring before this assembly, and which I hope will filter through to the country at large. The first fact is that we have in Canada a number of great monopolies and great cartels.
Next, these great cartels and monopolies are detrimental to the best interests of the common people of this country. The next fact is that these cartels not only challenge the liberties and freedom of the common man in his economic life, but also challenge democratic government. The next fact is that in the speech from the throne there is nothing about this great evil which, to my mind, is the most challenging of all the evils in Canada today.

The Address-Mr. Irvine
I have no doubt the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is a "great evil"; he has been challenged. But this great monopoly has not been challenged either by the government or by the leader of the opposition. A monopoly is a large business or industrial concern controlled privately by a few, and which has the power, regardless of how that power may have been acquired, to fix the prices of goods in accordance with profit motives, the power also to restrict production as an excuse for keeping th,e prices of goods at high levels. Thus, through their economic power, they exert undue influence both on the domestic economy and the foreign policy of the nation.
Are there such monopolies in this country? I scarcely need stop to prove that. I would refer back for a moment to the report of the Stevens commission of some years ago, in which it was clearly demonstrated that not only did we have at that time in Canada great monopolies, but that they were very active.
Since that time several investigations have been made. I refer in particular to the McGregor report, a copy of which I hold in my hand, and which clearly shows that there are in this country large monopolies. I need hardly refer to the fact that certain industries in this country have been challenged recently in that respect. The dental supplies industry, for example, and the bread-producing industry were both regarded as being subject to court procedure; but so far as I know no proceedings have yet been taken against either of them. However the monopolies are there; of that there can be no question.
If one asks how they got there, the reply would be, as is shown in Mr. McGregor's report, that they came through a perfectly natural process of private enterprise competition, where in the early stages competition was rife, keen and honest, and at such time prices were kept down because of the competition. Gradually however the weaker ones were weeded out; and eventually only the more astute, and the more able and cunning were left. They proceeded from that point to amalgamate or to merge into great monopolies, or to take some other form of getting together.
As a matter of fact, here are some of the practices of cartels, showing how they get together. As is pointed out at page 62 of the McGregor report, there are agreements in the fixing of prices, agreements to allocate territorial markets, agreements for the restriction of production, agreements for the restriction of exports, agreements for the restriction of productive capacity, agreements to restrict the exploitations of inventions, agreements not to supply or to deal with non-cartel members, agreements providing for differential prices,

agreements not registered in accordance with the plan for international registration.
So it can be seen that they come about in a perfectly natural way. Some of our monopolies are real mergers operated under one management. Others are monopolies by agreement-and agreements which are most difficult to call in evidence when they are found to have violated the laws of Canada. These agreements are invariably silent; they are not signed and made public. For these reasons they cannot be used in evidence. But usually they are most effective, because it turns out that the same price is charged for the same commodity all across Canada at the same time.
Then there are other kinds of monopolies, one of which is known as natural monopolies. Some monopolies are very large-they might be called the mastodons of the industrial period. These are known as international cartels, and here are some of the typical ones: Farben and General Electric, in Germany; du Pont in the United States; Vickers-Armstrong, Unilever and Imperial Chemical Industries in Great Britain; International Nickel, Aluminum Company of Canada and Canadian Industries Limited in Canada.
I am not trying to give all the names, but have sought only to give typical Canadian, British, American and German international cartels. There are others which are still at a national level. Some of these will remain at that level, while eventually others will graduate into the international field. Among these might be mentioned the Bell Telephone Company, Imperial Oil Company, Imperial Tobacco Company, General Electric, the steel companies, farm implement companies, packing plants and banks. These are all monopolies in Canada.
A monopoly, sir, is the fullest development of the capitalistic system. It is the flower of private enterprise advocated not only by the government but also by the official opposition and the Social Credit party to my left. It is from this flower of private enterprise that the working bees gather the honey to feed the drones of big business, and keep them sweet.
I am protesting against monopolies in this country, in the first place because through the concentration of economic power, without responsibility for public policy, a monopoly is the greatest of all threats to freedom and democracy. Monopoly limits the economic freedom of the working people, of the farmers, of the small business people generally.
That is done in this way. Let us notice what happens when their basic industries of a monopolistic character like steel raise prices. As soon as they do that, being basic industries, they start a rise in the

price of every commodity which the ordinary man needs for his living. By raising the price of steel they raise the price of bread, they raise the price of clothing, they raise the price of furniture, they raise the price of nousing, they raise the price of everything that the working man or the farmer or the small business man of this country requires for his life.
What is perhaps as bad is that while they raise these prices they are not recognized as the ones who have done it. They are behind, not the iron curtain but the great silken curtain of industrial and free private enterprise hypocrisy. They are so far behind that the common man does not see them there, so he quite often blames the local merchant for putting up the price of this or that, whereas it was really put up by the basic industry that had authority and power over the government to fix its prices as they pleased in order to maintain its high rate of profit.
By this concentrated economic power they are able to foist economic tragedy upon the nation at any time they like. They have done it time and time again. They are the invisible and irresponsible dictators of price; they are the invisible and irresponsible dictators of the amount of real income which shall pass to the wage earners and farmers of this country; they are the irresponsible dictators of the economic standard of living. Every increase in the price of commodities produced by these great monopolies is reflected in the wage that the worker receives and the price the farmer receives for his products. The result is that as prices are forced up by these monopolies the income of labour and of our farmers is correspondingly forced down.
By their wrecking of the economy from time to time they precipitate unemployment at intervals in our history. Great unemployment actually plunges millions of people from the verge of poverty to the very dungeon of want and despair. In this connection I should like to quote from a speech once made by the Right Hon. Herbert Morrison. He was dealing with the state and industry and was showing that, even when vast privately controlled concentrations of economic power are efficient in their economic conduct, they constitute a political menace. I quote:
They have within their grasp powers over fields of public well-being and public policy far greater in practice than parliament itself wields in the great majority of its legislation. They can determine the form of our technical development. They can by that means determine the pattern of the national working life and the level of the national livelihood. They can control to a great extent the distribution of purchasing power among classes and groups. They are free, like independent empires, to declare war with other empires at home or abroad, to make peace with them, to make treaties, to enter into alliances. All these things, in ways not obvious to
The Address-Mr. Irvine ordinary men at ordinary times, go down to the very roots of national life and our place in tne world. Organizations in a position to wield such power, whatever their present motives or the current ideals of those responsible for their policy, present democracy with its greatest problem . . . None of them should be left indefinitely outside the effective grasp of public policy.
I should like now to refer to one of our own supporters of monopoly in this country. This is a Canadian banker. I notice that recently when the great bankers and industrialists gather around to tell the country of the profits they made last year they try to obscure those profits by making an attack on the C.C.F. and on socialism. Such as Mr. MacMillan, who, when announcing a profit of $8,500,000 in British Columbia, had to cover up by making an attack on socialism as though it had been socialism that had pilfered the forests of British Columbia and handed them to a private corporation.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Albemi):: They did not build the pulp mill in British Columbia, either.


William Irvine: No, they would not do that. He is going to encourage the working classes of that province by investing another $8,500,000 and skinning off another crop. He thinks that because he has taken that position his party ought to be elected and he should be permitted to carry on the good work.
The banker to whom I wish to refer made a similar speech. This was at an annual meeting. They had announced their profits and so forth. Now he turns on the C.C.F. He meant what he said to be an attack on the C.C.F. but apparently he was suffering, momentarily at least, from an attack of mental strabismus. In plain language that means "cock-eyed." Although what he said was meant to be a bullet aimed at the C.C.F., he was so cock-eyed that he hit himself and it went through his head apparently without stopping, or hitting anything. Shall I name him? He is the general manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia. I quote:
Mr. Enman went on to say that the political danger of nationalization overshadowed all others. There is no doubt that government ownership of the banks would place tremendous power at the disposal of the political party which happened to be in office. The fact of enormous power would be there-
I want to pause there for a moment. The fact of that enormous power is there. The fact of that enormous power is recognized and admitted by one of the men who has that power. He knows what he is talking about when he says that the fact of power is there. Let us see what those powers are. He goes on to describe them:
-power to withhold credit-
I will add there, "As was done through the hungry thirties."
136	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Irvine
power to interfere with the privacy of personal affairs, power to bring political opponents into line or even to ruin them, power enough indeed to undermine the democratic system and to perpetuate the political control of the party in power. The temptation to use such power would be great, and sooner or later it would be used.
He should know. He did not stop to tell us how greatly he had been tempted to use it, or how often he had used it. He felt it was all right while it was in his hands, but if that power should ever pass into the hands of responsible representatives of the people that would be a tragedy to the banker. He goes on:
It is surely up to the advocates of nationalization to explain just how it is proposed to use such a great concentration of power and, most important of all, how the rights of citizens would be protected In its use and from its abuse.


John Lambert Gibson: They would not be.


William Irvine: I agree with the gentleman who wrote these words, that it is up to anyone to explain that who proposes to take that power. I am waiting for him now to explain how he has used that power, whether he has ever used or abused it. I can tell him how he has abused it. We had an investigation into banking some years ago. The records are still available for anyone to examine. We know bow they abused that power. It is no wonder that this gentleman, and the institution which he represents and all similar institutions, should be firing their shots of vengeance and hatred at the C.C.F.
There are today a great many people in Canada who are afraid of communism. This government has been taking, and properly so, careful steps to see that those who are communists shall not in any way whatsoever betray to other foreign countries the rights of this country. Everybody commends that. But nothing is said or done about the vast investments of foreign countries in great monopolies in Canada, countries whose policies may be diametrically opposed to the policies of our country. I notice, according to the report of Mr. McGregor, that is one of the characteristics of cartels and monopolies. They carry on in the dark, behind the scenes, in a little economic empire of their own within the domestic economy, doing what they please, sometimes violating the announced policies of the government in power.
I oppose this in the next place because it interferes with the economic and political liberties of the people of this country. If I had the time to do so I would say much more about how they interfere with our political liberty, how their vast concentration of economic power gives them almost enough influence to write the political policies of this nation. I think it is safe to say that to a

large extent they do that, no matter which of the two great parties happens to be in power. I am opposed to it because it stands in the way of planning the national economy.
Of course, I know that to talk about that here will be considered very foolish because private enterprise stands for a planless economy. Both the hon. gentlemen to my immediate right, who are in the official opposition, and the government, stand as the champions of a planless economy. They accept the classical economist's washed-out theory of automatic adjustments. Inferentially they ask men and women with their families to trust their lives to the caprice of a system which they admit they neither can control nor want to control. Whether you may be the beneficiary of a boom or the victim of a slump, in either case you are at the mercy of blind economic forces which private enterprise neither can control nor wants to control. An admission of that sort is, to my mind, the gravest materialistic and deterministic type of admission. It is an admission that we are incompetent to control our economic environment.
Let me briefly go through the cycle of the self-correcting classical economist's theory. This is the cycle which has been inscribed by history on our economic lives. We first have to bring a boom to end a slump, and then we bring a slump to end a boom. When we find a slump all around us and we are in a depression, then capital expenditures are increased. At times they are assisted, and sometimes properly so, by the public treasury. These are attempts to increase purchasing power among the consuming public. Prices begin to rise, but without control they not only begin to rise but keep on rising, and by and by we have a boom in prices. When that happens, wages start out to chase prices but never catch up. Because they never catch up, real demand begins to slacken; and, as real demand slackens, drastic deflation sets in. There appears a great slump in the market. There are bankruptcies, particularly in those industries and businesses which are overcapitalized. Unemployment grows, wages drop, and depression touches the bottom.
I cannot stop to describe what these economic facts do to human beings. I do not have time to describe the human misery and suffering which are involved in those cycles of ten to twenty year periods, but that cycle of stupidity, of wealth destruction, of human misery, has been completed eighteen times in 150 years. Now we are rigging up for the next one. It is gradually approaching. I do not know to what depths that depression will reach, but we are in the process. That is the pattern of automatic economic controls of free, private enterprise. They work, of course;

they always work. But the chief thing they work is havoc; and we find stupidity and wanton inflation ultimately corrected by unemployment, want and bankruptcy. If that is what you want, then you have it now. Of course I am not quoting all the evils of the system; I am just giving a few.
But more and more people, not only in this country but throughout the world, are refusing to submit to this hit-or-miss economic philosophy. They are beginning to demand that basic industries must be made responsive to the public they exist to serve. I hold, Mr. Speaker, that it is reasonable, that it is proper, that it is ethical, that it is humane and practical that the natural resources of this country, with all the technical achievements of the centuries, should be used in the public interest. That will not happen by accident; it will not come about merely by wishing it. If that is to happen then monopoly and its automatic control will have to yield to public ownership and a planned objective for the nation.
If it be true that monopolies are here; if it be true that their practices are inimical to social security and democratic government; if it be true-and it is true-that both the government and the official opposition disagree with the view that monopolies should be publicly owned and controlled, then let me ask what is the proposal of either the government or the opposition in respect to this cancer that is eating at the heart of the nation? What proposals have been made? There have been none in four years. The first practice followed by the government in respect to monopolies is to ignore them, to think they are not there. They are never mentioned in the speech from the throne. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) never even referred to them. The next thing is to "Canute" them, as the former Prime Minister, now the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King), did last year when he said the prices committee should not have power to do anything about these fellows who might have been charging too much, that it would be only necessary to point it out in public and they would become so ashamed they would go home and lower prices. Well, of course they did not, so that is what I call "Canute-ing" them. They say, "Go back, big tide, and become a nice, gentle little ripple." But tides do not obey.
The next way is to pass legislation, such as the anti-trust laws of the United States of America and the Combines Investigation Act in Canada. These are not only worthless; they are bad legislation. They are worthless because monopoly has grown perhaps faster since the legislation was passed. It never 29087-10
The Address-Mr. Irvine was greater in the United States than it is now; it was never greater in Canada than it is now; yet these pieces of legislation have been in operation, supposedly doing their best. I say it is bad legislation because it is not effective. It is not effective in the sense that you cannot prevent monopolists from making agreements unless you can prove they have done so, and they can make agreements without your being able to prove it. But when you have proven the agreement was made you have still another stickler: what is a fair and reasonable profit? That is a gateway big enough for all the monopolies in Canada to walk through any time they please.
It is also bad legislation because if it were effective it would mean that we were turning back the wheels of progress, trying to divide up these great cartels and monopolies which have been developed-by whom? They have been developed by the most successful free private enterprisers of the nation; and they have developed in that way because they were found to be economical. Trying to force them to divide into innumerable small groups and fight it all out again would be ridiculous. In any case it would simply mean that history would have to repeat itself and the monopolies would have to develop all over again. So we have to face the fact that something must be done about them. We have to handle the monopolies in such a way as to save for the nation all the advantages and all the economies which in the process of industrial development have been revealed to exist in mass production and centralized effort.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker,
since last Wednesday I have listened to the various speeches and discussions which have taken place in this chamber. I have noticed that the new saviour of the world, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), is anxious and determined to follow the rules of this house. He does not care who pays for useless discussions as long as his name is placed in Hansard and in the press. Since the re-election of Maurice Duplessis in Quebec, it is no exaggeration to say that the hon. leader of the opposition has been presented to the people of that province as a kind of new world's heavyweight champion. If you listen to a radio blue speech, you will become convinced that our Lord Jesus Christ is nobody compared to the great new leader.
138	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Caouette
II you read the papers in Quebec, you will find large advertisements paid for by the Conservative organization, stating that Mr. Drew is an up-to-date man, that he is the only capable man, that he is the only man that Canada needs. In other words, he is a second world's saviour. All this propaganda may please and convince the hon. gentleman's own friends, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in the province of Quebec it has no importance at all. As was well said yesterday by the Prime Minister, the province of Quebec has an emblem which says, "Je me souviens" meaning "I remember". We in the province of Quebec remember the day when the leader of the opposition accused Quebec of not making a total war effort and not sharing responsibilities during the last war. We also remember the hon. gentleman's opposition to what he called baby bonuses for the province of Quebec. I say that the Conservative party has no chance in the world of succeeding in the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: How about the hon. member's party?


David Réal Caouette: And I do not think for one moment that he has a single chance in the other provinces of Canada. Following the speech by the leader of the opposition we heard a good political speech-I should say it was a true pre-election speech-from the Prime Minister. This speech by the leader of the government was similar to the speech [DOT]from the throne. It was an empty speech, an exhibition of words and phrases without meaning. Let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada are waiting for something else than nice speeches and nice words written in the press. The Prime Minister accused the opposition of presenting one policy in Quebec and another in the other provinces of Canada. He said that the Liberal party has always been truthful to the whole dominion of Canada. This statement is completely false. I want the Liberal party to know that Quebec has an emblem which says "Je me souviens", meaning "I remember".


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: What about social credit in Quebec?


David Réal Caouette: My hon. friend does not even know what he is talking about. For twenty-five years the Liberal party has kept in power by its opposition to wars and conscription. For twenty-five years promises have been made to Quebec to the effect that never under a Liberal administration would we participate in a war or in conscription. We will never participate in a European war, claimed all the Liberals during these twenty-five years. Today we remember all that, and by no stretch of the imagination can we say that the Liberals are a bit better than the Con-
*Mr. Caouette.]

servatives. The two parties are exactly the same. Both are financed from and by the same sources.


An hon. Member:: We have not a hat.


David Réal Caouette: Both parties were created by finance to divide the people of Canada. Let us amuse the people of Canada with political parties while finance will take full control of the nation's life. Here is the emblem of all political parties.
I also listened to the speech made by the leader of the C.C.F. party. It is always the same old song: free enterprise is no good; we should socialize this and that; the government should have absolute control over all the human beings in this country of ours. Thanks to free enterprise, Mr. Speaker, in this country we have produced, comparatively speaking, more than has been produced in any other country in the world. Having reached such a great capacity for production, thanks to free enterprise, the problem of today is not one of production. We have production, and we have at our disposal everything required to produce more. This problem was solved several years ago. The problem of today is nothing more or less than that of distribution. Let us distribute to the people the goods of our country.


An hon. Member:: What about dividends?


David Réal Caouette: Yesterday we heard from the Prime Minister that money is only a sign representing reality. Social Crediters are so convinced of the truth of that statement that they have asked the government for twenty years-
An hon Member: Where are they?
Mr Caouette: If my hon friend will permit me to tell him where they are, I will say that they are actually with the corpse of Norman Jaques, who died yesterday morning; and I do not think they are to blame for that. Social Crediters are so convinced of the truth of that statement to which I referred that they have asked the government for twenty years to create as many signs as the Canadian people create production. For years and years Social Crediters have been asking the government to use the Bank of Canada for the creation of new currency and credit.


Roland Beaudry: Are there no printing presses in Val d'Or?


David Réal Caouette: My hon. friend does not even know what "bank" means or what "money" means. He knows what money is, but he does not understand what is meant by money created in favour of the people.


Roland Beaudry: Nature was not kind enough to me.


David Réal Caouette: Let us go on a debt-free money system. Let us develop this country for the benefit of the Canadian people and not for the gangsters of the present financial set-up. Then and only then will we have peace, social justice, and security with freedom for each and every Canadian. The leader of the Social Credit group has given us a clear picture of this in the speech he made yesterday. I hope it will bear fruit.
Coming to the speech from the throne, may I say we are all agreed that the first concern of government in world affairs is to ensure peace and security; but to ensure peace and security in the world the first concern of government is to ensure peace and security to all the citizens of our country first. Let us give an example to the whole world by establishing peace and security with freedom in Canada. Let us solve the distribution problem in this country. The only way by which we can solve the problem is by the distribution of a national dividend which Social Crediters have been advocating for many years. Let us follow and apply in Canada and in the world social credit philosophy and I assure you; Mr. Speaker, that then we shall ensure peace and security not only in Canada but also in the world.


Roland Beaudry: Will the hon. member permit me a question? Is the hon. member willing to admit that our administration has been so sound that we are in a position to offer dividends as he suggests? We are quite willing to admit it.


David Réal Caouette: My hon. friend is a charming friend but I think his question is only silly. Let him ask his administration to apply what the former Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) told a great meeting in Alberta in 1935, and then apply it today. It has never been done. I shall speak about it in a minute.


Roland Beaudry: Yes, but it does not answer my question.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member's question does not require an answer because it is a silly question, and I do not answer silly questions.
In the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, I read the following statement:
Prosperous conditions now prevailing are being reflected in the buoyant level of national revenues: a condition to which due consideration is being given by my ministers in the preparation of forthcoming budgetary proposals.
Where is there prosperity in Canada today?


Roland Beaudry: Right here.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, you are right; right here in the House of Commons but nowhere else in Canada. Unemployed men are counted in the thousands and thousands all across Canada.
29087-10J
The Address-Mr. Caouette There is a shortage of houses. There is actually starvation in Canada in many places, in big cities, for instance, and we are told that we have prosperity in our country. Who is responsible for such statements?
I know that we have prosperity in this House of Commons. I know that the financiers of this country have prosperity, and I know that several thousands of Canadians have no prosperity at all. Our old Canadians have a funny prosperity with a $30-a-month pension. Our cripples also have a strange prosperity with no pension at all. The great majority of Canadians earning less than $2,000 a year also have a funny prosperity, besides paying taxes on their low incomes. The government should not laugh in the people's faces in that way. The government and all hon. members know that we can have prosperity in Canada but we have not got it at this time. Let us go ahead and ensure it to all our population.
I shall continue in French to make some remarks about the program which I received last week from my constituents in Pontiac.
(Translation):
I am glad to take part in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In order to give adequate expression to the thoughts and the will of the electors of the constituency of Pontiac whom I have the honour of representing in this house-


Roland Beaudry: For the last year.


David Réal Caouette: I shall be here for several years more, during which time the hon. member who has just interrupted me will not be sitting in this house. To show him conclusively that he will not be here after the next election, I would point out to him that in his speech he dwelt upon the income tax and various other taxes levied by the government; yet ever since he has been a member of this house, he has voted with the government, thus declaring himself in favour of maintaining those taxes.
His electors will remember that-


Roland Beaudry: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and on a question of privilege, I should like to say that under standing order 31, the hon. member cannot be allowed to anticipate-


An hon. Member:: A visionary and a prophet!


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, that is what I heard on coming through the riding represented by my hon. friend.
I received recently copies of resolutions passed at the meeting of the Pontiac County Union of Electors, held in the city of Rouyn:

The Address-Mr. Caouette
Whereas democracy, while offering advantages to the people, first imposes responsibilities, such as keeping an eye on public affairs, studying the problems related thereto and submitting to legislators the required solutions.
The officers of the Rouyn-Noranda Union of Electors, gathered in regular meeting this twentieth day of January, 1949, beg you to take the opportunity offered by the coming session to ask for:
1.	The setting-up of a crucifix in the House of Commons.
In view of the fact that Canada claims to be a Christian nation, we believe that there will be and that there is no objection to the placing of a crucifix in this house. We should not be ashamed to proclaim our belief, even in this house.
2.	The appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican.
A few days ago, on the orders of the day, I asked the reasons for our failure to appoint an ambassador to the Vatican. We have ambassadors to various countries throughout the world, and while many other nations are represented at the Holy See, in Rome, Canada which claims to be a Christian nation has no envoy there. We ask that an ambassador be appointed to the Vatican.
3.	Vigorous protests against the arrest of Cardinal Mindszenty.
Once again, we shall probably be told that Canada should not interfere with the domestic affairs of another country. When the question arose of declaring war to safeguard the very existence of that fine country named Poland, never was it said in Canada that we should not intervene in the domestic problems of foreign countries. Well, I believe that the government is now bound to protest most strongly against the arrest of the primate of Hungary.
4.	That the government put a stop to its present policy of mass immigration.
Mr. Speaker, in the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this house, there have come, for many months, hundreds and hundreds of immigrants labelled "D.P.'s from Europe".
In many of our mines, these immigrants have replaced French-Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Name them.


David Réal Caouette: We will name them in due course.


Roland Beaudry: Were they brought in by force or in answer to requests from companies?


David Réal Caouette: They have been requested
by the companies. That is why I placed the

question on the order paper. Let us put a stop to mass immigration, which aims to replace our Canadian people. I believe mass immigration is being carried on here and there in Canada and in many places. Canadians are faced with an untenable situation and unbearable conditions.
I read in La Terre de chez nous of November 24, an article headed thus:
To be confirmed or denied:	In some countries,
when danger threatens, and there are brawls, riots or a state of emergency, martial law is proclaimed. Has Canada reached that stage? Are army officials and their friends so alarmed by persistent rumours of war that they find it necessary to use force to compel Canadian youths to enlist. Such appears to be the view expressed by an editorial in the Front Ouvrier, of Montreal. In 1939-40, hosts of volunteers were secured in Canada by means of service-pay offered the weary, hungry, unemployed. Are men being thrown out of work in order to repeat the process? But here is more from the newspaper I mentioned: "Young men are being driven into the army. An item from the Eastern Townships states that in four days 123 young men were let out in Asbestos; 60 on the first day; 40 the next day; 20 and 5 on the third and fourth days respectively.
In Megantic, 250 young men were laid off during a very short time.
We are told that in Sherbrooke, young men were being refused employment in October. There too, it seems, young men are being advised to enlist.
After reporting those facts, the Front Ouvrier deems it should conclude that war propaganda is anything but unrelated to the dismissals mentioned. That statement is so serious that the federal authorities should deny it. . . or confirm it. True, to confirm it it has but to remain silent. The item, the first part of which I have already quoted, concludes as follows:
"One can readily see that some sort of war propaganda is responsible for all this. There is no question of war yet in parliament, but our young men are already compelled to live on a war footing.
This year alone, the government is spending $280 million on war. Enough to see 70,000 young men through university each year, together with a $60 monthly allowance. With that much money we could build a half-million dollar technical school in every constituency in Canada; 125,000 young boys and girls could learn a trade and even receive enough money to live comfortably.
Our young people have the right to object to being disposed of without the people's representatives being asked first to express their views on the matter.
Some sort of disguised conscription is still in effect in Canada, in the province of Quebec and more particularly in the constituency I have the honour of representing.
Mr. Speaker, we shall protest against mass immigration of young and older people as long as all Canadians living in Canada do not enjoy security and until freedom and social justice are guaranteed one and all.
That the Canadian government re-establish all veterans in civilian life as quickly as possible while fully respecting the freedom of choice of everyone concerned.

I need not insist further. Obviously the government knows that in Canada thousands of veterans have not yet been able to reestablish themselves permanently and have not received the help they had a right to expect from federal authorities in Ottawa.
That the Canadian government put an end at once to every form of disguised conscription and agree never to resort to such a course in either peacetime or wartime.
We do not want conscription under any form whatsoever; let the authorities resort to persuasion.
7.	"That the government increase family allowances and do away with decreasing rates."


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: I noted with pleasure that the speech from the throne mentioned family allowances. Apparently the decreasing rates are to be abolished during the present session. That is not enough; we should also increase the allowances for each and every child in this country.
8.	"That the government increase old age pensions and lower the age limit."
We ask for a $60 monthly pension at the age of sixty. That would be only fair to our older citizens. It is also fully in keeping with Christian principles to ask for a better pension, a $60 monthly pension, payable at the age of sixty.
9.	"That the government carry out the monetary reform advocated by the Social Credit party and distribute to each and every one a dividend commensurate with the vast economic possibilities of our country."
This year I take the liberty of again drawing the attention of the house to what Canada's former prime minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said in 1935:
"When a nation has no longer control over its money and its credit, it matters little who makes the laws in that country. When usury is introduced in the administration it can ruin any country. Until the government regains control over money and credit and until such control is recognized as its most evident and sacred responsibility, it is useless to speak of democracy and of the sovereignty of parliament."
That sentence was spoken during a public address delivered by the former prime minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1935. Since then, the government have never done anything to comply with the principles they uttered, to recover that most sacred responsibility of controlling money and credit and regain the privilege conceded to Canadian financiers and bankers.
The Address-Mr. Caouette
Mr. Speaker, let us render unto parliament its sovereignty, and thus recognize the principle put forth by the then prime minister regarding "its most evident and sacred responsibility" to control money and credit, we would then have but little difficulty in applying the social credit technique, the economic theory advocated here since 1935 by Social Credit supporters all over the country.
10.	"That the government immediately abolish taxation on incomes of less than $3,000 per annum."
This is what we advocated last year, and for the last three years. In fact, we want all incomes under $3,000 per annum to be tax free. That is why I repeat this year to all members of the house that we, members of this house, should be allowed income tax exemption on $3,500 if married and up to $2,750 if single. And if such exemptions are good for us, they should be no less so for our constituents. I feel it only fair and reasonable that all Canadians earning less than $3,000 a year should not have to pay any income tax.
11.	"That the Post Office Department give us immediate house to house delivery in the towns of Rouyn and Noranda, and rural delivery in the outlying districts of the constituency, "
This request has been before the federal authorities for three years now. Are they awaiting the next election to promise house to house delivery in the twin towns of Rouyn and Noranda?


An hon. Member:: You have to know the
ropes for that.


David Réal Caouette: Perhaps, and that is precisely the attitude of all Liberals. They would have the good people of Val d'Or believe that the Liberal party gives freely, handsomely, while it stops at electoral promises. It is now being suggested to the people of Val d'Or that, thanks to Liberal patronage, to the plodding endeavours of patronage holders, a post office is to be built in Val d'Or. It is even being claimed that the post office was obtained by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. David Gourd). What sort of honesty is that, Mr. Speaker?- spending public funds on Liberal propaganda in this country.
Social Crediters, Conservatives and Liberals alike pay taxes in every part of Canada. Whenever we claim anything for the people, invariably some Liberal member or even a
142	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Caouette Liberal minister comes up and states that it is he who donates such and such a thing-


An hon. Member:: Go tell that to Duplessis.
Mr. fcaoueiie: In Pontiac county, we do not need other members to look after matters of interest to that county. As for claiming that the member for Chapleau has secured anything for Pontiac, he should first begin by obtaining things for the constituency of Chapleau, because people are asking for some in his own constituency and nothing is being done.
I have here a letter from Senneterre, in the constituency of Chapleau-


Mr. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Chairman-


David Réal Caouette: Friday, January 14, 1949, will long be remembered by the people of Senneterre-


Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Speaker, on a
question of privilege, may I ask a question of the hon. member?


David Réal Caouette: Go ahead, don't be shy.


Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. member for Chapleau is able to obtain much for his own constituency and for the neighbouring constituency, it is only because he creditably represents them. Furthermore, when he speaks in the house, he does it intelligently and not as the hon. member has just done.


David Réal Caouette: I understand that the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Gour) is rather touchy. He recently advised the electors of Russell to make joint representations in connection with oleomargarine, asking them to bring pressure to bear upon Mr. Duplessis, but apparently he is not ready to bring similar pressure to bear upon the dominion government. However, let the hon. member set his mind at rest; I have no intention-


Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Speaker, it was Mr. Kennedy-


David Réal Caouette: I have no lesson to take from the hon. member for Russell; rather, he is the one who needs lessons. For a long time he has not succeeded in-


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members realize that it is the duty of the Speaker to preserve decorum and dignity in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[Mr^ .Caouette.]


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member who has the floor to help the Speaker maintain that decorum and dignity in addressing himself to the chair and not to the other members of this house. As regards the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Gour) and others, I wish to point out to them the fact that when a member has the floor, no one may interrupt him without his consent.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I observed that rule.


David Réal Caouette: I will accede to your request with pleasure and thus uphold the dignity of this house.
On January 14 of this year, the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Gourd) spoke at a meeting held at Senneterre, in his constituency. His electors had asked him to look into the matter of electricity for their parish, to get them a new post office and, Anally to obtain an Indian school. According to the report which I got from Senneterre, the hon. member for Chapleau answered that he could do absolutely nothing. To have a post office, he said, you need at least $10,000 revenue whereas Senneterre only produces $7,500. As for the Indian school, he advised them to see their parish priest and the diocesan authorities. He declared himself unable to do anything at all about electricity. The report adds:
The hon. member for Chapleau Is very kind to the cities of Pontiac county, but very "mean" to his own constituents. He goes so far as to say "a member of parliament has to be a diplomat," a remark he underscores with a loud guffaw. He even goes further and says haughtily that he does not need to be a member of parliament to make a living.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I listened to the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Raymond) talking about peace and happiness, war, conscription . . .


Mr. Gagnon:: That was yesterday.


David Réal Caouette: I beg your pardon; it was indeed yesterday. He was saying that Canada could not remain neutral, and so on. He criticized newspapers that advocate neutrality, as well as Canadian citizens who disapprove of war and conscription and want Canada to stay neutral.
It is not a question of Canada staying neutral if the country is attacked. Of course Canadians, in Quebec or in any other province, will not hesitate to defend themselves if Canada should be attacked. But that does not warrant the promoting of wars in the

world or the issuing of war propaganda and we are surely not justified in taking advantage of that fact to have the Canadian electors believe that war is inevitable.
I wi^h to point out that during the last world war, Ireland-which is located close to England-remained neutral and Ireland was not flouted by the world for that reason. In fact, it has now secured its republic status and regained its complete independence. Today, Ireland is given the same treatment as Canada, England and the United States. Ireland is absolutely independent and the day Canada secures its independence many thorns will be removed from our fingers and our feet, and we shall have regained the liberty to which we are entitled.
Mr. Speaker, peace and happiness cannot be obtained through war. When we are told that our nation must defend itself if attacked, we understand this and need not be told repeatedly. His Holiness Pope Pius XII never said: "If we want peace, prepare for war" but, "If you want peace, prepare for peace." If you organize war, you will have war. Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap. When we sow potatoes, we surely do not reap green peas.
Mr. Speaker, we, the Union of Electors of the province of Quebec, are in favour of neutrality. We are against war propaganda and against conscription in all its forms, whether disguised or open. If it is claimed that the war aims are valid or logical, we should have the necessary proof, and in that event we shall immediately recognize the logic of a declaration of war.
If the Union of Electors is against war in the province of Quebec, if it is against conscription and in favour of neutrality it is because it has at heart the best interests of the whole Canadian people. Peace and happiness are not brought about by slaughter. The world will not secure them if the nations fight each other, as happened in the last world war, or if Christian forces are arrayed one against the other for the safeguarding of peace.
Mr. Speaker, such rumours of conscription and war which are going around throughout Canada should stop as soon as possible and the talk should rather be about the establishment of an equitable and enduring peace. It should be about the establishment of social justice and the guaranteeing to all citizens the security and freedom to which they are
The Address-Mr. Green entitled, through the application of the principles of the great social credit doctrine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
(Text):


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks this evening I must confess that I propose to deal with a hodgepodge of subjects, some five in number. They will be atomic energy, veterans affairs, the need for a Canadian policy in the Pacific, the need for clarification of the government's steel policy, and the Canadian merchant marine and our shipbuilding industry. You will realize that they are not subjects which are connected, but the reason I bring them up this evening is that I hope the government will take action on each one of these questions before the session is very much older. I fear that if there is delay in placing them before the house there may be no action forthcoming from the government during the earlier days of the session. In other words, there is an element of urgency about all these questions.
First of all may I deal with atomic energy. In the session of 1946 the House of Commons passed an act which set up the atomic energy control board. Hon. members will recall that very wide powers were given to that board. They will also recall that a great deal of money has been voted for the work of the board, and a great deal of money is to be voted each year. Furthermore it is well for us to remember that atomic energy may be of the utmost importance in the national life of Canada, in the development of our nation. It may be the greatest factor in the development of Canada in the years that lie ahead.
When the bill was brought in in 1946 I suggested to the minister, who is now the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), that there should be set up in Canada a watchdog committee which would keep in touch with the activities of the atomic energy control board. That stand was approved by the leaders of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties. At the time the minister made a statement, which is to be found at page 2401 of Hansard of 1946, and reads as follows:
I dare say that, as developments proceed, it may be desirable to have committees, and perhaps a standing committee of this house on problems of atomic energy may be warranted; I do not think that is so at the moment. We should obtain more experience in the work of atomic energy before a standing committee is established.
144	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Green
That was the minister's position in 1946. At that time we pointed out to him that in the United States, where they had set up a similar board known as the atomic energy commission, they had also provided for three watchdog committees. One of those committees is known as a general advisory committee, and has in its membership very distinguished scientists and manufacturers. The second committee is a military liaison committee, and has some of the leading men from the various forces of the United States. The third is a congressional joint committee on atomic energy.
I have in my hand the United States government manual for 1948. If hon. members care to look at this manual they will find, beginning at page 334, a description of the set-up in the United States. At page 336 we find this statement concerning the functions of the congressional committee.
The congressional joint committee on atomic energy, composed of nine members of the Senate and nine members of the House of Representatives-
By the way, that committee includes such outstanding senators as Senator Vandenberg, Senator Bricker, and Senator Tom Connally. -makes continuing studies of the activities of the atomic energy commission and of problems relating to the development, use, and control of atomic energy. The commission keeps the joint committee fully and currently informed on the activities of the commission.
Last year I again suggested to the minister the time had come to set up a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on this question of atomic energy. At that time he was a little more kindly disposed towards the suggestion. On June 19, at page 5531 of Hansard, he said:
-but if the house at the next session wished to appoint a committee on atomic energy and bring experts before that committee to discuss these matters it might be appropriate to do so.
Then he went on to say he would give serious consideration to the suggestion during the interval between the two sessions. I suggest to the minister this evening, Mr. Speaker, that at this present session there should be set up such a joint committee. Just this morning we find on the front page of the Montreal Gazette an article from Washington headed "More powerful A-bombs reported by United States atom energy commission." Then it goes on to outline the report that has been made by Mr. David Lilienthal, the chairman of their atomic energy commission.
I think his remarks are very much worth while. He is quoted as saying at a press conference that-
-the present report represents a "turning point" towards the increased release of information because, he says, secrecy carried to extremes "could actually blacken out democracy."


In Canada's dealings with atomic energy we are in that danger. We are in the position that no one in this house except the minister knows anything at all about the development of atomic energy in this country or what possibilities there may be in the development of that energy for the people of this nation. That, I submit, is a thoroughly bad thing in a country where we have democratic government. Some responsibility should be placed upon parliament with regard to this question. So I do appeal to the minister tonight to set up such a committee during the present session. I think the matter could be dealt with in a non-partisan way, and the results would be very beneficial not only to the house but also to the country at large.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would the hon. gentleman like me to say a word in reply now? The government would have no objection to such a committee. I must confess that the only hon. member who has discussed the matter and indicated an interest in it is my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: No; the leaders of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I dare say there is more interest than has been disclosed here; but I have discussed the matter with those responsible for the operation, and we all think it would be very desirable to have more information about Canada's work on atomic energy available to hon. members. So I shall be glad to co-operate with opposition parties in working out a committee.


Howard Charles Green: Thank you very much. I only hope I may have equally good luck with my four other suggestions.
The second subject I wish to bring before the house this evening is veterans affairs. That matter has not rated one word in the speech from the throne. Hon. members may read through that long throne speech and they will not find one word concerning veterans affairs; yet the fighting has been over for only about three years. Then, to make the situation worse, on Friday last the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) was asked in the house whether a special committee would be set up this session, and his reply was:
-the minister and the government have given consideration to the matter, and it has been decided not to recommend the setting up of a committee this session.
This means that no legislation dealing with veterans affairs is in contemplation, which means in turn that the only opportunity to discuss veterans affairs will be on the estimates of that department. And if the same practice is followed this session that has been followed in other sessions, those estimates

will be brought down a day or two before the house prorogues next June or July or August, and there will be no opportunity to deal adequately with the questions which mean so much to the veterans. In other words, if the minister's decision is final this session of 1949 holds very little hope for the veterans of Canada.
May I point out that much new veterans legislation was placed on the statute books within the last two or three years, and that many of the problems affecting the veterans are still unsolved. Rehabilitation is still going on, and some new difficulties are cropping up in that connection. There are also difficulties in connection with the Veterans Land Act and many other phases of rehabilitation and with the fair treatment of the men who saved this country just a few years ago. Actually, Mr. Speaker, the veterans of Canada are the men who should get first consideration in this house. Their problems should be given priority; yet here we have not a word said about them and no committee to be set up, which I am afraid means that nothing is to be done.
Take, for example, the war veterans' allowances. Some increases were granted last year; but I may tell the minister that as far as British Columbia is concerned, and I judge also as far as veterans organizations right across Canada are concerned, there is the utmost dissatisfaction with the increases provided last year and the strongest possible demand for further increases. Take the married men in receipt of the burnt-out pension. They were given an increase of only $10 last session, the same as the single men. The whole allowance is on such a basis that it does not meet the needs of the veterans, and certainly something should be done about it at this session. Another very bad feature is the fact that the imperials cannot establish eligibility for the war veterans allowance; and the men who served in Great Britain during the first war are in the same position.
Another serious situation arises from the fact that the benefit of the doubt clause is not yet being interpreted to give the soldier the benefit to which this parliament said he was entitled. There was an amendment last year, but I have seen a decision by the pension commission just within the last week-in fact I received word since coming to Ottawa- which simply does not give the veteran the benefit of the doubt, and I believe something must be done to remedy that situation. Another serious question is the practice of ruling that men are suffering from a preenlistment condition. It seems that if any trace can be found of some illness suffered by a man before enlistment, that is dragged out and used to establish that he is suffering from a pre-enlistment condition. In this con-
The Address-Mr. Green nection also I have run across some unfair decisions; and sooner or later we must get legislation which will provide that where a man was taken into the service as fit, passed his examinations, and then was discharged as unfit after service, the state must show that such deterioration was not due to service, and failing that must give the man a pension. I might give many more instances, but I shall mention only the men of the merchant navy. They are still the forgotten men of the last war. In my judgment they are getting a dirty, shabby deal under the present legislation, and amendments to the veterans legislation should be made to provide that men of the merchant navy will be fairly treated.
I mention these different problems simply to support my demand that a special parliamentary committee be set up at this session. Such a committee would have a great effect. It would hear representations from the soldier organizations; and by the way those representations are always worth while, always carefully worked out and well presented. I think such a committee would have the effect of bringing about the enactment of beneficial legislation. Those who served on the special committee last year will remember that the government changed its mind twice about the amount by which pensions should be increased. We had the first statement by the Prime Minister in December of 1947. Then there was a change. I hold in my hand a sheet which was distributed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs in the special committee on April 18, 1948, which contains this paragraph:
Regarding disability pensions, the government cannot see its way clear at this session of parliament to go further than their present proposal, which is now before you.
This was the second proposal.
This proposal represents an increase . . .
And so on. The minister nearly got away with that; the committee nearly accepted that proposal and went on to deal with other questions, but fortunately it did not do so. As a result of the activities of that committee the government came out on May 11-I have in my hand the press clipping of May 11-with a third increase; and as the reporter said:
It was the third time this session that the government announced an upward revision in the pension scale and possibly the first time in Canadian parliamentary history that a government has changed its mind that often in one session.
The change was made only because of the pressure brought to bear by the special committee on veterans affairs, and I submit to the minister that it will be a tragedy if a special committee is not set up during the present session.

The Address-Mr. Green
The third subject has to do with the new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I hope he also will accept my suggestion. It is that there is a need for a Canadian policy in the Pacific at the present time. Nobody knows our policy with regard to what is going on around that ocean. The government are extremely busy about the Atlantic pact. I sometimes think they are so busy looking south to Washington to see what the Americans want done that they have not time to look out west to see what is going on in the Pacific. But the happenings around the Pacific ocean are of the utmost concern to the people of British Columbia who live on the Pacific slope; and Canada as a nation is vitally interested in what is going on around that ocean. At this moment there is an urgency about these questions, for at least two reasons and probably for many more. First of all, on January 14 we had a press dispatch from Ottawa and Washington printed in one of the Vancouver papers. The heading reads as follows, "Pacific countries to join vast bloc." Then it goes on to say that there is to be a history-making, southern hemisphere security alliance between British commonwealth countries, and it lists the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and possibly India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Malaya. The article also says:
Announcement of the new alliance, it is thought, will be timed just before the signing of the north Atlantic alliance, scheduled for early February.
If there is any truth in this article, there is urgency about this question. The article goes on to say that Canada will give the pact its blessing but that she is not greatly interested in joining. The article also says:
Politically, it is felt an attempt to organize the commonwealth as a defensible unit might be disturbing to both the United States and the western union.
I would point out to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canada has the closest of ties with Australia and New Zealand in particular, and with South Africa. We have not only ties of trade, but we have planes flying into Vancouver only three or four days out of Australia. We now have the passenger ship service to Australia resumed. We are greatly interested in what goes on in those sister dominions. We had young Australian airmen going through Vancouver when they came here to train under the British commonwealth air training plan. There is a close tie between the Pacific coast of Canada and the British nations out in the Pacific. What is happening is that trade is falling off. I have here in my hand Foreign Trade, a publication of the Department of Trade and Commerce, for January 29. It points out that there has been a marked decline in Canadian trade with Australia and New Zealand. We

are just drifting apart. If a regional pact is to be set up for the Pacific, I urge that Canada should become a full partner in that pact. We have our dead lying over there in Hong Kong. We have taken a most active part in the Pacific in the days that are gone, and we must not turn our backs on the Pacific at this time.
There is another reason why we in Canada need a Pacific policy, namely, the happenings in China and Japan. Canada is a member of the Far Eastern Commission. I was greatly interested to read the statement made by James F. Byrnes, secretary of state in the United States, when he outlined to the members of the Far Eastern Commission back in 1946 just what its functions were. I do not suppose that half a dozen members in this house tonight realize that Canada is a member of that commission. Here is what Mr. Byrnes said that commission should do:
"Peace in the Pacific," he said, "is an essential cornerstone to a stable world structure. The guidance of Japan to a position of peaceful association with other nations is therefore a task of major responsibility. That responsibility now belongs to you of the Far Eastern Commission."
And Canada is one of the members of that commission. Perhaps the present Secretary of State for External Affairs was our representative when this speech was made. The quotation continues:
"The terms of reference agreed to last December in Moscow placed the final and ultimate responsibility for formulating the policies and principles upon which the peace and security of the Pacific may well be based, in your hands."
Things are not going so well in the Pacific. There is serious trouble in China. In the last edition of "U.S. News and World Report," January 28, 1949, I was interested to see an article entitled, "Why U.S. is failing in Asia". It goes on to point out that the United States is getting into grave trouble in the east because of the policy she is following in Japan. The article says:
Hostility toward the U.S. has intensified throughout Asia during the last year or so because of the trend of American policy in Japan. Chinese of all factions fear Japan is being restored to war-making strength by the U.S. The correspondent, in one week, heard this fear expressed by a premier, a business man, a labour leader, a newspaper man and a banker. All feel that the attempt to build a strong Japan in a chaotic Orient is tending to preserve the power of the "old gang" that plotted and ran the war.
Further on the article continues:
Most Asiatics appreciate America's concern regarding Russia. What worries them is a growing suspicion that the U.S., in a desire to convert Japan into a bulwark against Russia, is neglecting the democratization of the former enemy. They are convinced that Japan, while it may emerge strong, quite probably will not be democratic.

The Department of External Affairs of Canada should have some views on this question, and the House of Commons is entitled to know those views. I ask for an announcement of policy by the minister. I remind him that the Pacific may be far more dangerous than the Atlantic for Canada in the years that lie ahead.
I am sorry I have lost the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). This really concerns him. The fourth subject is this. I submit that there is need for a clarification of the government's policy on steel. When we got the Abbott austerity program in December 1947 we all quickly found that one of the main reasons for our United States dollar troubles was the fact that we imported so much iron and steel from that country.


Mr. Abbott:: Among other things.


Howard Charles Green: I have it here, if the minister wishes to see it. I have a long advertisement, put in the paper under his authority, which listed, as the four main commodities which caused that shortage, coal, oil, cotton and steel. Quite evidently the government is alarmed over the shortage of steel. It is dealt with in the speech from the throne. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) also dealt with it in his speech. I understand that the United States authorities have cut off a proportion of our imports. According to the Prime Minister, in addition to that, the government's defence plans have greatly increased the demands for steel. He gave the great shortage of steel as the reason for wishing to continue steel control.
The speech from the throne did not give any details of the steel plan, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave a statement to the press which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of January 28, just last Friday. The heading reads as follows:
"Ottawa to share fifty-fifty steel plant assistance" Howe tells parliament.
The minister did not tell parliament. He told the press.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the Gazette.


Howard Charles Green: The minister thinks the Gazette is always wrong, does he?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, not always.


Howard Charles Green: There is a subheading which reads as follows: "Sky is the limit." The article refers to three companies, the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation of Sydney, Nova Scotia, the Algoma Steel Corporation of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and the Steel Company of Canada at Hamilton, Ontario. He apparently told the press that there would be no ceilings placed on the government's loan to the steel industry. He is quoted as having said:
We will go as far as the companies are prepared to go.
The Address-Mr. Green


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I explain? I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but he said several times that I talked to the press. I did not talk to the press. I talked to two or three labour men who came here from Sydney to discuss the matter with me, and they talked to the press.


Howard Charles Green: My complaint is that the minister should have talked to parliament. This was an important statement, and it should have been given to parliament. However, we shall pass that over for the time being.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that there is no reference in this statement to the production of steel in any other part of Canada. We are much interested in this question on the west coast. I would point out to hon. members what has been happening there with regard to the production of steel. At the present time this government is allowing 50,000 tons of iron ore to be shipped out of British Columbia to Wenatchee, Washington, to be made into steel, and that has been done against the wishes of the provincial government. Furthermore, permission was given to ship large quantities of coal, including coking coal from British Columbia to Japan. In addition the government has been paying a subsidy of $10 a ton on scrap metal shipped from British Columbia to the plants in eastern Canada. That scrap could be used in British Columbia. In that province we now have an electric furnace, and by the way, I hope the minister will not be upset by the statements of a shortage of electric power in British Columbia. According to an article in the Gazette this morning, it is caused by the lack of rain. The minister is an expert on whom to blame for lack of rain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not caused by a lack of installed capacity.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps he can tell us who caused the lack of rain in British Columbia.


Mr. Casselman:: George Drew, of course.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can tell you who caused the lack of installed capacity in Ontario.


Howard Charles Green: On the west coast, we now have a rolling mill, equipped with an electric furnace, capable of producing a thousand tons of pig iron per month from this scrap metal. Between the requirements of that plant and of the foundries, I believe that all the scrap metal produced in British Columbia could be used there without being shipped across the country several thousand miles at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada. In addition, iron ore could be obtained in British Columbia with which to operate an electric smelter. There are iron ore deposits at Quinsam Lake on Vancouver island; it is from these deposits

The Address-Mr. Green that 50,000 tons are to be shipped to Wenatchee. Other deposits are at Zeballos on Vancouver island, on Texada island, which is near Powell River, and there is a very large deposit of iron ore in the tailings from the mill of the great Sullivan mine at Kimberley. I suggest to the minister that British Columbia could make low-grade steel. I do not think that that fact can be questioned.
I am told that the cost of setting up an electric furnace would be about $2,500,000, and that it would produce 100 tons of pig iron a day or about 30,000 tons a year. Therefore a steel industry could be established on the west coast at the present time. Everybody is in favour of it. Labour is calling for it and so are the business interests. There is a market there for the product. There has been a huge industrial development in the west coast province. The area of the lower mainland of British Columbia is now the second largest industrial district in Canada, the first being the district between Montreal and Windsor.
The British Columbia government has on the statute books legislation under which it can pay $3 a ton for pig iron produced from British Columbia ore up to a total of $2,000,000. The field there is ready for the establishment of a steel industry which could serve British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan with exports from the Pacific coast. It would cut down the demands for United States exchange. There is no reason why the people of western Canada should have to pay to have their steel hauled across Canada. I have no doubt that the railways and the eastern steel companies are not very keen to see a steel industry established on the coast; however, they should not be allowed to influence the decision.
There is also the fact that there is great value in scattering steel plants across the country. Just a week or so ago we had the report of a statement by Mr. H. J. Carmichael, chairman of the Canadian industrial defence board, to the effect that Canada was planning to put plants underground. If we can put plants underground we certainly are able to spread out key industries such as these steel plants.
In the United States they have quite large steel industries on the west coast. I hold in my hand an article published in the Evening Citizen of November 26, 1948. It shows a production in Washington state of 347,000 tons of raw steel a year; Oregon, 66,000; California, over 2,000,000; Utah, over 1,000,000, and Colorado over 1,000,000. So that in the United States they have spread out their steel industries to the west coast.
Leadership is needed by the government. It has steel control, and nothing can be done unless it gives the lead. I submit the west coast is entitled to a fair proportion of this $50 million to be spent to increase production of basic steel. I ask for a statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) with regard to plans for the commencement of a steel industry on the west coast, and also with respect to a national steel policy.
For example, have we any commitments to the United States concerning iron ore to be mined in Ungava or Labrador, or is that ore to be smelted in Canada? The house should know what the government has in mind with respect to that ore. Then, how long does the government anticipate this heavy demand for steel will continue? Another question is as to whether the government intends to support other commodities necessary for the manufacture of steel-and I am referring to coal, limestone and other materials entering into the manufacture of this important product. Are they to be included in its plans for the increase in our production of basic steel?
Then, I suggest we are entitled to know the attitude of the present producers of steel. Apparently there have been doubts in the minds of some of them as to whether they will accept the government's plan. So much for steel.
My final important question is the position of the Canadian merchant marine and our shipbuilding industry. Mention was made of this yesterday and today by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who always voices words of wisdom on that subject-as he does on many other subjects.
May I point out that throughout Canadians have been a maritime race. That was true of the settlers on the St. Lawrence, and it has been true of the men who have sailed the great lakes for generations. It is true of course of the eastern maritime provinces, where at one time we had the finest shipbuilding industry in the world. In the old days of wooden ships they led the whole world not only in the building of ships but also in sailing them. The same is true of the west coast. Our shipping must always be of importance to us, not only for the reasons I have stated but also because of the large part played by export trade in our national life.
During the last war we developed great skill both on the seas and in the shipyards, with the result that at the end of the war we had considerable shipping. I have here a report of the Canadian maritime commission for the period ending March 31, 1948, which shows that by 1947 we had a merchant fleet of 153 ships totalling 983,000 gross tons; and

a further 80 ships totalling about 560,000 gross tons were on charter to the United Kingdom. It also shows that we had 17 large shipyards and 16,000 men working in those yards.
This commission was set up in 1947 to advise the government on shipping and shipbuilding. Some of us pointed out at that time that the act should have included a statement of policy by the government on those two questions, just as the legislation in the United States does. There we find, right in the act setting up the commission, the policy of the government with respect to shipbuilding and shipping. But Canada did not do that. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) brought in one of his usual frame-work bills, with just enough to hold it together, and no details. I think he was quite wrong in not announcing a policy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Trade and Commerce did not bring in a bill at all; the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) brought it in.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Transport
may have brought it in; but the Minister of Trade and Commerce was the father of the bill, and he put it through-just as he has fathered in this house so many other things from many departments.
In 1949 we find ourselves in a position where many of the ships are being sold. As recently as the month of January of this year a dispatch in a west coast paper stated, "B.C. ships sold for $3 million."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who sold the ships?


Howard Charles Green: It reports that five of the lake ships have been sold to foreign flags.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who sold them?


Howard Charles Green: The reason given for the sale of these ships is that they are not able to compete with ships of faster speeds. That is the picture of what is going on. We pointed out many years ago that Canada should be building some of these faster cargo freighters, but at that time he laughed and scoffed at the idea. He said that these slow boats were good enough, that we shipped principally grain, lumber and bulk products, and that we did not need faster ships.
Now the shipping companies who got the Canadian merchant marine after the war are selling their ships because they are too slow, and because we need modern cargo vessels.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I would inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Howard Charles Green: I allowed the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make a statement in the middle of my speech.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.
The Address-Mr. Green Mr. Green: I shall be only about five minutes more, if I might be permitted to conclude what I have to say on this subject. Shipyards are becoming idle. In Vancouver, I believe, the numbers employed in shipyards have fallen from a total of something more than 25,000 during the war, to only 750. Seamen are losing their jobs.
After the few remarks I made in the house on Friday about merchant shipping, I received an air mail letter from a father in Vancouver whose boy has served five years in the Canadian merchant marine. That boy has a splendid record of service, and is taking a course in navigation at the present time. A letter from him to his father, dated at Baltimore, January 20, contains this paragraph:
We sure got a lot of depressing news here. The Canadian companies are selling their ships, and no more jobs. There is a ship with the Canadian flag at the next dock, she has English officers and an Indian crew, the pay and conditions are deplorable.
I think myself there will not be one Canadian crew in one year; so I am getting out, and going to New Zealand.
Time is precious in this matter; yet the government has no policy. I suggest that without further delay a construction program is needed. Modern dry vessels and modern tankers should be built. Canada has built them for other governments in the last year or two, but not one has been built by Canada for use in the Canadian merchant marine.
I suggest that 50 per cent or more of our exports should be carried in Canadian bottoms; that there should be a stipulation that annual overhaul of Canadian ships must be done in Canadian yards. We were told on the coast about Canadian ships having their annual overhaul in Japanese yards. With that sort of thing going on we can never build a Canadian merchant marine. There should be restrictions in connection with our coastal trade, and it may be necessary to have some provision for government subsidies.
Furthermore fair treatment must be given to Canadian merchant seamen. I said earlier in my remarks what I thought about the treatment meted out to Canadian merchant seamen who served during the war. We will never build up a merchant marine until we treat the merchant seamen right. For example, at this moment there is no labour representative on the Canadian maritime commission, although we were told there would be one.
Suppose we should have this war about which the government seems to be worrying so much. Then the merchant marine will once more be of the utmost importance.
Just to sum up on this question I say that a definite policy is needed, and needed quickly.
Those are the five subjects which I place before the government for consideration. I
150	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. G. S. White have nothing further to say, but I do hope that each one of these subjects, apart from the one upon which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has yielded or acted already, will be given consideration quickly by the government.


Mr. W. E. Harris (Parliamentary Assistant to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the incorrect impression that might be created as to what I said at Brantford ten days ago, I should like to make it clear that, far from suggesting that war might come, I stressed the fact that the signing of the Atlantic pact would be the most effective step that Canada could take to protect herself against aggressors and to ensure the peace of the world. I expressed the opinion that the signing might take place within the next three months. I said that I did not believe that we would have war, nor did I suggest that I had any knowledge about the matter other than what is generally known. I did say that the agreement of the nations which would be evidenced by the signing of the pact would place such a preponderant strength on the side of peace that it was highly unlikely that any aggressor, including Russia, would try to make war after the signing. I emphasized that the pact was essential for the peace of the world and for the protection of Canada, and that its signing might even mark the beginning of better relations with Russia.


George Alexander Drew: I take it that the hon. member was incorrectly quoted.


Lionel Chevrier: The leader of the opposition has no right to ask questions.


George Alexander Drew: I have every right. When did the minister start to run this house?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not running the house; I am simply telling you what the rules are.


Walter Edward Harris: I have made my statement and I think it is quite clear to everyone, including the leader of the opposition.


Mr. G. S. White (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Brown) and the seconder (Mr. Demers) of the address, and also to add my personal welcome to the new members who have taken their seats at this session, especially to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). We who live in Ontario realize that during the period the leader of the opposition was premier of Ontario, from 1943 until his resignation a short time ago, Ontario was given more progressive and advanced legislation than any other province in the dominion. During his regime as premier of Ontario great progress and advancement was made in the realm of education,
rMr. Green.]
health, road construction, agricultural services, labour relations, conservation of natural resources and social services. In fact, Ontario today enjoys the most outstanding social services of all Canada, despite the ballyhoo to the contrary by the prophets from the province of Saskatchewan.
I was interested in the reply given by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who asked if it was the intention to set up a committee in regard to income tax as it affected farmers, with a view to removing the injustices presently imposed on farmers. The minister replied that he was only going to consider the matter, but I hope in the near future he will set up this committee.
I can state frankly that as far as farmers in my section of Ontario are concerned they are up in arms over the payment of income tax. They have protested against the campaign now being carried on by the minister's department. Speaking in this house in the debate in 1947 I suggested to the minister that the then activities of his department with regard to the imposition and collection of income tax on and from farmers would lead to a serious reduction in the production of cheese and other dairy products in Ontario. The result has been that in the county of Hastings, the largest cheese producing county in the province, seven or eight factories have closed already and a number of others will not open for the 1949 season. The production of cheese throughout Canada has shown a serious decline. In the brief presented by the Canadian federation of agriculture to the royal commission on prices on December 14 there is the following comment with regard to the production of cheese:
The production of cheese showed a sharp downward trend from 1921 to 1934 (-3-6 per cent a year) and a strong upward trend (4-7 per cent a year) from 1935 to 1945. Production has since declined very sharply and in 1948 will be 28 per cent below 1947 and the lowest in 50 years.
In plain language, the average farmer is saying that he has no intention of milking cows for this government. The number of dairy cattle in eastern Canada has declined sharply and is still declining at a rapid rate. The brief submitted by the Canadian federation of agriculture sums up the whole situation for the farmer in a few brief paragraphs which I should like to quote. I quote from page two as follows:
Today the farmers of Canada are worried about the future. They see a price structure in Canada which has risen to the highest levels in 100 years. They were told that price control during the war would prevent a repetition of world war I inflation and thereby avoid the disastrous deflation which followed. Now it is becoming clearly evident that price control, effective as it was in the war years, resulted in postponing the evil day of inflation.

Generally speaking, we believe the great rise in prices of recent years is not due to the action of any one specific group or institution. We do not believe that the whole cause of the great rise can be laid at the door of exorbitant profits in business, or the high wages of labour, or an increase in the middleman's margin or the operation of speculators and certainly not on the doorstep of the farmer.
And then from page nine there is a paragraph headed, "Long period of cheap food", which reads:
The cold facts are, and they can stand to be emphasized before this committee, food prices were cheap relative to wage rates from 1931 to 1939 because prices for farm products were below the cost of production. The consumers' cost of food was being subsidized by the farmers for at least eight years before the war.
The concluding paragraphs in the brief are as follows:
We have shown that urban consumers have made great gains over the past 50 years in their food purchasing power per hour of work. Hourly wage rates in September of this year could buy about 60 per cent more food than they could in 1913, or 68 per cent more than in 1920, another year of inflation. It can still buy almost as much as in 1939, which was a year of cheap food compared with wage rates.
The farmer does not begrudge the gains of urban groups, provided the gains are not made at the food producers' expense, and provided these gains are in line with increases in productivity. The farmer had a strong suspicion that urban wage rates were seriously out of line with food prices and the prices for farm products from 1930 to 1939.
The facts as presented in this brief bear out this contention. This disparity was hidden during the war and early post-war period by special government action. We are not criticizing this action in this presentation. But the fact remains, and again it needs to be emphasized, that consumers in general became used to a relatively cheap food situation which could not endure under normal free market conditions. When consumers have to bear the full cost of production of farm products it is only natural that it should be quite a jolt to them.
The farmers reject absolutely any suggestion that the position of agriculture, labour or consumers can be fairly measured today by any reference to 1939 or 1935-39. Those were years of agricultural depression and years of above normal food purchasing power for consumers.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that there is absolutely no comparison between the hours that the farmer must work to earn $5 and the hours that a member of a labour union must work to earn $5. Yet in the computation of income tax both are taxed on the same basis. As has been mentioned so often before in this house, the farmer has always felt a grievance because he has never been allowed anything by way of deduction for the work that his wife and other members of his family perform on the farm. If the farmer sells pulp, wood products, sand or gravel, he must show the proceeds in his income tax return, but it appears to me that once the sand and gravel are gone there will not be a second crop. The same thing applies in a lesser degree to pulp and wood products. If the farmer sells a whole woodlot it is a capi-
The Address-Mr. G. S. White tal gain, but if he should take off ten per cent each year for a period of ten years he is taxed.
I should also like to mention to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) that the item in the farmer's income tax return whereby he is taxed for produce raised and consumed on the farm is most irritating to the farmer. Why the minister and his department insist that this item be continued .s rather difficult to understand. Another irritation to the farmer in regard to income tax is the question of bookkeeping, and also the question of the deduction of income tax as far as hired help are concerned. The forms are still complicated despite the assurance we received from the minister last year that the 1947 form was to be a simplified one. Before this session opened I read in the press that we were to have another new form which is going to be so simple that anyone can fill it out, and no taxpayer will ever again have to consult an accountant or a lawyer. All I can say to the minister is that I hope the 1948 return will be an improvement over the form he produced in 1947.
Income tax rates are still most excessive. Many veterans have used their re-establishment credits, together with borrowed moneys, to go into business. The veteran is taxed on his earnings or income from the day he starts his operation. Today he finds himself in the position where he must repay with interest the money he borrowed. He must pay a heavy income tax. In many cases it will be years before the veteran is re-established.
Women working in cities find themselves in the position where they have an exemption of $750, a figure which today will not cover the cost of board, laundry and carfare, the bare essentials. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the general rate of income tax should be reduced, that the exemption for a married man should be at least $2,500, and for a single person $1,250, together with an increase in the allowance for children and other dependents. The allowance of $300 for children over sixteen years of age, attending school or college, is almost absurd. I would ask any hon. member who has a boy or girl over sixteen years of age attending school or college how far that will go toward clothing and educating that child. We find that a wife is allowed an exemption of $750 and a single person the same. It has always been hard for me to reconcile why a wife should be allowed an exemption of $750 when, for a child going to school, and probably costing his parents more, the father is allowed an exemption of only $300.
I should like to commend the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) for bringing to the attention of this house the statements made by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Young). It appears to me strange
152	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. G. S. White that any member of parliament, who must at least have the respect and the confidence of his own electors to be elected to parliament, should make such slanderous statements, which, taken in a literal way, include every member of this house, including the members of his own socialist party. To me these tactics have a decided similarity to those adopted by the communists, a smear campaign to smear persons in positions of responsibility in a democracy, a tendency intended to discredit and destroy the confidence of the public in their elected representatives. The technique is well recognized as a part of a communistic program before they move in to take over a country. I have noticed in the press on various occasions how bitterly ihe socialists complain when anyone attacks their communistic policies, and how they adopt a holier-than-thou attitude when anyone attempts to compare their philosophy with that of Karl Marx. I for one sincerely hope that the hon. member for Vancouver North will persist in his announced intention to have the member appear before the committee on privileges and elections.
In a past session, Mr. Speaker, I brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) the activities of the wartime prices and trade board in the county of Hastings. The village in which I reside has always been greatly honoured with very special attention from these official snoopers from the wartime prices and trade board. I am happy to report that their activities still continue. In some cases, in my opinion, they have been almost vicious. When one considers the persons who are prosecuted or persecuted, whichever way you wish to put it, one is forced to wonder and question at times whether or not there is a slight political tinge to the whole manner in which these prosecutions are carried out.
The board issues so many orders, regulations and directions that the average grocer is unable to keep up with the flood. According to a food bulletin issued by the board in November, 1948, there were in effect on the 15th November, 1948, fifty-two orders relating to the food trade. Of those fifty-two orders no less than thirty-nine were passed between the first of January, 1948, and the 15th November, 1948. The great majority of these orders were issued by the administrator. Once they are issued they have the force of law without ever passing through this house, which, after all, is at least supposed to approve and pass the laws to which Canadians are subject. The original order setting up the wartime prices and trade board, P.C.


8528, granted very wide powers to the board. In fact the very first words of this order in council are.
-the wartime prices and trade board regulations were made and established to provide safeguards under war conditions-
I say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that it might be very interesting for his department to give a ruling as to whether or not the war emergency still exists. This original order also provides that the agents and servants of the board have the right at all times to enter upon any premises and inspect and remove books, documents or records of any nature. It further provides that all orders and regulations are effective merely after publication in the Canada Gazette, and also that servants and agents of the board are granted complete immunity for any act they may perform under these regulations. All this seems to me hardly consistent with recognized legal procedure in Canada. It sounds more like something we might expect under a gestapo order. These orders are simply mailed to the merchants, and it makes no difference whether or not they receive them, because they are bound by all the orders and regulations.
I should like to point out, as I have on previous occasions, what happens when these people descend upon your village. A short time ago I had occasion to defend a grocer who was charged with several violations of the regulations. The official snooper from this board called at a store, where he discovered several slight infractions. For instance, he found that oranges were selling for 30 cents a dozen whereas the ceiling price was 29 cents, a matter of one-twelfth of a cent on each orange. He found grapefruit selling at four for 25 cents instead of four for 24 cents, and canned fruit at a fraction of a cent over the ceiling. The investigator demanded the invoices covering these items, though it is always difficult for a grocer or anyone else to pick out an invoice and be certain that it covers the identical article on the shelf. In any event the investigator took the invoices away with him, but before leaving he obtained a statement from the grocer, without telling the grocer he was not obliged to sign it and, what was more serious, without telling the grocer that this statement would be used in court at a later date. This was not one of the printed forms used by the board; it was a statement written out entirely by the investigator.
In due time the grocer was charged and the matter came before the court. I appeared for the grocer and asked the magistrate for an adjournment because I did not have the invoices. I also asked the magistrate to

request the solicitor for the board to supply me with copies of the invoices; but the solicitor, who soon acquired all the arrogance this board has always possessed, said he was not obliged to furnish me with anything. Thereupon I wrote to the board at Ottawa, explaining the action of their solicitor, and the board replied advising me that they had instructed their solicitor to furnish me with the required copies.
It was also interesting to note that before the case came to court the solicitor for the board called on the grocer with a prepared paper which he asked him to sign, in which he would be pleading guilty. It has always seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, that any Canadian citizen must be presumed innocent until he is found guilty in a proper court of law, and that every citizen is entitled to his day in court. When the case came before the magistrate the investigator, with the assistance of his solicitor, attempted to file the statement he had obtained from the grocer. I objected to its admission, pointing out the well-known rules of evidence concerning the admission of any statement signed by an accused. The magistrate refused to admit the statement; and I was amazed to hear the investigator for the board say under oath that it was the practice of the board to obtain these statements while conducting their investigations and file them later during court proceedings.
It was also interesting to hear the investigator admit under oath that in the great majority of the stores he investigated he found some slight infractions of the regulations. He admitted that in my village he found such slight infractions in a number of stores, but that in very few cases prosecutions followed. As a lawyer I cannot follow the reasoning which dictates that in one village where there are ten merchants, all guilty of some slight infractions of the regulations, only one should be prosecuted, or persecuted, as you wish. Tactics such as these do not encourage respect for this law or these regulations, nor do they inspire any confidence in the manner this board enforces these price ceiling regulations.
As the final act in this peculiar case I was advised, on authority I would not question in the slightest degree, that two days after the case was heard the solicitor for the prosecution received instructions from the board at Ottawa to press for a fine of at least $100. These instructions had not been issued before the date the case was originally slated to be heard, and I can only assume that the board, with its usual autocratic methods, felt that any backbencher member of parliament who
The Address-Mr. G. S. White dared question or protest against any act of the board should be punished, and the only way he could be punished was to penalize his client. Fortunately, however, the case had been disposed of already, and the magistrate in his wisdom found the charges so trifling that the fine was merely nominal.
It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that there were many unusual features to this case, which however I presume must be the usual procedure. First we had the investigator taking away the invoices so that any solicitor who might be acting for the accused could not prepare his defence. Then he obtained a statement, contrary to all the recognized rules of practice. Then the solicitor for the board refused to furnish copies of the invoices. Then there was the action of that same solicitor in attempting to have the accused plead guilty. Finally there was the action of the board, after discovering that an opposition member of parliament was acting as solicitor for the grocer, in issuing instructions to insist upon a heavy fine. I notice that a committee has been set up to revise the criminal code, and as a sideline it might well devote its energies to improving and bringing up to date the procedure followed by the wartime prices and trade board in filing and carrying out prosecutions.
I would suggest to the minister that in all future prosecutions by this board, especially in my own village-which no doubt now will be persecuted more than ever-the well established and defined legal procedure be followed. It is very difficult for me to approve the attitude of this board in deciding who, among a large number of merchants all of whom may be guilty of some slight infractions, should be the victim, who should be persecuted. I would not even suggest that some slight political bias might enter into such a decision; yet I find that in my district, at least, those who have been prosecuted by this board are individuals who are and always have been opposed to this government.
I should like to concur in the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) about veterans affairs. I regret that the minister has decided not to set up the veterans affairs committee at this session, because I am sure he has received many complaints regarding veterans allowances, including a brief from the legion. These allowances at the present time are inadequate and I for one hope that the minister will reconsider his decision and yet decide to set up the veterans affairs committee during this session, if only to deal with allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act.

The Address-Mr. L. Dionne


Mr. Ludger Dionne (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, many hon. members have already spoken in this debate on the speech from the throne, and no doubt many others will take part in it. It is not my intention to elaborate on its text. In taking part in the debate, I do so with the intention of exposing a situation which, to my mind, is not in the interests of the Canadian taxpayers and which is detrimental to the practical and economical administration of the Canadian government.
This afternoon I had the privilege of hearing my colleague, the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry), suggest a reduction of the income tax by 50 per cent. I think we can go further than that. We have on our statute books provision for a special sales tax of 8 per cent on a good many manufactured articles. This tax brings to the Canadian treasury a sum varying between $350 million and $400 million per annum. This tax costs the Canadian taxpayers thirty cents for every dollar of processed raw material. Yet it yields to the treasury only eight cents. The difference of twenty-two cents goes into profit of the various intermediaries, according to their various stages in the distribution ladder. This fact is easily verified. The instance I am taking is that of cotton goods, a requisite in every household in Canada including my constituency. Let us look at the tax and profit history of a shirt. When selling $100 worth of shirt fabrics, the textile manufacturer must charge 8 per cent sales tax. This material is then billed at $108 as cost price to the shirt manufacturer. The shirt manufacturer doubles this amount for making the shirt ready for marketing. He thus bills at $216 these goods converted into shirts. The wholesaler adds a profit of 25 per cent to his cost of $216-namely, $54-which brings his sales price to $270. The retail merchant who pays $270 for the goods adds his profit of 50 per cent or $135 which, added to his cost of $270, brings the retail price to $405, which is the price the consumer must pay for these goods.
If there were no sales tax of 8 per cent collected at the source, the same scale of markup would work out as follows. The textile manufacturer would invoice his goods at $100, the shirt manufacturer would bill his shirts at $200. The wholesaler would bill the same goods at $250 and the retailer would make his retail price $375. In other words, the $8 which the government has collected at the manufacturer's shipping department now costs the consumer $30, the difference between $405, which is the retail price with the 8 per cent sales tax, and $375, which would be the retail price after allowing the same margins of profit but without the orig-


inal sales tax. This means that the consumer has, through the operation of the sales tax, paid $30 for what will bring $8 to the treasury. By the simple process of applying its 8 per cent sales tax at a different level of distribution, the government of this country could obtain the following results: not interfere with the margin of profit or the markup of any of the intermediaries of manufacturing or distribution; not modify the retail purchase price of any article of consumption, but increase its revenue by three and three-quarter times, and thereby eliminate the need of personal income tax to the extent of over one billion dollars a year.
The sales tax of 8 per cent at the source is yielding to the government a revenue of $400 million, in round figures. If the government collected $30 on the same goods instead of $8, they would get an approximate revenue of over one billion dollars, and nobody would be any worse off. Some hon. members may think it will create a problem to the govern-merit to collect the sales tax of 8 per cent on the retail level. This problem can be easily solved by compelling the retailers to put a stamp on the shirt. This stamp would represent 8 per cent of the retail price of the shirt.
I hope the government will listen favourably to this suggestion, because I cannot understand why they would any longer permit over one billion dollars to escape from the treasury and go into the cash of intermediaries who do not need it. With this huge sum of over one billion dollars the government could probably vacate the income tax field entirely.
How many times have I previously asked the government for income tax relief in favour of Canadian taxpayers. I will not repeat all I have said in previous years with regard to the income tax and the raising of the exemptions. Everyone here knows my views. This year I should like to add this. In the past I urged higher exemptions for the lower brackets. This year I am urging that all brackets can be almost fully exempted and by means which will represent no added burden to the taxpayers, either as taxpayers or as consumers.
I know that some people stick to the idea that the income tax is on our statute books until the end of humanity. They argue that it is the fairest form of taxation, owing to the fact that the higher the earnings of the individual the higher the taxes. The same reasoning applies to the sales tax. When a wealthy man buys a suit of clothes costing $100 he will pay $8 tax. When the poor man buys a suit of clothes costing $25 he will pay $2 tax. That is the favourite argument. Let me tell you that no matter how just in theory the income tax may appear to some people, it can never be entirely fair in its application, and

we cannot be deaf to the protests against it. Some provincial governments collect hundreds of millions of dollars through indirect taxes. You never hear very much criticism of it.
Let us take a package of cigarettes on which there is probably a tax of twenty cents. You never hear anybody complaining about the price of thirty-eight cents at which it is sold on the market. Why? Because the buyer pays for it in cash at the counter. If this package of cigarettes were sold at fifteen cents, and at the end of the year the government tried to collect $60 from the smoker who had bought 300 packages of cigarettes in the course of a year, you would probably hear the same recriminations as you do about the income tax. Why should the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) insist upon the income tax which displeases every Canadian citizen, and which in the case of the farmer particularly makes the laying of each egg, and the picking of each carrot, a bookkeeping operation?
Like every other hon. member of this house, I have been sent here by my constituents to serve to the best of my ability and in their interests. This duty impels me to suggest that the income tax legislation can be repealed, and at no cost either to my constituents or to the rest of the country. In suggesting the means I am only doing my duty and that which the responsibility my electors have placed upon my shoulders forces me to do.
I trust the minister and his officers will give more than glancing consideration to my suggestions. I stand ready to uphold that the welfare of each Canadian justifies it, and I can assure the minister that my constituents, by themselves, are sufficient reason why I should not cease my efforts in the field of taxation. If we can find other ways and means to tax our population without provoking their feelings, I think it is our duty to do so.
The income tax system is obsolete. As long as it applied to business firms exclusively, where reliable auditors had to sign income tax returns, the government had some reason to enforce it, because it could be taken for granted that most of the income tax returns were exact. But now that it applies to almost everybody it would be rather too optimistic to expect the same result. Consequently, when a law cannot be enforced with justice and fairness to all it must be discarded and replaced by some other more practical system. The system I advocate would eliminate the need for income tax and would not add to the burden of the consumer by one iota. It would, however, tell him exactly where his money goes. I believe that the Canadian citizen is big enough to take that with equanimity.
The Address-Mrs. Strum


Mrs. Gladys Strum (Qu'Appelle):: I wish to take this opportunity, in this our national health week, to discuss the nation's health and in particular the biggest health and treatment problem today challenging our medical men, and one for which we have not yet made any direct provision. I refer to that terrible cause of pain and heartbreak, the nation's number one crippler, arthritis. Twenty years ago tuberculosis stood in a position similar in many respects to that which arthritis holds today. Twenty years ago tuberculosis was little understood. It was greatly feared. There were few treatment centres, and these were so costly as to place them beyond the means of the average family. At that time the death rate from tuberculosis was 84-5 per
100,000	persons. There was not a single province which had free treatment for tuberculosis in any of its forms. Nor was there a province which had a ratio of three beds per annual death, the rate which is now considered to be the necessary ratio. While it was known that the best way to fight tuberculosis was through the use of X-ray, as far as the population as a whole was concerned such a thing was quite out of the question because the cost of X-ray at that time was prohibitive.
In 1926 the anti-tuberculosis league was formed, and it organized its first Christmas seal drive. In that first sale of seals they raised $91,312.75, and in the twenty-three years since that time we have seen a complete transformation in the field of tuberculosis treatment. There are now large and well equipped sanatoria in every province. Twenty years after the inception of the first Christmas seal drive the fund reached the million dollar mark, which was more than ten times as much money for preventive work as the initial drive had yielded. All over Canada this money is now used to conduct mass X-ray services for the early detection of tuberculosis infection.
Most of the nine provinces now offer free treatment for tuberculosis, and several of the provinces have attained the target ratio of three beds per annual death. The death rate has been reduced from 84-5 to 45'9 as the average rate for all of Canada. This rate varies, of course, from province to province, depending upon the length of time the tuberculosis program has been in operation there.
It is notable that those provinces which first undertook to pay the cost of treatment, and so relieve the patient of the burden of expensive care, have made the most rapid gains in reducing the death rate. These provinces, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario, all show high average sanatoria populations, compared with the average number of deaths, while provinces with high death rates had

The Address-Mrs. Strum smaller sanatoria accommodation. That is to say, Saskatchewan, which was the first province in Canada to institute the free tuberculosis treatment and subsequently establish a world record for treatment and cure, has now the lowest death rate; and I am happy to say now that we have more beds available than patients needing treatment. In spite of the slight increase due to the war years we have for the first time in our sanatoria empty beds waiting for patients, instead of patients waiting for beds.
Perhaps the most important difference between arthritis and tuberculosis is that tuberculosis, if untreated, means the death of its victims in a relatively short space of time. Arthritis, while being a crippler, is not a quick killer. Perhaps if it were it would have been taken seriously long ago. Perhaps because rheumatism symptoms are fairly widespread and are often confused with muscular strains and stresses we have accepted this burden of pain and suffering without question, and have permitted the disability to go untreated and unchallenged.
But how important is arthritis as a disease? We are happy to have now the results of the most recent attempt to determine the incidence of arthritis in Canada. The survey of November 1947 undertaken by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics at the request of the Department of National Health and Welfare is now before us. Again comparing arthritis with tuberculosis, while there are in Canada
30.000	people suffering from tuberculosis, according to the government survey, in November 1947 there were an estimated
652.000	people, or almost 22 times as many suffering from arthritis as from tuberculosis. This is a comparison worth noting.
The number of arthritic sufferers is more than the total afflicted with heart disease, cancer, tuberculosis and diabetes combined. Yet in Canada there is only one hospital for civilians, equipped for the specialized treatment of civilian arthritis. It is the hospital at Banff, and this hospital can treat only seventy-five patients, who must pay the cost of their own treatment.
I visited this hospital last summer. I was greatly impressed with the provision made there by the nursing sisters of the order of St. Martha. I was impressed with the story the patients told me of the relief they had had from pain, and of restored mobility of limbs through the use of various treatments and surgery. I was impressed beyond anything I had expected; and I could see that, if we could only establish treatment centres where we could get experience in treating large numbers of people to build up a history 
of cases and to train personnel, the picture for arthritis would be far from hopeless.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the hon. member
would permit me one observation. I am sure she would like to know that, under the new national health plan, funds have been placed at the disposal of the government of British Columbia to do that very thing.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I am glad to hear that, and I shall still ask that it be done for all the provinces.
The November survey carried out by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has some very interesting facts about arthritis in particular. It reveals that 25 per cent of the persons with arthritis have had no medical advice or treatment whatever. The menace to Canada of this untreated disease represents the greatest single loss to industry. It represents approximately 20 per cent of persons suffering unemployment through illness. That is, 19-8 per cent of all persons laid off because of illness are laid off because of arthritis, according to our own bureau of statistics. This represents 22-5 per cent of all the time lost, because of the extended nature of the disease and the time during which people are out of industry and employment. The loss of days by both male and female employees represents the staggering total of 1.650,300 days during the period of the month of October for Canadian labour, or the equivalent of 5,501 years of 300 working days per year.
The Department of National Health and Welfare in its annual report of 1948 states:
Canada has today 4,800.000 gainfully employed persons. The sickness rate of this vital section of our population is estimated to he nine days per annum, and represents a loss of over $500,000,000 to the national income.
The cost of arthritis might be represented as 22-6 per cent or almost one-quarter of this staggering sum.
While this Canadian survey gives us a very valuable chart as to the prevalence of this painful and disabling malady, it does not recommend any program to alleviate or check its ravages. We are fortunate however in having a report suggesting such a program. I refer to the report by Lord Horder, and the plan for national action which he sets forth here. This report is the result of four years of research by the empire rheumatism council. This council conducted a campaign inquiring into the causes and best means of treatment of rheumatic diseases. It states:
From laboratory and clinical research, from observations of the work of various treatment centres at home, from a close examination by representatives of the empire rheumatism council into the methods of many of the rheumatic hospitals and clinics in Europe and in the United States, there has been gathered knowledge sufficient to suggest a plan of treatment on a national scale and of some

measure of prevention. The purpose of this document is to outline the plan and its medical and administrative aspects to show that it is possible of application without incurring vast expense and that its application would result in a reduction in the ravages of rheumatic diseases-such rheumatic diseases including rheumatism and arthritic cases.
The estimated number of cases in the United Kingdom and Wales is set at over a million, ant it is estimated that in Scotland alone there were 344,872 new cases yearly. In addition to the economic loss-the loss of days, the loss of wages and the loss of production-referring to the toll of pain the report states:
The toll of pain can be calculated on the assumption that almost every patient suffers, since pain is a characteristic symptom of most forms of the disease-pain so great in severe cases that medical practitioners sometimes have experience of patients praying for death as a release. The toll of disablement may be assessed from the fact that the basis of inclusion in the national health insurance figures quoted was incapacity to work on account of rheumatic disease.
I might add here that arthritic patients have told me that when they were first seized with the rheumatoid type of pain they were afraid they would die; later on they were afraid they would not. And as they became progressively worse and became chair cases, and in many cases blind, their condition was extremely sad and hopeless.
The report gives the findings of its investigations, and the evidence obtained thereby in relation to all aspects of the problem. This report, which I would recommend to all members, goes very fully into a classification of types in relation to causes, and stresses the need for the special training of physicians so that they may properly diagnose and classify the various types of arthritis, and recommend proper treatment.
It discusses glandular disturbances, physical injury and occupational causes which may be at the root of infection. It was found that some occupations seemed to provide conditions favourable to arthritis. The November survey by the bureau of statistics seems to bear this out. The women of Canada will be interested to learn that the largest single group comprises those keeping house, 41 per cent of the total arthritic population consisting of mothers or housewives charged with the great responsibility of holding the nation's homes together.
Agriculture, housewives, fishing, trapping and logging head the list of occupations in which the highest rates occur. Level of family incomes is also a factor of the greatest importance. The family income determines whether or not there will be enough of the protective foods; and in investigations carried on in England it was found that children coming from poor homes had three times as
The Address-Mrs. Strum much rheumatic infection as children derived from the same class but living in well-managed children's institutions and homes.
Any nation-wide attack on arthritis must include an attack on poverty because bad housing and inadequate diet are factors contributing to the incidence of rheumatic infections and have a bearing on the general health level and resistance of the people.
Climate also was investigated. I think we are all interested in this because we have the impression that if we could only go south, if we could only get to a warm climate or some place like Arizona or Australia, all the symptoms of rheumatism and arthritis might disappear. So climate was investigated in this empire association attack on arthritis. It was found that climate had very little to do with the incidence of arthritis. They investigated coastal and mountainous regions and hot, dry, arid climates like Arizona and Australia, but it was found that in every country there were the same problems and that there were large numbers of people afflicted in varying degrees by this universal crippler, arthritis.
This investigation of hot climates has suggested that the problem is not one of geography but is related more to industrial and occupational groupings. With regard to the treatment of rheumatic diseases-I do not think we can emphasize this too strongly- the report states:
It must be repeated that much of this sacrifice of human well-being is unavoidable; that there is no refuge in the excuse that, since medical knowledge of causes and of the most efficacious treatments is incomplete, nothing can be done. In the majority of cases a great deal can be done. Even if there were no hope of gaining further knowledge by research-which, emphatically, is not the case-yet the national application of present methods of cure and alleviation would lift much of the burden of rheumatic disease from the community.
The importance of early treatment has been emphasized by a Swedish authority who charted the percentage of cures in relation to the stage at which treatment was undertaken. He states that the results of the first year of treatment resulted in 79 per cent validity; after two years this diminished to 56 per cent and at three years it had dropped to 50 per cent. He defined "validity" as the restoration of the ability to work normally or diminished according to the period which had elapsed before the specialized treatment was taken.
What can we do in Canada to check this painful and crippling malady and to cut down heart disease which results from the unchecked course of rheumatic diseases? We can begin this year by appropriating a part of the budget surplus for assistance to the provinces in launching an all-out drive on arthritis. Our greatest contribution to the
158	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mrs. Strum health and well-being of the Canadian people can be made in this field because this is the greatest crippler we have, taking a toll much greater than the combined total for heart disease, cancer, tuberculosis and diabetes. I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that it be included as a specific category for which grants in aid will be made to the provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is now included.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Is advantage being taken of it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: By some of the provinces.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I suggest that the grant include all victims in homes, offices and factories. I would suggest also that the terms on which the grants are made to the provinces be different from those of the other grants and more easily met.


Mr. Marlin:: There is no condition at all in the general public health grant. There is no magical requirement and the provinces are at liberty to use it.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I am not talking about the general public health grant.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is where it comes.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I am asking the minister to set it out as a separate category. In the speech by the former Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) an outline was given of the bases upon which the grants would be made, and one category was general public health services. That would cover all public health projects, but that is not good enough for the nation's greatest crippler. Then there are tuberculosis control, mental health, venereal disease control, crippled children, professional training, public health research, control of cancer and hospital construction. All of those things have certain conditions attached.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are no conditions except in the case of the cancer control and hospital construction.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: The confusion as between the minister and myself lies in the fact that I do not consider that the general public health grant should include arthritis. I consider that arthritis is too important and too damaging to leave it to the option of the provinces. If British Columbia is applying the public health grant to arthritis, that is an admirable thing, but it still will not leave enough money for arthritis and it does not constitute a nation-wide program on arthritis.
The conditions in connection with grants for tuberculosis control are set out in the proposals of the government of Canada. There are two categories of grant, one being
[Mrs. Strum.)

conditioned on the prevalence of tuberculosis. That is, the more T.B. you have, the bigger grant you receive.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the incidence of death.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: That means that provinces that have already invested large sums of money in sanatoria and to help out their people will now be confronted with a diminishing grant, while the provinces that have not undertaken to do much will be given greater help. There is some justice in that, as 1 think we must acknowledge the principle of the greater need in health; but I would hope that we could take arthritis out of the general public health grant and treat it the same as we treat tuberculosis, cancer, crippled children, venereal disease and mental health. This is the most important; its total incidence is greater than the combined totals of the diseases I mentioned.
It merits a separate category and even a more generous grant than is given in the case of the diseases mentioned in the statement made on May 14, 1948, by the former Prime Minister. We cannot afford to leave this to the option of the provinces. We cannot afford to impose on the provinces that have already extended themselves so far. There are some provinces that have made outstanding contributions to Canada, indeed to the world. I am thinking of our Dr. Ferguson, who many years ago established free treatment for tuberculosis and conducted a campaign that led to an eventual world record in the treatment of this disease. He did great service to mankind generally.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was at Qu'Appelle.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: The work now being done in the field of cancer by the Saskatchewan government is considerable. The late Dr. Allan Blair established a program which is costing us really more than we can afford. Yet our expenditures are not diminished by these grants, because we must match the federal government expenditures. That makes it very difficult for us to expand our program of health services. It will make it impossible to extend it to any new disease or to any new category.
If we are going to make an all-out attack on arthritis we cannot limit the number to be treated. It will have to be like T.B. We will have to give treatment for perhaps months and years. It is not something like an appendix operation or a tonsil removal.
We cannot think in terms of cost either, but there will be many cases of preventive treatment that will result eventually in a great saving because we will prevent this crippling process which removes so many people from the field of active production and makes them a charge on the community,

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart
on the municipality, or on the province. Therefore I would urge the government and the minister to take arthritis on its own merits and treat it even more generously than these other diseases have been treated. I would urge them not to leave it to the voluntary association which is now talking about arthritis but which has no funds for research.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, yes, it has.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: A mere fleabite.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They wrote to me only last week that they cannot use the funds which the federal government and the provinces together have put at their disposal this year.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: The reason they cannot is that there are no centres where the funds can be applied. We were able to go so far with T.B. because we had treatment centres where we could apply the grants for research. While we were treating T.B. patients, wiping out sources of infection and saving lives, we were building up research information which has been of inestimable value to the world. Therefore I would say that research funds will not be any good until we have centres to bring together victims of arthritis, and to bring together doctors with specialized training in arthritis. We can do that only by giving the money to the provinces, because we all recognize that health is a provincial matter, that the provinces will have to institute and undertake the program, but that the very nature of the expenditures makes that impossible until the federal government kicks through with a lot more money than it has given in any of these other diseases.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to extend sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, particularly since those tw.o hon. gentlemen are members of the "Little Chicago" group. My remarks in this debate will be a description of the conditions I encountered during my trip overseas last autumn as a delegate to the commonwealth parliamentary association. I regret that perhaps some of my remarks may not coincide with remarks that have been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). However, they will be a description of conditions exactly as I saw them during my visit to Europe for a period of two months.
We were privileged to be in England, and particularly in the city of London, for quite some time. We spent several days at the meetings of the commonwealth parliamentary association, and then had a few days to go and do whatever we wished. I had the privilege of meeting members of the government
of Great Britain, discussing with them problems that had arisen in Canada, and endeavouring to find some solution whereby they might be remedied. I was particularly interested in trade between Canada and Great Britain.
When I left Canada for overseas I had the idea that when I returned I might be able to tell the people of the county where I live the complete story as to why Canada today does not appear to be receiving the amount of benefit from British trade that it should receive. In my discussion with members of the British government I found that for quite some time the trade had been tunnelled through a one-way street, and apparently it must continue in that one direction for a considerable time in the future. When we consider that this country must have trade in both directions in order to survive, that was a very discouraging condition to encounter. To my regret I also found that some of the members of the government of Great Britain were very much opposed to the Havana agreement, which had been discussed for some time, and apparently was then practically in final form.
I have here some literature which came to me in London. It is distributed by the "Empire Industries Association and British Empire League." That organization is independent of any political party, but in looking over the literature I find that in the list of officials there appear the names of seven members of parliament. That would indicate that the members of parliament were taking the same stand in this regard. I should like to read a few of the remarks contained in this pamphlet.
The mutual aid agreement, under article 7, demanded "The elimination of all forms of discriminatory treatment in international commerce." The American interpretation of this phrase is the destruction of Imperial preference.
I believe I have made myself clear in this house as to my ideas on trade. I believe in freer trade. I have committed myself on various occasions on the floor of this house, and I am still of the same opinion. Trade is the very lifeblood of this country. In order for us to survive, when we produce much more than we can consume ourselves, we must trade with other countries. I believe that the freer the movement of that trade between all peace-loving countries the greater the prosperity in Canada. In no way would I wish to interfere with trade with any country wanting to trade with us on an equal basis. The pamphlet goes on to say with reference to the Havana charter:
This will disintegrate the Empire and isolate each member of it. Not one of the dominions, not even Great Britain, can stand alone in competition for
160	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart world trade, and must be undersold by mass production in America and by the goods of low-wage countries.
There is one problem I found there that I fail to understand, and it has never been fully explained to me. I do not understand why Great Britain is trading with countries whose produce is produced by slave labour. They are trading with some of those countries in preference to Canada. I realize that they may buy more cheaply in those countries than they can buy in Canada, but today, with world conditions as they are, I feel that after the wonderful contribution Canada has made to Great Britain we should at least have a preference over those countries. Another passage of this pamphlet reads:
Preference is to be eliminated and empire markets handed over to foreigners.
That expression pretty much designates the United States of America as a foreign country; and I wonder just how some members of the British parliament must feel when they read literature of that character. In view of their contribution during the last war I believe the United States deserves something better than to be called a foreign country, and I think they would be perfectly justified in expecting something more than that. I am reminded of the plant in Birmingham where Austin cars are manufactured. When we were overseas, much of the steel in that plant came from the United States. That steel was shipped to Britain under ERP; the cars were manufactured and shipped back to the United States, where they were sold in competition with cars manufactured in that country. I believe the United States has gone a long way in helping Britain get back on her feet, and I believe they deserve more credit than they are receiving at the present time.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I was greatly amazed to find that salmon canned in Russia was being sold in England while Canadian canned salmon was being held in warehouses on the Pacific coast. You will remember that in this country in wartime salmon was in very short supply. We shut off the export of raw and canned salmon to all other countries in order that the greatest possible quantities might be shipped to Britain. Today I believe the ean-ners of British Columbia are greatly worried over the large amount of canned salmon they have on hand, with no markets. I also discovered that England was shipping tin plate

to Russia in exchange for other commodities. So I believe it would be difficult for Britain to explain why she should be dealing with countries that produce by means of forced labour in preference to trading with countries that have tried in every way to deal squarely with her.


Mr. Young:: They have no dollars.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: My hon. friend says they have no dollars. In reply let me say that we have had a dollar problem in our own country, brought about to a large extent by the fact that we have given and loaned materials to Britain which we might have sold elsewhere for the dollars we lack today. That is my personal opinion. I was very much discouraged to discover that apparently we in this country have little chance of benefiting from the British market for some time to come. When it is remembered that this country, with a population of twelve or thirteen million, has contributed in loans and gifts to Britain over five billion dollars, one might be justified in the hope that first consideration should be given this country, but that is not being done at the present time. I know other delegates who discussed these matters with members of the British government left Britain with the same feeling.
As I said before, and I want to emphasize for just a moment, trade that passes through a one-way street can never be successful; and this one-way trade has been going on for some years. I believe the time has come when this country must find some other place to do business. Perhaps we will have to go further afield and find other markets; but there is a limit to just how far a country of twelve or thirteen million people can go in the way of gifts and loans, with nothing in return.
On motion of Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: We will continue this debate tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Wednesday, February 2, 1949