1949-03-01

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the orders of the day are called, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with my undertaking of yesterday, I offer, with the consent of the house, to table the letter of July 11, 1942, to which I referred at that time.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand this is a lengthy letter that the hon. member wrote in 1942 to the then prime minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) about the Hong Kong inquiry. He suggests that with the consent of the house he would like to table it. So far as I am concerned that consent cannot be given, because the tabling of the letter would involve making public certain confidential communications between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom. The government of the United Kingdom was asked repeatedly whether it would consent to these communications being made public. The last exchange of correspondence in that connection took place in April, 1948, and is printed on pages 3429 and 3430 of Hansard of that year. Since the information was communicated confidentially to the government of Canada, the government of Canada cannot permit its being made public without the consent of the government of the United Kingdom, and that consent, though requested, has been refused.


George Alexander Drew: The then prime minister made it quite clear last year that at no time was there any communication-


Some hon. Members:: Order.	/


Mr. Speaker:: I would call the attention of the leader of the opposition to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, page 145. Section 385 reads as follow's:
Papers are laid before the house in pursuance of
(1)	Provisions of an act of parliament;
(2)	An order of the house;
(3)	An address to the crown;
(4)	The command of the crown;
(5)	Standing orders of the house.
In view of this rule, I must refuse permission to table the document in question.


George Alexander Drew: 1 do not intend to debate your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but may I say this: I made it quite clear that I recognized the fact that the letter could not be tabled without the consent of the house. The explanation given by the Prime Minister is entirely remote from the facts, but I do not intend to pursue that point.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I would call the attention of the leader of the opposition to the fact that I have given a ruling, and he must abide by it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I am not challenging your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I simply wish to make it clear that I offered the letter for tabling. It has been handed to the press for release.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that the Speaker's rulings are not debatable.


George Alexander Drew: That is right.



REFERENCE TO REPORT IN &quot;GLOBE AND MAIL&quot;' OF MARCH 1

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On page 3 of today's Globe and Mail, under the headline, "Ottawa briefs", I am referred to as the C.C.F. member for Middlesex East. There are some things which I pass over lightly, but this is not one of them.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Cold well (Roselown-Biggar): I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has he received information that herring seiners are interfering with winter weir fishing in Digby basin, Nova Scotia? Is the minister aware that no herring have been taken in Digby weir, with the result that the supply of bait to lobster fishermen is seriously affected? What steps does the minister intend to take to remedy the situation?
Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. member did not send me notice of his question. I arrived in my office only this

Inquiries of the Ministry morning, after a trip to the west but I shall look into the matter immediately and see what the answer is.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: I am
glad to see the Minister of Fisheries back in the house after his visit to the west coast. As I understand it, he went to British Columbia to look into the unemployment situation. Is he now prepared to make a report and to indicate what the government is prepared to do?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I went to the coast for several reasons, one of them being that I felt it was my duty, as minister coming from that province, to know what the labour situation was like and how serious it was. I have not yet had an opportunity of discussing the matter with my colleagues, and my colleagues have not had any opportunity of saying what they intend to do about it. A report will be made, however, as soon as possible.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the action of the Ontario appeal court in dismissing the federal government's appeal against the acquittal of eighteen dental supply companies, will the government consider introducing at this session legislation under which combines may be effectively prosecuted when the results of an inquiry warrant such action?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that this judgment is under consideration by the Minister of Justice, who has not yet had an opportunity of making his recommendations to council. As soon as he makes his recommendations, and a decision is made upon them, that decision will be announced.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, to whom I have sent notice. Has additional property been purchased in the


municipality of Esquimalt, upon which to build houses for naval ratings?


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: I received the hon. member's notice just before coming into the house, and I can give him an answer with regard to the Department of National Defence. We have not acquired any additional land at Esquimalt. I am making inquiry to see if Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation may be considering that step.



TRADE WITH BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon City):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Have negotiations by way of financial arrangements been completed with the British authorities in order to permit the shipment to Britain of a cargo of lumber available for export at Churchill, Manitoba?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I understand that the British ministry has indicated a willingness to move a cargo of spruce through Churchill to the United Kingdom, but that the offer stated a price that was not acceptable to the sellers in Saskatchewan. I understand that negotiations have not been broken off, and I hope that they may be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.



BRANCH RAILWAY LINE TO BURNS MINE IN ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. MacNicol (Davenpori):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Many cars of coal have been arriving monthly at Toronto from the Burns hard coal mine on Sheep river in Alberta. Is the minister in a position to assure hard coal users in Toronto that a branch line of railway will be constructed to this mine during the present year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I regret that I am able to give no such assurance. I am aware of the fact that coal is being mined on the Burns property, and that it is a good quality of coal. I am also aware of the fact that this property is many miles away from the nearest railroad. Negotiations for the construction of a branch line must necessarily be between the owners of the mine and the railway itself.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Tuslin (Prince Edward-Lennox):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of a letter I received this morning from the Lennox and Addington chamber of commerce, in which attention is drawn to the fact that an historic event will take place on March 31 next. Has the government considered or will it give consideration to declaring March 31 a national holiday, so that all Canada may join in celebrating the entry of Newfoundland into confederation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think it would be a little bit premature to announce a celebration at this time. The bill before the parliament of the United Kingdom is, as I understand it, to come up for second reading tomorrow, and in the House of Lords I believe proceedings are being taken to retard its adoption. I can assure the hon. member that as soon as it becomes certain that the statute enacted here will be implemented, consideration will be given to proper notice being taken of that historic occasion.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Will there be a Duplessis
day?


An hon. Member:: No, a Cruickshank day.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Matthews (Kootenay East):: On
Friday last I asked two questions of the Minister of Mines and Resources. At that time the minister indicated that he would read the questions in Hansard and give an answer later. Is he ready to do so now?


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I shall combine the answers to two questions asked by the hon. member for Kootenay East.
The department has been studying the matter of reconstruction of the existing water supply system and sewage disposal for the village of Field in Yoho national park. This village is largely inhabited by employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, where the company maintains a divisional point. In these studies co-operation has been had from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Department of National Health and Welfare. A number of suggestions have
Inquiries of the Ministry been made, and these are being explored as rapidly as possible. In the meantime, steps have been taken to rectify the contamination by the mining company of the Kicking Horse river. Other sources of water supply have been studied, and an investigation is now under way to determine whether it is possible to obtain a safe and adequate water supply and make a water storage reservoir at a site above the village. It is hoped that money will be available in the estimates this year for work on the water system. The engineering studies in connection with the sewage system will take some time. Moreover, it will be necessary to carry on certain discussions with the C.P.R. about both the water system and the sewage system.
It is expected that it will take some time to reconstruct the main road through Yoho park and approach roads to a standard that would permit safe operation of modern freighting trucks, particularly during the months when this main artery of transportation is needed to handle the tourist traffic. There is no amount in the parks estimates for 1949-50 for the widening and setting up for hard-surfacing of the main road through Yoho park.
It is to be expected that when the trans-Canada highway is ready for travel to and through national parks, the policy with respect to charges for the use of that part of the road in national parks will be in accordance with whatever policy is adopted for the remainder of the trans-Canada highway.
(Translation):



ORDER PAPER


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) asked me yesterday if I could explain why two notices of motion still appearing on the order paper for February 15th had been struck off. These were, I believe, Nos. 30 and 36.
Evidently such matters are under your control, but in order to save the member the trouble of finding out how he could put the question to you, Mr. Speaker, I made inquiries and was told that these motions had been struck off at the actual request of the members who had them placed on the order paper. A member who has given a notice of motion has a right to withdraw it so long as the house has not been called upon to take it under consideration.


Mr. Gagnon:: Thank you very much.
1008	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearkes
(Text):



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
YUKON territory: taxation and grants agreement

YUKON AND MACKENZIE DISTRICT:

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Black (Yukon):: On February 9 two motions of mine were passed by the house. The information required had to do with the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. It is all readily available in the Department of Mines and Resources, and should not take more than an hour to prepare. I should like to have the information before the debate on the address is completed. I hope it will be forthcoming without any further delay.
Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines
and Resources): I shall look into the matter immediately.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 28, 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.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, before the house rose last night I was discussing certain measures which I thought should be introduced in order to ensure the safety of life and property at sea. After indicating the extent to which Canadians are interested in travel on the oceans, I described the system of direction-finding used to guide ships into the approaches to our harbours, and the means of transmitting information in the event of a marine disaster. But it is essential to any system of collection of information that there be a central room in which the information may be collated and passed out to the authorities who will have to act upon it. In spite of the sea-air search activities of the R.C.A.F., the absence of such central rooms is one of the great handicaps of the present system. It is a weakness which 1 believe could be rectified without a great deal of expense. What is required is something in the nature of an operational room. ,


Brooke Claxton: If the hon. member will excuse me, we have such a room in Halifax, and I rather think on the west coast as well.


George Randolph Pearkes: If the minister will just wait, such a room-


Brooke Claxton: I should think that the hon. member would want to get the facts.


George Randolph Pearkes: Had the minister been in the house last night, or had he read Hansard, he would have seen that I was drawing my examples from the Pacific coast. I admitted that I did not know the details in respect to the Atlantic coast, although I am told that similar conditions exist there. On the Pacific coast, and, so far as I know, in many other parts of the seaboard of Canada, there is no central room from which information as to a marine disaster may be relayed from outlying parts, and from which instructions could be sent out readily to the various agencies whose activities need to be co-ordinated in order to assist in the rescue work.
I know that in the sea-air rescue squads of the R.C.A.F. some attempt is made to maintain such rooms, but on the Pacific coast they are small and inadequate. By the nature of their training the R.C.A.F. cannot help being more concerned about accidents to aircraft than about accidents to ships, although they do their best to deal with sea disasters as they do with air accidents. 1 do emphasize the fact that, although there may be exceptions, in the majority of places in Canada there is urgent need for a central room to which information can be sent direct from a ship in distress, or relayed by other ships, so that appropriate action may be taken.
In order to illustrate how necessary it is to co-ordinate these activities, I think we should examine for a minute the various facilities which are available for the rescue of a ship which may be in distress. First of all, on the Pacific coast, and 1 believe elsewhere, there are the marine service vessels, which carry supplies to the lighthouses, charge the lights around our coasts and look after the aids to navigation. I know that the government is constructing, or is intending to construct, two new lifeboats, but these two vessels have to look after a coast line of some 12,000 miles. I think hon. members will see that these two vessels will be inadequate for that vast extent of coast. Then there are the fishery patrol vessels-three, of reasonable tonnage; the vessels of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the search and rescue, or sea-air search, of the R.C.A.F. squadrons; the hydrographic survey vessels, such as the William J. Stewart, which is operated by the Department of Mines and Resources, and the naval vessels which are available. All this should be tied in with the most efficient coastguard service maintained by the United States, which frequently comes to the assistance of Canadian vessels in distress in Canadian waters. This becomes necessary because we have no coastguard service of our own, and because of a time lag under the present system our vessels are

unable to reach a Canadian vessel in distress in Canadian waters. Although the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has informed the house that it is too expensive for Canada to establish a coastguard service, I do suggest that initial steps be taken to the end that better co-ordinating rooms may be provided.
The majority of accidents occur at those nodal points where sea lanes converge, particularly at the entrances to our harbours. The modern method of directing navigation inside a harbour is by the use of radar. At the commencement of the last war Canada led all nations in the development of radar and radar equipment. I am afraid, however, that today we are lagging behind. While there is a world-wide system of radar control in harbours, I believe I am correct in saying that the only radar at present established in Canada for the control of shipping within our harbours is a set at Halifax, and it is too far out to be of practical use in the control of shipping within that harbour. Had sets been placed close to the ferry between Dartmouth and Halifax, I question whether the accidents would have occurred which took place a month ago, when naval vessels collided with the ferry. As an example of what is being done elsewhere I would refer to the Mersey ferry. In thick weather that ferry is radar-controlled and is thus able to maintain its schedule.
Shortly before Christmas an experimental set was placed at the Lion's gate bridge, Vancouver. I hope these experiments will be followed up, and that we may soon see the establishment of an operational set. I do not believe, however, that the placing of a set at the outside of a harbour is all that is required. Sets should be placed right by the ferry slips so that the ferries between Vancouver and North Vancouver may run on schedule, whether in thick weather or not. One radar set established by the ferry slips would do the work of six placed on the ferries themselves.
Canadian Arsenals Limited, in co-operation with the national research council, have done a good deal of research work in connection with radar. Their new Mariner sets, No. 268, are in my opinion efficient. Many of them, however, are being sold to countries outside Canada. Surely our first duty would be to set up similar sets in every Canadian harbour -on the Atlantic and the Pacific, and on the great lakes-to ensure the safety of shipping entering our harbours.
I would urge that investigations be made looking to the establishment of radar sets at the points I have indicated. I do not care whether they are produced by Canadian Arsenals Limited, by Marconi, by Cossor
The Address-Mr. Pearkes (Canada) Limited, or by some other organization; that is not important. Radar is the modern means of directing vessels to harbours in thick weather.
In connection with the radar sets established on our own Canadian merchant vessels, I have seen vessels entering our west coast ports the operators on which have complained about their sets being out of order. They have spoken of the great difficulty of having the radar sets serviced. May I offer the suggestion that this is an opportunity for vocational training courses which could be given veterans of the merchant marine, so that we might have sufficient trained personnel in all our ports to service the radar equipment of our Canadian merchantmen upon their return from long voyages.
Radar equipment is not expensive. The sets produced by Canadian Arsenals Limited are comparatively light in weight-about two hundred pounds. These would be suitable for use in vessels.
I should like to touch upon one other point. I refer to the international convention on the safety of life at sea, to which a Canadian delegation was sent last year. While I have not yet had an opportunity to read the report -and I hope it will be tabled in due course- press reports have appeared setting out some of its recommendations. These reports have emphasized the importance of having all passenger-carrying vessels equipped with radio communication, and of the watch at such radio equipment being continuous, not only in order that early notice may be given of any disaster to the vessel itself, but also in order that disaster befalling other vessels which may have sent out SOS signals may be reported.
The Canada Shipping Act presents certain limitations. In it we find drawn a distinction between vessels plying on an international route and those on a purely domestic or coastwise service. So far as I know, no such distinction is drawn in the United Kingdom regulations. I submit there is very little difference in this respect between a vessel sailing from Vancouver to Victoria and one which sails from Vancouver to Seattle, or one leaving Vancouver for Prince Rupert and another from Vancouver to Ketchikan, Alaska.
I would ask that as soon as possible a review be made of the Canada Shipping Act to see that it complies with the recommendations of the international convention to which I have referred. I regret to see no mention in the speech from the throne of any proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act.
The last matter to which I wish to direct the attention of the house is the need for
1010	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Howe still further markings of dangerous rocks and reefs which abound along our coasts. Much has been done; much more requires to be done. I offer these suggestions, and the ones I made last night, because I believe they are of intense importance to many Canadian citizens who live along our coasts. The importance of these problems has been enhanced by the fact that we hope shortly to have Newfoundland join the family of Canadian provinces.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate primarily to carry out a promise made to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) that I would answer a question which he asked on February 15. Before proceeding I should like to join with others in congratulating the mover (Mr. Brown) and the seconder (Mr. Demers) of the address on the thoughtful and excellent speeches they have made. The question asked by the hon. member for Lethbridge, as reported on page 536 of Hansard of February 15, is as follows:
Will the minister make a statement to the house some time soon giving an account of the progress the government has made since January 1, 1946, toward making Canada more self-sufficient. Will he deal in some detail with the progress that was made in 1948, and that is being made in 1949?
That is not a question that can be answered simply. It is not the policy of the present government to attempt to bring about economic self-sufficiency in Canada. It is the policy of the government to encourage the production of those things that Canada can produce economically and efficiently, to encourage new industries that can thrive in the kind of economy we have here in Canada, and to discourage those industries that can live only with the help of high tariff protection.
There are many countries in the world that are adopting policies of economic selfsufficiency. Some of them are doing so through necessity brought about by exchange difficulties and some because of their belief that that basic policy is the correct policy.
I know of no country that is prospering as a consequence of following such a program of economic self-sufficiency.
In the early days of this country, it was the policy of the government to build a high protective wall around the country and to encourage industries which could not operate on an economic competitive basis. The change throughout the years has been toward a lowering of tariff barriers and a building up of industries in Canada that are efficient and able to sell goods in the market places of the
[Mr. Pearkes.)

world at prices competitive with those of other countries.
In saying that, I would not want the hon. member to believe that great progress has not been made toward economic selfsufficiency as far as Canadian production is concerned. Our economy is being rounded out and filled in with new industries and more complete processes for existing industries. This is a matter that I shall cover as I proceed with my discussion. In short, our policy is to improve industrial efficiency and general productive efficiency and to fortify and expand our foreign trade.
In pursuance of that end we are carrying out a policy of maintaining a high level of employment and a high level of income. Quite obviously a high level of employment tends to bring about the highest possible production by our working force. By pursuing that policy we can protect our economic welfare and the security of the Canadian people to the best advantage.
This country, far from attempting to be economically self-sufficient, is a great trading nation. The trade of Canada is the third greatest trade in the world, a position that we became heir to during the war years and which we have maintained up to the present time. The trade of Canada on a per capita basis is about twice the trade of the United States and about twice the trade of the United Kingdom. The trade of Canada today is greater than the total trade of the United States ten years ago.


Mr.   Hackell@: In volume or in dollars?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am talking about dollars, but I rather think our position would be the same in terms of production. This happy situation has been brought about by following a policy of high production, high employment, high income and high consumption.
The economy of Canada rests on two foundations, domestic investments and export trade. There has been great progress in building up our domestic investments. During the war years, from 1939 to the end of 1945, over $8 billion was invested in Canadian plant and equipment, a little more than a third of such investment being provided by direct government expenditures.
During the war years we strained Canada's economy to the limit to produce the munitions of war. By 1944 we had reached an export level which was an all-time record and which we are only now equalling in peacetime years. During the war years we were expanding our factory production, as we were expanding the production of our mines, of our fields and of our forests. During the war years essential material was being

guided into productive channels by a very tight system of controls. I can say that in spite of our high production, in spite of the strain on our supplies of raw materials, I know of no industrial war production that was interfered with through lack of material requirements. Of course, I am talking of production essential to the war.
While I am referring to controls I might say a word about the remarks made on Saturday last by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I believe the following was his statement:
We are In a very real danger of losing that fight to the bureaucrats who accept the basic philosophy of Karl Marx no matter what political name they may adopt.
Then he said later:
-X was referring to the appointment of controllers, priority officials and the people who are not his senior civil servants.
Inasmuch as the controllers and priorities officers are officers of my department, I should like to tell the house who they are and ask the leader of the opposition to pick out those who are followers of Karl Marx. At the present time there are four officers in that category.
One is W. E. Uren, who for the past eight years has been director of priorities. I have not noticed any tendency on his part to follow the doctrines of Karl Marx. The steel controller is Fred Ashbaugh, who has been associated with this work during the war period and subsequently. The timber controller is Gordon Rochester, a permanent civil servant, who has been administering the control since the war years. There is one other officer who might be classed as a controller. I refer to John Berry, the director of part III of the emergency conservation program.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) may have referred to an earlier period. Perhaps it may be of interest to the members of the house if I give him a list of former controllers. The first is H. R. MacMillan, timber controller. Then there are George Cottrelle, oil controller; Allan Williamson, of Wood Gundy and Company, controller of supply; R. C. Berkinshaw, president and general manager of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company; Gerald Godsoe; Henry Borden, co-ordinator of controls for a considerable period; Fred Kilbourn, steel controller; Hugh Scully, also at one time steel controller; Mr. Nicholson, who was a defeated Conservative candidate in the last election; the late Tillie Sterne, who was chemicals controller; J. R. Donald, controller of explosives, and George Gray. When I finish the list I shall ask the hon. gentleman to rise and tell me which ones he was referring to. George Bateman was metals controller; Fred Connell, metals controller;
The Address-Mr. Howe E. J. Brunning, coal controller; Martin Hoey, steel controller; J. A. Martin, rubber controller. That is the list of controllers, past and present.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Name them.


Mr. Graydon:: You fellows keep quiet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: The wailing of the lost.


George Alexander Drew: It is quite obvious that the minister knows as little about this as he does about electricity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: The minister quite obviously did not take the trouble to find out what had been said, because what I was pointing out was that these controllers have the right to delegate authority without any responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And I delegated authority to the controllers.


George Alexander Drew: As far as that is concerned, the minister, in a very kind way, pointed out certain men who were Conservatives, and that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that the leader of the opposition should take this opportunity to make a statement. I understand he has been invited by the minister, who has the floor, to answer the question put to him.


Gordon Graydon: He is answering the question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I see my hon. friend is not going to make an answer.


Gordon Graydon: Sit down; you cannot take it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows perfectly well that the rule is that a member who is speaking may not be interrupted without his permission. If the minister, who has the floor, wants to extend to the leader of the opposition an opportunity to answer the question it is his privilege. If the leader of the opposition does not want to do so, then the minister may carry on with his speech.


Gordon Graydon: That is a hit and run business.


An hon. Member:: He is getting cold feet.


George Alexander Drew: Now tell us about water power.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I asked him for names; I did not ask him to make a speech, which he has done on every occasion in this debate.
1012	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Howe


George Alexander Drew: Tell us about water power.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: As soon as you mention hydro he wants to get up again.


Mr. Rowe:: He is afraid the light will go out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thank heaven the lights are on.


Mr. Casselman:: Why are you talking to yourself rather than to the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may resume my dissertation on foreign trade-


Gordon Graydon: Get away from hydro.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -I spoke of the investment program during the war years, a program that called for an investment in productive facilities exceeding $8 billion.


George Alexander Drew: You were not speaking to yourself that time, were you?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might as well be from the point of view of getting any intelligence out of my hon. friend. If he will keep quiet now-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -has occupied the time of the house for five times as many minutes as any other member. Perhaps he will keep quiet now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The gallery will have to be disappointed this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask hon. members not to interrupt the right hon. minister, who has the floor. Again I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that it is the duty of the Speaker to preserve order in the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The high level of investment policy did not end with the ending of the war. Monetary and fiscal policies assisted industry to convert its factories from war to peace, and conversion was followed by a further great expansion of industry. Between January, 1946, and December 31, 1948, capital was invested in plant and equipment exceeding $7 billion. This represents the highest rate of capital investment in relation to either income or population in the western world during that period.
That investment resulted in the establishment of many industries that were new to Canada, industries that tended to round out our economy, and to make Canada more selfsufficient as far as industrial production is concerned.
In November, 1947, as hon. members will remember, we found it necessary to introduce the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act. That was necessary to stop the drain on our American dollar balances which resulted from buying in cash in the United States and selling on credit in European countries. The operation of the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act has further tended to round out our economy. It was necessary to limit expenditures, for the purchase of goods in the United States, to those goods which were essential to the maintenance of our economy in an efficient state. The restrictions had the very decided effect of stimulating the manufacture of components and completed articles which had previously been imported, not because they could not have been made just as well in Canada, but because it was easier to import them than it was to organize their production in this country.
Increased exports of manufactured products did not stop during that period. Even though imports were reduced, our manufacturers were able to provide from Canadian sources the components that they formerly imported, and continued to step up production. All conservation measures were introduced only after consultation with industries to make sure that the measures, even though they were stringent in character, were not introduced in a way that would upset normal manufacturing practice. I shall speak later about the improved position of the dollar arising from that program and the manner in which the dollar saving was brought about.
I should like to mention foreign trade. I know that the member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) does not believe in foreign trade. He believes in economic self-sufficiency.


Mr. Blackmore:: The hon. member knows nothing of the sort.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I know is what I hear, and that is what I have gathered.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member has never heard that from me in his life.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A high level of foreign trade does not coincide with the theory of economic self-sufficiency. If it is economically selfsufficient, a country produces all it requires, and neither has goods to sell nor requires to import goods from abroad. That is my understanding of economic self-sufficiency.


William Earl Rowe: Would the minister name some of those countries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I could give an example. I suppose at the time of Champlain the Algonquin Indians were in that position. They were not exposed to foreign trade. They were not particularly prosperous either, so far as I have been able to ascertain.


William Earl Rowe: That was before you were in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The present level of trade, Mr. Speaker, is the highest in Canadian history. Last year it reached a figure of five and three quarter billion dollars or four hundred and sixty dollars for every man, woman and child in Canada.
I spoke of our exchange conservation program and the effect of that program in remedying our adverse balance of trade with the United States. Our adverse balance of trade with the United States of $920 million in 1947 was reduced to $285 million in 1948. This represented a net improvement in our United States trade balance of $635 million within that period.


Mr. Cockeram:: How much of that was ERP?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The significant thing is the manner in which this improvement was achieved. It was accomplished by an increase in exports of $465 million and a decrease in imports from the United States of $170 million. In reply to the question of my hon. friend about ERP, it added not at all to either our exports to the United States or our imports from the United States.
This $170 million decrease in imports from the United States greatly underestimates the exchange savings resulting from conservation control, because a higher level of domestic development coupled with a much higher level of exports would ordinarily have called for a still greater import of United States goods. I am particularly pleased about the success of the program in correcting our trade balance at a high level, by increasing exports to the United States by $465 million during the year 1948. It seems to me it is a real accomplishment for our manufacturers, our farmers and our producers of lumber and fish, who can all take a share of the credit. It was a magnificent response to a call from the government to increase our exports to the United States.
Another important change during 1948 was in our trade with the United Kingdom, and this shift was also in the right direction. Our imports from the United Kingdom rose from $190 million to $300 million. Our exports to the United Kingdom dropped by $65 million, but the United Kingdom trade deficit with Canada was reduced by $175 million.


An hon. Member:: What were the figures?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Someone has asked a question concerning the figures; in 1947 our exports to the United Kingdom were $753,700,000, and in 1948 they were $688,700,000.


Mr. Hackett:: Were those figures not
increased by ERP?
The Address-Mr. Howe


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know about that. My hon. friend seems to have ERP on his mind. All I can tell him is that our exports to the United Kingdom were paid for by the United Kingdom. From what source the money was obtained, I do not know.
Our total exports for 1948 increased by $300 million over 1947 figures. The principal increases were in beef and cattle, $87 million; wood pulp and newsprint, $75 million; metals, $128 million; farm machinery, $32 million.
I might mention wheat. In this house we have heard a good deal about wheat but I think we are going to hear less about it in the future, because any mention of wheat is going to remind the farmer that his return for 1949 and for 1950 will be higher than the returns to any farmer in any other corner of the world.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: He will still be short $600 million.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can tell the members of this house that our wheat for the crop year of
1948	is 95 per cent sold at the present time.


John Thomas Hackett: At a loss of over a dollar a bushel.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend never saw a kernel of wheat in his life.


William Earl Rowe: He knows the price of it better than you do.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When the farmer plants his wheat this spring, he will know just what the returns from that particular wheat will be. He knows that 140 million bushels of the
1949	crop have been sold to our traditional customer, the United Kingdom, at a price of two dollars per bushel. Much has been said about the United Kingdom wheat contract, but too little has been said about the importance of having a place reserved for Canada in the market of the United Kingdom. I can tell the members of the house that, had it not been for the firm contract for 140 million bushels of wheat to the United Kingdom from the 1948 crop, there would be a great deal of unsold wheat in Canada today, just as there is in the country to the south of us. As the minister responsible for the export sale of our wheat, I am very happy indeed to know that 140 million bushels of the 1949 crop have been sold at a firm price, a price that in these days of falling markets appears to be an excellent one for Canada.
I suggest that, before we talk any more about losses from the United Kingdom wheat contract, we remind ourselves that only two and a half years of the four-year period have passed. It may be well to look at the final
1014	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Howe results before counting our losses. I am sorry I have ruined my friend's favourite speech.


James Arthur Ross: You wait until he has the next opportunity of talking for forty minutes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My time has almost expired, but I should like to say a word about the economic outlook. As I have said before the prosperity of a country can be gauged fairly well by the annual volume of its exports plus the annual volume of its investment.. In Canada, our capital investment program for the year 1948 stood at about $3 billion. By a coincidence, our exports from Canada during the year 1948 were also at about the level of $3 billion. At the same time our gross national product-that is, the value of everything produced in Canada during 1948 -was in excess of $15 billion. I might say to hon. gentlemen that each of those figures is just about three times the comparable figures of ten years ago and about six times the comparable figures of the period 1930-35 which hon. gentlemen opposite know something about.
In our department it is customary to attempt a forecast of the current economic period. Earlier today I tabled the results of a questionnaire that is sent out by the department to some eighteen thousand business firms in Canada. It is sent to municipalities, to provinces and to every agency that carries on construction work. It is a type of survey that has been made for the past several years which has proven to be remarkably accurate. Its importance has been recognized by business, and each year we are getting better co-operation from business in working out that survey. The survey reveals that the total investment intentions for 1949 exceed those of 1948 by about eight per cent. That is eight per cent in value, which means by about three per cent in volume. There are some changes in the pattern for 1949 investments. There is a higher proportion of investment, on the part of institutions, in utilities and in housing and a somewhat lower proportion in the manufacturing industries. That is indeed an exceedingly large investment program for a country of jour size, but the supply situation has improved considerably and there is every reason to believe that Canada will be able to complete the program that is there indicated.
A study of the gross national product figures indicates that the gross national product for 1949 promises to be about $1 billion higher than the $15,500 million estimate for
1948.	There is an indication that the general level of business will be about the same as in
1949,	with a leveling off in prices that will relieve the economy of the inflationary pressures that were caused in part by the short
[Mr. Howe.l

supply position. As a result of the survey, and of the studies that have been conducted by officers of my department who are competent to make such studies, I think I can say that, barring earthquakes, serious labour-management troubles or a change in government, the position of our economy during 1949 will not deteriorate, and the people of Canada can be assured that 1949 will be as prosperous a year as was 1948.


Mr. Adamson:: May I ask the minister a question? He said there was an increase of eight per cent in value and three per cent in volume as between the years 1948 and 1949?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Talking about investment, yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The expected investment will have an increase of eight per cent in value which, according to the minister's figure, is three per cent in volume?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is, in that period we have fallen that much in the relative purchasing power of the dollar.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is from a comparable period in 1948 to a comparable period in 1949.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: I am
sure, Mr. Speaker, that the house found the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) most interesting, but I wonder if a great many of the Canadian people will not also find it a bit disappointing.


George Alexander Cruickshank: This one certainly will
be disappointing.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I wonder if the minister
had cause to be as optimistic as he appeared to be. He made the statement that the condition of Canadian trade at the present time is healthy. I do not see how he can arrive at that conclusion, because a good deal of our trade at the moment is based on loans or credits that we have made to Great Britain, or on ERP aid; and I understand that there is every possibility that those loans will soon be used up, and that ERP aid will soon be gone. When that time comes, I wonder in what kind of position we Canadians will find ourselves.
This afternoon the minister talked, it seemed to me, a little bit too much about the present. He did not talk about the future. He did not tell us what he plans to do to increase British imports into this country, or what he plans to do to remedy the deteriorating position of our British-Canadian trade. I plan, for about fifteen minutes this afternoon, to talk about that subject. During the past year we have seen our exports to Britain shrink rapidly in almost every line. This

has been true particularly of manufactured and processed goods, on which we depend so heavily to maintain full employment; but it has also been true of such pre-war staples as bacon, livestock, agricultural products, timber and newsprint. Our apple markets in Britain are today practically gone. I understand that the apple growers on both coasts are facing virtual ruin.
Our exports to Britain have shrunk despite the fact that in the past several years we have given substantial loans to Britain. Our exports have shrunk despite the fact that in the past year the Americans have given to Britain more than $500 million in ERP aid directly, to finance Canadian purchases. As a matter of fact our trade relations with Great Britain have been strained practically since the end of the war. I do not think the minister was fair with the house this afternoon. Putting it bluntly, the way in which we have kept our exports to Great Britain, even at their present level, was only due to the fact that for the last two years-perhaps this is exaggerating slightly-we have virtually been giving many of those goods away.
The causes of our present trade difficulties with Great Britain are well known to every hon. member. Prior to the war Britain, year in and year out, was able to buy three times as much from Canada as we bought from her. Since the war, the financial position of Britain has been such that this trade relationship has no longer been possible. Britain has been forced by harsh realities to buy from those countries that bought from her. In other words, she has not been able to trade on the old basis, simply because she has lacked Canadian dollars to do so. Therefore I think the trade situation of Canada is much more serious than the minister a few moments ago gave us to believe. Unless we can do something to increase British imports into this country, and do it soon, we face the real prospect of losing in Great Britain many of our markets for our primary products.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do you want to bring
horse meat in here?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: If the present situation is
serious, then I think the future situation appears even more difficult; because, should that artificial and temporary prop of ERP aid be removed, the bottom could fall out of our British market almost overnight, not twelve months from now, not six months from now. It could fall out in a month. There is apparently a strong possibility that ERP aid may be removed. I shall quote a few lines from the Financial Post of February 19, which reads as follows:
Canada stands in grave danger of losing ECA support for her wheat agreement with the United
The Address-Mr. Thatcher Kingdom-a trade which totalled $304 million in the ten months ended January 31, 1949. It's the biggest and most ominous problem Canadians have faced since the war. . . there is little doubt that unless there is intervention at the highest level, likelihood of Canada getting further ECA funds for the United Kingdom wheat deal is highly uncertain.
In the house the other day the Prime Minister was asked whether, while he was in Washington, he was given any assurance by the President that ERP aid would be continued. The best assurance that the Prime Minister could give the people of Canada was that he felt certain the President had a "friendly understanding" of our problem. That will help, but nevertheless we must face the possibility that ERP aid may soon be removed.
Recently, London concluded a billion-dollar barter agreement with Poland, and the products which Britain obtained from Poland were livestock, cheese, and other agricultural products. I believe I am not exaggerating, Mr. Speaker, when I say that that deal caused consternation in agricultural circles in Canada. We know that that is not the only barter deal that England has concluded with European countries. There have been dozens of others of a similar nature. Mr. Speaker, in almost every case, the products which Britain is securing from these countries are the products which formerly she obtained from Canada. In other words, as time goes on we are seeing the markets for our primary products evaporate.
In addition, today the United Kingdom authorities are spending substantial sums of money in developing the continent of Africa. When these food-producing areas commence to produce, it is reasonable to assume that in the future Great Britain will be even less dependent upon Canada for food than she is today. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, no matter in what way we look at it, the primary producers of this country are facing very serious marketing difficulties, and I do not see how these facts justify the speech made by the minister this afternoon that the future trade prospects of Canada are rosy.
We could look for markets elsewhere. Probably we could sell some of our farm surpluses to the United States. Yet, in the past, the United States has always been insecure so far as markets for Canadian primary products were concerned.
It would seem to me that the most sensible solution for this parliament to attempt would be to hold our British markets. In some way we must find methods of increasing British imports into this country. It seems to me that in the last few years the government has been most apathetic in devising ways and means to increase British imports. Far too

The Address-Mr. Thatcher often we Canadians forget that in order to be an exporting country we have to buy. If you want to sell to a customer you must give him the means to pay for the goods. Sir Stafford Cripps warned this parliament and the Dominion of Canada about two weeks ago, in a manner that we cannot overlook. Sir Stafford made this statement in Great Britain. Probably hon. members have read it but I should like to quote it from the Canadian Press.
Cripps issues warning Canada to lose exports unless it "buys British."
Britain will buy less food from Canada unless Canada buys more from Britain, Sir Stafford Cripps, chancellor of the exchequer, said Thursday.
... he said the crux of the post-war Anglo-Canadian trading problem is expansion of British exports to Canada.
He said the present difficulties in Anglo-Canadian trade could be eased by greater Canadian purchases in other sterling areas in addition to the United Kingdom.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, that statement puts our trade problem right up to this parliament. If we want to continue to hold our markets in Britain we have to increase our British imports. As a parliament, perhaps there are several methods we could adopt which would accomplish that objective. I think one of the first would be tariff concessions on British imports. The government should thoroughly explore the possibility of giving fairly substantial tariff concessions to the English on British merchandise. We have not yet passed the Geneva trade agreement. It may not be wise for this parliament to pass it. I was concerned the other day to read an article about tariffs in the same issue of the Financial Post which I quoted a moment ago. This is what it said:
Cotton, rayon quotas off, tariffs back on July 1.
Tariff rates on cotton and rayon textiles are expected to be restored after June 30.
... it is expected that the government will announce these decisions at least three months ahead of the effective date.
The British trade has been warned, it is understood, that the government is no longer able to permit suspension of rate, which gave British suppliers free entry to the market.
I questioned the Minister of Finance the other day as to the veracity of that report, and he denied that such notice had been given. Notwithstanding that denial, the next day an article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, written by Ross Munro, which was headed up:
To reimpose tariffs on United Kingdom cottons.
The government intends to reimpose the British preferential tariff on British cottons and rayon textiles after next June 30.
I sincerely hope that that statement is not correct, Mr. Speaker, because it would be economic lunacy to put higher tariffs on British goods, at a time when Canada should be trying to encourage British imports. Therefore the first step that this parliament should

take would be to explore the possibility of reducing tariffs on British goods; but I hasten to say at once that I do not think that that step in itself would be sufficient to remedy our trade difficulties.
In recent months more and more Canadians have commenced to wonder whether a barter deal, or a bilateral deal between Britain and Canada might not be the solution to our problem. If European countries can make workable exchanges with Britain, it is difficult to understand why Canada cannot do likewise. Personally, I believe that in most cases barter is a retrogressive step. I think that, if most Canadians had any choice in the matter, they would prefer to retain multilateral trade; but it is beginning to appear in the world today that we may not have any choice.
I should like to quote another paragraph from the same issue of the Financial Post:
Records compiled from official sources by the Department of Trade and Commerce at Ottawa, reveal that there are betweeen 100 and 150 barter or bilateral deals now in existence, mostly between the countries of Europe.
Apparently the British have decided that in the future they are going to conduct most of their trade on a bilateral basis. If we wish to continue trading with Britain, it looks as if we are going to be forced to deal in that way.
On February 9 I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) whether he had explored the possibilities of barter trade with Great Britain, and he made this reply, as reported on page 393 of Hansard:
The Canadian government is not favourably disposed toward barter agreements between governments ... It believes in multilateral trade and is opposed to any system of trading which tends to interfere with multilateral trade.
That is a pretty brusque statement, and at the risk of appearing presumptuous I would say that it was not a wise one. The minister should admit that there is something wrong with our trading system between Great Britain and Canada. If the old system will not work, perhaps we are going to have to try something new. We read a good deal about the rumours of another barter deal, this time concerning wheat, between Great Britain and Russia. This afternoon the minister was optimistic. He said that we have an assured market. That assured market will continue only for a few more months. If by some chance we should wake up some afternoon in this parliament, and find that Great Britain had concluded with Russia a barter deal for wheat, I think the whole economic structure, not only of the prairies but of this country, would be shaken to its very foundations. I say therefore that if barter or bilateral trade is the only way we can keep

our British market, then by all means let us adopt barter. It is not a question of whether or not we like barter-not a question of that at all. It is a question of whether in order to maintain our British market-indeed, in order to survive economically-we are prepared to adopt that method of trading, if the British ask or force us to do so.
As a matter of fact I found somewhat strange the aversion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to state trading. After all, I remember that the first year I was in Ottawa he and his ministers played a leading role in negotiating, between Canada and Great Britain, a wheat agreement under which the Dominion of Canada sold Great Britain 600 million bushels of wheat. If he could do it then, why is he afraid to do something like that at the present time?
I believe there are many Liberals across Canada who are not afraid of that kind of trading agreement. For instance, Premier Byron Johnson of British Columbia only a few weeks ago, in a letter to the London Times, openly suggested that British Columbia would be interested in exchanging British Columbia lumber for British steel.
I say a decision in respect of trade is pressing; it cannot wait indefinitely. In my home city of Moose Jaw we have a plant of the Swift Canadian Company in which normally five hundred men are employed. Today approximately two hundred are out of work because Great Britain no longer buys as much meat from us as she did formerly. Then, we have flour mills across Canada. Today many of them are either closed down or have laid men off because Great Britain is not buying as much flour as she did formerly.
I have already mentioned the position of the apple growers.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In Saskatchewan?


An hon. Member:: Horse feathers!


George Alexander Cruickshank: Apple growers in
Saskatchewan!


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I say that our marketing difficulties are already upon us, whether we wish to admit it or not. It is not enough for parliament to continue to do nothing, to drift, and to hope something will turn up which will give us back our British market.
As Canadians we must understand the position of the British. One cannot help admiring the wonderful economic recovery they have made in the last several years.
Only last Saturday I picked up the Ottawa Citizen and noticed that one of the leading editorials dealt with the subject of the British government and trade. The editorial says this:
The truth is that the Labour government has proved a magnificent success. It was elected to
The Address-Mr. Thatcher power in one of the most difficult hours of Britain's history. But it has measured up to the grave tasks imposed upon it in a fashion that has won the admiration and reluctant approval even of individuals and publications which ordinarily would be expected to be among its bitterest critics.
A good deal of the success of which the Citizen speaks was accomplished by the British through these bilateral trade agreements.	Using such trading methods the
United Kingdom has achieved a degree of rehabilitation and recovery which is almost incredible. Therefore if today they are somewhat reluctant to relinquish those trading methods, we can scarcely blame them. Nor can we blame the British government entirely if they maintain that the final answer to our trading impasse lies with the parliament of Canada.
After all, from the figures the minister gave us a few moments ago, the fact remains that Great Britain is still buying at least two and a half times more from Canada than we are buying from her. It is one of the main duties of parliament at this session to face up to that situation. While we are looking for a solution we must hope that the British will give us sympathetic and generous understanding, particularly when they remember the billions of dollars we poured into Great Britain in our joint war effort, when they remember the billions of dollars we have given them in loans, credits and gifts since the war, and when they remember the hundreds of millions of dollars which our primary producers have given them through selling our products at sacrifice prices. With those things in mind I feel sure the British will give the people of Canada every consideration.
I would urge the government of Canada immediately to adopt the following steps, in order to improve British-Canadian trade:
1.	Call an immediate trade conference between top-level Canadian and British governmental authorities, at either Ottawa or London, to explore the trade situation thoroughly and completely. I believe the Canadian delegation should include representatives from all the major political parties of the House of Commons.
2.	The Canadian government at that conference should be prepared to make major tariff concessions to Britain, in order to encourage British imports.
3.	The Canadian delegation should express complete willingness to enter bilateral or barter agreements with the British, if they desire it.
4.	Import boards should be established immediately in Canada to direct the disposition of British goods in this country, and to encourage British imports generally.
1018	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Webb
5.	Long-term agreements for primary products such as wheat, apples, fish, lumber, et cetera, should be particularly sought by the Canadian delegation.
I emphasize once again that I believe the time for action of that sort is limited. Some may deplore the fact that it might be necessary to use barter trade. We must realize however that, in the world as it is today, that type of trading is being carried on more and more extensively. If we wish to protect our British markets, then I suggest these steps be taken soon by parliament.
On February 8, Harold Wilson, president of the British board of trade, said:
The British government is prepared to examine any suggestion "however unorthodox" to increase exports to Canada.
The British government is desirous and willing to co-operate. I suggest therefore that this parliament should proceed-and let us proceed soon before, as I said a moment ago, some morning we awaken to find that Britain has concluded a wheat agreement with Russia.


Mr. G. R. Webb (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I add my voice by way of congratulation of the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. May I also add a word of welcome to those new members who have taken their seats at this session, and an especially enthusiastic welcome to my leader, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew). Not only has he given a great deal of inspiration to hon. members on this side of the house, but he has created a sense of interest throughout the house and has given high hopes to men and women in all walks of life for a greater and more united Canada. His presence here portrays vividly great changes, one being the fact that it has created a housing problem within the seating arrangement for hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party. Every available seat is now taken. I think it only fair to give notice at this time that, should any further by-elections be fought, further seating arrangement be made accordingly.
The speech from the throne begins with these words:
The first concern of government in world affairs is to ensure peace and security.
May I hasten to say that I am fully in accord with those sentiments and I believe all hon. members of the house and in fact all people across Canada are also in accord with those sentiments. After spending many days listening to the speeches that have been delivered in this house, some good and some not good- probably mine will not be so good-I have not as yet been able to develop any great feeling of comfort, especially from what has been said on the government side of the house. I

realize that there are many problems that present themselves in carrying out those high aims and achievements and I should like to deal with a few of those problems as I see them as well as with some of the things that have come to my attention as I have gone across the country. It seems to me that there are two things, both closely linked together, which are spoken of more than anything else, namely, the high cost of living and the very high taxation.
We hear a lot about the need of keeping down prices, but we do not hear so much, especially from some quarters, about the need of keeping down all kinds of government taxes. In my opinion the various government taxes, direct and indirect, are as much a part of the high cost of living as are prices. High prices are sometimes escapable, but I have yet to find a way to escape high taxes. Therefore, to my way of thinking, high taxes are in reality a greater factor in the high cost of living which affects the people of Canada so much at the present time.
Not only are high taxes hard on the individual, not only do they constitute an important factor in the high cost of living; they affect adversely the whole economy of Canada. High taxation adds to the cost of production, which in turn means higher price tags on the things we have to sell. For a country which must sell about one-third of what it produces in order to keep prosperous, that does not seem to me to be a healthy situation. The nations that buy our goods are not particularly interested in our high taxes, in our production or other costs. If our prices are too high, it follows that they are going to buy from other countries whose price tags are lower. I think we must accept that as being reasonable.
Therefore I submit that something must be done to overcome these extremely high taxes. They are crippling enterprise, stifling development and denying adventure. More and more capital is shrinking from too great risk. More and more businessmen, including farmers, are asking themselves whether it is worth while to work for the state by extending their efforts or whether it is not better just to coast along. High taxes affect people in all walks of life. While it is not my purpose to pick out any particular class, for just a moment I should like to refer to the effect high taxes have had upon the farmers. May I say right here that I have had very close connections with farmers all my life and I know something of their ways.
I have never found farmers to be opposed to the payment of taxes provided they are applied on a fair basis, but they are certainly opposed to the present government's method

and basis of taxation and the manner in which the laws governing taxation are being enforced. On February 1 the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) went into this matter in some detail and I need hardly say that I am heartily in accord with everything he said at that time. It is not my purpose to take up the time of the house by repeating what he said, but I would direct the attention of hon. members to his remarks as reported on pages 150 and 151 of Hansard.
I suggest that anyone who has not given particular attention to what the hon. member said, in so far as his remarks applied to farmers, would find his time well spent by reading his speech. What he said applies to farmers in general, and certainly to the farmers in my district.
I believe that if the farmers were approached in the proper way, if the tax form they are required to fill out did not require such an extensive bookkeeping system, if they were allowed the exemptions to which they are justly entitled, if the government would eliminate the present questionable and mysterious method of enforcing the income tax laws, they would be ready to pay just the same as anyone else. I submit that a large portion of the present vast army of tax collectors and what-have-you might be dispensed with and the Department of National Revenue would thus be able to save some money.
Just in passing, may I enlarge upon what I mean by just exemptions, to which I think the farmer is entitled. Anyone inside or outside the house who has had any experience in farming knows that the farmer works anywhere from ten to fifteen hours a day. That is not a three or four day week, it is a seven day week. Then consideration should be given to the assistance which he receives from his wife, not only in connection with running the household but also in connection with outside work. Then assistance is provided by any sons and daughters, in fact by everyone connected with the farm household.
As far as I can figure out, our farmers do not get the exemptions I have just referred to. They are not given consideration for the hours of work they put in. If that were considered, and if consideration were given to the exemptions to which they are justly entitled, then I think you would have an entirely different situation in connection with the collecting of income taxes from farmers. In addition it seems to me that, in the result, you would have a much happier and more satisfied people. Urban and rural people would be brought more closely together, and would eventually understand one another
The Address-Mr. Webb much better; but in my opinion the farmer has done a great deal, especially during the war years, to bring about a balanced economy. We read in the press, and in fact we hear from many other sources, about the possibility of a reduction in income tax this year. We are led to believe that we should expect one when the budget is presented to the house.
I hope this is not only wishful thinking, because it is long overdue. I can only say that I believe the Canadian people are, and have been, very suspicious of the government withholding relief from taxation until a time when they might hold it out as an inducement to the people of Canada to return the present government to power. That is hardly fair, but from the reports I receive from people right across Canada it would seem that any relief in taxation which may be forthcoming in the budget will probably be too little, and definitely too late, to accomplish the desired result.
There are many taxes to which I might refer, but it is pretty hard to pick out one tax which seems to be more discriminatory than another. I believe that almost all members of the house have been receiving letters, and have been approached on many occasions, about the tax on jewelry. That is only one article, and I am not going to spend very much time on it at the moment because other speakers have dealt with the matter. I refer particularly to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), who made a speech the other night. I have read his speech, and I should like to refer members to page 751 of Hansard where it seems to me that he has set out the situation very well. I believe that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has been pressed on many occasions with representations about this tax. Therefore we can only hope that some consideration will be given to this particular business, because we are all anxious to have businesses in our respective communities carry on in a prosperous way. I know they are very much affected at this time.
I had intended to say a good deal about the wartime prices and trade board, but I do not want to repeat any more than is necessary. At this stage of the debate it is pretty hard to talk about anything that has not already been referred to. Dealing with the activities of the wartime prices and trade board in my community, I cannot do better than to refer you to the remarks that the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) made not long ago. After listening to his speech and reading it, I can only say that my experience in the constituency of Leeds has been very similar. I refer the members of the house to pages 152 and 153 of
1020	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Webb Hansard, where the hon. member states his experiences. I only wish to add that I concur in his remarks. It seems to me that it is about time that drastic changes were made.
I want to turn to another matter to which I have referred on different occasions when the estimates were before the house, the question of rural postal service. At the beginning of my remarks I said I was going to mention several items, and this is one of them. On several occasions I have brought to the attention of the postal department the fact that a large number of families in our rural areas are not receiving postal service. It has always been my contention that, if one person is going to receive postal delivery in a rural district, then everyone within that area should receive the same service, if at all possible. I know of cases in my part of the country where there seems to be definite discrimination, and for reasons that are pretty hard- to understand. I suggested in the house at one time that I thought it would be reasonable to make a survey of the various postal routes. I know there are some of them that are much shorter than others but which really should get more money. The condition of roads varies, and there are many other conditions which should be taken into consideration. Until such time as a survey is made, may 1 say that I cannot see how anyone can possibly sit in an office in Ottawa and know the type of delivery that should be made, how often it should be made, and what the cost of the delivery should be on a reasonable basis. I am not going to say anything more on that subject.
There is another matter that is of great interest to me, and on which I have spoken on different occasions. In passing I want to bring to your attention again my opinion about national parks. I believe the government-and I will give them a little credit here-are on sound ground in increasing the expenditure on national parks. In my view such parks constitute a great Canadian asset which should return dividends from year to year. As time passes, and the number of tourists increases, they will prove immensely valuable. I feel that very soon eastern Ontario-and incidentally I think it would be quite in order for me to suggest the county of Leeds, which after all is the most popular resort area in eastern Ontario-should also have a national park on a basis that is really worthy of this country, and in keeping with the natural beauties and attractions of this section of Canada.
Closely linked with that subject, of course, is the tourist business. Every session since I have come to the house I have spoken about the value of tourists to our country, not only because we need hard currency, but also


because we need the friendship of those who come here. People with whom we have played golf, fished, and possibly sailed, and whom we consider as personal friends, will feel favourably disposed to trade with us if we extend the right hand of fellowship, and if we do not withdraw the hand too quickly to count the tourist dollars which we hope repose therein.
The tourist industry has been kicked around in various departments of the government since I have been here, but I do not think it should be regarded any longer as a sideline. I think it should take a major place in some department of the government which will be able to familiarize itself with it, and carry on year after year, instead of having it turned over to a different department every year or two. I think that our efforts in this direction certainly should be increased, because after all it is a very important factor in our everyday life, especially in my particular part of the country. The hon. member for Lamb ton West (Mr. Murphy) touched on this question in his speech the other day. He asked for a commission. I have not had an opportunity of talking with him since, but I think last year we both asked for something a little different from what we have had. This might be the answer. In closing this particular portion of my address, I should like to say that I no longer consider this a sideline of this government and I hope the department concerned will give the matter special consideration.
I should like to mention one other item which seems very important to me and which has not been mentioned in the present debate. It concerns accidents at level crossings, about which we read every day in our newspapers. In this modern age, nothing is more antiquated than the average level crossing. Most of these crossings were constructed in the horse and buggy days. The tremendous increase in the pace and volume of traffic today has made these crossings entirely inadequate and extremely dangerous. I made a survey of the accidents at these crossings during the last two years and although I did not bring the figures with me, I can tell you they were shocking. A large number of people lost their lives or were maimed for life in level-crossing accidents throughout this country. This week I read a newspaper report of five people who were killed at a level crossing near Kirkland Lake. Within the last two days two more people have been killed. So often when we pick up our morning newspaper we read of another accident at one of these dangerous railway crossings.
Most of these crossings are going to be with us for a long time. I realize that the

elimination of all level crossings within a short period of time is quite impossible. All we can do in the immediate future is to eliminate the more dangerous crossings which exist on the heavily traveled highways and streets. I trust you will bear with me if I give you an example of one of the most dangerous level crossings in the province of Ontario. This crossing is located on the main line of the Canadian National Railways close to the railway station in the town of Brockville. At this point the railway line intersects Perth street, which is the street used by most north and south bound traffic in the town of Brockville. I travel this highway frequently and it is a very rare occasion when I am not halted at this crossing for a considerable length of time. I am not going into too much detail at the moment, but this is the main east and west line of the Canadian National Railways and is consequently heavily traveled. Incidentally, the railway yards are also in that area. A considerable portion of the town is on the north side of the track and it is not unusual to see hundreds of school children waiting to cross at this point. On many occasions the fire department has been delayed at that crossing, with very serious results.
I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is not in his seat at the moment because I believe he is familiar with this particular crossing. If he were here I am sure he would agree with me when I say that this crossing is one of the most dangerous in this province; in fact, I would not be surprised if it were one of the most dangerous in Canada. I have described this particular crossing and tried to tell you of the inconveniences and the hazards that prevail there. I firmly believe that the correction of this situation would be a great relief to the railway men who have the responsibility of handling rail and road traffic at this busy point, and it would add to the safety and convenience of the pedestrians and vehicles using the crossing.
In discussing possible solutions with the local citizens, I have been informed that vigorous complaints have already been lodged with the representatives of the Canadian National Railways. So far this has brought no results. For the present I must be content to let my case rest at this point, but I feel this is an important matter. While I have mentioned a specific case in my own constituency, I would not want anyone in the house to feel I am selfish about this, because I know there are many equally dangerous crossings in other parts of Canada. As I said before, I do not believe all level crossings can be eliminated at once, but I do feel that some of the more dangerous ones, at which acci-
The Address-Mr. Hansell dents have been frequent, should receive some special consideration by the Department of Transport.
It is not my intention to labour this question, but I should like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to note that I have not finished with it. I trust that, before the minister's estimates are before the house, he will be able to give me some sort of satisfactory reply as to the possibility of improvement at this particular crossing. I believe it is important to the people in my constituency.
In conclusion, I submit that the immediate necessity is for a revolution in the government's thinking. Whether such apprehension can come to this government, which seems entirely out of touch with the man* on the street, is of course another matter. It may be that no redress can be hoped for without a deeper and more drastic change.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: In rising to speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take the time of the house to analyse all that the speech from the throne contained. I am going to confine myself to one line of thought which I believe is paramount in the world today. I shall of course direct my remarks to the present administration. I recall on one occasion hearing of a young doctor who said: "I do not understand why that patient died; I gave him every kind of medicine I could think of." If the story be true, obviously the young medico was frustrated, and his frustration resulted in his trying anything and everything. As I listen to much that is said in this house, particularly by those whose words should mean something-I mean those who sit in the seats of the mighty, those whom I call head-cheese politicians who sometimes appear, politically, to be neither fish, flesh nor fowl-those in authority over us, I wonder if they are not like the young doctor. To me at least one thing seems to be certain; that is, that they could not have properly diagnosed the ills of the nation or of the world. If those in power had correctly diagnosed the world's headache, they would have discovered something of the enemy behind the scenes.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I shall suggest that no administration of any nation on the face of the earth can adequately solve the problems of that nation if they do not properly search out the enemy behind the scenes. Have our government done that? I think not. Instead, they have assumed that all is well with the human race. And so they strut around with their heads in the clouds, still believing that the moon is made of green cheese; they assume that the Canadian people are what some people term "a bunch of suckers", and proceed to spread it on thick.
1022	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hansell
I do not believe that we shall recognize the seriousness of the world situation until we also recognize that there is a tremendous battle going on behind the. scenes of human affairs, and that battle is between the forces of right and the forces of wrong. That battle is between the forces of righteousness and unrighteousness, Christianity and anti-Christianity, Christ and anti-Christ. The sooner we understand that, the better. Then we shall recognize something of the tremendous struggle that is taking place for the survival of the human race. The battle that we must fight, if we are to be known as a Christian democracy, is a battle against evil, ungodly and satanic forces. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the prize to be won in the battle is the human 'race. The ultimate objective of these forces of evil is the complete enslavement of the human race.
It appears to me that some of us are a bit lax in our thinking as we attempt to trace through the movements of the world and see in them the processes taking place, even before our very eyes, for the ultimate enslavement of the world. That is one reason I personally am against this clamour for world government. World government means only one thing-world enslavement.
What are the processes that are taking place? I shall mention one. I believe it was mentioned the other night by one of the other members of this group. These forces that are out to enslave the human race attempt to do so by dispossessing man of all that is rightfully his. One thing in our social credit movement' that charms me is the fact that our one great plank is the establishment of man in his own right. How is this process of dispossession taking place? I shall mention a number of ways. In the first place, there is this terrible system imposed upon us by almost every government, the system of taxation which I will designate as legalized robbery or legalized dispossession.
We ask why governments tax, and they say: We must have money, and the only way in which we can get it is by taxation. Who said that was the only way we could get money? Mr. Abbott. Who told him so? Where has he been, and who has moulded his thinking? He might say: We have been taught that by the economists. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, these men who adhere to this taxation system have been taught to believe one colossal, gigantic lie. I would say that it is a national disgrace that learned professors of history, economics, money, banking and political economy, in our high schools and in our higher schools of learning, have not been and are not now telling us the truth. These so-called higher schools of learning have within them


professors who have been taught by professors who in turn have been taught by professors; and over the decades of time one great big lie has been propagated.
To the question, where does money come from, ninety-nine out of one hundred of those you ask will give you the wrong answer. I say that the so-called higher education has degenerated into a system of colossal falsehoods perpetrated by professional, muddleheaded robots. I ask this question. Does the present Liberal administration believe that the only source from which they can get money with which to run this country is taxation? If they believe that, then they are a party to the lie. I turn to my Conservative friends and I ask them: Do you believe that the only source from which governments can get money is taxation? I ask our socialist friends to my right if they believe that.
I say to you that if political parties believe that that is the only source from which they can get money, then they are accessories after the lie. And all lies are evil, all lies are antiChrist. This process of dispossession is gradually but surely taking place. I pose taxation as one of these methods of dispossession. It is gradually but surely taking place. The failure of the masses to sense the approach of their own doom is in accord with historical precedents. It was ever thus. Perhaps it is not expected that the people en masse will understand. Masses are swayed by emotional appeal, not by studious technical logic. The destructive forces know that and have already designated the people as the common herd. But we who sit in this house, men who are supposed to have intelligence, men who sit on the treasury benches guiding the affairs of the nation, men who have been highly regarded as those who ought to know; we men who sit in the house and in whom the masses have placed their confidence, are we so stupid as to fail to sense this situation and to see that, over the processes of time, eventually this taxation will dispossess each and every individual of that which is rightfully his?
Take our social service schemes, Mr. Speaker. Many of them are coming into operation. Some of them may appear to be legitimate and schemes which should be given legislative sanction, but in order to make these schemes effective they will eventually dispossess us of that which we have.
The other day we listened to the interesting speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Undoubtedly he has in mind a great program. Undoubtedly he has been able to filch from the people of Canada by way of taxation enough money to give certain grants to the provinces in order

to bring into existence a better health scheme. It is hailed as a progressive step; but let us not forget that in that progressive step, because of the adherence by this government to a taxation system, a process of dispossession is taking place. Take our old age pension scheme. I do not even like to mention that they are old age pension schemes; they are glorified relief schemes, glossing them over with a certain respectability. I shall prophesy something. I prophesy that, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare brings in a new old age pension scheme, under which the old age pensions may be larger, and under which there may be some attempt to grant them without a means test, any new legislation he brings in along that line will be on a contributory basis. I make that prophecy, and I shall turn to this particular page of Hansard and read it to him when that day comes. If his scheme is to be on a contributory basis, then it will mean that this process of dispossession is gradually fastening itself upon the people.
During this session we have heard a good deal about pensions for the incurables. I happen to be greatly interested in that, for a couple of years ago I was instrumental in having something to do with the organization which now numbers its membership in the thousands, and is growing rapidly throughout Canada. I know something of what the minister will have in mind when he brings down some sort of relief for incurables. What he has in mind is that it must be on a contributory basis. In the first place, an incurable has not the wherewithal to contribute. Nevertheless, if it is to be on a contributory basis, then the process of dispossession is taking place.
We have other schemes. There is unemployment insurance. I am not going to say that under the present system of taxation an unemployment insurance scheme has not some merit in it; but I do say that that is also a part of the process of dispossession. We hear a familiar phrase being used in labour circles with respect to their pay envelopes. The phrase is "take home pay". We have so much "take home pay". All I ask is: "What is the matter? What do you mean by take home pay? Don't you take it all home?" My answer is: "Why not; is it not yours?" The answer I get is: "There is a deduction for this and a deduction for that and a deduction for the other thing. And now that our union has gone into politics there is a deduction for this and a deduction for something else", and so on and so forth. "All I have now is my take home pay." I ask: "What has happened to the rest?" The answer I get is that it has
The Address-Mr. Hansell been taken from the labourer legally. But he did not say that they could take it. Did they consult the labourer? Do they consult the populace when they want to take this money from them? No, of course they do not. I say that the process of dispossession is taking place. If it goes far enough the take home pay will result in an empty envelope. There will not be anything for us to take home. If the process goes still further and we are dispossessed of our homes we shall take nothing home because we shall not have any homes to take nothing home to. That will be the situation.
Unless we get at the basic and fundamental origin of what all this fight is about, we shall never solve anything. It is a little secret. We have to learn that these forces which are out to wreck humanity are, in the first place, out to dispossess us of that which we have; and, when once we are dispossessed, we, the human race, become the slaves of a huge bureaucratic state. Let us make no mistake about that. Dispossession by means of debt, interest and taxation is a deep-seated plot to enslave the human race. Look at what we are headed for: state medicine. That is what we are headed for. State distribution of' foods; that is what we are headed for. State labour; that is what we are headed for, if it keeps on. Under the socialization of industry, labour toils for the state. Let us make no mistake about that. When that process is complete, you have the human race in a state of slavery.
I do not wish to go out of my way to refer to socialist Britain. I am going to refer to it, however, because it appears to me that Britain, which we once called Great Britain, is no longer great. At least she is not great in the sense of being a great economic factor in the world.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend says "nonsense". I shall not break up my speech to answer all the interjections; but I have heard them often. These socialist gentlemen who say that should have been sitting in the house thirteen or fourteen years ago, when some of us first came here. I am not going to take time to reply to these interjections; but the debate on controls is not yet over. The last word has not yet been said. Someone will answer my socialist friends who sit immediately to my right.
I am not blaming them for Great Britain's state. I do not know that we should place too much blame upon the British socialist government today; I want to be fair. But what I am saying is that in this battle of the ages one of the objectives in the minds of
1024	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hansell these forces of evil has been the destruction of a great empire. Let us not fool ourselves about that. And they are on their way; do not forget it. A socialized Britain is one step in the process.
Only the other day I read-and I had to smile when I read it-where a butcher in England was arrested for putting too much meat in his sausage.


Mr. Fraser:: A skin game.


An hon. Member:: You can read anything these days.


Ernest George Hansell: That may be true. But what made me smile was that there was a day when men were arrested for giving short weight. Here is the case where a man gives more than he should. I know the reason; we all know it. Britain is in economic straits today.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about the horse meat of Saskatchewan?


Ernest George Hansell: Food must be distributed adequately among the people. Furthermore, who has been one of the guiding lights in Great Britain for the past number of years? I know someone will say that Professor Harold Laski has nothing to do with the government of Britain today. But those who say that are not fooling me; he is one of the intellectuals who helped to mould socialist policy in Britain

yes, sir. This is the intellect who at one time was president of the British atheist rationalist free press association. This is the man who wrote the foreword to the communist manifesto by Karl Marx, the edition of the socialist party of America. This is the gentleman who wrote on the subject Why I Am a Marxist-and that is to be found in The Nation of November 3, 1939. This is the man who said that the defence of the soviet union is one of the highest duties a socialist can fulfil. And, if hon. members want to know where he said that, they may read it in the New Republic of October 30, 1935, page 339.
The Masses, a communist organ, in its issue of March 3, 1940, referred to Laski as a Marxist who acknowledges Lenin as one of the great leaders and thinkers of all times. May I read what was reported of a speech he made in the International Review of January, 1931. This is part of an address he delivered before the Royal Institute of International Affairs, at London:
It follows there must be constructed In the state a revolutionary party, that this revolutionary party must be prepared to take over the reins of power, that it can only maintain itself in office as a result of dictatorship, that the strategy of dictatorship is the organized control of the whole machinery of social life; religion, which is merely the opium of


the people; education, which is the clear foundation upon which the minds of the people can be controlled; the whole of these social services, which in their prewar form could not be trusted to serve the revolutionary state; the army, which is now the mere executive arm of the capitalist class; the navy, the air force, and other matters of that kind. That dictatorship, being a revolutionary dictatorship, will deal with all opposition so as to annihilate its consequences.
That is the mentality of those who are perpetrating a great scheme for the eventual enslavement of the human race.
The question arises: What are we going to do about it? It is not enough to cry Thief, thief! It is not enough to rave against communism, and to speak against it. Communism is the political philosophy used by the enemy behind the scene. It is what I call the antiChrist front. I say again it is not enough to rave against communism. I heard the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition (Mr. Drew) speak only a few days ago. He made a good speech, in which he warned the country against communism; but warning the country against communism is not enough.
My Progressive Conservative friends should learn a lesson from the by-election which took place in Hammersmith the other day. Mr. Churchill went out, hammer and tongs. What did he do? What did he say? He used a lot of highfalutin phrases. He used his Churchillian oratory to move the masses. But there was one thing Churchill failed to do: he failed to present to the voters any effective alternative. And because he failed to present that alternative, the people were taking no chances.
That is the situation. Let us face these things fairly and squarely. I say it is not enough to rave against communism. The only way to stop the enemy dead in his tracks is to make our way of life what it ought to be. My friends who sit on the treasury benches have not learned yet the method they must follow if they wish to make this country what it ought to be. And let me say this: When we oppose communism let us remember the events of civilization never reverse themselves. They may vary up and down like the waves of the sea. But let me tell the house this, that you will never drive communism back from the advances they have now made in the world. Civilization has not marched throughout the centuries of time in that way. If all we are going to try to do is to simply rave against this evil thing, then I am afraid we are attempting a task that is doomed to failure. As I said before, the only way to stop it is to make Canada what it ought to be.
I have recently been reading a book entitled "World Communism Today" by Mar-

tin Ebon, who I fancy is a communist and who certainly is not afraid to remove the mask. The question is asked, "Can communism win the battle for world domination?" and the author replies, "Let us be frank. Yes, it can". He then proceeds to show that the coming test of communist strength will develop when the next serious economic crisis spreads across the globe, and this is what he says on page 464:
Communism is organized desperation. It does not need the weapons of war to achieve its aims, although it may use them as collateral or alternative tools of revolution. Hunger and despair can be as effective as the most devastating weapon of war. As President Harry S. Truman said on March 12, 1947, when he asked the United States Congress to support Greece against communism, "The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of people for a better life has died."
The author continues to assert that when the next depression comes communism will be ready for it. In the long-range view of the intellectual communist, together with the strategists, the machine is already geared and set for when that time comes. The author of this book quotes from an article in Pravda by Dr. Eugene Varga, who is director of the soviet institute for world economics and world politics. Dr. Varga said:
The fear of a new approaching economic crisis is beginning to be felt in the capitalist world . . .
The general crisis of the capitalist system, as pointed out by Comrade Stalin, has changed the cyclical process of capitalist production in the sense that the phases of crises and depressions have become longer, and that a depression is followed only by a phase of revival, but not by a phase of full prosperity.
And then again, continuing the quotation from Dr. Varga:
The coming economic crisis in the United States will inevitably have a tremendous effect upon the situation in other capitalist countries. . . In capitalist countries the transition from war to peace is always bound up with narrowing markets, decline of production, closing down of industrial enterprises, and growth of unemployment. Only the Soviet union does not know such phenomena. In the Soviet union there is no anarchy of production, characteristic of capitalism, which leads to the rotation of periods of boom and crisis, which shake the very foundation of the economic system and create a constant uncertainty among the working masses as to their future.
It might be well if we paid just a little attention to what some of the intellectuals in the Marxist machine are thinking and are even warning the democratic world about. Our government carries on the same old laissez-faire sort of administration.


John Horne Blackmore: Unteachable.


Ernest George Hansell: It is an unteachable government, a government that will not answer direct questions when they are put to it. How often have we heard the hon. member for
The Address-Mr. Hansell Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) put one, two, three, four, five, six or more direct questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and say, "Answer those." But he has turned a deaf ear.


John Horne Blackmore: Two deaf ears.


Ernest George Hansell: He remained silent. Why? Because he did not know. Because he is a victim of lying propaganda.


John Horne Blackmore: Because he did not care.


Ernest George Hansell: Because he did not care. One of these days it will be too late. Let us remember that, when once a nation is enslaved, it is enslaved forever.


John Horne Blackmore: The Minister of Finance will be enslaved along with the others.


Ernest George Hansell: Let us remember that the communist high command, the communist intellectuals, have their hands on the pulse of the world's heart throb. They stand in readiness while we let things move along and take their course. What are we going to do about it? A year ago I heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) make a remark. I have great respect for the Minister of Labour but I do not regard him as one of the intellectuals.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: I want to tell you that if you listen to the intellectuals you will go wrong every time. My regard for the Minister of Labour is based upon my belief that he is a practical man with a great deal of common sense, a man with a sort of homespun philosophy. He said that we are on the verge of a new civilization. If we are on the verge of a new civilization, what kind of civilization is it going to be? It is going to be either a civilization of slaves or a civilization of free but economically secure people. It must be one or the other.
Since the Liberal government are in power it is their duty to see that we move into that age of freedom and security, an age where men can live, where men are free, where men will be in possession of the good things, of the good earth which has been abundantly bestowed upon us by a good God. Is this government able to bring us into that age? Judging by past experience, I think the answer would be, "Absolutely no."
If I were to ask the same question of my Conservative friends I would first tell them that it cannot be done by simply paring a bit of taxation off here and firing a few hundred civil servants, and putting something somewhere else, patching up here and patching up there. The old system needs no patching;

The Address-Mr. Picard the old system needs to be superseded by something that will bring on that glorious age.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, you have your hands on the arms of your chair, which is indicative that you are about to rise and tell me that my time has expired. The subject matter that I have at hand is almost endless, for the battle of the ages has been taking place since the dawn of mankind and will continue until we learn what it is all about. Otherwise we shall never be able to solve this nation's problems or the problems that face a befuddled world.


Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad that the people who were here at three o'clock were not present a moment ago to listen to the hon. member who preceded me. They would have learned that at least one party in the house has a monopoly on knowledge, and a monopoly on prophecy.


Ernest George Hansell: You could give some indication you have some.


Louis-Philippe Picard: The galleries were filled with people who came here expecting fireworks, but the fireworks did not materialize, and the fire petered out-


Mr. Low:: You are putting water on it now.


Louis-Philippe Picard: -as will the bonfire that has been lit before, and is being lit again throughout the country by propagandists of the Progressive Conservative party. As Confucius said, "glamour is exciting to some but it is oftentimes shortlived".
The mover (Mr. Brown) and seconder (Mr. Demers) of the address having discharged their tasks well, it is fitting that I join my voice with those who have preceded me in extending to them my sincere congratulations. To the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who has assumed office since we last met, I wish to pay a tribute of admiration, and to give assurance of my loyal support as a member of the party that he has been selected to lead. The Prime Minister succeeds a man whose name will be associated in history with those who made confederation possible, like Macdonald and Cartier; he succeeds a man whose name will be associated with those who led it on its path toward complete autonomy, like Laurier; he succeeds a man who held office for the longest period known in the countries of the commonwealth, and who, more than any other Canadian, contributed to make Canada a sovereign state. As leader of his party he succeeds two great men, Laurier and King, who for sixty years guided its destinies with rare sagacity. As chief exponent of the views of Canadians of French
(Mr. Hansell.]
descent, he succeeds Laurier and Lapointe, whose broad views have helped to build unity and a better understanding among the descendants of the two great races of the country. The Prime Minister has the talent, the ability, the courage, the inspiration, and the breadth of vision that make of him their worthy successor. It is with great pleasure that I offer him my sincere congratulations and my cordial wishes for a long tenure of office.
My congratulations also go to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who have already made a valuable contribution to the public life of the country in their respective provinces. I also want to associate with this tribute another newcomer to the house, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who has ably served the country in high diplomatic posts. All these men have already taken part in our debates, and have proven valuable additions to parliament. In my opinion, the brilliant speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this debate, as well as on the Newfoundland issue, have justified the confidence put in him by the former and the present prime ministers.
At this point I wish to avail myself of the opportunity to thank my good friend and colleague from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) for having noted, during his speech on the Newfoundland bill, that I had been the first among the members now sitting in this house to advocate the return to Canada of all or part of Newfoundland. His words were all the more appreciated as it is indeed rare that a member pays any tribute to a colleague in this manner, and I wish to thank him. In order not to delay the passing of the bill for the union of Newfoundland with Canada I forsook the opportunity to speak on the question, but for the record may I refer hon. members to Hansard of February 17 and May 11, 1943, when I expressed my views on the matter.
The two main points of the speech from the throne deal with our position in world affairs, and the economic situation facing the country.
I intended today to devote my time to certain aspects of these two questions, considering them of the utmost importance, and transcending all other questions of no less interest to the electors of the country, but certainly of less bearing on the future of Canada. In view of the trend of the speeches delivered by members of the Progressive Conservative party, I feel that it is my duty to deal with some of the issues they have raised in the present debate.
I think it is highly indicative of the methods employed by their party that a man of the reputation and the standing of the leader of

the official opposition should find nothing better, at a moment of great importance in the history of this country and of the world at large, to choose as the ground for his first attack on the government after his arrival in this chamber, than a question decidedly more intended to draw votes than pertinent to the importance of the hour. It is fortunate, however, that it gave the Prime Minister an opportunity of administering an appropriate rebuke to the propaganda methods of the Tory party which have not failed in the past to distort facts and displace issues just as they have done on the question of dominion-provincial relations.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.
Louis-Philippe Picard: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was about to say that, in his first contribution to federal parliamentary life, the Conservative leader did not give his attention to problems related to the security and economic stability of our country. By the scope of his approach to the problems facing Canada at this moment or lurking as the problems of the future, a man's contribution to parliamentary institutions should be judged. On this score, after hearing the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), I have not gained the impression, nor do I think the country has gained the impression, that he is the mental giant his propagandists have pictured him.
I might say that, on the same basis of judgment, the leaders of the two other opposition parties, although I do not share all the views they expressed, have shown themselves far superior in their approach to the vital problems of the hour and in their concern for the questions which at the moment should be foremost in our mind. They appeared to understand that above petty political tactics they had to consider the fate of our country as affected by the turmoil of world politics and the precarious position we might find ourselves in within a not too distant future if we cannot bring about a correction to the insecure economic position we are gradually heading for owing to the complete collapse of the present means of exchange among nations and to the chaos prevailing in world economy.
By his speech in this house, the leader of the opposition has shown the country he is not so interested in the vital issues that should be the subject of our attention as he is in stirring up issues which he hopes will help him to be regarded by some sections of the country as the defender of their rights, rather than as the man who uttered so many statements he would today prefer to forget.
The Address-Mr. Picard The leader of the opposition evidently did not grasp the objections raised by some members about the choice of his line of attack, when he took great pains to explain on Monday, February 21, that he had the right to raise points which were not mentioned in the speech from the throne. He referred to the question of dominion-provincial relations. No one questioned his right to do so, but we did question the propriety of doing it when there were so many questions to be considered of vital importance to the country.
His second line of attack derived from the first, and contained references to threats to the autonomy of the provinces-another war-horse he shares with his friend Duplessis. I must point out to the few Conservative members who are in the house that, in speaking thus, I am not taking anyone by surprise. I commenced my speech before six o'clock when the leader of the opposition was in his seat and he knew I would be continuing in this vein after the recess.


Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Louis-Philippe Picard: I usually do not permit questions from the Conservative side because they turn out to be long-winded speeches, but if the hon. member has a short question to ask I will accept it.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Would the gentleman be kind enough to tell us from what he is reading?


Louis-Philippe Picard: I am reading from notes I have prepared for this speech, and in doing so I am not doing more than has been done by the members on the other side of the house. I dare the member to read as well as I am doing.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) reverses himself without changing from his previous stand, hoping that people will believe in the conversion proclaimed by him. I would ask the member who interrupted me to inform me the next time he makes a speech so that I can make sure he really does make a speech and does not read from something prepared by his leader. No one in public life has been caught in so many contradictions as has the leader of the opposition since the opening of this session. What faith can the people of Canada have in a man, no matter how clever he may be depicted by his propagandists, who in such a short period of his life has put himself on record with so many conflicting and contradictory professions of faith on national issues.
I need not go into details. The house and the country still have fresh in their mind all the questions on which the leader of the opposition has been shown his inconsistencie:

The Address-Mr. Picard since this session has started. His trying to make the people of Canada, and in particular the people of Quebec, believe that the Prime Minister has sinister intentions against the autonomy of the provinces and his attempt to build himself up as the hero defender of minorities remind me of the story of the man who, after looting a store, was pursued by the owner and his clerk. Seeing a policeman at the corner, the thief pointed to his pursuers and shouted: "Arrest these men, they have robbed me!"
The leader of the opposition after having proven himself, in company with Premier Duplessis, as the man who did the most to scuttle the dominion-provincial conferences, now turns to the Canadian people and says, pointing to the past and present prime ministers: "They did it." And his cohorts repeat as one man, "They did it." But that is not enough for the member for Carleton (Mr. Drew), so he asks his supporters to depict the Prime Minister as the enemy of his own racial group. This is done in the hope that he-the man whose publicists must work hard to explain or refute some of his bright sayings of a few years ago, which he never denied at the time-might emerge from this as the new saviour of the rights of minorities and the new friend of the same province of Quebec.
This is just a farce, Mr. Speaker, but a sad one when you see the leader of the opposition interrupt the Prime Minister during a quotation he was giving the house on January 31, and say in a most insinuating way: Mr. Prime Minister, was it not in the same speech that you dealt with the subject of language and the right of this parliament to deprive any group in this country of a particular language if it was felt that should be done? What a method, Mr. Speaker! What a system of deliberate insinuation! Yet the statement made by the Prime Minister after the insinuating question by the member for Carleton was clear and well-defined, and his stand consistent with the terms of the constitution and the intentions of the fathers of confederation.
I need not go into details of the masterful expose of the question the Prime Minister gave earlier in this session as it is still present in the minds of hon. gentlemen of this house, as it is in the minds of those who read its terms in the daily press.
The Prime Minister spoke with courage in 1946, as he did in this debate. The people of Canada will see the difference between his straightforward answer and the dubious methods of the Tory party. The more he is attacked by such methods, the more the Prime Minister will gain the respect and confidence of the country by his truly national attitude.

(Translation):
As for his fellow citizens in the province of Quebec, they will not be taken in by such deceitful tactics. At almost the very moment when Mr. Duplessis' spokesman and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) were being moved to pity at the very thought of the dangers that the Prime Minister's attitude might cause to the French language, two important associations of the province of Quebec, the Society Saint-Jean Baptiste of Montreal and the Society de la Survivance frangaise expressed their confidence in the Prime Minister in no uncertain terms and acknowledged his fondness for the French language. I now wish to read the text of the messages which were forwarded to the Prime Minister:
The general president and general directors of the societe Saint-Jean Baptiste of Montreal were very pleased to learn about your official visit to the Canadian metropolis. The Societe Saint Jean Baptiste of Montreal, the national organization of the French Canadians, would very much appreciate the honour of an hour's visit with the general council on March 5 or 6 next on the occasion of a reception organized in tribute to a compatriot who, having become the Prime Minister of Canada, proclaimed through his energetic example the rights of the French language in the House of Commons.
Please accept our warm congratulations and our cordial invitation.
(Signed) Arthur Tremblay,
General President of the Societe Saint-Jean Baptiste of Montreal.
And here is the one from the Societe du Bon Parler frangais:
To the Hon. the Prime Minister:
The Societe du Bon Parler frangais deems it a privilege and a most pleasant duty to congratulate you for having recognized the bilingual character of Canada in giving more prominence to the French language in the House of Commons when the new session of parliament was opened.
We are confident that we express the feelings of all French Canadians in assuring you of our most sincere and patriotic gratitude.
Most respectfully yours,
(Signed) Jules Masse,
General President.
Such an answer from the province of Quebec ought to satisfy those who, in this house or elsewhere, try to represent the Prime Minister as an enemy of the French language.
Does not that prove that the Prime Minister's compatriots are aware that he has at heart the safeguarding of their rights and that he will not fail to uphold them should they ever be seriously threatened?
(Text):
As to possible threats to rights given to them by article 133 of the British North America Act, from which party would they come in this house and in parliaments to come? It surely could not be from the Liberal party, which has been for more than sixty years their haven of refuge when they

were attacked and ignored elsewhere. It surely could not be from the Liberal party, which has twice in its history since confederation entrusted its leadership to men of their race who have shown, and again show, an extraordinary sense of national spirit and understanding and a broad outlook on national and external affairs. The first of these has by his strong personality and his foresighted vision led Canada from the status of a colony to that of a dominion; the second has gained, since his entry into politics, the respect and admiration of his fellow citizens from the Atlantic to the Pacific, having promptly demonstrated since his accession to the premiership that he has all the qualities of a truly great national leader. It surely could not be from the Liberal party, whose aim has always been never to discriminate against any element of the population and to give all a fair representation in the councils of state. Canadians of French origin know that they have nothing to fear from the Liberal party in the matter of rights given to them under article 133. I do not think they need to fear, either, any encroachments on their rights by the C.C.F. party. Although this party has no representatives of French origin in this parliament, it has followers among French-speaking Canadians; and they have shown a broad enough outlook on national questions not to have their sincerity and good faith on such matters questioned. Neither do I think they need to fear the Social Credit party, be it only because of the fact that a certain sect of the same political creed is making a bid for support in many parts of Quebec.
Could it be that my hon. friends feel remorse for the past of their own party, and think that Canadians of French descent might come to share the uncomfortable feelings of the Conservative Quebeckers as expressed in this house by the former member for Gaspe, whose pronouncement on the matter was quoted in this house lately by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle)? Could it be that they believe their fellow Canadians of French origin will long hesitate before trusting the new deal offered by their new leader to Quebec in an attempt to gain their support?
If one looks back to the attitudes of so many Tories in past parliaments, it would be enough, of course, to make French-speaking Canadians ill at ease as to the fate of their language. The remarkable thing is the manner in which history tends to repeat itself at times. The leader of the opposition and his advisers are evidently working on this assumption. Fortunately, however, the patterns of historical events may vary in their
The Address-Mr. Picard shape. It is with the object of preventing a repetition of past mistakes that we on this side of the house must now fight to open the eyes of our own fellow citizens so that they may not remain blind to the artifices of the Tory party. It is evident from their behaviour since their last convention that the Tory party had set its hope on having at this time a repetition of 1911. From one end of the country to the other a publicity campaign tries to sell the new leader to the people, and the air waves are resounding with grandiloquent phrases of the man and his gift for solving all our problems; but nowhere more than in Quebec has this outburst taken the shape of a concerted effort to show the man as the hero of minority rights.


Mr. Brooks:: How about Nicolet-Yamaska?


Louis-Philippe Picard: My hon. friends will get the answer of Nicolet-Yamaska when the general election comes along.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have already had it.


Louis-Philippe Picard: You will then not have a man who says: I will not show my leader. You will have a man who will be obliged to show his leader. When he shows him, he will have the whole of the people of Quebec answering him in a proper way, and you will see the result.
It is evident from the behaviour of the members of the party opposite that since their convention they think they have obtained a new strength and think they may make the people of Canada believe they are new people. But neither the people of Quebec nor the people of Canada will be caught off guard.
On the other hand, a powerful attempt is being made to try to discredit the Prime Minister in the eyes of the inhabitants of his own province, as was shown in Nicolet-Yamaska, to which my hon. friend referred, when the Conservative candidate was surrounded by isolationists like Sauriol. These people who claim to be Tories and Conservatives ought to be ashamed to mention the name of Nicolet-Yamaska when the campaign in Nicolet-Yamaska was not fought on Conservative grounds but on isolationist and nationalist grounds, with the help of the isolationists in Quebec and with the help of Sauriol, who at one time might have been in jail instead of being free.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is something hon. members opposite have been doing for years.


Louis-Philippe Picard: The strongest alliances and the strangest alliances have been made in Quebec. In Quebec you see Mr. Chaloult, whose extremist views are known to everyone in this house, saying from his seat in the legislature that, although Mr. Drew was an "imperialist", he was confident that the fate of

The Address-Mr. Picard French Canada was safer in his hands than in those of the Prime Minister whom he called a "colonialist". It is the same line of attack as was hurled at Laurier in his own province in 1911. But let not my hon. friends be deluded. The people of Quebec have so greatly regretted the ingratitude they showed Laurier at that time that they will not be duped today. They have now learned their lesson, and they know that the men who are leading the two major parties now can be known to the country just by the way they have behaved in this house since we opened our deliberations. They can distinguish very well between the Prime Minister, who has shown himself to be a statesman of the first ability and of the first magnitude, and the leader of the opposition, who has tried at all times to raise prejudices and to bring about in Quebec a sentiment that would make him appear-after what he had said in the past- what he would very much like to be, the saviour of Quebec. It is a shame and a farce, and my hon. friends know it.
The method of amending the British North America Act, which has been criticized in this house during the recent debate, and which during the past two years has been made a political issue by the Conservative opposition, has been covered authoritatively by so many on this side of the house that I do not need to repeat their arguments. But, when they want to pose as saviours of minority rights and of provincial rights, it is interesting to note that of the ten amendments that have been made to the British North America Act, strange as it may seem, five have been brought in under a Conservative administration and five under a Liberal administration.
Of the five amendments under a Conservative administration, in no single case was the consent of the provinces obtained; yet today my hon. friends are trying to invoke the pretext that we should ask the provinces to approve of everything that is done in the house in the way of amendments to the constitution. In 1871 the question of establishing the western provinces arose, but nobody on the Conservative side in the house asked that the question be referred to the provinces. Halton and Mackenzie, both Liberals, asked as a first safeguard that the house should pronounce its views before any representations were sent to London. David Mills, another Liberal, representing the constituency of Bothwell at the time, asked that the provinces be consulted, but they were not, and that was under a Conservative regime. In 1886 the question of representation of the territories came up and the Conservatives did not consult the provinces. Another important question came up in 1915. Hon. members will


say that I previously referred to matters dealt with long ago, but 1915 was not so long ago, and my hon. friends were in power. An amendment to the British North America Act was asked for to increase the number of senators and to provide for Newfoundland senators. That was a question exactly similar to the question of 1946, the redistribution of seats in this house, and yet no consultation was held, and none of the provinces were asked to consent. The same thing happened in 1916 when the question of lengthening the term of parliament was under discussion. There was no question then of having the consent of the provinces. My hon. friends will say that that was during the war and that we had to do it by act of parliament. But we, the Liberal party, went twice to the people during the war and twice we were returned to power by the people of Canada.
It is also to be remembered that when my hon. friends opposite discovered there was a question of provincial rights it was in 1946 when the question of allowing more equitable representation to Quebec came up. Those who claim to be the friends of Quebec today will say, of course, that it is just a coincidence. It is evidently just a coincidence that they suddenly took such care for the welfare of the provinces when the government had decided to establish representation in the house according to population. It is to be noted that this bill corrected a grave injustice as far as Quebec is concerned and gave that province eight more seats. Could it be that the concern of the hon. gentlemen opposite for the rights of the provinces sprang from a desire to have this bill submitted for the approval of all provincial legislatures and thus prevent its coming into force? Is it not within the scope of normal deduction to believe that the then premier of Ontario would have opposed the bill giving eight seats to a province upon which he had been showering aspersions barely two years before?
I am willing to let impartial students of history decide whether this great concern for provincial rights did not come exactly from the opposite intention, that of preventing Quebec from getting its due proportional representation.
At this point I think it is opportune that I make my stand clear as to the advisability of Canada having a constitution more in keeping with its dignity as a sovereign state, member of the council of nations. I have already expressed my views in this house. I did so in July, 1946, and I refer hon. members to pages 2482 and 2483 of Hansard of that year, where I said:
A constitution is the basic and most important feature of legislation that any country may enact.

A constitution is the foundation-stone of a state; it is the compound of general principles that govern the political life of a country.
"The constitution of each state is always the result of a compromise between existing political traditions and the general principles of constitutional law, and its elaboration and drafting are of the competence of juridical science. Constitutional law is not something immovable; it is modified by the march of ideas and of political events."
It is evident that as long as Canada does not have a constitution enacted in Canada by Canadians there will be international jurists to argue that we lack one of the elements of sovereignty. It is also true that until in that new constitution provisions are made for amending it, situations such as the one which existed in 1946 and today will surge in this house and in the provincial legislatures. It is also evident that, unless this problem is tackled seriously in the near future, the question of provincial prerogatives will be made a political football by parties who can find no better issue to court the favour of the public.
The constitution, needless to say, should not be the work of this parliament alone, and I do not think either that we should proceed by adopting a draft constitution and then refer it to the provinces. The drafting of the constitution should be entrusted to a special constituent assembly formed for that purpose. An opinion on the matter which I quoted in 1946 is that of Dr. Beauchesne, who said in 1935 before a committee of this house:
I submit that a constituent assembly, chosen by the provincial legislatures and by the House of Commons, representing the main political parties and groups in proportion to the votes given at the last general elections, should meet in session and discuss the constitution from all its angles.
It appears to be a wish generally expressed that the British North America Act serve as a basis for this new constitution. One of the important decisions then to be given will concern the method of amending such a constitution.
Numerous constitutional authorities have dealt with this question. I commend particularly the splendid book of Dr. Maurice Ollivier, "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty". Whichever way the problem is approached, whatever may be the concrete proposals for the enactment of a constitution, whatever the method provided to amend it in later years, the most important consideration will have to be given to the forging of a charter that, while respecting the principles of the act of 1867, while upholding the guarantee given to minorities, shall permit the development of a strong and united Canada, free of the grounds for petty argument such as we have had so often and which we have witnessed in the present session in the ranks of the Conservative party.
The Address-Mr. Picard
May I conclude this part of my remarks with the words I used in 1946:
In conclusion, may I say that Canada has reached the adult stage. She has emerged from the war as one of the very few creditor nations. She is now the third largest trader in the world. She has a role to play in the after-war commensurate with her new stature. She has outgrown her outmoded, colonial style constitution, and it is time for her to assert her national will and to take her place among those nations of the world which have elaborated constitutional monuments as their basic law. Canada owes it to herself to nominate a constituent assembly and to draft a new constitution. How fitting it would be if the party which has always been to the forefront in the enactment of forward and emancipated measures and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who has attached his name to so many progressive moves and who has for longer than anyone led our country through war and peace with such ability, should initiate the necessary steps to give the people of Canada a long-awaited Canadian constitution.
Time, and the pressing urgency of the war and of other matters, have not permitted the former Prime Minister to realize this project. It is my hope today that the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will attach his name to that great work, namely, the negotiation and enactment of a truly Canadian constitution.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.


Louis-Philippe Picard: With all due respect, I have a few more minutes coming to me.


Some hon. Members:: Time. Unanimous consent is not given.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but unless the hon. member has unanimous consent he cannot continue.


Louis-Philippe Picard: A move of the leader of the opposition came to light last week, and it is quite in line-


Mr. Lennard:: Time.


Louis-Philippe Picard: Thanks ever so much for the broadmindedness.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in the past year many important events have taken place. One of those here at home which most impressed itself upon the people of British Columbia, and possibly the people of Canada, was the flooding and devastation caused by the great rivers of British Columbia overflowing their banks last May and June.
I have mentioned this at the outset for two reasons; first, because later in my remarks I want to draw attention to the matter of floods and the necessity for flood control; and also because the fact that these floods occurred at all last year, and are apt to occur again this year, is the result of one more failure of this government to deal positively with the issues

The Address-Mr. Fulton confronting it. I say that advisedly; because if the record is consulted it will be found that for two years prior to last spring I had spoken on the necessity of having a survey made of the Fraser river system through the joint operation of dominion and provincial authorities, with a view to developing a project or projects to provide under one scheme for power, irrigation and flood control.
I have urged for several years that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act be extended in a large way to our province, and that the engineers under that act, in conjunction with engineers of the federal Department of Public Works and provincial engineers, should undertake a full-scale survey, and the construction of projects which would serve the three purposes I have mentioned. Had we done that we would have provided at one and the same time for national development and national safety. But until this last fall, when we had a national disaster, nothing was done.
Even today, what is being done is likely to be another example of "too little and too late". I shall return later on in my remarks to deal in detail with the requirements in connection with power and flood control projects. At this moment I mention the government's failure in the matter as one of the most glaring examples of that lack of action and lack of leadership which so clearly afflicts them, and which so strongly supports the amendment we are discussing tonight, one of want of confidence in the government.
Other failures of the government could be mentioned, after a reading of the speech from the throne. For instance, there is the failure to indicate any intention to set up a standing committee on veterans affairs. There is the fact that again for another year there is to be no provision for a standing committee on national defence. It has been urged by hon. members of this party that both these branches of public activity should be the subject matter of the deliberations of standing committees of the house, so that these continuing national problems would not be left to be dealt with in a haphazard manner by way of emergency developments, but on the contrary would be the subject of continuing scrutiny, development and attention in accordance with their needs.
Then, the speech from the throne makes no reference to any program for the development of resources. I have referred to the power, flood control and irrigation requirements of our own province. The speech makes no mention of a national marketing act. True, we have before the house at the present time a scheme to extend the arbitrary powers of the Minister of Agriculture in respect of certain commodities; but we have

no indication with respect to the Natural Products Marketing Act which is so widely demanded and needed by the agricultural producers in every field of agriculture in Canada.
There is no mention of necessary tax reform; no mention of reform in the method of collection of taxes, or in the method of assessment-and particularly with respect to agriculture. There has been no amendment, so necessary and so just, in the manner of assessing and collecting penalties-assessing the interest on arrears when the only fault has been that the department had been late in making its assessment. Finally, there has been no mention of a provision to implement what we have been awaiting for three years, namely the principle of the basic herd. It is true that, as a result of conferences which have just been taking place, this matter may have finally been ironed out. But we must remember that the matter has been under consideration for at least five years, and has been under active debate in the house for three years. Yet the principle has not yet been applied; with the result that many farmers, elderly men, who have contributed so much to the development of this country, have, been unable to sell out and unable to retire; or, if they have taken that step, and have retired, they have had to hand over by way of income tax anything up to 50 per cent of the proceeds. It is gratifying to hope that the basic herd principle has been finally worked out; I should hope we would hear a statement clarifying the situation in the course of the next week-and not later than that-from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann).
Then, again, there is nothing definite in the speech from the throne about the trans-Canada highway. It is true that we have announcements from time to time, pried as it were out of the minister by a shoehorn process. These are announcements with respect to meagre developments in the construction of a trans-Canada highway. But there is no indication that the government has a trans-Canada highway policy.
I should like to refer to that matter in some detail. For three years there has been standing in my name on the order paper a resolution advocating the development by the federal government of a highway policy, the appointment of a highways commission, and the commencement of immediate negotiations with the provinces leading to dominion-provincial co-operation on the construction and maintenance of trans-Canada roads. Then, there has been another resolution, in the name of the hon. member for Cochrane

(Mr. Bradette), which has stood on the order paper for three years with respect to a particular road.
I first tried to discuss the matter three years ago when the estimates of the Department of Transport were under consideration.
I mention this only to show what a reversal there has been in government policy on this point. When I sought to bring it up in the discussion of those estimates the suggestion was made by the minister that such discussion was entirely out of order. He said there was nothing in his department which provided for trans-Canada roads, and that therefore nothing could be discussed. I pointed out that what I wanted to discuss was not what might or might not be in the estimates, but the fact that there should be a provision for the construction of a trans-Canada road. However, as suggested by the minister at that time, the discussion was ruled out of order.
So, for the next two years, I placed the subject matter before the house by way of a substantive resolution on the order paper. It will be recalled, however, that for the last three years the government has felt that it has been so much better qualified than the people themselves, not only to spend the people's money, but to direct every phase of the national life, that no time has been provided for the discussion of private members' resolutions. For the last two years debates on private members' resolutions have not been allowed in the house. For that reason it has not been possible to discuss this matter as a separate problem.
Last year, however, another attempt was made to discuss it when the estimates of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply were before the committee. That discussion was reported at page 5497 of Hansard for June 19, 1948. The minister, who is now the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), was questioned by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Miller), the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), and other hon. members on this side of the house, including myself. In answer to our questions, he took this position:
There is no policy which provides for contributions from the federal government toward the building of any highway at the present time-except by special arrangement; and that is usually confined to the opening up of new areas.
That was the position he took then. In reply to a further question he said:
If we see any sign of widespread unemployment we will proceed to make a blueprint. But at the present time we have not a blueprint and we do not think one is necessary.
If those words are taken at their face value it must be assumed that last June the federal
The Address-Mr. Fulton government had no plan for a trans-Canada highway or indeed any sort of federal road system. Then, as a result of further questioning, the minister became somewhat more definite in his replies and somewhat more disinclined to give any countenance to the discussion, and he ended by saying:
I can give no commitment about any highway, and I do not intend to answer any questions.
From that time onward he remained silent until the matter of the trans-Canada highway was no longer under discussion, at which time he became alive again and answered questions dealing with other matters. That was the government policy up to June, 1948. Bear in mind that hon. members on this side, and the public generally across Canada, were expressing an increasing demand for the construction of a trans-Canada road and the development of a system of federal aid for highways.
The suggestions which we made, which I believe were sound then and are still sound, were in effect that there should be established a system of federal aid along the line of that prevailing in the United States of America. Under that system the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, would work out a system of roads to be constructed and maintained by the provinces, with the dominion bearing part of the cost.
Then we find that in December the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. MacKinnon) called a conference of public works officials from the provinces to discuss a trans-Canada road. One might ask the reason for this change in policy. Are they opening up new areas? There is no sign that this is what they have in contemplation. Is it because they see signs of widespread unemployment? Those were the criteria laid down last year by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it merely to serve these two purposes that they have now decided to build a trans-Canada road? I doubt if any minister who is present or who heard that statement last year would make that answer at the present time.
I suggest that the change in policy has come about as a result of the pressure which has developed owing to the lack of action on the part of the government. It has come about as a result of a widespread demand which even they can no longer ignore. The government has finally realized that it is time to proceed with this program. This is just another example of the time lag which occurs when the government is dealing with national need and the demands of the people.
Even here we find that they are only going about it in a half-hearted manner. What did they do? They called the provincial authorities here last winter, and as far as we can

The Address-Mr. Fulton Here is what is happening in British Columbia. I wish to quote from the speech of the premier of British Columbia at the opening of the legislature of that province in March of 1948. The Kamloops Sentinel of March 10 of that year summarizes Premier Johnson's speech in part as follows:
Existing tax agreements between dominion and province cannot be considered fair unless social security proposals outlined in green book are put into effect.
He instances some of the burdens thrown on the province of British Columbia by failure of the dominion government to implement its proposals.
In this same article he is reported as having said:
Of 2079 old age pension cases assumed in the past five months, 423 or 20 per cent are from other provinces and not really British Columbia cases in the true sense.
At another point Premier Johnson said:
The dominion government has yet to assume full responsibility for unemployment.
Then he pointed out that, while the dominion was collecting enormous revenues within the province and was repaying only a very small proportion of what it collected, his government had urged that the dominion bear a larger share of old age pensions, institute compulsory contributory superannuation, give financial assistance in the cost of hospitals and implement a system of health insurance.
That matter was followed up, Mr. Speaker, by the budget speech delivered in the British Columbia legislature this year by the Minister of Finance. He pointed out that, as a result of the failure of the federal government to implement its undertaking at the time the tax agreements were first negotiated, the province had to impose a sales tax of 3 per cent on retail sales. This interesting fact was also pointed out by Mr. Anscomb, according to the Vancouver Sun of February 26:
British Columbia will receive from Ottawa 24-2 million dollars in the fiscal year 1949-50 as rent for its ^ personal income, corporation and succession duties. British Columbia will give its own municipalities 21-9 million dollars in the same year. The difference available for provincial services is only 2-3 million dollars.
By the time the province has enabled the municipalities to carry out their responsibilities for social services, only $2-3 million remains out of the grant received from the dominion government, and the dominion government has not assumed the share of social security costs which it undertook to assume when the agreement was made.
The editorial continues:
Mr. Anscomb referred to the fact that the province either had to impose the sales tax or give up its social security program. To avoid giving up this social security program, British Columbia is raising

$18 million annually by levying a tax on retail purchases. Mr. Anscomb also observed that the time is long past due for the implementation of the implied federal responsibilities upon which the tax agreement was predicated. The delay would be understandable if the federal government were financially embarrassed, but the postponement of action with the enormous revenue surplus materializing is beyond understanding.
We have only to remember that this year the federal government has a surplus of over $600 million for the first nine months, and then to realize that the provinces, like British Columbia, with increasing costs for social security, are driven to impose sales taxes to meet their obligations, to see the results of this deliberate program by the dominion government of centralizing financial power.
One sometimes hears it said even in my province, Mr. Speaker, when we criticize the federal government for failure to implement the social security program, that it is due to the fact that Ontario and Quebec have not signed tax agreements. This is the excuse offered by the Liberals. Let us examine that argument for a moment. Dominion-provincial financial relations at present are as follows: As a result of the agreement made with British Columbia, Ottawa collects from the taxpayers in that province approximately $144 million in the form of personal and corporation income taxes and succession duties. Under the agreement the dominion government pays British Columbia approximately $20 million, or one for seven to what they collect. At the moment the dominion government collects, from the same fields of personal income and corporation taxes in Ontario and Quebec, $674 million. This is based on a return to a question I asked last year. The dominion government does not pay Ontario or Quebec any subsidy, as would have been the case if those provinces had signed the agreement. On the basis of that return, if those two provinces had signed the agreement, they would be entitled to a subsidy of $143 million per year between them. The dominion government collects $674 million within those provinces, and it is $143 million per year better off because those provinces have not signed the agreement. To use the fact that Ontario and Quebec have not signed as an argument for not implementing the social security promises to British Columbia is plain unadulterated nonsense and my Liberal friends here and at home know it. They know they are trying to mislead the public when they give that as an excuse for the failure to implement the promise as demanded by the government of British Columbia.
Let me give you one other result, Mr. Speaker, of this sort of method of bleeding the provinces. The taxing power is concen-

trated in the hands of the federal government. The federal government refuses to implement its social security promises. The province of British Columbia is driven to imposing the sales tax to carry out what it regards as a basic level of social security for the people of that province. The municipal governments are unable to finance their proper responsibilities and the provinces are unable to help them further. To give you an example, I might cite what happened in my own district this past year. Nothing is more necessary for the people of Kamloops than adequate school facilities, yet nothing is in shorter supply. Last fall a bylaw was presented which called for the expenditure of about a million and a half dollars to provide needed school accommodation for that district. Approximately half of that amount would be contributed by the provincial government. The only way in which the municipality could raise the balance was by means of a further tax on property. I did not hear a single person deny that the increased school accommodation was necessary. Both the city and the rural areas turned down the bylaw. It was turned down, Mr. Speaker, for one reason and one reason only, and that is the crushing burden of taxation already imposed by the dominion government. The people said, "We cannot stand any more taxes".
Unfortunately, the people do not often have an opportunity of voting directly against federal tax laws. Such an opportunity will be afforded them at the next election and then my friends who impose these taxes will find out how the people feel about them. The people do have the opportunity of voting against municipal tax laws. It is the only chance they have of showing they cannot stand any more taxes even though it be for urgently needed school accommodation.
I suggest that this question of dominion-provincial relations is not of merely academic or political interest. It is of vital, everyday interest to the people in the various parts of the country from which we come. This gathering into federal government hands of all taxing powers for some theory of budgeting which has been referred to-and correctly -as more like a political theory of budgeting than a cyclical theory, and the imposition of heavy taxes to be used for a variety of nonessential purposes, some of them constitutional and some unconstitutional, yet refusing to fulfil the undertakings given to the provinces or to call a conference to sort out these matters, is resulting in our provincial governments and our municipalities being unable to provide the services which should be provided for their people.
The Address-Mr. Fulton
I had intended, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the somewhat related subject of the development of our natural resources, but I see that I am within a minute or two of the expiry of my time and therefore I will not go into detail on that subject. As I indicated earlier, I had intended to refer to the necessity of a flood control, power and irrigation project in British Columbia, especially with reference to the Fraser river system. Here is another sphere where the expenditure of provincial funds is called for. A large expenditure is called for, and the province will be hamstrung and handicapped because it has not the tax resources with which to carry out the project. I hope however that another opportunity will be afforded to deal with that matter more completely, so I will only say this in conclusion:	I urge on the federal government
and on the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier)-who incidentally has not yet tabled the copy of the report of the Fraser river board, for which I asked-to get his engineers busy and to get construction started now. All our lakes and rivers were full last fall. We had a wet fall. We have had a heavy snowfall this winter. If we should have a hot or a sudden spring, we shall have floods out there worse than those we had last year. I urge that the government proceed immediately with the construction of this project under the three heads of flood control, power for irrigation, and power for developing the resources of the province.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorklon):: I trust that you will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, if I talk this evening about the next generation rather than the next general election. It may be somewhat of a change for a house which is probably in its last session.
Today Canada is faced with many problems, and I shall deal first with what in our opinion is the most important one facing the government and the people today. I refer to the problem of how to prevent a depression which is already looming up on the horizon as an imminent possibility immediately in the path of the Canadian people, if not in the path of people in other parts of the world as well.
The growing list of unemployed within our own country, the piling up already of a surplus of agricultural and other products within Canada, and the reports of the failure of the ministers of the government to make certain trade agreements for the disposal of our surpluses, are unmistakable signs that all is not well with Canada for the next few years. If that depression is to be prevented -and I think the matter is worthy of the consideration of this house-it will be agreed by all hon. members that it will be necessary for us to take action now.

The Address-Mr. Castleden
I know there are some who will maintain that our trade situation was never better, and that the situation gives no cause for alarm. But it is the belief of the members of this party, at least, that the last depression through which we went was largely due to the failure in international trade throughout the world.
Our system of private enterprise-which is rapidly becoming a system of monopoly enterprise-was given a free hand in the 1920's and up to and during the 1930's. It led us directly into the demoralizing depression which most of the people of Canada have not forgotten. It is a matter of record that the only solution of which we have ever had experience for a depression of that kind has been the preparation for war, or the declaration of war. I can remember-and this fact can be verified from the records-when the leader of this group in 1936 asked the government of this country to start a program which would cost about $5 million. That request was for a work and wages program, to provide work for the millions of people in Canada who were unemployed, and to provide an opportunity for the young men who could not make homes for themselves. He was told that it could not be done, that the money did not grow on gooseberry bushes. Yet all he asked for was a $5 million program. As I said before, we have today a piling up of surplus products within Canada. The fact that the apple growers of Nova Scotia can no longer sell their apples in the markets of Great Britain and the fact that the Okanagan fruit growers, as we were told the other night, are not able to sell their surplus apple products, are among the signs that point to a depression.
There is one basic contradiction in our economic system which the people of Canada, and the other people of the world too, who live under this system, will have to face. It is this. Although there is a need for food throughout the world, the more food that is produced by those engaged in its production, the lower becomes their price, the less becomes the reward for their production. In a short time they face the situation of not being able to get even the cost of production. Why? Because there is no exchange for their products; there is no market abroad for them. It is about the problem of providing that market that I wish to speak tonight, because the Canadians of tomorrow will have to face it, and face it in an extremely real way, unless something is done about it, and done soon.
Surely there is something wrong when a system, which can produce as much as ours can, cannot distribute its production. Surely there is something wrong when the only
.
solution that we have for our overproduction, in a world that needs production and needs food, is that of paying farmers to root up trees, of taking surpluses and destroying them, of throwing bananas and oranges into the sea, and of burning coffee. Why? Because countries will not exchange these products.
These lost markets are causing apprehension across Canada. The western grain growers, who have been fortunate enough to have had crops in the last four or five years, have had some prosperity and a measure of security which they never experienced before. This was largely the result of (1) a world shortage of wheat and agricultural products; (2) a five-year agreement with Great Britain, which made minimum prices possible; and (3) a wheat board organization which returned to the farmer the net selling price of his grain. That is something he did not have before.


An hon. Member:: A Liberal government.


George Hugh Castleden: There are abroad in the west certain forces who would like that agreement type of thing to be done away with and who would like to return to the speculative market system of handling grain so that they would get the net return on the farmer's grain and he would not. These farmers have been able to pay off their debts. The number of mortgages is small. The farmers have been able to expand their farms and to provide themselves with some measure of modern machinery with which to produce. I want to say that they appreciate the fact that in the year 1949, when other agriculturalists across Canada find it difficult to sell their products, they have a market for their 1949 crop.


An hon. Member:: What about 1950?


George Hugh Castleden: It is about the 1950 crop that they are wondering. They have seen prices collapse before. This is what happens. In spite of the fact that the price of the commodity which they produce goes down, the cost of production continues to rise. Farm implements do not drop in price overnight. They will continue to rise in costs. The farmer is caught in between that price squeeze and is prevented from getting back his cost of production.
How was this five-year agreement with Great Britain made possible? It was made possible because ERP funds were available and provided United States dollars to Britain for the purchase of Canadian goods. Europe is beginning to come out of its emergency condition. According to reports, France is going to become a wheat exporting nation this year. In some quarters wheat is already becoming recognized as a burdensome surplus.

It is being so called by some people who support our system. Imagine such a thing in a world hungry for food. But it does mean, as far as ERP or ECA is concerned, that no more American dollars will be available to Great Britain to purchase Canadian grain. That is the reason why the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was unable to make any agreement with the British government for the 1950 crop. Great Britain cannot purchase our surplus commodities, such as wheat, without ERP dollars or Canadian dollars. If they do not come from ERP or ECA, then there is only one way she can get them, and that is by selling goods in Canada.
The hope for a long-term agreement today rests with the committee which I believe is sitting at this hour in Washington trying to arrange some international basis for the exchange of the world's wheat, on an international level, to share on a quota basis those markets of the world which will be available and which we believe will require these foods. If that conference fails, then the future is indeed dark for us.
The other day it was discouraging to read that the Argentine, which is one of the great wheat exporting nations, had withdrawn from that conference. That will mean that the Argentine, producing soft wheat, which is used to a larger extent in milling in the British markets and in Europe, will be forming a competitive factor against the world's exchange of goods on a barter basis. Our hope for fighting off a depression rests entirely on the ability of the governments of the world today to agree on an international basis to exchange their goods at whatever costs-to exchange their goods and overcome the things which are preventing an exchange of goods.
In the past we were told that we could not sell our agriculture surplus because of the value of Canadian exchange as compared with the British pound in the sterling bloc, the soft currency bloc, and the American hard-dollar bloc. The flow of goods must not be stopped this time by exchange values. If the exchange situation is going to be allowed to stop the flow of goods, then I think we will face, in the near future, the suicidal action of governments, who wish to continue governing their countries, following down the trail which leads to the inevitable position where they will not be able to get rid of their surplus goods. Then they must of necessity face a depression and bring others down along with them.
Although our government has expressed no opinion on the matter, and has expressed no policy, I hope that it is willing to exchange
The Address-Mr. Castleden goods on a barter basis with a country which will take our products. I do not know whether this government is willing to break with the great nation to the south of us. As we watch the trend recently, it appears that this government is making of Canada more and more a sort of dependent appendage of the United States, tying us up with the American dollar, tying us up in so many fields that we are now almost a minor state of that union. Are we to be free to make a break so far as the American dollar and the Canadian dollar are concerned? Individual farmers and farm organizations have cause for serious thinking on this matter. It has become the greatest single peacetime problem which faces Canada. Probably for that reason it has been the subject of more than one speech in this debate.
The farmer knows that the value of his products can fall overnight, but the cost of the things which he must buy does not. He is put in a position where he must buy them. He is always in the position where those who are selling these products to him tell him the price that he must pay for them; but he is not in a position to tell them the price at which they must buy his commodities. He makes his living out of that production. He cannot change it. He may be forced to continue to produce away below the cost of production, as he did in the thirties. He will then be forced to load himself down with a debt burden himself, and his family after him. It happened to hundreds and hundreds in the western provinces in the thirties. The farmer lost his farm to the mortgage company, his home and his life savings.
There is one feature of the present system of handling grain and agricultural commodities throughout Canada which, with the seriousness of the situation which faces us, is of the utmost importance. It is quite clear that the farmers themselves have made up their minds that it will go. I refer to the speculative system of marketing. Those who control our commodities plan daily what price they will pay for them. It is going to be necessary for us to negotiate and to plan our markets for the future. Our distribution must be organized democratically. I do not think the contention that you cannot have orderly marketing without regimentation and the loss of freedom, will stand examination; because logically, and already practically, farmers or organizations have shown that through democratic organization they can represent the will and the wishes of the people, and through farm organizations they can get together, plan their production, and plan their exchange of goods. The farmers pool organizations in the west, the united

The Address-Mr. Castleden farmers, the great co-operatives, the provincial federations of agriculture, the Canadian federation of agriculture and the Co-operative Union of Canada show that the farmers of Canada have the capacity to organize and to work together. They can work together with similar democratic groups, with people chosen in their own field, to sit down and discuss the problems which face them and to find a solution satisfactory to those people whom they democratically represent.
It is not necessary to have regimentation. It is not necessary to have bureaucratic government officials operate the wheat board; but it will require a government favourable to the ideas of those people who believe in some of the basic principles which they represent, to make possible through legislation the organization of our trade, our production and distribution through such boards.
In recent years the development of farm organizations has been a remarkable and a very healthy advancement in the Canadian economy. They have shown a fine capacity to organize and to work together. They have grown in recent years until now they exercise a tremendous influence in an organized way, and with a humanitarian objective, which is very important, and which commends itself to people of good will not only in this country but abroad. In my estimation, much of the hope for the world of tomorrow lies in the growth of this co-operative effort, and it must have scope in a world-wide way.
In spite of protests from our group in this house against the speculative marketing and the handling of coarse grains in 1947, this government proceeded to ignore our recommendations and our offered amendments to the wheat board act to bring coarse grains under it, and in the fall of 1947 they threw coarse grains out into the open market. Again in 1948 the government brought down an amendment to the wheat board act and passed the buck to the three provincial governments of the west. What was the result? The Liberal coalition government of Manitoba and the Social Credit government in Alberta refused to pass enabling legislation, and the result was that the grain exchange carried on the handling in 1948. But now the powers of the farm organizations are having some effect and they are beginning to win their point. From press reports already out,
I believe it is evident that an amendment to the wheat board act will be brought forward in this session, which will finally bring coarse grains under the orderly marketing system of the wheat board.
With Canada's livestock and dairy industry and with our production of meat, eggs, cheese and other dairy products dependent upon the


production of coarse grains within this country, Canada's policy for the production of these products is tied up completely with the production of coarse grains. A proper floor price is an essential part of any over-all agricultural program.
It may be necessary within the next few years to do what is being done in the United States at this time. They have organized, and have recognized the need of a national program for the allotment of food, to make it possible for those people in the low-income brackets-and we have many such in Canada -to purchase essential foods. I suggest a program of that kind should be under survey at the present time to take care of the situation when distribution in Canada and abroad begins to fail.
Such a program would also be necessary in the international field. The stability which would result from its establishment is essential for the prevention of another depression. It may require as much ingenuity, work and detail as was required in the preparation for war. This will be a war on poverty and on depression.
We in this Co-operative Commonwealth Federation believe that some of the basic principles in the co-operative movement will have to replace some of those principles, if they may be so described, which operate within the economic system under which we live, before a solution of this problem will be possible.
We join with the Canadian co-operative union in asking that the government remove the taxation against the three per cent of savings, which is treated by the government as a basis for taxation. We realize that sometimes the government has difficulty in recognizing what are and what are not co-operative organizations. If it would pass a federal co-operatives act, something which is needed very badly, it could define in that act what a co-operative is. It would permit the formation of co-operatives throughout the whole of Canada, permitting them to do business interprovincially rather than confining their efforts within the boundaries of a province. Such an act would make it possible for people to organize co-operative corporations so that they might operate in any province, and throughout the whole of the dominion.
Under present legislation, co-operative organizations which organize on a commercial basis or for commercial purposes are compelled to operate on a share capital basis. That method is contrary to the principles of many co-operative organizations, and is opposed by them.

I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to represent a constituency in the eastern part of Saskatchewan second to none in Canada. The people of that constituency come from many different countries of the world. Despite that fact, we live together there as one family. We share our troubles; we share our joys; and we work in unity together. During the depression we suffered, and resolved to do something to prevent the recurrence of such conditions. When the war came many of our young men enlisted. Many never returned. Some, who did not return, had known very little in their lives, up to 1940, except poverty, relief and unemployment.
During and since the war we have had a few years of security and we have been able to expand some of our holdings. We have been blessed with fairly good crops. The people cleared off their debts, paying every cent they could. They bought farm equipment. These people have been able to live together because they have exercised the principles of tolerance; and they are Canadians first.
They appreciate the program put out by a young man who, I believe, should be honoured in this House of Commons for the work he is doing for Canadians. I refer to Mr. John Fisher, who makes his reports on the C.B.C. The work that man is doing toward promoting unity and understanding among Canadians is certainly in great contrast with some of the things we sometimes see in our political life here, those things which tend to separate Canada and prevent her becoming a great nation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: A New Brunswicker.


George Hugh Castleden: I care not from vAat province he comes; he is doing a greet service for Canada.
In my constituency we recognize the right of the people to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear and freedom from want. They work together. We may differ in our religious and political beliefs; but we respect the rights of all people to have their beliefs. There is no padlock law; there is no racial or religious intolerance. Our religious freedom is real.
The centre of that constituency is a city of about 7,000 people. A recent survey shows that it is growing and expanding, and also shows that among the people are twenty-three different religious denominations. But they work together in freedom, without fear of persecution, and without scorn of their fellow men. The people in the town work with the people in the rural community. If trouble comes in one section, they help each other. They realize that they depend one upon the
The Address-Mr. Castleden other for their existence and welfare. They know that their prosperity depends one upon: the other.
Over two hundred new houses have been built lately in Yorkton, but this does not begin to meet the housing problem. I would say this about that government housing program, that while they are producing houses in Yorkton, the cost of those houses is so high that it fails to relieve the requirements of those in the lower-income brackets who need housing accommodation most. Many of the people who would like to go into those houses find that the regulations and requirements of income are so high that they cannot undertake either to rent or to purchase them.
Even less fortunate are the people in another town in my constituency, the town of Kam-sack, where, on account of certain regulations under which the housing program of this government is being operated, the big business firms in Winnipeg who decide how much money will be lent for the construction of houses have determined that this town is not a good risk-or have given some other reasons. Apparently they are afraid they might not get all their money back, with the result that veterans and others living in that community are unable to have even those advantages of the housing scheme the government is now putting forward.
The people in that community feel the need of an amendment to the National Housing Act to make it possible for a group of people to organize themselves co-operatively for the purpose of building their own nouses for their own use. I do not know why the National Housing Act prevents such action among people who really need houses. These loans must be made available to the co-operative corporations on the same terms as such loans are made available to the limited dividend housing corporations, notwithstanding the fact that, upon repayment of the loans, titles to such houses may pass directly or indirectly to the lessee.
A number of years ago I had the pleasure of visiting Nova Scotia. Down in Cape Breton island I watched the development of the best housing program I have seen in Canada. I saw people who were workers in steel plants and in mines working together in co-operative groups to establish homes for themselves. A system was established there whereby such people working co-operatively could get money at about three per cent. These workers, previously condemned to live in company houses without sanitation or modern conveniences, had planned through the years to build these homes. They built themselves lovely six-roomed and seven-roomed homes, fully modern, well spaced, well constructed; they allowed plenty of playground space and

The Address-Mr. Castleden
they had proper town planning. They moved into those homes and had to pay a rental of $13 per month, which covered not only the rent for the building but insurance, taxes, water and light and protection. It gave them good homes. Within a period of twenty years, by working through this co-operative organization, they will have sufficient money to pay for those homes out of that rental.
Those were families that appreciated such homes. For generations they had been compelled to pay $16 and more per month for company houses without proper sanitation or conveniences and they never owned them. But their families had been forced to live in them because they could not afford to build their own homes. I went from that project across to Sydney Mines and I saw people living in houses that had been long condemned. Such a project as that is one of the best ways to develop good citizens and good Canadians. Similar projects should be made available to all the people of Canada. We must make such houses available.
People in the west resent order-in-council government. They want this government to know that order-in-council government is abhorrent to them because they believe it is contrary to some of the fundamental and basic principles of democracy. They resent the discrimination in freight rates which this government failed to wipe out when they granted the increase to the railway companies. But there is one thing which has struck them hard in recent years. In the years before, these people had never experienced the necessity of paying income tax. Since the war, when they had some prosperity and became taxable, they were not even told that they were supposed to pay income tax. I do not think they are protesting so much against the payment of the tax as they are against the methods of collection used by the representatives of this government.
They protest strongly against some of the actions and methods of the tax collectors sent out as representatives of the federal government. It is the method they object to, because they appreciate that the income tax is one of our fairest taxes if it is imposed in a proper way, since it taxes those in the higher-income brackets. If you wiped out the inequalities and the injustices I do not think you would have much complaint; but as long as you continue in the course that has been followed for the past three or four years you will have continued complaints from these people.
I should like to read a copy of a resolution which was sent by the Yorkton and district board of trade to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I am going to read this because 
it represents the opinion of the people in that area and gives an accurate idea of what they are thinking. I understand that similar protests have come in from all over Canada and it is hoped that they will have some effect upon the government. I am reading this now because I have no doubt the Minister of Finance will be preparing his budget and it would be well for him to know what the people are thinking. At any rate, we can register our protests and wait for the budget to find out whether they are heeded. The resolution addressed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) reads:
Representing as we do, a cross-section of Canadian citizens, labourers, wage earners, salaried men, professional men, farmers, business executives and business owners, we feel that the facts expressed herein are applicable to the great majority of Canadians. We submit that:
1.	Canada is the richest nation in the world in per capita natural resources and productive ability, but her citizens are condemned to a lifetime of mediocrity through our present income tax laws. The normal savings of our people are being taken for income tax.
2.	The natural inclination of Canadians is to save and to accumulate property and wealth. Income tax laws have nullified this desire.
3.	Canadians are a thrifty and industrious people. Our income tax laws have killed their incentive. The tendency today is to do less, for example-
Our labourers and wage earners will not work overtime or to maximum efficiency. Overtime work usually results in less than regular take-home pay and the tendency of workers is to work down to a minimum standard.
Our business men do not expand. There is no incentive and little opportunity to grow.
Our professional men do less than they are capable of, take plenty of holidays and hire extra staff. Again no incentive to do their best.
Our farmers are on strike-literally, and disastrously. This year we have a butter and milk shortage, next year it could be a butter, milk, beef, pork, egg and poultry shortage. Thousands of our best mixed farmers have gone out of livestock. Why-simply because they will not work overtime to produce food to pay too high income taxes.
4.	We, the people, are in real danger of losing our freedom through the workings of income tax laws. An army of inspectors, instructed that everyone is evading taxation, are becoming increasingly autocratic and the trend is to bring everyone down to one common level. We are too tax conscious; every business move, change or sale is influenced and flavoured by the extent to which income tax will affect the deal, or how the tax may be evaded.
5.	An additional expense borne by the taxpayer is the toll taken by the large number of auditors and so-called tax experts who are necessary to the average citizen in the compilation of his returns.
6.	We consider that the net result of all the above is an intolerable situation which must be remedied.
We therefore resolve that our government be urged to grant a reasonable reduction on personal income tax at this session of parliament, giving particular thought to granting special concessions and exemptions to small businesses in order that they may expand in a normal way. We also ask that special consideration and exemptions be given

to farmers in such a way as to promote an increase in the production of milk, butter, poultry, eggs and livestock.
Respectfully submitted,
W. D. Lightbody, president,
F. C. Matheson, secretary,
Yorkton and district Board of Trade.
Similar resolutions asking for the reduction of the farm income tax have come from many of the rural municipalities in my constituency. They protest against the discriminatory features of farm income tax collections and urge that the exemptions be raised to at least $1,200 for single men and $2,400 for married men.
There is a further injustice that should be removed, in that no allowance is made for the unpaid labour on the farm. When that allowance is not made, surely the products that are consumed on the farm should not be considered as farm income. Another rank injustice exists in this field. We find employees of the federal taxation branches in the provincial centres charging farmers as much as $1,000 for their living expenses on the farm, and in other cases raising this to $1,200 or $1,500. Apparently the amount depends upon what they wish to try to collect from the different farmers. Such discrimination brings the deepest of resentment.
In closing, I should like to reassert our contention that the success of an economic system is measured by the extent to which it can take care of the welfare of human beings within the nation. The welfare of the people within the country is more important than the right of any particular group to extract excessive profits from those who toil. If the Canadian people are ever denied the right to obtain a living in return for their toil, and an opportunity for toil in this land of abundance, then our system will stand doomed, and it has failed once already. The real importance to the people of the present situation is not just a matter of the trade of tomorrow, or even a depression. I hope we appreciate the fact that our democratic system is on trial today as it never was before. We must prove that this land of abundance is able to provide for all. We must produce the greatest security with the highest degree of freedom. If we provide that, then no kind of totalitarianism will ever replace our Canadian democracy.
(Translation):


Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, January 26, when the fifth
The Address-Mr. Boivin session of the 20th parliament was officially opened, I went to the Senate with the object of paying close attention to the speech of His Excellency the Governor General. Let me tell you in all sincerity that for the fifth time I was greatly disappointed in the acoustics in the upper house, especially when solemn ceremonies take place. This is probably due to the noise and special formalities. Despite their good will, most members did not hear anything and they had to wait until the next day to find out what the speech was about, by reading it in Hansard.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, through the medium of newspapers and radio, the whole population of Canada heard about the contents of the speech from the throne at the same time as their representatives, if not before them. That event has again shown the importance of putting in a system of loud-speakers in another place and I believe it also demonstrates the importance of a system of microphones with loud-speakers in this house. If after due investigation, your consulting engineers should report that this is not possible, as they will probably do, I am almost sure that after serious consideration they will suggest the adoption of a system of microphones with receiving sets, such as found in the United Nations assembly halls at Lake Success. This system has been entirely satisfactory to the representatives of various countries who are presently in session and particularly to the public who attend those proceedings. I may add that I am conversant with the matter since I have had, like many others, the privilege of attending one of these meetings and of seeing for myself the advantages of such a system.
We must admit that during the war we accomplished things which the public considered impossible. We were able to accomplish them and to that end, these achievements being indispensable, the price was never a consideration. Well, I feel that for many years now such a system has been necessary and essential. It would allow the members from this part of the house to hear those sitting at the other end and who turn their backs to us when addressing you, Mr. Speaker. We could dispense then with reading the reports and still be informed on matters dealt with on the orders of the day. We would also be able to hear a member's speech even if the latter's voice is rather faint. We could thus keep really up to date.
1044	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Boivin
Members of the press gallery would be able to prepare their reports while the member is speaking. They wouldn't have to wait many hours, until they can get copies from the Hansard reporters. The public attending our proceedings would also be able to hear the speeches. You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that such a system would not be too costly. In my opinion, it should be installed regardless of costs, because of all the advantages it would bring. My suggestion should be taken into consideration without further delay, for as a result of the redistribution of seats and of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation, the number of members will increase and the need will be more strongly felt.
Mr. Speaker, after reading the speech from the throne I beg you to convey my most sincere congratulations to His Excellency the Governor General, whose words show the importance of the present session.
I also wish, without further delay, to congratulate most heartily the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in my own name and on behalf of my constituency, on his appointment as leader of our party. He now holds in his hands the destinies of our country. The people of the constituency of Shefford, which I represent here, had reason to rejoice over his election, since it is part of the eastern townships, of the region where the minister was born, i.e. the county of Compton.
About a year ago, prior to his appointment as prime minister, the member for Quebec East was the guest of his Alma Mater. On that occasion, one of our most prominent personalities spoke in the following terms:
Tonight, I found, once again, that Mr. St. Laurent iived up to my expectations which were based not only on what others have said and on his own speeches but on confidential information purporting that by his sincerity of purpose and upright behaviour he has long since made his mark. Your sincerity, Mr. St. Laurent, explains why you have met with such success. You have shown that those who convince others and who are listened to in the long run are the very ones who toiled honestly and spoke the truth, except when circumstances compelled them to keep it to themselves.
Since it has become a habit with you to climb gradually, you have come to study great problems, to ponder over broad considerations. By your behaviour, by the uprightness of your conduct, by your honesty, by your love of truth, you have set a fine example for all to follow.
These words, spoken before Mr. St. Laurent had assumed his high office, were quite justi-


liable at the time but have since proved even more to the point.
In asking me to wish Mr. St. Laurent on their behalf good health and ever-increasing success, the people of my constituency of Shefford entrusted me with a very pleasant task.
For quite some time, the papers had mentioned rumours that no one would credit in reporting that the member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) would resign as prime minister because of ill health. These rumours were accurate, as we learned with deep feeling and regret, when he resigned some time after the last session. It is only fitting that I congratulate him on all he accomplished during the many years he was leader of the party and Prime Minister of Canada. There were dark days, indeed, but better times as well. We are very happy that his health allows him to remain among us in the house and hope that Providence will keep him with us-for a long time to come.
The speech from the throne hints that the hope expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) and by myself last year, may come true. Please believe that if it does, the people of Canada, irrespective of party affiliations, will rejoice over such an appointment.
We also learned that the member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken) retired as leader of the opposition. On his doctors' advice, he relinquished leadership of his party. May I assure him of our highest consideration and wish him good health and success.
I should like to welcome the new leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) who took his seat in the house recently. Although he has been with us but a short while, I feel sure he already sees the difference between the Legislative Assembly and the House of Commons. To use a well-known Quebec saying,
I might add: he has finally met his "Quebec".
May I also extend greetings to our new colleagues from Algoma East (Mr. Pearson), Marquette (Mr. Garson) and Rosthern (Mr. Boucher) who have joined the members sitting on the right hand side of the house. I wish them every success in their new duties.
In listening carefully to the mover of the address, my friend and colleague the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), I felt, as I am sure others did, that he acquitted

himself very creditably of his task and that his constituents have every reason to be proud of him.
As to my colleague and friend, the member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Demers), who seconded the motion, I also bid him welcome and extend my most sincere congratulations. A better seconder of the address could hardly have been selected. His speech was brief but to the point and he rendered unto Caesar the things that were Caesar's. He has kindled our admiration and he can count on our entire co-operation at all times.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to something that my constituents are asking, as I have myself, since July 12, 1946, for a distinctive Canadian flag which, as such, would be in accordance with the aspirations of the whole Canadian nation. I would like to quote Mr. Maurice Ollivier, legal adviser of this house. The quotation is taken from his excellent book on problems of Canadian sovereignty:
If, as Lord Tweedsmuir once stated, the first loyalty of a Canadian belongs to Canada and not to the British commonwealth of nations, there seems to be no valid reason why this country, like all the other countries of the commonwealth, should not adopt a distinctive national emblem. It would serve to unite Canadians, whatever their origin, in time of war as in times of peace, during a depression and during normal times. They would find it easier to work hand in hand towards the greatness and progress of our nation.
The same holds true for our national anthem "O Canada" and any Canadian who loves his country should not find it in him to oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, we who sit on your right sincerely wish to give this country peace and security. I might add that we would have better success in that undertaking if the parties that are represented here could only forget their political fanaticism and work together with those who have been chosen to preside over the destinies of our country.
Mr. Speaker, reference was made, on our arrival here, to the communist menace. I know that everybody in this country now realizes that not enough attention has been paid up to now to this movement. A healthy reaction to it having taken place in numerous European countries, it has turned towards us, in the hope of succeeding here. It must be admitted that, though it does constitute a threat, it has not gone beyond its preliminary organizational stage. I congratulate the government on the close watch that has been and
The Address-Mr. Boivin is being kept in order to fight this evil movement. I am convinced that our people understand now the true meaning of this revolutionary ideology. It will therefore be easier to fight it since the people will not leave that responsibility to the federal government alone, especially after the events of the past few years, but will co-operate, I am sure, by communicating to the proper authorities any information or any doubts they may have concerning those who abhor order, liberty and religion.
It is true that we have had good crops, that industrial expansion goes on at a rate we have never known before, that inflationary forces are less active, and I would add that it is true that employment is at a level heretofore unknown. But I would point out that we experienced a more or less serious regression since December last, due to seasonal factors as well as to limitations on the exportation of our products. In the city of Granby where I Mve, to give only that example, unemployment affects more than 1,500 people. I hope that these people as well as the country in general will admit that the federal government gave them two good acts when it enacted the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Family Allowances Act.
This brings me to deal with another question, a very controversial question and one to which I want to call the attention of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. MacKinnon), that of immigration. On March 1, 1949, I called the attention of his predecessor to the danger of mass immigration, and events have proved that I was right in what I said then. I read only a few weeks ago that we received in 1948, 125,414 immigrants, that is twice the number we admitted in 1947. I have come to the conclusion that had we been more careful and admitted less immigrants our people who are today out of work would be employed in the majority of cases.
Mr. Speaker, some time ago I became acquainted with a report dealing with a lecture given by Mr. Watson Kirkconnell before the Empire Club of Canada in Toronto on March 23, 1944, and which interested me deeply. I would now like to quote the following from the said lecture:
The history of immigration in this country may be relied upon to approve those principles which should be the guide of our future policy.
Mr. Kirkconnell sums up such a policy as follows:
During this total period (from 1851 to 1931) Canada has always had half as much again as many immigrants as it could absorb. For example between

The Address-Mr. Boivin
1871 and 1881 the number of immigrants was doubled but only one out of five remained in Canada. Between 1881 and 1891 the immigration became two and a half times as intense but only one-ninth of the immigrants remained in this country. Between 1891 and 1901 six out of ten immigrants left Canada. During the most intense immigration period, 1,848,000 foreigners were admitted to Canada but the emigration was about one million. From 1921 to 1931 we received one and a half million new citizens but we lost one and a quarter million. During the whole period between 1851 and 1931 we have lost
6.110.000	persons who left for the United States,
1.740.000	of whom were born in this country and
4.370.000	were immigrants who had found it impossible to establish themselves in our economic life. Not for a single moment during the last 90 years, except for the temporary requirements of the war, has Canada been affected by a shortage of manpower. We have no business to bring here large numbers of immigrants before we have reasonably insured full employment and social security to our own people, whatever their racial origin may be-
And further on the same lecturer said
this:
New immigrants should not be chosen exclusively among the British people.
He does not share the views of the leader of the opposition.
Our national revenue has reached a higher level this year and consequently the remarks made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his last budget speech are still more justified and truthful. I recall that he said:
This year I can again report, so far as Canada is concerned, an unprecedented rate of economic activity and a new record of progress in our government accounts.
Mr. Speaker, I rejoiced with the Minister of Finance when I heard on different occasions this year that we would again have an unexpected surplus nearly as substantial as that of last year, if not greater. The news item which appeared but a few months ago announcing that we would have to increase our expenses for national defence was accepted without any recrimination throughout the country because the people understood our government's attitude.
Mr. Speaker, with such a surplus this year, I hope the Minister of Finance will remember the words he spoke on April 29, 1947 and which are to be found at page 2554 of Hansard of that year. So that he may not forget them, I will take the liberty of quoting him:
I am consequently proposing to make a substantial reduction in taxation in this budget. Moreover, I am proposing to concentrate this reduction almost entirely in the field of personal income tax. This is the tax that at present levels is proving so unpopular and is causing difficulty. To overcome the situation which I have described a substantial reduction is necessary.
We trust therefore that the Minister of Finance, faithful to his word, will increase the tax exemptions requested more than once, by myself, and many other members. We all
IMr. Boivin.]
know that the Minister of Finance was not invested with his responsibilities to please the people nor to apply only those regulations which are agreeable to the people. We know that his chief responsibility is to ensure a fair proportion between revenues and expenses. I hope his task will prove less ungrateful this year. I do not consider I have asked for anything unreasonable when in my speech on May 22, 1947 I suggested the exemption should be from $1,200 to $2,000. At that time, I submitted statistics to show that a single person earning $1,200 was short $99 at the end of the year and that a head of family with two dependent children and earning $2,000 had a deficit of $215.
We must unfortunately recognize the fact that since 1947 the cost of living has considerably increased and if I were to compute again my figures in accordance with the present cost of living, the deficit for each would be twice or even three times as high. The head of family has had to cope with an increased rent, the power companies do not allow discounts, the price of clothing has considerably increased, and a minimum of $3 a day for food would be absurd. For these reasons, I have to ask more this year and request on behalf of my constituents, an exemption of at least $1,500 for a single person, and $2,500 for a married man, with $200 exemption for each child in receipt of family allowances and $400 for the other children. Moreover, all children should be considered as dependents as long as they attend school. Everyone knows that classical studies and a university course cost the parents more money. I also ask that income tax deductions at the source, inaugurated in September 1942 and which still affect the average wage, earner, be abolished.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, that you could be present at a distribution of pay envelopes in any industry. You would then realize the feelings of the average workers when they receive their money. After deductions for income tax, unemployment insurance and retirement fund, the amount actually received is far less than they really earned and should be getting.
Storekeepers, dealers, manufacturers and professional men submit their report four months after the end of the year. In my opinion, it would be only fair to treat the average wage earners on the same footing.
The unemployment insurance commission should pay benefits as of the date the contributor ceased to work because those people need the money, having used up all their savings owing to the rise in the cost of living and to the heavy taxes they have been forced to pay.

People of the middle classes still have to pay taxes levied in May, 1942. I refer to the tax on soft drinks. I have stated that this tax is levied against people of the middle classes, because they are the heaviest buyers of this commodity. To ascertain this fact, it is only necessary to inquire from the manufacturers or from the corner store. It will be seen that three-quarters of this tax, if not more, is paid by the middle classes. These taxes must also be considered from the viewpoint of the soft drink manufacturers in our respective constituencies. I have already
The Address-Mr. Boivin urged in this house the removal of this tax and I have sent my request directly to the minister concerned. I am told that several of my colleagues have made similar representations. I was informed later on that an investigation had shown that income from this source had not decreased, on the whole, during the last fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, in order to stay within the time allotted to me, I would like, with your permission, to include two comparative statements, that will supplement my remarks.



TABLE I

[Stage Direction]
25 per cent excise tax and lc. per bottle tax on soft drinks-monthly collections
-	1947 Sugar rationing %	Present 1947	(100%) 1948	Dollar Increase or Decrease	Percentage Increase or Decrease$	$	$	$January	70	1,358,667	1,593,273.27	234,606.27	t 17February	70	1,292,306	1,898,720.22	606,414.22	t 31March	70	2,148,213	2,663,144.92	514,931.92	t 23April	70	328,215	259,156.65	69,058.35	* 21May	80	1,436,150	1,784,397.84	34S.247.84	t 24June	80	1,728,481	1,951,932.83	223,451.83	t 13July	80	1,867,142	2,405,961.45	538,819.45	t 28August	90	2,312,248	3,120,321.04	808,073.04	t 35September	90	2,862,728	3,552,393.48	689,665.48	t 25October	90	2.900,474	3,210,637.85	310,163.85	t 11November	100	2,095,645	2,526,759.60	431,114.60	t 20December	100	2,065,204	1,928,463.04	136,740.96	* 6$22,395,473	$26,895,162.19J	$4,499,689.19	
* Decrease, f Increase.
t Total tax on soft drinks for the year 1948 actually $26,892,817.55.

[Stage Direction]
Monthly collections of 25 per cent excise tax and lc. per bottle tax on soft drinks. Showing expected collections
for 1947 based on sugar at 100 per cent
-	Percentage actual 1947	Actual 1947	100 p.c. expected 1947	100 p.c. 1948	Comparison 1947-1948 100 p.c.$	$	$	$January	70	1,358,667	1,940,952.00	1,593,273 27	* 347,678.73February	70	1,292,306	1,846,151.00	1,898,720.22	t 52,569.22March	70	2,148,213	3,068,876.00	2,663,144.92	* 405,731.08April	70	328,215	468,879.00	259,156.65	* 209,722.35May	80	1,436,150	1,795,187.50	1,784,397.84	* 10,789.66June	80	1,728,481	2,160,601.25	1,951,932.83	* 208,668.42July	80	1,867,142	2,333,927.50	2,405,961.45	t 72,033.95August	90	2,312,248	2,569,164.44	3,120,321.04	t 551,156.60September	90	2,862,728	3,180,808.89	3,552,393.48	t 371,584.59October	90	2,900,474	3,222,948.89	3,210,637.85	* 12,311.04November	100	2,095,645	2,095,645.00	2,526,759.60	t 431,114.60December	100	2,065,204	2,065,204.00	1,928,463.04	* 136,740.9622,395,473	26,748,345.47	26,895,162.19	146,816.72
* Decrease. t Increase.
Total tax on soft drinks for 1948 actually $26,892,817.55
1048	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Boivin
The first sets out the comparative figures, month by month, covering income from the 25 per cent excise tax and the one cent a bottle tax for the year 1947. In the first column you will find the percentage of rationing imposed upon the manufacturers during 1947, that is, from January to October, 1947. The second sets out the income for 1947, and the third, income for 1948. The fourth column shows the increase or decrease in terms of dollars, and the fifth gives the percentage of that increase or decrease over two years.
The second table is even more instructive since I have added a column to show what the 1947 income would have been had the manufacturers not had to suffer from rationing. By the same token I show a decrease for 1948.
Since sugar rationing has been removed, the large companies which represent 11 per cent of the soft drink trade have begun an intensive publicity drive which has resulted in an increased volume of their sales while reducing the output of smaller concerns, which represent 89 per cent of the trade. Small concerns have had a lot to suffer during the war because of rationing of their raw materials. A few of them had to use substitutes in order to survive. This led to an inferior product which caused them to lose sales and forced them to cease operating. We know a number of them, even around Ottawa.
Looking further into this matter we find that 67-61 per cent of the manufacturers had a turnover of less than $25,000. This represents a production of about 69 cases per day, which are sold to the retailer at $1.20 per case, tax included. When we consider that these taxes are 8 per cent and 25 per cent, i.e. 21 -1 cents per case and that a surtax of one cent gives an added revenue of 24 cents, totaling 45-1 cents per case which the manufacturers pay the government, I admit, Mr. Speaker, that one would have to seek for a long time before finding manufacturers in other categories who have to pay three taxes representing one-third of the wholesale price. Many of my colleagues are inclined to believe that this industry is making large profits. The figures prove the opposite. Wholesale price, $1.20 per case, less the tax amounting to 45-1 cents; cost price, 74-9 cents. Wholesale price before the war, 80 cents per case less discount, 5-12 cents; cost price, 74-88 cents. This industry since the beginning of the war has been making a profit of 0-1 per cent to meet the rising costs of materials and the rise in wages. Today it is requested to relieve them of the taxes which were imposed on them so that soft drinks may sell at the former retail
[Stage Direction]

price of five cents per bottle. As the hon. minister is sure that this will be done, I believe that such a request is justifiable and will be appreciated by both the consumers and the manufacturers we represent.
I shall now deal with another tax which has been the object of much criticism. I refer to the luxury tax imposed on the jewelers in our respective constituencies. Let us consider this tax from these two angles. First, let us take the customer's point of view and in this I wish to quote the words used by the hon. Minister of Finance in his last budget speech and which may be found in the debates of May 18, 1948. I quote:
Again having In mind the needs of the average household. I am proposing that the 25 per cent retail purchase tax be lifted tomorrow from silver-plated knives, forks and spoons and from alarm clocks of a retail value of $10 or less. This change will remove from the scope of the retail sales tax items of common use in the home.
Mr. Speaker, even if the minister pretends to have discriminated in favour of the middle class, I say he did not and I might add that the middle class, in 90 per cent of all cases, uses none but ordinary utensils; had the government thought of it sooner, they would have abolished the tax on watches, fountain pens, automatic pencils and even on rings, which in my estimation are not luxuries but essential articles.
With further reference to merchants or jewelers, everyone will admit with me that the latter have, since June 24, 1942, acted as unpaid employees of the government in collecting that tax. They have done that task during the war, considering that it was their duty to do so, even though that was harmful to their business, but now that war is over I believe that the government should no longer claim that tax and that they should stop interfering with the middle class. That tax was established with a view to limiting wartime purchases and permitting the general public to purchase war savings certificates and victory bonds. In view of the surplus the government had last year and has again this year, and inasmuch as that tax has yielded $8,165,293 for 1946-47 and $8,413,875 for 1947-48, it must be admitted that it was imposed for the restriction of purchases rather than for revenue purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like, in conclusion, to thank the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) who have finally taken into consideration a request I have submitted

repeatedly. The government having purposely restricted expenditures for building purposes, thus delaying as much as possible the execution of useful projects, they none the less applied in their own department an austerity program. Indeed, the town of Granby is in need mostly of a post office. The request for it was submitted long ago. While looking through the reports, I found out that on June 4, 1920, my late father, then member for the constituency I have the honour to represent, had made the request. This request, supported by proofs, had been made to the then Postmaster General concerning the urgent need of alterations to the Granby post office building, built about 1900, when the population was only 4,000 and postal revenue merely $4,063.07. I again mention 1920, because at that time the population was double that of 1900, having increased to 8,000. Following the 1920 request, an additional story was built over the annex which measured approximately 21 feet by 37 feet. Yes, Mr. Speaker, an additional story 21 by 37 feet so as to compensate for the margin in turnover which had increased by $10,611.46, because gross revenue in 1920 amounted to $14,674.53.
Since 1920, the city of Granby where I live has been left with its antiquated post office, despite the fact that the population has increased threefold, that there are 68 diversified industries. Its gross postal revenue amounts to $73,909.62, outside of post office money orders and postal notes. Mr. Speaker, this request was taken into consideration when it was obviously realized that such a building, due to the increased turnover, the number of office employees and postmen, no longer met the requirements over many years and that this request on my part was more than justified.
On behalf of the agricultural society of Shefford county, I wish to offer my most sincere thanks to the Minister of Agriculture for his co-operation during the fiscal year coming to a close. The agricultural class as well as all the people of my constituency are very grateful to him.
I want to tell the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) how very grateful I am for his co-operation in giving to the people of my constituency an adequate railway service.
I wish also to offer my thanks to all the ministers who have always helped me and supported me in one way or another.
The Address-Mr. Archibald
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your indulgence and for your kindness in listening to my rather long speech.
(Text):
Mr. H. G. Archibald (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks this evening I do not intend to indulge in the popular pastime of baiting the Tories. History has taught us that attempts to revive and maintain the past have proved futile; and, when future generations read of such things, it is usually under such titles as "Gone with the wind". What interests me is the fact that the government shows obvious fear of the official opposition. They can see themselves transplanted from the seats of the mighty and put across the floor of the house in the forthcoming election.
I can understand why. It is because they have not been able to produce anything that would differentiate them from a Tory. But even at that, they have not been able to show the qualifications of a real Conservative, inasmuch as they have not got what one might call that Victorian look. I would suggest to them that, if they want to make a real job of being a Tory, and obviously they have been attempting it, they make a serious study and become imbued with such a modern and up-to-date development as the battle of the Boyne.
Never having had the leisure time, nor the means, to be a traditionalist, I have come to the conclusion that to a large extent the speech from the throne is indeed a waste of time. It has been outdated. The real speech is now made a month or so prior to the session opening, and it is made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in New York. Last year he gave his beets-and-turnips address to a group of newspapermen, telling them how Canada could eat these vegetables instead of lettuce and so on. In other words, he outlined the austerity program. This year, prior to the opening of the session, he gave to the women's Canadian club of New York the general economic trend that the country intended to follow. It is becoming obvious to me that, before this Canadian parliament can make up its mind what direction it intends to follow along economic lines, it must get the O.K. of Wall street. That trend of following the advice of the Americans is bringing its rewards.
Sometimes the Minister of Finance reminds me of Bing Crosby in the "Road to Zanzibar". Bing was exploiting Bob Hope as Fearless Fraser in a sideshow, and when one of the events went haywire he wanted Bob to get

The Address-Mr. Archibald into a glass tank filled with live alligators. Bob became so nervous that he said he wished he was back on relief in Paducah, Indiana, where he would have a sense of security. Whether the people will realize security on relief is another story, but they are going back on relief at the present time, especially on the Pacific coast, whether they like it or not. There are 35,000 unemployed out there, and there may be far more than that who are not listed. That is the evidence of the policies that the government has been following.
I have listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) giving us a glowing picture up to the present. I have heard the same thing from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). He is beautiful at the job. He skates right up to the present and then backs away from it, but he will not deal with the market situation and how we are to ship and export our huge surpluses of natural products in the near future.
Once again in this country we are facing piles of fish, piles of lumber, piles of apples, piles of wheat and cheese and a growing list of manufactured products, and the worker is unemployed. He has again produced too much. The government is suggesting that it has a public works program which will absorb the unemployed. Even if it went in for a full-scale program of public works it would not even scratch the problem. The great agrarian revolution on the land, such as on the prairies where everything is going into machine production, is throwing more thousands on the labour market each day. What we need is a public works program, along with full production, and the means to enjoy that full production.
Obviously the real fault at present is the government's policy of following the advice of the United States in demanding gold or United States dollars for all goods that are sold on the international markets. It so happens that the world is revolting against that form of economy, because that United States dollar charges its toll on every item of trade that is transacted. Countries the world over are now going in for managed economy and managed currencies. The currencies are based on production, with fixed prices as a basis to maintain their values. These currencies are developing the same value as if they were backed by gold. In the last eighteen months on the open market the pound sterling has increased in value from 30 to 40 per cent, because the productivity of the British has risen to such an extent that it is reflecting itself in the value of the pound sterling.
Further than that, the countries of Europe, such as Great Britain, are going in for what is now known as barter arrangements, longterm agreements on trade. They import as much as they export, or rather that is their objective. The more trading that takes place, the greater the standard of living of the people. By the very nature of our economy we must export more than we import; otherwise the economy as a whole does not make a profit. Whether we like it or not, if we want to increase our standard of living we will have to accept the barter system of trading. That is the fact that faces us today.
Some criticism has been expressed in the press-and I see it is beginning to grow-of the economy Great Britain has developed. It is expressed in an editorial appearing in today's issue of the Globe and Mail, the important part of which states:
Britain may think it politically desirable to keep some trade connections with all European countries, including those behind the iron curtain. The idea of neat and tidy barter arrangements with them may also appeal to the socialist mind. But these precious bargains of Sir Stafford's are liable to cancellation at the whim of untrustworthy governments. They are placing in jeopardy the whole future development of British-Canadian trade, which is much more reliable and more valuable in both political and ecoonmic terms than the connections Sir Stafford is striving to build or retain. Obsessed with day-to-day socialist planning, he is jeopardizing the long-term interests of both countries.
Well, the government with which Sir Stafford Cripps is making these long-term arrangements might be unstable; but, believe you me, our economy on this continent is far more unstable than those governments.
I have another clipping from the Globe and Mail of March 1, headed Bill Collectors Find It Tougher To Get Their Man, and stating:
If the volume of business coming the way of debt collection agencies is anything like an accurate barometer of economic conditions, then times are getting tough.
The men who devote their working hours to going after debtors met in convention at the Royal York yesterday. They reported more business than in any year since 1938. But they also agreed they have to work considerably harder than was the case in the war years to extract the money from those who bought but omitted to pay.
Collections haven't fallen to the level of the depression 30's, but these professional collectors agreed that money is tight, which is just another way of saying that the so-called average wage earner isn't piling up any bank reserves these days.
He certainly is not. He has had all his reserves taken by the inflationary period we have just been going through, and in which we still find ourselves. Now he faces a depression, completely broke. He faces a depression with only his hands and his brains to make his day-to-day living. Once again, if we allow this condition to develop, our

society will go back to that condition which brought about riots and upheavals.
That is the position the government faces. They dare not allow unemployment to increase to any degree, because the nations around us-New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain-are operating on a planned basis. The day is not far distant-it is already here-when we will have unemployment. In Great Britain they might be on rations, but they are working and they are receiving meals three times a day. In this country our workers on the Pacific coast are once again going back on rations because they produce too much. Surely that is a pitiful state of affairs.
That is what I have to say on the economic side of the picture. I believe the government would be well advised to begin thinking in terms of a general over-all trade policy which would be along the lines of barter. Granted, it would not solve our difficulties today or tomorrow, but the general tendency would be in the right direction, inasmuch as the rest of the world is also going in that direction. Now I would like to deal with the attitude of the government as expressed in terms of dealing with human beings in this country.
Last fall the weather conditions on the Pacific coast were rough; it was the worst year on that coast experienced in this generation. On the northerly part of the coast line we had what could be described as an accident. A storm came up and destroyed a lighthouse. I should like to go through the history of what happened after that lighthouse was destroyed. I read about it first in the Prince Rupert Daily News of November 8, under the heading, "Gale Blows Lighthouse Away", and the subheading, "Harrowing Experience for Family". Then it goes on to say that Mr. and Mrs. Wilkins of Egg island are safe in a hospital at Bella Bella.
Then, on November 13, the full story was printed in the Daily News and goes on to say this:
Window Smashing Wave Was Life Saving Signal
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wilkins Reach City After Terrifying Experiences Following Lighthouse Destruction
Uncertain as to what the future holds and still shaken and unsettled after their arduous experiences following the destruction of their lighthouse home by a tidal wave which suddenly swept stormy Egg Island in the middle of Queen Charlotte Sound in the dark and early hours of the morning of November 3, Robert L. Wilkins, the lighthouse keeper, his pretty auburn-haired wife, Marie, their ten-year-old-son, Dennis, and the latter's six-month-old cocker spaniel pup, Boots, reached Prince Rupert safely this morning with Captain Norman McKay aboard the lighthouse tender Bimie. A week ago today they were still huddled in a crude shelter on their
The Address-Mr. Archibald lonely island lashed by gale winds, driving rains, hail, thunder and lightning, gradually being worn down by near starvation and exposure.
The article goes on to say that they were on that island completely exposed to the elements for four days, at the end of which time they were picked up by a passing fishing boat which took them down to the hospital at Bella Bella. This one experience alone is sufficient to show the necessity for a coastguard on the British Columbia coast.
However, let us go on with the story. The family left the hospital at Bella Bella after the boys around the Namu cannery had taken up a collection to help them. They went up to Prince Rupert, and were on charity. The women's auxiliary of the Canadian Legion voted them $50, and the I.O.D.E. voted them a like sum, or even more. They were driven to going to the Red Cross to get shoes for their little boy, but were turned down on a technicality.
When I left home on December 27 the rumour was going around Prince Rupert that they had been asked to make out a list of the belongings they had lost, with the approximate value; then they were to cut that amount in half. That was the general rumour among the citizens of Prince Rupert, those who were interested in looking after the family.
During this same period of time the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), under whose jurisdiction this department comes, was over in Europe making speeches about the horrors of a communistic dictatorship as compared with the glories of democracy. I must say he left a profound impression upon the fishermen and loggers of the British Columbia coast-a most profound impression indeed. That is one sample of outright brutality and disregard of the individual-and an employee of the government at that. I believe action could still be taken to rectify the situation. I have never met these people; I do not know them. I just took the story as I read it in the press from day to day-and it does not make pleasant reading.
Then another case I should like to bring to the attention of the house has to do with the injustice in connection with the Premier miners. I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) for an outline of the developments which took place in that mine. I should like to place on record the details as they were set out in the letter to me:
1.	The strike vote took place on July 12, 1948.
2.	The local union 694 of the united mine, mill and smelter workers advised the company that it would call a strike on Monday, July 19.

The Address-Mr. Archibald
3.	In the meantime the company closed the mine on July 16, three days prior to the threatened strike.
4.	The claimant, a waitress, was employed at the mine and filed her claim on July 30.
5.	The claimant was notified that she had been disqualified by the insurance officer on August 13 on the ground that she was directly interested in the outcome of the labour dispute which had caused the stoppage of work.
6.	On August 23 the appeal of the claimant against the insurance officer's decision was heard by the Vancouver board of referees and the claimant was represented by three officials of the united mine, mill and smelter workers. The court set aside the insurance officer's decision and allowed the claim.
7.	As the company had not been represented at the session and requested an opportunity of giving its version of the stoppage of work, the claim was referred back to the court of referees. On September 10 the court reaffirmed its decision to allow the claim, the claimant being represented by officials of the united mine, mill and smelter workers. The commission, exercising its right, appealed the decision of the court of referees to the umpire. The umpire heard the appeal on October 28 and rendered his decision on December 7, the following being the pertinent portion of the decision:	.
My decision, therefore, is that the claimant lost her employment by reason of a stoppage of work due to a labour dispute at the Silbak Premier Mines Limited. As her conditions of work stood to be affected by the proposed collective bargaining agreement, she was directly interested in that dispute and was, therefore, rightly disqualified by the insurance officer in the first instance, under section 39(1) of the act.
It has been suggested by the chief claims officer that I give some guidance as "to the way in which we are to decide whether or not the stoppage of work is deemed to be still existing" or if it can be assumed that at some date "there was a definite abandonment of the project for economic or other reason." As indicated by Mr. Dowd, at the hearing, other gold mines have closed or are in the process of closing in the province of British Columbia, due to economic conditions. It may, therefore, be found that the stoppage of work, within the meaning of the act, has ceased at the Silbak Premier Mines Limited and that the mine is closed permanently. This, however, is entirely a question of fact which should be determined by the insurance officer after having communicated with the interested parties and investigated the prevailing circumstances.
The appeal is allowed.
The commission, not being in a position to obtain any information in regard to the possibilities of a general resumption of work or the permanent closing down of the mine, decided that the stoppage of work had ceased on December 7, date of the umpire's decision. Therefore they would get their unemployment insurance nine days later. I should like to point out that this matter came up before the

board of referees twice and on both occasions the appeal was allowed. Then by arbitrary action it was thrown into the hands of an umpire. In the first place we had an example of arrogance on the part of the mine operators when they did not appear before the court of referees when it first sat. It showed that they were interested only in intimidating the workers.
The labour record of this boss is well known from 1919 on. He is anti-labour all the way through. He had an experience in Australia that taught him a sharp lesson. They would not stand for that kind of nonsense down there and he had to come back here where he would have the protection of rules such as this. This action has created bitterness in the mining camps of British Columbia and has worked against democracy and this government. It was an example of outright bowing to the will of the mining bosses of British Columbia. These are two samples of injustices that are bound to have an effect on the working of democracy.
Over and above that, there is the general policy of the government in granting refuge to former nazi sympathizers which action does not go down at all well with those who contributed in world war II. I should like to point out the difference between the treatment given to these nazis and to ordinary people, and I refer to a paragraph which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of February 26 in the column headed On and Off the Record. It reads:
Justice for all, privileges for none: While Ottawa allows de Bernonvilles and Seigneurs to remain in Canada, with records questionable to say the least, little time is being lost in moves to deport two merchant marine veterans, brothers from Belfast. Ireland, without a single black mark on their records. Gordon and William West have been in immigration detention quarters for the past three weeks awaiting a ship for Manchester, where they stowed away last fall. They worked for a while in a hotel, and earned a good record. Then they sought to have their entry legalized, to bring in their families. Instead, their deportation was ordered. They have little money, and cannot fight deportation, as can others. A Liberal lawyer is working on their case, but it looks as though they would be deported without benefit of order in council.
I remember listening last session to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) when he stated that it was necessary to have a good bank roll before you dared show yourself in a court room if you wanted to get justice. To a large extent this clipping outlining this little human tragedy backs up that position quite clearly.
If modern government hopes to carry on and gain the support of the people it must be government of the people, for the people and by the people. It is certain that north Atlantic pacts, military pacts and so on, with-

out a staple social order that gives the people a guaranteed place in society, will not protect them in the struggles that lie ahead. I believe we are facing a social upheaval much like that which occurred during the Napoleonic wars. I remember once seeing the show Anthony Adverse, which started off with a scroll which read something like this: People born in times of social upheaval are unlucky. They can contemplate neither the past nor the future with equanimity. They are a race of lost souls.
If we can build real morale and develop a real society in this country that will stand out as an example, then we can progress and continue with the development of this country. But if we allow it to deteriorate, according to the examples I have cited
The Address-Mr. Archibald tonight, then we are going to have to face inevitable trouble in the days ahead. In the past, nations have fallen because of dry rot from within. Let us see if we cannot develop a modern state that will give us a high standard of living and a high order of democracy.
On motion of Mr. Stephenson the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull) moved: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we will continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.