1949-03-04

WELCOME TO MEMBER FOR WATERLOO SOUTH ON HIS RETURN AFTER SERIOUS ILLNESS

Mr. Rodney Adamson (York Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, the house frequently takes time to pay tribute to one of its members who has died. This day I should like to pay tribute to one of its members who has refused to die.
The presence here today of my deskmate, the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), is a tribute not only to Canadian surgery, but also to a great and fighting heart.



HOUSING


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, February 24, 1 advised the house that the integrated housing plan was under review in the hope that some modified form could be arrived at to overcome certain difficulties which had occurred in isolated cases during 1948. For reasons which I will mention, no applications for integrated housing contracts have been accepted since December 31, 1948. It has now been decided, however, to proceed with the plan, with certain changes.
The integrated housing plan was developed in 1945 to encourage builders to construct moderate-priced houses for sale to veterans. Under the plan the builder entered into an agreement with the corporation by which he agreed to build a specified number of houses of a certain type or types, and to offer them for sale to veterans at or under the maximum selling price set out in the agreement.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for its part agreed to arrange priority assistance for the builder, and to purchase any house that he was unable to sell to a prospective house owner, at a price which would cover the estimated costs of construction and the cost of the land upon which it was built.
The agreement required that the builder should finance the construction of his houses by loans under the National Housing Act. Thus the plan consisted of an agreement
between the contractor and the corporation, which refers only to the sale price to the purchasers and the corporation's commitment to repurchase. On the strength of the agreement, the builder obtained the financing from lending institutions who were doing business under the National Housing Act.
More than 13,000 units have been undertaken under the plan, and almost all of those completed have been sold. We have acquired under our repurchase commitment forty-three housing units, as of the end of the year. Despite the fact that the plan has for the most part gone well, there has been adverse criticism because of the fact that some veterans -about one hundred in all-have been in danger of losing down payments made to the builder, or have had to pay higher prices than contemplated by reason of the contractor being unable to complete the house because he experienced financial difficulties. The plan is in essence a price-fixing arrangement, and there is no direct contact between the purchaser and the corporation. Nevertheless some purchasers have relied on an assumption that the agreement between the builder and the corporation would give them protection, and have not taken normal precautions in their dealings with the builders. While there is nothing in the arrangement that justifies this assumption, the government feels that it would not be prudent to proceed with the plan without taking steps to correct this situation by reducing the possibility of its recurrence and making provision for remedial action where failure does occur in the future. To accomplish this purpose I believe that contractors should not accept down payments before completion of the house, or alternatively, that down payments accepted before completion of the house and its delivery to the prospective purchaser should be trusteed. In addition a provision must be included which will permit the corporation to obtain control of the property as soon as difficulties of the kind mentioned occur, so that remedial action may be taken.
Because of the foregoing, and because it is desired to have the integrated plan proceed, the following modifications will be made:
(a)	Provision will be made in the integrated agreement that sales shall not be finalized until the house is at least ninety per cent completed.
1140	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
(b)	That down payments by the purchaser shall be placed in trust immediately by the contractor until the completion of the sales transaction and the delivery of possession to the purchaser.
(c)	That in support of his application for mortgage advances the builder shall produce paid bills for construction materials that have gone into the house, or lien waivers from the suppliers of such materials.
(d)	That the builder shall deliver to the corporation, when the house has reached the first-floor joist stage of construction, a conveyance of the property, to be held by the corporation until a sale has been arranged to a prospective house owner, or until the property is taken over by the corporation under its commitment to purchase it from the builder. This will give the corporation effective control of the property during the period of construction.
(e)	Because most builders rely upon down payments, now to be trusteed, for working capital, the corporation shall advance to the builder at the time it gets the conveyance- that is, at the first-floor joist stage of construction-the difference between the loan under the National Housing Act and the sale price to the corporation. This amounts to approximately half the down payment that will be made by the purchasers. This sum will be recovered by the corporation from the builder on sale of the property to the prospective house owner.
The arrangement which I have outlined introduces a number of new features which are restrictive to builders, and we have not yet received the reaction of the trade. Accordingly we will again review the plan as to its manner of working and in the light of the veteran demand for houses under it.


Mr. Lockhart:: May I ask the minister one question? He has completely overlooked any mention of inspection.


Mr. Chevrier:: Where is the question?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Now, don't get in the mood you were in yesterday.


Lionel Chevrier: The mood was on the other side, not on this side.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I should like to know if the matter of inspection is covered, because the minister knows that some serious things have happened in my district. Is inspection being looked after?


Robert Henry Winters: The same conditions with respect to inspection prevail.


Mr. Johnston:: May I ask the minister a further question in that regard?-because this serious condition has prevailed for some


time. I thank the minister for the statement he has made, outlining the revision of the plan, but I should like to know whether the new arrangement will apply to buildings now under construction under the integrated plan.


Robert Henry Winters: If the down payment has already been made to the contractor, this arrangement cannot be effective.


Charles Edward Johnston: Was it contemplated that assistance would be available under this housing plan where a builder should find himself in difficulty? Is any arrangement being made to protect him?


Robert Henry Winters: All these cases are under review, such as that of the Bow River Construction Company in Calgary.


Mr. Timmins:: Will the minister state how many applications by builders have been made in connection with integrated housing since the department stopped accepting applications?


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot answer that question now.



CAMP HILL HOSPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Yesterday the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) asked the following question, as reported on page 1093 of Hansard:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, or the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Were public tenders called for the alterations to Camp Hill hospital annex at Halifax, and if so, when, and what was the contractor's price?
Public tenders were called at the beginning of 1945, and were received on April 18, 1945. The following are the bids that were made:
E. G. M. Cape and Company Limited ....	$1,934,921
Fundy Construction Company. Halifax ...	1,991,000
Nova Scotia Construction Company	 2,133,600
Foundation Maritime Limited	 2,192.837
On May 15 the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, E. G. M. Cape and Company Limited.



EASTER ADJOURNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. To those of us who come from the farthest parts of the country the date and length of the Easter recess may be of greater interest than they are to those who are privileged to go home over the week ends. In view of the variety of opinion expressed in

the press as to the possible length of the recess, is the Prime Minister in position to let us in on the secret?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: There is no secret about it. I have been talking to the whip on our side, and he tells me that he has been discussing the matter with various members but finds that there is perhaps as great a divergence of opinion as there is in the newspaper stories. No decision has been arrived at, but it does seem to me that we have to choose between a short recess at Easter, perhaps from Good Friday to Easter Monday, and one that would give hon. members from all parts of the country an opportunity to go home if they saw fit to do so, thus necessitating a recess of a couple of weeks.
I think if we are to have the longer recess it might be just as well to take both the week before Easter and Easter week. In any event they are both only partial weeks. Such a recess would give hon. members from all parts of the country time to get to their respective homes and have a few days there before being required to come back. The choice between the alternatives will probably have to depend upon what progress we can make in the meantime, because the business of parliament will have to be discharged. I hope we shall have made such progress that the longer recess will appear to be justified, not only to ourselves but to the public.



TRADE WITH BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) a question. Has the government any statement to make on the recent report by Charles F. Brennan, secretary of agriculture in President Truman's cabinet, that he was declaring wheat a surplus commodity in the United States under the European recovery program? What reduction will it make in-or will it eliminate entirely-Marshall plan dollars for the purchase in Canada of non-American wheat? How will it affect Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Information did come to us this morning, although not officially, about this statement by the secretary of agriculture in the United States that wheat was surplus. We were somewhat disturbed about it, although it would appear that the appropriations being urged upon congress at the present time for United States dollars in aid of the recovery of the United Kingdom are not being reduced.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Of course those United States dollars are important, perhaps essential, to the recovery of the United Kingdom; but they are only a portion of the dollars the United Kingdom government has for its requirements abroad It may be that it is more important to the United Kingdom that the number of United States dollars under ERP remain the same than it is to have them attributed to any special commodity.
I hope that whatever is done will not affect the capacity of the United Kingdom to carry out those contracts it has made with us, both for 1948-49 and for 1949-50. It should not affect the capacity of the United Kingdom to carry out those contracts if the same number of ERP dollars is available to pay for part of the requirements of commodities the United Kingdom must import.


Mr. Coldwell:: Will the government consider making a statement to the house, as requested by me some time ago, as to ways and means of increasing British exports to Canada, in order that Great Britain may have the dollars to meet her needs for the commodities which we have to sell?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: If I may reply to the question, I had it in mind to speak on that question in this debate, because it has been raised on a number of occasions. I ha* intended to outline to the house the numerous ways in which for a number of years past Canada has made special efforts to encourage the importation of United Kingdom goods. I am not prepared to say whether I will do that in this debate or at a later stage-possibly in the course of my budget remarks. But I want to make the statement now: there is no real impediment to the importation of British goods into Canada, other than the difficulty which, understandably, the United Kingdom is experiencing in expanding her production of goods which we require, and placing them in the Canadian market at competitive prices.


Major James William Coldwell: What about the non-discriminatory clause of the Geneva agreement?


Mr. Hackett:: At competitive prices.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said that.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 3, 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.
1142	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Argue
Mr. H. R. Argue (Wood Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last night I had been dealing with a number of subjects, one of which was the policy of the government in respect to improving health facilities throughout Canada. I had referred to a number of orders in council that had been passed by the government. One particular order in council provided for an increase-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must say to hon. members that there is so much noise in the house that the hon. member who has the floor cannot be heard.


Hazen Robert Argue: One of those orders in council authorizes an expenditure of money in excess of the amount appropriated by parliament. Such a practice cannot be too strongly condemned. Another order in council divided the appropriation for hospital construction grants among the provinces according to the population of the province based on the 1947 intercensal estimates. Of the total of $'13 million available, that basis of division gave $3,842,650 to the province of Quebec; but, according to answers tabled yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), the province of Quebec has had approved not $3,842,650 but $5,427,552. I do not object to the province of Quebec getting that sum of money if it is voted by parliament. I would support such a move, but I do object to the government's approving for hospital construction in any province an amount of money larger than the amount approved by parliament and allocated by order in council.
I should like to refer to another part of the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in which I think he was attempting to take unto himself and the government a great deal more credit than they deserve. On page 839 of Hansard he said:
I feel I may say that the new energy put into research by the national cancer institute and the national health program brings the money available for health research this year to an all-time record of more than $1,250,000.
Last session the government asked parliament to approve for health research an amount of only $100,000. Of the $100,000, up until the end of the first eleven months of the present fiscal year only $5,850 had been spent. The minister is shaking his head, but if he will look at the return that was tabled yesterday he will see that is correct.
I have it in my hand, and it shows that the total spent for public health research is something less than $6,000. With an expenditure of less than $6,000, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is attempting to take credit for an expenditure of more than one and a quarter million dollars for health


research. I submit that the whole speech of the minister was a gross exaggeration when dealing with the government's supposed accomplishments.
I also discussed to some extent last night the wheat policy of the government, and I was about to refer to the stand taken by the leader of the C.C.F. group, the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), when the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement was being debated in the house. I quote from page 4825 of Hansard of August 15, 1946:
I believe the government would be well advised to consider this suggestion: that, in the event of the costs of production rising for the next few years, as they will do largely because of the government's failure to maintain the ceilings, any difference there may be between what the farmer receives for his wheat and the increased cost of production should be made up out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Costs of production were much lower in August 1946 than they are today. The general wholesale price index, which is the index of the prices of all commodities, was 109-3 at that time. The index for January 1949 is up to 159-3, an increase of 50 points. The C.C.F. group believes that a compensatory payment should be made to farmers, and if it is made on the basis of the increase of 50 points in the wholesale index, then farmers should be given at least an additional payment of 71 cents a bushel.
Our farmers believed that when the price for the last year of the wheat agreement was being discussed a figure would be decided upon taking into consideration the "have regard" clause, the clause which says that towards the end of the contract a figure for the last year will be arrived at which will take into consideration whether or not the prices in the first years of the contract were below world prices. We shall soon be facing a general election. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows very well that the most important issue in the prairie provinces in any election is the question of wheat prices. If he expected to obtain a substantial payment on account of the "have regard" clause, I think an announcement would already have been made. I submit that the "have regard" clause amounts to very little, and possibly will amount to nothing-not through any fault of the British, because Britain cannot pay dollars she does not possess. I say, however, that the government should have regard to the farmers of Canada, and because of the "have regard" clause in the contract the government should see to it that the farmers receive a fair price for their wheat, a price in accordance with world prices that have prevailed for the duration of the contract.

I was sorry to hear the announcement by the Prune Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in which I understood him to state that wheat was being declared a surplus commodity in the United States. I am afraid this action may place our whole British market in jeopardy. As I have understood it from press reports in the past, as soon as any agricultural product is declared surplus in the United States, ERP dollars cease to be available for the purchase of that commodity in any country other than the United States. If that policy is followed I am afraid our whole wheat market is in serious danger.
Another question of deep concern to the people of the prairies is the adoption of a scheme which will adequately protect them in time of crop failure. At every session since I became a member of parliament I have asked for changes in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which would make payments available on an individual basis. The government surely know that under the present act many farmers are discriminated against, though in fact they have crop failures, because they cannot come within the provisions of the act. One farmer may have a complete crop failure, but because the farmers around him had good crops he cannot qualify for the prairie farm assistance payments. I have received a number of complaints about this legislation in the past, but this session I had a new one. Farmers in a particular township where the yield was just over eight bushels per acre complained that other surrounding townships received prairie farm assistance payments, but that since none of the townships directly alongside them qualified, they were unable to qualify under the act. These farmers pointed out that townships diagonally across from them received the payments, and that portions of townships alongside them were declared within the bonus area, but they were excluded. Therefore while blocks of other townships in the immediate vicinity were brought under the provisions of the act, the farmers in the particular township of which I speak could not qualify for these crop failure payments.
The whole act needs to be completely revised. There have been many inequalities in the past, and there will be many more in the future if the act is not completely overhauled so that payments may be made on an individual basis. Only in this way can fairness and equity be brought about. On the basis of present prices and costs of production the maximum payment of $2.50, even if it is obtained, is far short of being sufficient to provide the farmer with enough money to carry on his operations. Again this session, as I have done at every previous session since
The Address-Mr. Reid I first came here, I urge that the payment should be increased from a maximum of $2.50 an acre to at least $6, and that payments should be on an individual basis.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that my time has expired. There are many other problems I should have liked to discuss, but I shall deal with them at another time.


Mr. Thomas Reid (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, while there are other matters I wish to deal with, I should like first of all to make some comment on the remarks made by the last speaker, the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Argue). Last evening, just as he was beginning to deal with the national health program, I came into the chamber from a conference; I listened intently to what he had to say; I read his remarks carefully in Hansard, and I have listened this afternoon.
I cannot help coming to the conclusion that he must be so much interested in the new riding he is going to contest that he has been blind to the actual facts of the case.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then you tell me.


Thomas Reid: Now, Mr. Speaker, if there are to be any interruptions, let me in on the free-for-all; I think I can take care of myself.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: And everyone else.


Thomas Reid: You know that, too. Not only was the hon. member for Wood Mountain eager to condemn and criticize the dominion government; he is one of the few men belonging to that party who by his remarks has actually condemned the government of the province of Saskatchewan, as I shall prove very shortly.
In his remarks this afternoon the hon. member covered somewhat the same ground that he covered yesterday. You know, Mr. Speaker, that doctrine came from Europe; if you tell a certain kind of story often enough and loudly enough you will get some people to believe it. Perhaps that is why the hon. member went over the same ground this afternoon.
When he began his remarks yesterday the hon. member uttered one of those left-handed compliments which really looks like a compliment until you get the rest of it, and then you see it is really a kick in the pants for the one he is speaking about. He said he liked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin); then he went on to refer to the minister's statement in the house last week as a tall story. Well, I can tell you that it was a story of accomplishment by the dominion government, a statement of actual facts; and I think that any fair-minded man reading the speech of the minis-
1144	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Reid ter would agree that he was careful to give every bit of credit possible to the various provincial governments for what they have done in the matter of health. I do not think it is fair to say the minister was taking glory to himself.
The hon. member said that the $30 million health program had been in effect for eleven months. That is the first error in mathematics I am going to correct. The $30 million was approved on June 30, 1948; and why a member of parliament would rise in his place and deliberately say it had been in effect for eleven months, when any schoolboy of eight or more would know it was not eleven months from June 30 to the beginning of March, is something I cannot understand.
That was the first misstatement. Then the hon. member went a little further and tried the old trick we have seen before of setting *one province against another. He mentioned the province of Quebec and what it is getting, but there again he was all wrong. If he had been more careful and not so biased, with his mind made up to simply damage and criticize the government, he might have noticed the difference between allotment and expenditure. Under the new national health program introduced and being carried out under the able administration of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the allotment for hospitals is on a cumulative basis. This enables any provincial government to come forward with a one or even five year hospital scheme if that is their desire; but no provincial government will receive more at the end of five years than it is entitled to under the national health program.
To make the statement that the province of Quebec has got away with more money than the province of Saskatchewan is untrue, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the actual facts. If the hon. member was not aware of it, he should have been.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Thomas Reid: I do not mind answering questions. I know the hon. member was making a speech for the backwoods last night, so I kept quiet.


Hazen Robert Argue: You can't take it.


Thomas Reid: I can take anything you can ask.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the parliamentary assistant does not want to answer a question, I shall not press it.


Thomas Reid: Let us have the question. I hope it is a sensible one.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the parliamentary assistant aware of the fact that the minister stated on page 835 of Hansard that projects had been approved for the province of Quebec to the


amount of one hundred per cent of this year's grant, when in fact the projects approved amounted to more than one hundred and forty per cent?


Thomas Reid: I have not that copy of Hansard before me. I do know, however, that if the minister so stated, it is correct. I repeat that what the hon. member stated is not correct.
Coming back to the province of Saskatchewan, it surprised me a little to listen to a member of the C.C.F. group condemn his own province. Is any member of this house going to insist that the dominion government, under the national health program, should go to every province, prodding the authorities and ask them if they will come under that program? Under the British North America Act, health and education are entirely within the provincial prerogative. Not having reached an agreement with the provinces, the provinces might have had to wait, but under the new plan the dominion government has gone far in an endeavour to assist the provinces. Wherever it appeared to be necessary, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been good enough to send efficient officers to the various provinces to explain the dominion scheme to them.
Everyone who knows anything about what is happening in Saskatchewan must give the authorities and the people of Saskatchewan a great deal of credit for what has been accomplished in the matter of hospitalization and social services. I say that in all fairness. The province from which I come is endeavouring to emulate what has been done in Saskatchewan, because we believe a fair standard has been set by that province. It is true that according to the table appearing at page 1087 of Hansard, Saskatchewan has only received 1 [DOT] 1 per cent of the hospital construction grant. This is simply due to the difficulties experienced by that province, as well as other provinces, in sending in accounts for projects. This table reveals the exact picture of the projects that had reached the hands of the minister at the time it was made up.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the parliamentary assistant a question? Is it not a fact that the province of Saskatchewan completed so many projects at its own expense that it is now being discriminated against because it cannot get part of this grant?


Thomas Reid: The question of discrimination in hospital grants is a matter of debate. For instance, under the national health program there is $30 million available, and there is an allotment for the various schemes, as the leader of the C.C.F. knows. He may argue, as some do, that in Saskatchewan more hospitals have been built than in most of the other provinces, and that the province is therefore

unable to reap the benefits of the scheme as other provinces are able to do. Would the hon. member say that [DOT] Saskatchewan has reached the ultimate -with regard to hospital construction and hospital beds?


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Thomas Reid: I do not think he would. I am merely pointing out, to the member who made the derisive remarks last evening about the dominion government's scheme, that all the government can do after providing the $30 million is to hope that the provinces will come forward and accept these grants as quickly as possible.
Today I have received a copy of a telegram from the province of Saskatchewan. If the table presented by the minister were presented next week, it would show that twenty-eight additional hospital projects have now been approved by the Department of National Health and Welfare. These projects were approved only the other day. It would also show that a cheque for $234,000 had been sent to the province of Saskatchewan, which would materially alter the schedules we produced in Hansard. I am bringing this fact to the attention of the house, because I believe the member for Wood Mountain, wittingly or unwittingly, overlooked the fact that there is a difference in the schedule, as anyone could see who turned the page to the table showing commitments and expenditures. Commitments are one thing, expenditures are another. But is any member of parliament going to say that the dominion government should hand over money before the province is entitled to it? It would be a most unfair thing if the government were to hand out funds before the projects were approved and expenditures made.


Mr. Gillis:: What about New Brunswick? It drew a zero.


Thomas Reid: That is another story. We are hoping that not only New Brunswick but the other provinces which have not yet reached a high scale of health facilities will be encouraged and enabled under the $30 million program to bring up the standards of health of their people.


Clarence Gillis: I did not mean that as sarcasm. I merely wanted the explanation.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, two or three statements have been made about hospital schemes not being adopted in my province. I do know that schemes are being considered in many parts of the province, and in my own constituency a project is being considered which calls for the building of a hospital that will cost nearly a million dollars.


Mr. Brooks:: One of the reasons is that we need a new health department in New Brunswick.
The Address-Mr. Reid Mr. Speaker: Order. May I take advantage of this occasion to suggest to hon. members that it would be fair to allow the hon. member for New Westminster to speak for more than forty minutes, because of the interruptions that have occurred.


Thomas Reid: In answer to the last member who spoke, I may say that I can find little fault with what is happening in New Brunswick. Judging from the information which I have received, it is my opinion that the minister of health in that province and his deputy are among the finest in Canada.
I now come back to where I left off regarding misstatements made by the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Argue), and point out to him that it was not eleven months. It was only eight months.


Hazen Robert Argue: Eleven months of the fiscal year.


Thomas Reid: Yes, but that is a cute way to put it for the people in the backwoods, Mr. Speaker. All hon. members know that it is put out for the consumption of the men in the backwoods. It was eight months of the fiscal year. We were setting up a program.


Major James William Coldwell: Saskatchewan is not in the backwoods.


Mr. Gardiner:: Saskatchewan was under a good Liberal government for a long time.


Major James William Coldwell: We shall talk about that at some other time.


Thomas Reid: He is just a little wrong in his arithmetic, because on page 1136 of Hansard he said:
Up to February 28, 1949, the total amount made available and paid to the provinces for purposes of hospital construction was $1,194,693.15. A few days ago in the house the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated that approval of grants had been given for the construction of 6,401 hospital beds which, on the basis of the money so far made available to the provinces, is at the rate of $186 per approved hospital bed. At the time the statement was made last year as to the government's program, the house was told that $1,000 would be made available per hospital bed for the treatment of ordinary cases and $1,500 per hospital bed for the treatment of chronic and convalescent cases. Surely what has been done is far short of an adequate health program.
This is a gross misrepresentation of fact. The hon. member has divided money actually paid out by the number of hospital beds approved, instead of dividing the amount of construction approved by the number of beds approved, which would mean about $1,000 and not "$186 per approved hospital bed."


Hazen Robert Argue: How many beds?


Major James William Coldwell: That was not clear in the return.


Thomas Reid: These are facts, Mr. Speaker. A proverb in the country from which I come says, "Facts are chiels that winna ding".

The Address-Mr. Reid I think I have covered most of the statements made by the hon. member in his criticism of the dominion program of national health. I spoke of the $30 million program; He however chides the government for offering a $150 million program in 1945, and then he says that all we got was $30 million. I think every hon. member is aware-but again the man in the backwoods might not be aware of it-that there were two provinces which would not agree. The hon. member told us that in his speech. Having stated that, he keeps on saying that all we got was $30 million. I agree that, until we got the nine provinces to agree, the offer made in 1945 could not be carried out because health and education are two matters within the jurisdiction of the provinces.


Hazen Robert Argue: Offer separate agreements.


Thomas Reid: When the dominion government found itself up against the impossibility of reaching an agreement with all the provinces, should it have sat down and done nothing? Should it have said, "Well, we cannot do a thing about it until all the provinces agree"? No. The dominion government, realizing that it had an interest in national health, and that many municipalities were in need of assistance, made available $30 million. But they could not go to the provinces and tell them that they must do this and that, but they did the next best thing. The sum of $30 million was appropriated under certain definite agreements, of course. Every inducement has been offered to the provinces to take advantage of the $30 million; I can say without fear of successful contradiction that there has been an uplift already in the health services of the people of this country since the inauguration of the new health plan.
I think I have pretty well covered the remarks made by the hon. member, but I want to repeat, as he repeated in his statement, that it is a little unfortunate that he takes a left-handed crack at the province from which he comes, because that province is having some difficulties, as are some of the other provinces, in the matter of commitments, expenditures and finances. When he says that Saskatchewan has allocated to it the magnificent total of 1-1 per cent and that Quebec has received a great deal more,
I say that he has done his province a great injustice.


Hazen Robert Argue: Nonsense.


Thomas Reid: Yes, a great injustice.
I wish to deal with one or two other matters before I take my seat. This is my nineteenth session in the House of Commons. I have sat 
under three Prime Ministers, two leaders of the Liberal party, and six leaders of the Progressive Conservative party. There is no doubt that the house has taken on a little more life this session; some say it is because it is a pre-election year. That may be so; but it has taken on some life because of the fact that we have two new leaders in the house. I am not going to criticize the many statements made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), except to say that he comes into the house at a little disadvantage when compared with the present Prime Minister, the new leader of the Liberal party.


Mr. Jackman:: We won't swap, though.


Thomas Reid: I wish the hon. member would read a little more scripture. There he would find that he that ruleth his spirit is better than he that taketh a city. Mind you, they must have had somewhat the same kinds of men back in those days. There is one thing I shall say about the new leader of the Liberal party. Whatever the new Prime Minister says in Quebec or in any other province, he will say exactly the same in British Columbia. I well remember, and so does every other hon. member from British Columbia-I think they will agree with me in this, if not openly, at least in their hearts-that as members of the Liberal party, at almost every election when the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) was the leader and Prime Minister, we were told by electors, for example, "We think you are all right, Tom, we have nothing against you; but that leader of yours is always catering to the province of Quebec. And so I do not think we can very well vote for him." When we ask them now about the province of Quebec under the new leader of the Tory party they are silent out there. They will not tell you anything about-1 was almost going to say-the alliance with Duplessis. It comes very close to that. In the forthcoming election we shall not now be accused or have the same kind of misstatements that have been thrown at us previously.
I do not know whether it would be wise to say what I am about to say, but I see my hon. friend sitting across the way. We as Liberals in British Columbia would be a little more uneasy in our minds if the hon. gentleman from Saskatchewan had obtained the leadership. I think the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) was right in his address when he said that people clear across the country were crying, "We want John; we want John!"


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I think the hon. member is trying to insinuate that the hon. member for

Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and perhaps myself, were not loyal to the present leader of this party.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Thomas Reid: They are using the old Tory tactics. No reasonable man could take that out of my speech, and he knows it. When the Lord accused His disciples they all began to protest: "Lord, is it I?"


Mr. Fulton:: We have watched your tactics too long not to know what you intend to do.


Thomas Reid: Well, I heard a voice over there, but it did not say a great deal.
Some hon. members in the debate have delved into the past. The imperial conference has been brought out again. I am not one who likes to delve into past history, because I do not believe the people are interested in it. Let me give a striking example. During the last by-election in Yale, letters were sent throughout the constituency from Mr. Grote Stirling and from others telling about the imperial preference on apples, and blaming the Liberals. One has only to look at the results to realize whether they did any good. Now we hear it being raised again. I have mentioned it simply because an hon. member has been interrupting me-and one who was not in the house at that time. But I did have the privilege of sitting in the house all through that debate; and let me tell him there is some difference between sitting here, listening to it and taking part in it, than there is in reading it. I was one who at that time listened to and took part in that debate.
Sometimes I think those who came to the House of Commons later, and who have read about these things, misconstrue the stand taken by the Liberal party of that day. Our stand was that the late Lord Bennett endeavoured to put a ring around the British empire, to the exclusion of all other countries. As a matter of fact, in Calgary he said on October 26, 1932:
One thing was certain, that nations outside the empire will be asked to pay some tribute for the privilege of trading with the empire.
And if anyone wishes to read about that, let him go to the library and read the debates of the House of Commons for 1932 and 1933. He would find out what British statesmen thought of that conference. He would learn what some of the finest newspapers of that day in Britain thought of the conference. But the one interesting thing about that debate, and about those years in the House of Commons, is that the Conservative party of that day were telling us all the time that the condition between 1930 and 1935 in Canada was due to world conditions. But the minute
The Address-Mr. Reid the Liberal party took office in 1936-"Oh no, the Liberal party was to blame". So long as they were sitting over here it was due to world conditions; but when we assumed office -well, of course it was all switched, and it became the responsibility of the Liberal party.
I have listened in this session to many speeches which, I must say, somewhat amazed me. Speaker after speaker has risen in the house and in the same speech has advocated in one breath more and greater expenditures and, in the next breath, a reduction of taxes of all kinds-luxury taxes, income tax and excess profits tax. I am frank when I say that I just cannot understand that kind of doctrine, at all, not but what some changes will have to be made.
What are some of the things they have asked for?-to build schools; to help with teachers' salaries; to build the trans-Canada highway. And, in passing, let me say something about that. If anyone will look at the records of the House of Commons for those years he will find that many Liberal members, then sitting in opposition, pleaded with the then government to build the trans-Canada highway and thus employ the thousands upon thousands of men who were on relief, rather than keep them in camps. The dominion government of that day spent $176 million-and today there is nothing to show for it. There is nothing at all to show for it.
But now they come along and urge the dominion government to build a trans-Canada highway. In addition to that, we hear some advocating expenditures for irrigation dams, higher family allowance payments, pensions and assistance for incurables, increased old age pensions, which I am in favour of, the building of more low-rental houses, the building of ships for a merchant marine. All this takes money. I must confess, if I knew more about social credit perhaps I could explain how this could be done without increasing taxes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Reid: But I do not know. And I am one of the few members in the house who have never ridiculed the Social Credit party. I have always maintained I did not understand it.


Mr. Blackmore:: Too bad.


Thomas Reid: But when the hon. member for
Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) was speaking the other night and gave us the glowing account of oil wells brought into production, the thought went through my mind:	They
are going to get their $25 in Alberta yet.

The Address-Mr. Reid Probably it will not be from social credit, but it might be from those good oil wells to which the hon. member referred.


Mr. Harkness:: They may pay more than
that yet.


Thomas Reid: I maintain there are some members of parliament who are leading the people up false channels. We have heard a lot about bribery to win elections. When I came to this land away back in 1909, a land which by the way has been very good to me, I was told that I was going to the land of promise. It seems to me however that it is becoming of late a land of promises. I can speak freely of it because, since I entered public life since 1922, I have made only one promise in my life, and that one has been faithfully kept. That was a promise to give the utmost of my services to all the citizens. There again I think of the old Presbyterian doctrine, that it is better not to promise, and do, than it is to promise and not fulfil.
We hear hon. members rise in their places and dangle promises before the people, and yet they talk about bribery. Is there any name for these false promises except bribery? No; it is worse than bribery. Because, if a government has spent money here or there, the people have got it; but many of these things which are being promised, the people may never get. Shortly I shall challenge any member to get up and tell me which expenditures of government he would reduce. However, before asking him to do so, may I say there is one other procedure I cannot understand, when people say, "Do not pay your debts. Just leave the national debt, and pay no attention to it at all." Well, I am one who has endeavoured during a lifetime to pay his debts, and this suggestion does not appeal to me greatly. At the present time the interest on our public debt is $445 million; then we have subsidies to the provinces of $100 million; family allowances, $270 million; veterans payments, $300 million; old age pensions, $65 million; post office, $75 million; public works, $70 million; national health program, $30 million; defence of Canada, $250 million. All these total $1,605 million. Then, the total taxes in 1948, taken in excess profits and income tax amounted to $1,286,878,849. That is away below even the ordinary commitments at the present time.
I challenge any member to rise in his place and tell me which of the items I have enumerated he would be in favour of reducing. When he gets up to speak he can tell us how you can reduce taxes and increase expenditures.


An hon. Member:: What about old age pensions?


Thomas Reid: I have never changed my position on old age pensions. I am glad the hon. member mentioned this matter, for I want a better deal for these pensioners. Some interesting speeches have been delivered this session against communism. I am one of those who believe that we can never stop the growth of communism in this country by merely crying "bad wolf". Let me give another illustration. During the Yale by-election both the Liberals and the Conservatives devoted a lot of time, both on the platform and over the radio, to an attempt to warn the people against communism. One has only to look at the results of the vote to see how much attention was paid to that cry.
I do not generally refer to it as communism. I have asked some of those who belong to the L.P.P. in what countries communism is being practised today. I know of no country where it is being practised. It is true that some countries started out under Karl Marx doctrines, but no country has so far operated that way. What they have in Russia today is Stalinism, not Karl Marxism. I would say that the great menace facing the world today is soviet imperialism.
I was astounded at the attitude of certain men in the greater Vancouver area over a statement which I had made with regard to a proposed visit of two Russian scientists to investigate what the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission had done at Hell's Gate and throughout the province. Word to that effect came from the United States embassy to the embassy here and each member of the commission was asked if he was agreeable to this visit being made. As one of the three Canadian members I was asked and I said, "No, I have no objection to anyone coming, but if they come I think it would be only fair to ask the soviet to allow two of our scientists to go there to see what they are doing in connection with fisheries". As I say, I was astounded at the reaction of that statement. I received terrible letters of abuse from certain people in and around the greater Vancouver area. I was called all kinds of names. I did not think there was anything unfair in saying to a country, "We will show you what we have if you in turn will show us what you have". I was abused for taking that attitude.
I have linked up these two questions for the moment. There have been many faults in capitalism or free enterprise. Looking back over history we find that there are some pages that are not so bright. However, up to the present time that system has given man more of this world's goods and more freedom than any other system. But we will have to adopt some new rules in the game.

m order to control the greed of some men more than we have in the past. Coming now to old age pensions, I believe that the people of this country are demanding more along the lines of social security. I should like to see far more of it in this country. I am of the firm belief that if that were done we would stop the spread of this thing that is termed communism.
Before I close I should like to say just one word with regard to trade. I am sorry I have not the time to go into this more fully because I feel it might be a contribution. Great Britain has been our best customer. What I say now is in no carping sense to the members of the C.C.F. I am delighted to see that they are now great supporters of the British, but there were times when that was not quite so evident. I want to remind them that we on this side of the house have just as much good feeling for the people of the British Isles, even though they are now under a Labour government, as any other group in the house. It is to our benefit and interest that we do everything we can to see that that great market for our wheat and other products is not lost.
I am not a financier, but there have been times when I have spoken in this house about silver bimetalism. There were days when we were pinning our faith on metals, but I have learned since that the faith of man can be used to successfully carry out the exchange of goods between nations without the use of precious metals. But we are now faced with an impasse. Contrary to general opinion, I am one of those who believe that our Canadian dollar is not tied to anything. Many believe that the Canadian dollar is tied to the United States dollar, but I contend that we have a dollar of our own. However, all you have to do is to try to exchange it across the line and you will find that they are not ready to take it. With our adverse balance of trade we have to pay the United States the coin they want.
Many countries including the soviet union still put their faith in gold. No one knows the gold holdings of the soviet empire, but accounts come out of that country that they are searching feverishly for gold. It may well be that they are able to do a lot of trading with gold. I wonder what the United States is going to do with the 25,000 tons of gold it has buried in vaults? That is what it works out to. The United States has eighty per cent of the world's gold and with gold valued at $35 per ounce they have a total value of $25,000 million. Without knowing what the Russian holdings are, the world's gold supply is said to be around $28,000 million.
The Address-Mr. Blair
I am just wondering if we are going to continue forever to pay men to dig into the earth to find gold and then transport it across the line to bury it again in the earth? That seems to be all that can be done with it. In the case of most countries-Switzerland is one exception-and this applies to Great Britain particularly, the supply of gold for exchange is gradually dwindling. I am wondering if the United States should not break the impasse by again redistributing the gold chips, shall I say, to the various nations? So long as we continue to talk about sterling and United States dollars, so long as we do not get any closer than that, there is little hope for an improvement in our trading position.
Let me remind my friends in the C.C.F. that the Labour government has departed from the old traditions. Great Britain was built up with free trade, but now the Labour government is carrying on by means of quotas. That is not generally recognized. Trading by quotas means that they pick out from that country or this country certain quantities of goods. Therein lies some of the difficulty in connection with our trading relations with Great Britain.
I am sorry my time is exhausted as I would like to have dealt with this matter in detail. I rose principally to correct the record and to put it straight as to the government's national health program.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent that this Friday afternoon is health day in the House of Commons. I am delighted that the debate has taken this form. For years I have tried to use the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne as a vehicle to talk to the members, and to try to bring before them the necessity for some action to bring about betterment of health conditions in Canada, and a definite health plan for Canada. For this I offer no apology. It is not so much because of my own interest in these matters as it is that I realize there are conditions in Canada, the high cost of hospitalization and the lack of opportunity for treatment, that make it a matter which should receive the attention of all members.
We must recognize today that, with nations as with individuals, we are faced with the fact of the survival of the fittest, and if Canada does not raise the standard of health of her citizens to a maximum equal to that of any other nation she will fall by the wayside in international affairs. We must recognize a nation's health at its full value, not only from the human point of view, but from the economic side as well. We must realize that money spent on health is money saved.

The Address-Mr. Blair Sickness and disease do not stop at provincial boundaries. A disease of epidemic proportions in one district may readily spread to another province. Only those who are not conversant with the facts will quarrel with the spending of public money to care for the health of the people. Surely no one thinks that we can afford to go on losing money as we are today on account of sickness, simply because we are spending such a small amount publicly on prevention.
Death, disease and sickness are proportionate to the amount of money spent on health services. Society has two responsibilities with regard to sickness. One is the adoption of curative measures, and the other is the adoption of preventive measures. The history of our health services in Canada shows that up to the present time we have been paying more attention to curative measures than we have to preventive measures. We have not achieved the results that will follow if we pay more attention to preventive measures.
It is almost 200 years since Jenner discovered vaccination and made the conquest of smallpox possible. At that time the average duration of life was thirty years; now it is close to seventy. But still there are thousands of people who are dying unnecessarily each year, largely because they lack the opportunity for treatment. I emphasize that phrase, "the opportunity for treatment." There is a growing demand from the public for release from the ever-present possibility of the high cost of hospitalization or sickness.
The doctor in general practice today is very often faced with the problem of giving adequate treatment or adequate diagnosis. The facilities are not there for him. The duty of the state is to care for those who by reason of infirmity are incapacitated as far as gainful employment is concerned, and those who unfortunately cannot afford to pay for treatment.
We recognize today the importance of education and health. These two subjects are very close together, and the standard of living is also an adjunct. It may be said that people are becoming too prone to take advantage of free clinics, and that they try to get as much as possible for nothing. This is not a reasonable attitude. Most of us wish to give them the best in legislation for the benefit of all people without breeding a class of people who lose their self-reliance. We are aware of the deficiencies in our present health set-up, but we must be careful to take the proper steps towards the right kind of program. We should be aware of the financial plight of our hospitals, and the necessity both for new buildings and for extensions. We should be aware of the prohibitively high 
cost, to patients, of hospital care. We should be aware of the difficulty of a large part of our population in obtaining treatment services, both curative and preventive.
Hospitals should be houses of healing with a sound financial atmosphere. Unfortunately that does not exist in Canada. Hospital boards are left in anxiety and despair to maintain their institutions. We have been too prone to think that hospitals are philanthropic or charitable institutions. There is a crippling shortage at the present time, and we must not ignore the needs of our citizens.
Before I enter into a discussion of health problems, there is another matter closely allied with the question of health, and which was discussed by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) in his speech in this debate as reported at page 218 of Hansard. He was referring to refugee doctors. On behalf of the medical profession of Canada, may I say that I strongly resent the speech he made in Toronto, a report of which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of January 31 last. He is quoted as saying:
The Canadian medical profession has actively worked to discourage the entry of refugee doctors into Canada.
The same type of statement was made by Dr. Keenleyside, the deputy minister of mines and resources, and it was repeated in an article in Maclean's magazine of February 1. Dr. Keenleyside said:
The only trade union that has been adamant in its official opposition to the admission of competitive D.P.'s has been the medical profession.
Such a statement is inaccurate, mischievous and misleading. To clarify the situation I intend to present the facts to the house. Severe criticism has been directed towards the medical profession, and there has been considerable controversy over the admission of doctors from central Europe. This has taken the form of a rash of speeches, editorials, and even sermons. There are potent reasons for caution in opening the gates to all who have had some training in dentistry or in medicine.
In Canada and in the United States medical schools are graded by a rigid standard set up by the American medical association. Under this classification the nine Canadian schools at present giving full courses are fully approved and classed A. There are no standards for medical schools in Europe. A graduate from Europe may be from a good school or he may be from a school that is completely unknown to the licensing bodies in Canada. Some of them are known to have very low standards. Some of the European schools, which were of a high standard a generation or two ago, have fallen far below the standard of our own Canadian universities.

There was a time when Vienna and Berlin [DOT]were important post-graduate centres in medical teaching. In fact, they were a mecca as far as post-graduate training was concerned, but they no longer hold that position. You can understand why that is so apparent. Medical standards in Canada are high. They are probably as high as can be found in any country in the world. We cannot afford to lower our standards with medical imports of low standard, or imports who have been out of practice for so long a period that they are not competent to practise their profession without further training. Public interest does not permit a double standard of qualifications; and all physicians, whether trained in Canada or elsewhere, must measure up to the licensing requirements in effect.
Let me make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that a doctor whose medical degree has been obtained anywhere in the world can establish himself in Canada, provided: first, that he enters the country legally; second, that he obtains an enabling certificate; third, that he passes the examination of the medical council of Canada; and fourth, that he registers this certificate with the provincial licensing body. The statement of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) that the medical profession is actively working to discourage the entry of refugee doctors into Canada is utter nonsense. The Canadian medical association is not uncharitable or unkindly toward these members of the profession who are in such a sorry plight. They are glad and happy to render any assistance in their power. The matter of competition is not a factor. The public should be informed that medical acts are designed not to protect the doctors but solely to protect the public. There are in Canada areas that are medically overpopulated, as well as those medically underpopulated; but I would point out that of the sixty refugee doctors who came into this country in 1947 and were licensed, only five have taken up practice in rural areas. It has been suggested that refugee doctors be admitted on the understanding that they must reside in country districts. Canada has never compelled any of her new citizens to live in any circumscribed areas; and there would be a hue and cry if the authorities should devise regulations compelling any doctors to live in the country if they wished to live elsewhere. We do need doctors in certain rural areas; but the fact is that doctors are not there now because of the conditions of practice and the question of remuneration.
For the benefit of the house I have looked up certain statistics in regard to D.P. doctors in the camps of Europe. The world health organization has been concerned over the displaced members of the medical profession, 29087-73
The Address-Mr. Blair and the following statistics were presented at a meeting of that organization in Geneva in
September, 1947. The figures				were	as
follows: -					
	Germany		Austria Italy		
U.S.	British	U.S.	British	Zone	Zone	Zone	Zone	750	150	15	3	10Physicians and	Surgeons 	881	413	139	17	45Ophthalmologists.	24	9	2	2	2Paediatricians ..	72	33	1	70Nurses 	2,077	1,452	246I would point out that the figure for nurses	
includes nurses of all kinds, registered nurses, practical nurses and those in training, and that where no figures are given it means there is no record. The records of the Middle East, India and Shanghai have not been completely filled out, but the estimated totals are:
Dentists	 958
Physicians and surgeons	 1,612
Ophthalmologists	 40
Paediatricians	 176
Nurses	 3,775
These statistics show that it is necessary to make a complete inventory of every professional person in a displaced persons camp; and when this is brought up these points should be considered: first, what professional training did they have, what sort of school did they come from, where were they educated; second, what proficiency do they possess now; third, when did they last practise; fourth, why have they not returned to their native land; fifth, where would they like to live? Many of these people require postgraduate training. The world health organization is making a survey of the need throughout the world for these displaced persons and especially for displaced doctors. When we consider some of the other countries of the world we discover these facts. Ethiopia, a country of 12 million persons, reported at the close of the war that not one native doctor or nurse was left; they had been entirely liquidated by the enemy. Czechoslovakia reported that, of the 12,000 doctors in that country when war began, some sixty per cent or 7,000 were either killed or missing. Now we turn to the Far East. China, with over 400 million people, had less than 12,000 trained doctors. During the war the Chinese army was served by 30,000 medical officers, and of these only seven per cent had any medical training whatever. India with 400 million people reported 40,000 doctors to serve that population. Liberia, with a population of 2,500,000, has only one doctor.
In Canada we are served by 13,000 doctors, which with an estimated population of 13 million gives an average of one doctor per thousand people, an average higher than anywhere else in the world. This number can

The Address-Mr. Blair take care of the medical needs of our country, and can also make allowance for those who come to our shores from time to time from other lands. In addition, the university of Saskatchewan is well on its way to developing a faculty of medicine. Ottawa university has a faculty of medicine, well equipped and with classes which will soon graduate. The university of British Columbia is considering establishing a medical school. There may be some argument about areas that are overpopulated, and it may be said that the distribution might be improved. But it is very apparent that in comparison with the rest of the world Canada is reasonably well off for doctors. I would draw attention also to the fact that a large number of young veterans of the last war who came back and started in medicine will be graduating from our schools in the next year or two. So it might be well for people whose statements show they are totally unacquainted with the facts to become fully conversant with such matters before making inaccurate public utterances.
Now, sir, I come back to the matter under discussion when I entered this debate. When I came into this house a week ago Wednesday, the day of the speech by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), I could see that something unusual was going to happen here. I wondered what it was all about. Perchance it was some grave international incident or something of that kind. The press had copies of papers and were going over them; the galleries were full; the diplomatic gallery was filled with officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Then I realized just what was going to happen. Finally the minister came upon the scene; he was the principal actor, and he rose to speak on the health grants which were introduced last spring. From his description of those grants I gained the impression, which I think was general, that they were a personal gift from the minister or from a beneficent government. Sir, we of this party believe that this or any other government is justified in spending money on public health. Let there be no argument about it. We do reserve the right, however, to criticize the administration when we feel the money is not being spent to the advantage of the Canadian taxpayer.
I listened with interest, sir, but with a growing sense of resentment as the speech proceeded. The minister was very confident about himself. During this speech he exhibited-and I am going to talk plainly to him-a manner of braggadocio not in keeping with the ideals or traditions of those who throughout the centuries have sought to heal. I remember, sir, the wonderful

accomplishments of the provinces when they were working with their own resources in the field of health. I remember the sacrifices made by physicians and surgeons, nurses, men and women who have devoted their lives to healing and the elimination of misery. I remember the work of those other voluntary agencies which have been responsible for so much good in the field of health during the past years. The ethics of the medical profession and those who are associated with them in the art of healing have never permitted advertising. Throughout the whole speech the minister did not hesitate to use the pronouns "I" and "we" when referring to his work and that of the officials of his department. I might point out to the minister that he has only held this position for two years. His whole speech showed a misconception of the picture of health in Canada, and especially of the other agencies which have been responsible in the past decades for the fight against the inroads of disease, misery and suffering.
On the 30th day of June last year, in the dying hours of the session when everyone was tired, hot and anxious to get home, I dealt at length with these grants. It will be impossible to cover them today, but I am going to touch on one or two. First, the grant for crippled children is praiseworthy. But, in view of the fact this grant only amounts to $500,000 for the nine provinces, I should say it seems to be a small amount when compared with the expenditures of the provinces at the present time. The various service organizations have supported the provincial effort. If the best possible results are to be obtained, I believe credit should go where credit is due.
I am familiar with the background of the promotion and financing of a crippled children's camp, "Merrywood on the Rideau", in my constituency of Lanark. I happen to know that this camp was substantially financed by Rotary clubs as well as by a grant from the province of Ontario. From my knowledge of the money that has been spent on this one small project, the grant given to the provinces by the federal government for this purpose is entirely inadequate.
I now come to the question of arthritis. It is an old question and one that has been discussed in this house very often.


Mr. Matthews (Kootenay East):: It is an
important question.


William Gourlay Blair: Yes, very important. I cannot find myself in agreement with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) in his approach to the subject. During the past year the public press has contained many reports concerning a recently formed Cana-

dian arthritis and rheumatism society. There are many inaccuracies in these reports. Before further discussion of this society I shall give you something of the history of it.
The Canadian rheumatism association, which is a counterpart of the American rheumatism association, had always met annually along with the Canadian medical association. The exception to this rule was during the war years. This society was a branch of the Canadian medical association. In 1947 the meeting of this association was held at Sunnybrook hospital, Toronto. In that year the Canadian medical association met at Winnipeg. There were nine members present and they were informed by the president of the association that the dominion was sponsoring a new arthritis society and that the Canadian rheumatism association had better get in on it. This is the manner in which the government was approached by the Canadian rheumatism association.
At the next annual meeting of the Canadian rheumatism association in June 1948, the fact that the new Canadian arthritis and rheumatism society had been organized was not even brought up for discussion. The organization meeting of the new Canadian arthritis and rheumatism society was held in Ottawa in 1947 and January of 1948 under the chairmanship of the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). No preliminary discussions concerning this new national society were held in any open meeting of any medical society in Canada.


Mr. Marlin:: The deputy minister was the chairman.


William Gourlay Blair: The Canadian medical association was represented by the secretary, Dr. T. C. Routley, and one delegate. Most of the doctors present were from governments, the Department of Veterans Affairs, health and research agencies and institutions. Very few general practitioners were present, and they are the ones who come in contact with arthritis. On the official program, three of the four speakers were associated with the Department of Veterans Affairs. There were no elections, and the committees were all appointed. Few of the doctors had any previous training in arthritis work.
The new Canadian arthritis and rheumatism society has existed for thirteen months. To date, there has been no public meeting of the society. It is presumed the original committee is still in charge. There has been no discussion of this society in any open meeting of the Canadian medical association or its provincial branches. The only information that doctors have concerning this new
The Address-Mr. Blair society is what has appeared in the public press and the bulletins of the Department of National Health and Welfare. A combined lay and medical arthritis society had previously been organized in British Columbia and it offered to join forces with the new society.
It has been my opinion that the Minister of National Health and Welfare made a great sacrifice when he entered parliament. In the financial world, as a promoter of stock companies, he would have been a success. His promoting abilities were fully shown when he organized the Canadian arthritis and rheumatism society and printed the first prospectus for his stock. He sold off all the common stock of no par value and retained the preferred shares with promise of interest and profits for himself.
The reports in the public press appearing at infrequent intervals dealing with the new society and its officers make reference almost exclusively to Sunnybrook hospital. It is reported that this hospital now functions as an arthritis centre and has special equipment and new treatments for arthritis. Apparently the press is under the impression that the Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals give courses of instruction for general practitioners. No notices of these courses ever appeared in any of the medical journals of any medical society in Canada. It is well to look into the true situation. The Department of Veterans Affairs doctors have no better training in arthritis work than any other doctors and it is doubtful whether they have any new treatment. It is doubtful whether these hospitals have any new equipment. Other general hospitals have much the same type of equipment. I mention the equipment in the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Toronto, which has one of the two Hubbard tanks in Canada. The Toronto Western Hospital is well equipped, and the patients there receive special attention in an outdoor arthritis clinic. It is doubtful whether there is in Canada any teaching hospital; that is a hospital connected with a hospital school that has an arthritis clinic used for teaching purposes. There are few doctors in Canada who have received any specialized training in the treatment of arthritis.
I have a few suggestions to make as to how this matter could be handled. I am making these suggestions because I have criticized the set-up. I made the suggestions before in this house. The first thing that is essential is a correct diagnosis, and correct treatment in the early stages. This would reduce the number of patients with crippling conditions, and it would decrease the number of hospital beds for chronic cases. There is
29087-73J

The Address-Mr. Blair an immediate need for information and assistance for doctors and especially general practitioners because they are faced with the problem of treating patients with arthritis.
The problem of arthritis should be part of general medicine. These patients are found in all hospitals across the country seeking relief. The matter of specialized treatment is so important that there should be specialized teaching of the care of arthritis in all the medical schools where there are medical students and internes. It should be taught in general hospitals where there are patients of all ages and both sexes. In Sunnybrook there is only one age group, principally male, except a few nurses who are unlucky enough to contract this disease. I have suggested in previous speeches in this house that there is a necessity of refresher courses.
The objectives of the new society, when announced at the organization meetings, were commendable. It is obvious, sir, that the new society was organized in close co-operation with the Department of Veterans Affairs. This leads the average practitioner in Canada to fear that the society, in using D.V.A. doctors, may sponsor a form of state medicine, and they actually are afraid. Health matters, sir, are still under the jurisdiction of the provinces, and state medicine has not yet been adopted in Canada. The problem of arthritis is too big and too far-reaching to be controlled by a small group. It demands the attention of the whole medical profession, and especially the general practitioners who are in touch with it from day to day. It should be discussed with the Canadian and provincial medical associations. Medical schools should be consulted, because it is necessary for them to teach the care of arthritics. A survey of the whole situation should be made, giving the number of patients and the present requirements for attacking the problem. Above all, sir, a stop should be put to this ill-advised publicity which is giving misleading information to the public. To raise false hopes is a cruel type of propaganda. At the present time the propaganda is taking the form of such headlines in the papers as "war on arthritis", "tackling the arthritis problem", and so on. I know where these press reports come from. These are the headlines that we read every once in a while in the papers.
I noted that in the bulletin put out by the Department of National Health and Welfare, volume III, No. 6, March, 1948, there were eight pages devoted to arthritis. That is praiseworthy. I shall tell you something further. Three of the pages in this bulletin show pictures of Sunnybrook hospital. That 
is the only place in which they have seen arthritis that they know anything about. That is the impression they give. Before statements are given to the people with a build-up such as "war on arthritis" it would be well to remember that there are six hundred thousand people across Canada, of whom one hundred and twenty-five thousand are crippled in bed or in wheel chairs, who are looking for relief from this terrible condition. They are begging for something to be done now.
We have had a lot of propaganda so far but we have had very little action. Mention has been made several times in this debate of a national health plan, and something was said about it in the speech from the throne. It is discussed and glibly talked about. The Prime Minister talked about it when he introduced the health grants last May. He made a statement which will be found on page 3935 of Hansard. One hon. member on this side of the house quoted it the other day. He told us what these expenditures would mean in the preservation of health and the saving of human life, to say nothing of the lessening of human suffering and misery, and not infrequently despair. He told us it was beyond calculation. No hon. member in this house could disagree with that; no hon. member could say that it is not true of any sums spent for health reasons; but I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that these conditions have been waiting for thirty years before the party which forms this government took any action. It was on their program in 1919. It would be difficult to estimate the casualties which have occurred and the misery endured during those thirty years before the Liberal party made any attempt to deal with this situation.
At the time of the introduction of the health grants in May 1948 a full debate was promised. That debate was left to the last day of the session. The minister kept promising all through last session that we would have a chance to debate this matter. At two o'clock on the afternoon of the last day of the session we got a chance to say something about it. We approved these grants; we approved grants to raise the health standard in Canada; that is, we approved the spending of the money to raise health conditions in Canada, and we voted for them gladly.
This party has long realized the necessity for a plan of health in the Dominion of Canada. Let there be no doubt where this party stands on that now. We stand in favour of a plan which, in co-operation with the provinces, will give the people the maximum of services, and yet be a plan of freedom, where the doctors will not be civil ser-

vants, and which will allow free choice between doctor and patient. We have got a full realization of the deficiencies in treatment services in Canada and in our preventive services, and we stand ready to implement a plan to overcome these deficiencies, and which will raise health standards in Canada to the equal of that in any other country of the world.
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Cournoyer (Richelieu-Ver-cheres):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish
to express my congratulations to the new members of the cabinet:	the former prime
minister of Manitoba (Mr. Garson), the former Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the young minister of reconstruction (Mr. Winters). Their experience and their brilliant qualities, applied to the service of Canada, will surely give very good results.
I now want to say a word about the leader of the opposition and member for Carleton (Mr. Drew); he has been outstanding in several ways, some more or less brilliant than others. He succeeds a long line of leaders of the opposition. The seat of the leader of the opposition has been in unstable equilibrium these last few years. I therefore wish him success in his career and I trust the members of his party will make his reign as leader of the opposition long and agreeable and on behalf of the Liberals I can assure him of our fullest co-operation.
I wish every success to the member for Nicolet-Yamaska. I have known him personally for many years and our relations have always been most friendly. His integrity in the practice of his profession, the devotion with which he discharges his duties as protonotary, will certainly be of use to him in the exercise of his mandate. I know what principles he expounded during his election campaign; I believe he will soon realize that he has come to the wrong parliament and that the man who is today foisting his leadership upon him is merely Dr. Jekyll's Mr. Hyde.
I also congratulate the new member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Demers). His speech on the address has shown that his services will be useful to his party and that the people of his constituency had every right to give him their confidence.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne this year is a complete, constructive and realistic synthesis of each and every one of the problems which are presently troubling the minds of our people as Canadian citizens and citizens of the world. Seldom has a ses-
The Address-Mr. Cournoyer sional statement of government policy been submitted for our consideration with such concision and lucidity, such clearness in presenting the facts and such determination in planning for the future. In short, this document reveals the qualities of logic, sincerity and deep wisdom of the man who personally inspired it in his capacity as adviser to His Excellency, our Prime Minister.
Under these circumstances, as a member of this house, I share the hopes of our people. Like so many Canadians, I was labouring under the illusion that the Conservative party, having a new leader, would carry out constructively its task of criticizing the government's policies and shed about that amount of light which our democracy has a right to expect from the official opposition, whose duty it is to co-operate in the good management of the country.
To me and to all Canadians that was a sad disappointment.
So far, we have seen the leader of the opposition delve into his own past for the sole purpose of disowning it. We have seen him rummage about for old speeches. We have seen him endeavour, quite clumsily at times, to resuscitate past problems and demand solutions for matters settled long ago.
Provincial autonomy is his main theme. On that note the leader of the opposition sings, as Roosevelt would have said, from both sides of his mouth. He demands autonomy with a great show of eloquence, but when he was the leader of his party in Ontario, he was demanding the abolition of provincial governments.
Another of his themes is communism; he merely amplifies what all people say just as sincerely and with much more practical common sense.
Finally, he refers to a letter dating as far back as 1942 and dealing with the Hong Kong tragedy; he is the only one who has not forgotten all about that letter or perhaps who has read it.
The satisfaction which the leader of the opposition takes in handling his old papers, in reading old letters, could easily be understood if it were but the harmless foible of those who enjoy evoking their past because they no longer have the strength to live their present.
Those are men of another era, and the Canadians will never entrust the destinies of their young nation to a group of mummies, however eloquent the latter may be.
The bold and dynamic policies of the Liberal party, which marches resolutely and fearlessly toward the future, is noticeable throughout the speech from the throne.
1156	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cournoyer
Let me point out a few examples, in connection with the Atlantic pact, with the development of our merchant marine and Our shipyards.
If the Progressive Conservatives have thought they could win over the province of Quebec and gain votes through their silence and their equivocal stand on the Atlantic pact, they have made a mistake which can only be expected from tenth-rate politicians.
To think that the French Canadians refuse to take their place among free men who oppose communist slavery is to be greatly misinformed as regards their intelligence, their fundamental vigour and their Christian spirit.
Never perhaps has there been such a degree of unanimity among Canadians of both great races as to the ultimate aims of our international policy. Never has their confidence been greater in their Prime Minister who, taking the lead among the rulers of democratic nations, has sounded the call to all men of good will and issued to the western nations that slogan which the French Canadians know so well: "Let us unite!"
Only the Tories, these men of a bygone century, still think they can wave the old bugaboos to reap votes in the province of Quebec. Quebec considers these vulgar tactics as an insult. Just as the people of Quebec opposed imperialistic wars where they considered that Canada's interests were not at stake, so today they join with enthusiasm the movement of free humanity to save peace without neglecting justice, and to maintain Christian values, which are so deeply Canadian, even if this entails preparing for war.
It seems to me, however, that we attach too much importance to the purely military aspect of the Atlantic pact. In a radio speech the Prime Minister gave the democratic alliance an economic and cultural meaning which corresponds to the pacifist sentiment of our people as well as to the new needs of our national economy.
The constitutional evolution of Canada, the crumbling of the former world order have shattered the framework of the British empire; in other words the framework within which were formerly brought into play our economic, cultural and international relations with other countries is now disappearing.
India and Pakistan are precariously accepting dominion status; Burma is no longer a colony; Ireland becomes a republic; South Africa is subjected to a nationalistic storm; even Newfoundland, that old colony,


is severing its ties with the mother country to become the tenth province of Canada.
In addition to these geographical disturbances, there are the monetary struggles, the conflict in currency and the dollar situation. Our imperial trade routes in the sterling area threaten to close up. Thanks to the tremendous efforts of the Liberal government, they are still open to the greatest advantage of our farmers and manufacturers. The very framework of the British empire is crumbling, according to some people. So much the better, will say all true Canadians who consider that their young nation was cramped and paralysed in this association which was too seclusive and too much dominated by its sister, and equal, Great Britain. Let us now replace this old order by a new order. Let us replace the free association of British nations with a larger association of free men from all races. Amongst this enlarged commonwealth, amongst this alliance, which would not be imperial but human in character, Canada would play, unrestricted, her part as an adult nation, respected throughout the world because she aims only at promoting the ideals of peace, and has no other imperialistic designs than that of expanding the domain of human happiness.
The economic and cultural alliance brought about by the Atlantic pact does not stop at promoting Canada's peace-loving dreams and humane ideals. It can become the framework of our own national economy which depends on our export trade to such a fantastic extent. Our Prime Minister has said that it will take more than the pooling of our armed forces to bring peace to the world.
Canadians keep close watch on those world markets that spell for them prosperity or unemployment. More particularly have my constituents in Richelieu-Vercheres-shipbuilders, sailors, farmers, dealers-grasped the real economic significance of our international problems. They are peace-loving people, but they are determined that their stamp of manhood and their Christian faith shall survive.
They are also realistic and patriotic. That is why they rejoice over the fact that Canada is no longer bound by a too narrow imperial framework, and put their trust in the new economic, social, and cultural order pledged by the Atlantic pact.
The signing of the Atlantic pact will contribute not only to the peace for which we are all yearning, not only to our material well-being, but also to the development of our navy and our shipyards.

I represent the constituency of Richelieu-Vercheres, where are located the most important shipyards in the country. Those yards have been developed and improved during the war, as a result of the Liberal government's policy. I wish to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the workers of my village, of the town of Sorel and of the whole district. Their industry, their technical knowledge, their ability and especially their willingness to co-operate, have permitted the employers' spirit of enterprise to make an admirable contribution to the creation of a Canadian navy and to the victory of the allied forces.
As a matter of fact, at the very beginning of the conflict in 1939, Canada only had 35 ships with a combined capacity of about
240,000	tons. These vessels were left-overs from world war I. My older compatriots remember seeing the few shipyards of that time close their doors one after the other. This almost complete shut-down of the shipbuilding industry, during the whole period between the two wars, explains why our navy had so few units in 1939.
But during the war our shipyards, especially that of St. Joseph de Sorel, were so extensively developed that in 1946 our navy included 448 merchant vessels of various tonnages without mentioning the corvettes, mine sweepers, tow-boats and invasion barges. These figures indicate the productive capacity of our shipyards.
The vessels were placed at the disposal of Canadian companies. Unfortunately the latter are experiencing certain difficulties. I trust that the Canadian maritime commission which was established on November 6, 1947, due to the initiative of the genial Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), will soon suggest the necessary steps to be taken in order to ensure the survival of our marine industry.
Section 6 of the act creating it provides that the commission shall recommend to the minister such policies and measures as it considers necessary for the operation, maintenance, manning and development of a merchant marine and a shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry commensurate with Canadian maritime needs.
The task of the commission is not as simple as it looks on the face of it for, although our prosperity rests fundamentally on our trade, our Canadian merchant marine and our shipbuilding industry have not been sufficiently encouraged in the past to compete with others. The minister has pointed out the difficulties himself.
The Address-Mr. Cournoyer
Practically all countries whose ships ply the seas have enacted rigid laws to control coastal navigation, that is to say, water transport of goods within their borders. Since 1789 in the United States and since 1793 in France, to mention but those two countries, ships of foreign registry are not allowed to transport goods between two ports within their respective boundaries. These countries have reserved for themselves their boats, their seamen, their waterways and their coasts. In Canada, not only does the British navy enjoy the same privileges as the Canadian navy, but in addition, ships of other countries may carry on coastwise trade on our shores, subject to the maritime commission's permission.
Until the provisions of the shipping act are made more rigid for all boats not built in Canada, and until the provisions of subsection (i) of section 12 of the 1930 imperial conference's report are acted upon, I do not think our navy will be able to survive. The trade between two points in Canada should be restricted to ships registered in Canada and manned by Canadian seamen.
I shall support this statement with a striking example. Hon. members know that Sorel is about to become one of the great steel producing centres in Canada. The titanium ore treated there comes from Havre St. Pierre and not from Ungava as many are led to believe. It means that millions of tons of ore would be shipped from Havre St. Pierre for treatment in the Sorel plants. The American company which will operate this plant will surely need ships to transport this material. But not a single Canadian company will be able to compete with foreign shipowners, the British or Norwegian companies, for example.
True, in England ships can be built for less, because of lower labour costs and different working conditions. Moreover, the operation of a Canadian ship costs $680 per day, while that of an English ship only amounts to $460 per day. Under such conditions no Canadian operator can tender with any hope of success.
If we let commonwealth and foreign ships compete with Canadian ships in coastal trade, we can easily see what will happen. The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois) who spoke of this matter last year, as reported on page 4150 of Hansard for 1948, said, and I quote:
The least we could do would be to charge duty on ships built outside Canada. Only by legislation

The Address-Mr. Cournoyer reserving coastal trade to our own ships and levying duties on foreign-built ships will Canada promote the organization and maintenance of a Canadian merchant navy and at the same time establish in our country a sound and prosperous shipbuilding industry.
If it is to survive, our merchant marine must be protected by legislation. Because of the type of labour to whom they provide employment and a means of livelihood, shipyards need state assistance.
It should be recalled that during the war, the shipbuilding industry, apart from subsidiary concerns, employed as many as 53,000 men and, last year, still kept 16,000 on the pay roll.
Regulations dealing with our coastal trade should be a boon to sailors, operators, workers and shipbuilders. It is not a matter of sentiment but a case of survival.
Realizing the full import of this problem, the Liberal delegates meeting at the party convention held in Ottawa in August, 1948, passed the following resolution:
1.	The Liberal party is in favour of supporting the efforts of the Canadian maritime commission to strengthen the Canadian merchant marine and to protect it against any foreign competition in Canadian waters.
2.	The necessary amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, to establish a separate registration system for Canadian ships.
I hope the day is not far off when the people of my constituency will see a Canadian merchant marine, proudly flying a Canadian flag, sail the majestic St. Lawrence and the seven seas.
The present government has brought about great achievements in the field of the shipping industry, for which the people will be grateful.
On behalf of my constituents, I wish to thank the government for having allowed the continuation of shipbuilding at St. Joseph de Sorel, where the Marine Industries' shipyards, a concern which is a credit to our province and to Canada, are located.
At the end of the war, we were worried. Our population had considerably increased as a result of the opening of the Sorel Industries' and Marine Industries' shipyards. Thanks to the millions of dollars lent France by the present government, our men have been able to work since the end of the war with the same spirit and the same devotion they showed during the war for an equally noble cause.

These ships are finished, the yards are almost closed, but once again the government helped us, and, through the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), the shipyards of my constituency and its workers got an order for a new icebreaker. Unfortunately, due to circumstances over which the government-or for that matter, anybody-has no control, construction has not started on this project. I hope that before long the people of Sorel and of the surrounding district will forget the hard times and worry they have known throughout this winter.
I also wish to thank the present Minister of Transport. If the Sorel Industries concern, which produced so much ordnance, is still in operation today, it is because of the contracts received from the Canadian National Railways. Those splendid workshops are now repairing used railway cars, but I am sure it could build new ones. I earnestly request the minister to take this request under consideration.
There would be much to say about government policies since the war. The Liberal party is not perfect; it is a human institution. But it must be admitted that, in every field of Canada's political activity, much has been achieved in the general interest of the public.
If the senior member of this house, the distinguished member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) was prime minister of his country longer than any other man in the world, it is because his economic and social policies were considered best for the people.
At the beginning of my remarks, I referred to the difficulties encountered by the world in its search for a new order. The people of Canada are seeking a new social and economic order just as the world is also seeking a new order.
This is where the matter of taxes comes in. Taxes are high; they must be lowered. As a matter of fact, the real hardships caused the taxpayer by the high level of taxation are enlarged and magnified by irresponsible politicians who, for electoral purposes, strive by every possible means to induce among the people a psychosis of resentment and discontent.
Nobody likes taxes. To ask for their reduction requires neither imagination nor heroism, as everybody favours this theory. But I maintain that the Progressive Conservative party should be the last to blame the
IMr. Cournoyer.]

government in this respect. Indeed, if that party had been in power during the war, we would be paying three times as many taxes, and I shall prove it.
The house will recall that during the war they were never satisfied with the Canadian effort. Billion dollar expenditures on behalf of Great Britain were too scarce; army estimates were never high enough and Canadian fighters always too few in number. They blackmailed the government by pitting the other provinces against Quebec. Had their advice been followed, full conscription would have been in effect at the beginning of the war. In short, expense was never too high. Moreover, after Germany's defeat, they began clamouring for conscription to fight Japan. That is why there were no Progressive Conservative candidates in Quebec for the 1945 election.


Mr. Pouliot:: They felt that our soldiers
never went far enough.


Gérard Cournoyer: I am in full agreement with the hon. member. I do not think the government has anything to learn from these shortsighted Progressive Conservatives. They seek only to bring the people back under the yoke of the Bennett administration; at that time, workers did not pay income tax, but as the fable goes:
Though they did not all succumb, all were afflicted.
Taxes are heavy, unquestionably, but we must not forget that already Canadians have received a billion dollars since family allowances have been in operation. Taxes are high, but all veterans have been re-established; taxes are high, but the Liberal administration covers the nine provinces with hospitals and fights disease more daringly than any other country ever did. Our government wages war on cancer, mental diseases and other ailments that lower the productivity of our people. Taxes are indeed high, but the government has undertaken a vast and essentially Christian program whose purpose is to distribute more evenly among all Canadians the wealth of the nation.
Canada's farmers and workers realize that low-income earners and farmers are not the most adversely affected, especially if family allowances are taken into consideration. The wealthy and large corporations are the ones who benefit most from lower taxes.
Besides, this taxation situation is not peculiar to Canada. While all nations of the
4, 1949
The Address-Mr. Cournoyer world are being taxed more heavily than we are, while nearly all foreign governments have increased their taxes, the Canadian government was able to manage the affairs of this country and reduce taxes on three different occasions.
Mr. Truman has just increased the taxes in the United States. Mr. Dewey, the up and coming man during the last election for the presidency of the United States, is fighting against his own supporters, in the New York legislature, for an increase in taxation. The provincial government, just recently approved by the electors, raised the sales tax by 1 per cent. It took over the 3 cent gasoline tax that the Ottawa people had just surrendered; it again prescribes a monthly school charge; it raised the corporation taxes; school text books are no longer free.
In Canada, the government has surrendered the 3 cent gasoline tax, duties on estates of less than $50,000, the 25 per cent amusement tax, besides granting three successive tax abatements. In addition the government refunded, with interest, approximately $240 million, last year, and $270 million this year, of compulsory savings.
Well, notwithstanding what goes on in the world, we have every reason to believe-and I hope for it and ask for it eagerly-that the government will reduce taxes, thanks to their good administration, without giving up their social security program but by getting the money necessary for its application from those who possess the largest share of the wealth of the nation.
The Liberal party, under the guidance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Louis St. Laurent), that great Canadian of whom we are proud, will direct our country in the difficult search for a new world order through our alliance with the democratic nations, and for [DOT] a new social order through justice for all social classes in Canada. On problems as important as that of our merchant marine, they will apply the solution of the national interests of Canada, and their internationalism will always be enlightened by the nationalist care of a young nation with faith in its future.
(Text):


Mr. Rodney Young (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have had the honour of taking part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As I look around me I see a great many empty benches. Naturally I regret
1160

The Address-Mr. Young that, but I am proceeding on the hypothesis that what we lack in quantity we make up in quality, and that I am addressing the most intelligent portion of the membership of the House of Commons.


Mr. Lalonde:: What about your leader? He is absent.


Rodney Young: Before proceeding with my main subject, I should like to make some comments in a humble way on the remarks that were made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). We listened to scorn and a certain amount of sarcasm being heaped upon the head of the member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Argue) earlier in the afternoon. Apparently he had made an error in calculation on the matter of the eleven months or less than eleven months that had elapsed since the government health program went into effect. The comparison was made that a six year old child would know better. I remember that only a few days ago the member for New Westminster, in answer to a suggestion from this side of the house that smaller chocolate bars were a way of gypping the youngsters of Canada, made the statement that smaller chocolate bars were healthier and, said he, "I venture to say I can prove that it is a fact." A fact is a very important thing. As the member for New Westminster said this afternoon, facts are chiels that winna ding. My pronunciation of the dialect is not as good as his because I am two generations removed from the old sod, but nevertheless I, too, would venture to remark that chiels are facts that winna ding, and that the children who listen to his statement are bound to misinterpret it, to say the least. They will not think of the hon. member in a very kindly way. If they had been able to vote for him I am afraid they would be likely to vote against him in the coming general election.
The reproach was made that we on this side of the house are in favour of better old age pensions, that we want to look after the incurables, and that we want to take care of a certain number of veterans who are not very well cared for at the present time, and that at the same time we are in favour of a reduction of taxation. The comment was made that that seemed to be contradictory. Let me say that we think that exemptions of $750 for a single person and $1,500 for a married person are much too small. The exemptions should be much higher than that because of present high prices, and because of conditions in the country. At the same time we do not feel that if our policies were carried out it would necessarily mean a cut in social services, limited as they are, or that it would prevent the improvement of existing

social services. We propose to cut taxes at the end where taxation is hurting the most people, who can least afford to pay, and increase taxation amongst that small section of the population which has the most money and can most afford to pay. It seems to me that it is reasonable, that it is logical, that it is humanitarian, and that it is plain common sense.
The suggestion has been made in this house, and it was made again this afternoon, that one of the causes of communism is the lack of social services, and that if social services were improved we would have less to fear from the growth of communism. I do not deny that statement but I would suggest that we in the C.C.F. group have advocated that social services should be extended to those countless thousands who need them, and need them desperately, not because we are afraid of communism but because we think it is the decent, humane thing to do. Psychologically that seems to me to be a much worthier reason, and I would suggest that it is the point of view that should be adopted by the government in relation to the problem.
In the days of the depression it used to be a common saying amongst our people that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. But the days of the depression have gone, we have come through a war, and we have been in the piping times of peace for the last five years. During that period the poor have still got poorer and the government has got richer. The poorest amongst the poor are the old age pensioners, and every time they pay for food, shelter and clothing they pay a part of that taxation which has accumulated to the point where we expect a surplus of at least $500 million, and we have had larger surpluses annually for the past two or three years.
When the government come to us and say that they are engaged in cyclical budgeting, and that they want to save during the fat years in order to take care of the lean, I say to them that paying off the national debt is an excellent piece of business and it is good law, but they should remember their fathers and their mothers before they remember the bondholders. I believe in the statement in the good book: remember thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long in the land that the Lord thy God has given thee. I believe that is true today, and that it is a better rule than remembering the bondholders and paying off the national debt. I believe that any surplus should go where it is so urgently needed.
In this debate I have listened to members of the Conservative party, the Liberal party, the Social Credit party and the C.C.F. All have agreed that something should be done for the old age pensioners; and I believe that

year after year, if asked this question, they would be so agreed. Yet nothing comparable to what is necessary has been done to date. However, we are looking forward with the thought that a general election is in the air. We hope the government, with the sort of generosity that is always shown before a general election, will move in the interests of these old people who have spent their lives building up our country, who have made it possible for us to enjoy what we are enjoying today, and who at this late stage of their lives should be given some ease and comfort and some security in their declining years.
I want to deal also with the matter of superannuated civil servants. When asked why something cannot be done for these people the reason is always advanced that superannuated civil servants are paid out of a fund that is on an actuarial basis. Of course, to some of us who understand insurance and know what an actuarial basis means, this may sound very logical. But to the individual who is trying to live on $40 a month, all this talk does not mean very much. Financially it may be the correct thing; but from the point of view of the human being, he neither understands it nor will he tolerate it. We employed these people in the service of the state in various activities, whether humble or important. They - gave years of service to our nation, and we are an honest people who wish to pay our debts. We will not lightly forgive a government which permits the superannuated civil servants of the country, in their grey hairs, to suffer as these people are suffering today; and I say that, despite actuarial bases or any other kind of financial excuse for not coming through with what is absolutely necessary for our retired civil servants.
In the course of my remarks I should like to deal with the situation that has developed in my city of Vancouver. Out there our people have returned to the period of the depression. It is as though the years in between have vanished; the piping times of peace, when we enjoyed high wages, full employment and full pockets have gone, and we are back in the days of the soup line. I have newspaper pictures here showing men lined up at a long table, and the headline is, "Soup kitchen business brisk." The writer goes on to say;
"Soup kitchens" are operating in Vancouver to fill the stomachs of hungry men who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits or are not eligible for any. Shavei ar tl unshaven, clean and unkempt, with the haggard look that comes from weeks of desperation, hundreds of forlorn men haunt the premises where social agencies ladle soup by the bowl or hand out meal tickets.
Now in my province they run to over fifty thousand, many of whom are not eligible for unemployment insurance or who have 29087-74J
The Address-Mr. Young exhausted their eligibility and have no means of maintenance. I have here a news report which should interest the house, because it quotes the chief of the community chest, a very responsible person chosen from other responsible people in our society, who is capable and willing, and who has the leisure and possibly the security to interest himself in carrying on where government social security ends and where the need is still felt. In his speech, which is reported in the Vancouver Sun of March 1, he says:
The retiring president said at the chest's annual meeting Monday night that "hungry and cold people get a bit impatient when they wait on the enactment of statutes." He said both single and family men have used up their unemployment insurance benefits and have no income. The matter must not be "smugly smoothed over" for another year, he said.
This is not an impatient C.C.F.'er, but the head of the community chest in Vancouver.
In my constituency we have one of the most beautiful natural parks in Canada. It is known from coast to coast and all over the continent. Wherever you hear tell of tourist paradises, you hear mention of Stanley park in Vancouver. It is an area which was left for our leisure, for our enjoyment; and before I left Vancouver I walked through that park, which is close to my home. Sitting on the benches in the bitter wind were the unemployed men, homeless and foodless. Under their clothes were stuck newspapers to keep out the wind. That is the sort of thing that is transpiring.


Mr. Cruickshanlc:: Ugh!


Rodney Young: Did I hear the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) say "Ugh"?


George Alexander Cruickshank: You heard me say you
were talking utter nonsense.


Rodney Young: Thank you; happily that will go into the record.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I hope so.


Rodney Young: And no doubt the seven
thousand unemployed in the hon. gentleman's own constituency will appreciate the grunts that he uttered in this house a few moments ago.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They will also recognize what I have done in their behalf.


Rodney Young: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to be interrupted by the hon. member at length, though I do not mind the odd interruption. I should like to go on and say that the Canadian society of incurables has sent most hon. members, perhaps all of them, a letter setting out their case, part of which

The Address-Mr. Young I am going to present to the house because I believe it is worth listening to. They say:
We cannot forget that thirty years have elapsed and the cycle of Mr. Mackenzie King's premiership has been completed since the desperate need of our Canadian incurables was first presented to our federal government. Members of parliament are still agreeing whole-heartedly that something should be done for them and yet nothing is being done.
And a little further on:
Much has been said about an over-all security plan. That sounds reasonable if it could be brought into immediate existence. We are told that it cannot be done, and in the meantime our incurables are existing shamefully or else dying in poverty.
Then the letter concludes:
We do not believe that the social and economic security of our incurables depends upon a proper relationship between our provincial and federal governments. That excuse will not pacify us any longer. If that were so, right thinking men would have remedied that difficulty before this. We believe that if the federal government so desires they can see that every incurable in Canada is receiving a proper pension of at least seventy-five dollars or more before this session is over. We believe that you do want to, otherwise life is not worth living for the thousands of people for which you are directly responsible clear across Canada.
I have had a great many letters similar to this, but if I were to present them all I would not have time to speak on any other subject. So I am going to present just one other letter dealing with this matter of the necessary social services for which this nation has looked to our present government over the years, as they are related to the $500 million the government is sitting on for the future, and which possibly they used to reduce our national debt last year. Here is a resolution from the Canadian non-pensioned veterans' widows, of which I shall read only part: that all non-pensioned veterans' widows whose late husbands served in any of His Majesty's forces during the great war, 1914-18, be considered under the War Veterans' Allowance Act, whether said husband served in an actual theatre of war or otherwise.
We appeal to the dominion government for the necessity of making prompt provision for the non-pensioned widows of imperial veterans, by the extension of the War Veterans' Allowance Act under the same conditions as the Canadian non-pensioned widow, providing that such widows have been domiciled in the Dominion of Canada for a reasonable time. For example, -
This is a good example, I think.
-the immigrant who has resided not less than a period of three years, can apply for the family allowance; we would urge that the imperial veterans' widows have the same privilege when applying for allowance.
It seems to me that what I have read is reasonable. It comes not from people who, if we support them, will reach a stage where they will not want to support themselves. These people cannot support themselves. These people are a crying shame to our country and to our civilization. It is a shame 
that a land such as Canada, one of the wealthiest in the world, rich in natural resources, despite its enormous wealth and with only twelve million people as compared with Great Britain which has forty-eight million people in that tight little island, is unable to inaugurate a social security program.
On a previous occasion the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said that some of these social services enjoyed by the British people were instituted by a Liberal government. More honour to the Liberals of Great Britain and less honour to the Liberals of Canada. The final touches were put to the program the British people now enjoy by a parliament just as we have here. If I stood up in that parliament and looked around, however, I would not be able to say to myself, as I am able to do here, every fourth man I see is an honoured and learned member: almost every third member is a member of the legal profession. In the British House of Commons I could look around and see bricklayers, ditch diggers, coal miners and sailors; I could see the representatives of a democratic people and they would represent every form of energy devoted to the interests of humanity, whether it be the energy of the brain or the energy of the muscles. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to seeing that happen in this house. The reason I look forward to it is that the needs of the people have not been met.
In deciding what is going to happen in our country in the next few months, Mr. Speaker, it would be well to look at the history of elections in Canada since confederation. It is a notable fact that, before any party has taken office federally, that party has been in office in a majority of the provinces. The sole exception to this rule was the last election, which was a victory election. When the party in power federally has lost office in a majority of the provinces, then it has gone down to defeat at the next election. An examination of the political situation in Canada today shows that the Liberal party is no longer in office in a majority of the provinces. If the political rules that have developed in this country have any validity, then this government is like Belshazzar at the feast. It sits sated before the political tables from which it has eaten so long and the handwriting is on the wall, "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin."-You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting; your kingdom will be divided amongst your enemies.
I say to the government, that is about to happen. On the other hand, I look at the official opposition. I look at them in the early afternoon when they are all in the house. I

see men who have been out in the political wilderness for many years. I find that the average age of that group is probably much higher than the average age of the house as a whole. I find that they look extremely senatorial and dignified. Had the Conservative party been in office, it is quite possible some of them would have occupied seats in that other place ere now. I watch them and see that they have a hungry eye when they look at the front benches on the government side. During the war years they were the greatest patriots. Amongst that group there are two holders of the Victoria Cross. These are the gentlemen who called for an all-out effort during the war and called for conscription. They said "Everything for our country." Today, with those hungry eyes fastened on the government front benches, they are in an alliance with Duplessis. Men are working for them in the elections who, only a few years ago, the Conservatives cried out should be in jail. At that time they said these men were opposed to patriotism-traitors to our country. But today they have compromised, and what a compromise!	_
I say that the people of this country have no choice between the official opposition and the government. It is impossible for a group to straddle the fence as the official opposition proposes to do. When the records of the debates in this house are examined it will be found that the official opposition has not brought up the economic conditions of the immediate future or the problems that face the country from the point of view of bread and butter. They have dillied and dallied with the ancient history of our country and the more recent history of our country in the form of dominion-provincial relations. Worse than that, they propose to bring up the story of Hong Kong. I would say this, Mr. Speaker, that the men and women who survived but who lost brothers and sons in the Hong Kong disaster have suffered enough. To bring this up now in order to make political capital out of it is a stab in the back to the people of Canada. The object of this move is headline hunting. I say that the people of Canada will not thank the Progressive Conservative party for it and will make that fact known at the next election.
In my constituency, Mr. Speaker, we have fine homes and beautiful gardens. As I said before, we have one of the great parks of Canada. There is also the business section and, in the eastern section, there is a slum quarter. As the member for that constituency, I have frequented that quarter, I have called upon these people and discussed their problems with them. I have examined the record and found that, when that area pays rates to the city of Vancouver, the city of Van-
The Address-Mr. Young couver has to pay back additional money to that area in the form of the cost of juvenile delinquency; in the cost of crime; in the form of providing policemen; in the cost of hospitalization for the various social diseases; in the cost of tubercular prevalence; in the cost of infant mortality. All of these things cost more than the city receives from that area. I say this, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come when we in this country are getting into the plight of the people in Europe, we are developing slum dwellers.
I believe that the children of our country should live normal, natural lives. I believe that every child in an ideal society, such as that for which I hope we are struggling-and I include every member in this house- would rise at dawn and sleep at dusk. It would run in the grass. It would stand in the streams in its bare feet, and standing on the round stones it would feel the water rippling and enjoy the sunshine. It would be able to smell the grass, and it would be able to take part in the natural earthbound existence which the natural person has. The children in the slums in my area are cut off from that. They are cut off from anything normal and natural. When they grow up they are foredoomed. Society is against them. Many of them go into the criminal courts. They appear in those courts as pleaders, as vagrants and as criminals. They are there on petty crimes which are always prevalent in an area where an individual has no chance. I believe in equality in a real sense. I believe in equality of opportunity. I believe that everyone in this country has the right to a break, when they are small, anyway. They will all grow up differently. We are all built differently. But if they are given an even break we shall have a better Canada and it will be a more worth-while Canada.
We who sit in this house have these responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, and after we leave this house, nothing that we do or say in the way of an explanation as to how this could not be afforded and that could not be done will redeem that. We ourselves will be responsible, when we go before the people, more for what we have failed to do than for what we have done. And especially responsible will be this Liberal government, and the hon. members who sit on the back benches will be just as responsible as the hon. members who sit on the front benches, because no government survives without the support of all its members.
I do not want to dwell too much on this, but I do want to point out that a special committee on housing was set up by this house fourteen years ago. That committee on
1164	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Young housing brought in a report which reads in part as follows-I shall read section 4 first:
The formation, institution and pursuit of a policy of adequate housing should be accepted as a social responsibility.
Section 5 reads as follows:
There is no apparent prospect of the low-rental housing need being met through unaided private enterprise building for profit.
Section 13:
The slum areas which have been shown to cast very heavy expenses on many branches of public administration such as health, welfare, fire prevention, administration of justice, et cetera, may justify public assistance, which is likely to prove as sound financially as it is certainly desirable socially.
Therefore all the remarks I have made on slum conditions, all the reasons that I propose to urge on this house for low-rental subsidized housing, were made fourteen years ago by a committee of this house, and yet where are we today? We still have not got it.
There was a report in the newspapers dealing with some of the figures of the experiments which have been made in subsidized housing in the United States. In San Francisco some of the most significant figures came to light. The revenue and expenditures situation in the slum area compared with an equal non-slum area were as follows: Revenues from the non-slum area were $555,600. From a slum area of equivalent size the revenues were $368,000. But the expenditures in the non-slum area were only $86,000 and in the slum area they were $741,000. I have not time to give a breakdown of these figures although I have them here.
May I say this, especially to the Prime Minister, whose published statements in the press of late have shown some slight departure from his original statement made, I believe, some time ago in which he implied ;hat he would not be himself a member of a government that went into the housing business. His more recent statements tend to show that there is a possibility that there is something in this need of people being housed, which is a responsibility of the government.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock. PRIVILEGE

Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. My attention has been drawn to the fact that from my speech this afternoon the inference [Mr. Young.)

might be drawn that I had suggested that the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) had leanings toward communism. It will be recalled that I referred to the by-election in that constituency, and to the kind of propaganda used.
Let me assure him that I had no such thought in mind. The hon. member for Yale has no more thoughts of or leanings toward communism than I have, or than most hon. members of the house have; and I should not like that impression to remain. What I meant to say was that we no longer can use the word communism as something frightening, or a word to frighten people.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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. Cold well.
Rodney Young: Mr. Speaker, I should like in the few remaining minutes of my time to refer to the matter brought up yesterday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). He referred to the sale of Canadian ships to foreign flags, the reduction of our merchant marine and the consequent unemployment which would follow if- that procedure was very far spread.
I should like to say that the house would expect-and I presume it will receive from the minister concerned-some assurance that Canadian companies are not retaining ownership of shipping and transferring it to foreign flags. Because there is abroad among the sailors on our ships a very definite impression that that has taken place in at least one instance. I have letters on my files to that effect.
We all realize that during the period of the war many young men from Canada went to sea for the first time. They did so in order to help us win the battle of the Atlantic. They had their ships sunk from under them -not once or twice, but sometimes three or four times. Those men have adopted seafaring as a means of making their livelihood, and as their way of life. They received adequate training.
It was suggested that there had been labour trouble in the merchant marine, and that this had an ill effect on the prospects of the industry. Let me say this, that the labour troubles over a period of years have given to our sailors a higher standard of wages and conditions than are to be found in

other merchant navies. The minister himself said that the average wage of a Canadian mariner was $49 higher than that of a British mariner. A Liberal government is liberal, not only in name but, I hope, in its outlook upon the standard of living of the Canadian worker. And it is in the interests of liberalism, as it is in the interests of Canada, that when a standard of living has been achieved no private corporation should be allowed to whittle down that standard of living by hiring cheaper foreign labour. Every effort should be made by the government, when ships are sold, to see to it that pressure is brought to bear to have new keels laid to maintain the standard of labour.


Mr. Mayhew:: I know the hon. member would like to be fair. I am quite sure the Minister of Transport did not imply that labour was the cause, any more than the owners of the ships. He did not make any charge against labour.


Rodney Young: I do not wish to be misunderstood.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That was the inference you left.


Rodney Young: The minister will bear me out when I say that in industrial struggles there are two points of view. I am sure the minister believes that, too. However, I would say that I do not speak because I am subject to any pressure group. Everyone here knows that that would be unlikely, in view of the party with which I am associated. It is not likely I would be subject to the pressure of any group which seeks to gain orders for the building of new ships at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.
But I have been to sea; I have been in the black gang; and I know many of the conditions and the great effort which has been made through the years by our Canadian seafarers to get decent conditions and wages in their particular vocations. I want to see it maintained, and I am sure the minister also would wish that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask a question?


Rodney Young: Owing to the shortness of time at my disposal, it would not be fair if I were to permit the question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would ask it now, or at the conclusion of your speech.


Rodney Young: Before taking my seat I should like to draw the attention of the government to the safety regulations on the Vancouver waterfront. May I draw their attention to the fact that for that whole waterfront area at the present time the federal safety inspectors number only two. It
The Address-Mr. Young is the opinion of people who should know, and who are experts in longshoring, that it requires a minimum of six safety inspectors.
The provincial government has jurisdiction over safety regulations, through the workmen's compensation board, as far as the highwater mark. But as the longshoremen in Vancouver work mainly on the ships and on the docks a good deal depends upon the safety regulations being carried out by the federal inspectors. I am given to understand by all sides that the inspectors who are at present engaged on the Vancouver waterfront are doing an excellent job, so far as it is within their power, having due regard to the fact that there are only two of them. It is by no means their fault, individually, that accidents have occurred. However, the rigging used in longshoring is cumbersome in many ways, and if it is to be properly inspected and found to be in good condition we mu?t have a better safety inspection.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that the men who are used for first-aid work are often recruited from among the longshoremen who, after many years of service, have reached an age which is too far advanced for their jobs. That is, they cannot carry out the extremely heavy labour of longshoring. Very often these men are recruited as first-aid men. If they go on the job and a piece of tackle is missing, they are sent back to the yards to pick up that tackle. They may be absent two hours or perhaps a day. If anyone were hurt during their absence no first-aid man would be on the job. In my view the regulations should be more strict respecting the knowledge of first-aid men on the waterfront. I feel this will bear some investigation on the part of the minister concerned.
Then, if I may be permitted, I should like to thank the authorities responsible for the offer of assistance in starting a steel plant in British Columbia. We need a steel plant out there. We have the materials; we have the coal; we have the iron; we have the mines. If it is possible-and I hope it will be-to make financial arrangements whereby the money will be furnished dollar for dollar with the government, it may go a great distance toward relieving the present unemployment situation, and will give us what we need so badly on the west coast, a primary industry to provide employment to thousands of people who come in from other parts of Canada to enjoy our climate, and also people from stricken Europe.
We wish to have a satisfied citizenry, and we also hope that we may not be inflicted with a continuance of the terrible condition of unemployment existing today. In our view

The Address-Mr. Timmins the government would be well advised to give every possible support to this endeavour.


George Alexander Cruickshank: As the hon. member's time has not expired, would he permit a question now?


Rodney Young: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I know the hon. member wishes to be fair. He said in his address that in the Fraser Valley constituency there are some 7,000 unemployed. I believe he will agree that most of those are loggers unemployed because of weather conditions.


Rodney Young: I wish to be fair, as the hon. member has said. While it is true that I could answer by saying yes, if I were to do so I would be only partly fair. These loggers are domiciled in the Fraser valley in most instances. It is true that they are employed in the lumbering industry; but in most cases they are residents of the Fraser valley.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Quite true; but, by way of a supplementary question, the unemployment is due mainly to the weather conditions, is it not?


Rodney Young: It is not due to the weather mainly, because it was announced that the probability was that the logging camps would be closed down in British Columbia for as much as four months; and if the hon. member will look at the figures of the bureau of statistics-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Rodney Young: -he will find-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will understand that I cannot allow him to go on indefinitely.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset of my remarks extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Brown) and the seconder (Mr. Demers) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. These two hon. gentlemen have been given the privilege of taking a leading part in a time-honoured tradition and to them belongs the satisfaction of a job well done. The speech from the throne occupies a real place in our parliamentary system because it provides an opportunity for members of parliament to speak on behalf of the people back home. In the United States they call this traditional speech the speech on the state of the union. In Canada it is the speech from the throne. It is, in fact, a national stocktaking.
In my constituency of Parkdale the cry is for tax relief. The people contend that the income tax and the hidden taxes are getting to be more than they can bear. There is

something wrong with a government which takes from the people a surplus of upwards of $700 million in one year and a surplus of upwards of $600 million the next year. In the army we used to call any additional thing "buckshee." These taxes are buckshee taxes, they are something additional, they represent something that is not needed. The people back home are asking about these buckshee taxes. These taxes have become too heavy and the people are very resentful.
Among these taxes is one that has been referred to a number of times in this house, the tax on soft drinks. A return which I have received shows that in 1946 the revenue from this tax was $17-5 million. In 1947 the amount was even more, and in 1948 it was still higher. This tax has reached the point where the industry is being stifled to some extent. The tax is stopping the people from buying. That means the possibility of unemployment in the industry. I am told by representatives of the industry that if the tax were taken off the saving would all be passed on to the public so that they would be able to buy their soft drinks at the price they paid before the war.
I spoke to the minister about some of these indirect taxes and he gave me to understand that when they got to the point where they were interfering with industry, where there was a likelihood of unemployment, he would have to do something about them. Despite what may have been said by others in this house about this tax, the fact is that this industry is finding the going pretty tough and there will be unemployment if something is not done about the tax.
There is another tax we have not heard so much about, but it is quite important. I refer to the 25 per cent tax on toilet articles and cosmetics which used to be only 10 per cent. In 1941 during the war it was raised to 25 per cent. This tax is getting to the point where it is stifling buying by the public. I know of one United States firm which came here in 1932. They have done a lot of business and employed many people but they are considering seriously giving up because of the results of this tax. It will not be long before you find other companies giving up by reason of the tax. I know another smaller firm in Toronto which finds the going pretty hard for the same reason.
I think all of us want our women folk to look their best and we expect them to purchase cosmetics. They feel resentful over this tax and I submit that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) should reduce it at least to the point where it was in 1941 when it was only ten per cent. Those of us who were overseas during the first great war

remember the comedienne, Elsie Janis, who was the toast of London in those days. She used to sing a song which went something like this: I want a man, a determined man, determined to do what I want him to do. I say to the Minister of Finance that the women of Canada are saying that they want a determined man who will reduce this tax to the point where it was in 1941.
There is also an anomaly in connection with this tax. Shaving cream, hair shampoo, shaving soap and toothpaste are all subject to the 25 per cent tax. I imagine that every one of us uses every day probably those articles upon which we have to pay tax of 25 per cent. They are just ordinary necessities used to cleanse the human body. But toilet soap, another article used to cleanse the body, bears a tax of only five per cent. Why should not this heavy, irritating tax of 25 per cent be reduced, at least to five per cent, so that it would be in line with the toilet soap tax?
I see no reason why necessities like shaving cream, shaving soap, toothpaste and hair shampoo should not be reduced, preferably by taking off all the tax, but in any event to five per cent in line with toilet soap.
I come now to the matter of income tax. Right now people are striving to the limit of their resources to pay this tax, and by the end of the year they have very little to put away for old age and so on. I think we are all finding it increasingly difficult to pay this tax year by year without getting behind. The present exemption of $1,500 for a married man is worth only $750 at the present day value of the dollar, and that is a pretty small exemption. I ask the minister to take cognizance of the platform of the Progressive Conservative party in which we recommend that the exemption be raised to $2,500 for married people and $1,250 for single people. Then we urge a further exemption of $200 for dependent children.
There is one more tax to which I should like to refer, the tax on widows' incomes. Today under certain circumstances a widow who has brought up a family and who is maintaining a home is entitled to an exemption of only $750. She must maintain herself the same as a married person who has an exemption of $1,500. I submit to the minister that that exemption should be raised. At the age of 65 years the widow's exemption is by the Income Tax Act increased to $1,250, but we must remember that a widow who has brought up a family and who is maintaining a home may find her expenses just too heavy in the years before she reaches 65. I submit that the age limit should be reduced from 65 years to 50 years, so that the exemption would apply at the earlier age.
The Address-Mr. Timmins For the greater part of my time tonight I should like to speak on the subject of -the desperate need for housing in this country. In the face of increasing population-and there were over 83,000 new family formations in 1948-and in the face of increasing immigration-and there were over 125,000 new Canadians who came here last year-the Liberal government has assumed a negative and defeatist attitude to the production of housing in Canada. The records show that in 1946 only 65,000 houses were built. In 1947 the figures are 72,346 housing units, and in 1948 81,000 housing units. Of the number built last year only 26 per cent were rental units whereas rental accommodation is the type most in demand. As building costs go up, and the size of down payments increases, there are fewer and fewer people who can buy houses. Actually the builders who were building under the integrated housing plan have now run into certain difficulties.
The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) advised the house today of an amendment to the integrated housing plan, but I can tell him that, although his changes are laudatory, as a matter of fact they are not going to help the ordinary builder very much in building more houses in 1949. Some of the things that the minister has suggested, and which must have been given to him in good faith by his advisers, are rather difficult to accomplish in the housing business. I want to tell him that when he expects a builder part way through his job to present bills that have been paid and waivers of liens in respect of the job that is being performed he is asking for trouble. There is nothing more certain in the world than that he will run into trouble, if his department asks for that sort of thing. There are also new features of the National Housing Act which have caused trouble. I have seen clippings from the papers and I have had letters from builders who tell me that the National Housing Act is not working out to their satisfaction, and is not working out to the satisfaction of the general buying public. We are running into very serious difficulties in that regard at the very beginning of 1949.
We should remember that at least 90 per cent of the housing units which have been built in Canada in the last four years have been constructed by private builders. They have been constructed by private enterprise, and in spite of the building priority system because, and as a matter of fact, in most cases the builders get no priority at all for materials. They obtain materials wherever they can find them: The private builder has been carrying the load in spite of the government. It is my considered opinion that the problem of housing in Canada will only be solved

The Address-Mr. Timmins when the government gives private builders the materials to do the job, and gives them the green light to go ahead no matter what.
I should like to trace the attitude of the government on the question of housing as it has been indicated to the public since before the 1945 election. We can well remember those things that were said by cabinet ministers, and the promises that were made that, when the Liberal party was elected to power, houses would be turned out like tanks off a production line. They also said they had a housing program for Canada. The years have shown there is not any housing program for Canada. There has just been a series of expedients, of little things that are supposed to fit together, and they have not fitted together at all. There is no such thing as a housing plan for Canada even today.
Since 1945 we have heard the various utterances of the cabinet ministers and responsible parties. For a few minutes I am going to take the time to review them. The first was in July, 1947, and was a pronouncement of the then minister of reconstruction. He said: The government takes no responsibility for solving the entire housing problem for this country. It is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that it is a government responsibility. Every city has its own housing responsibility, as has every province. The government is responsible for the returned men, and its responsibility stops at that point.
I am going to suggest that the quotations I am about to give the house indicate that statement apparently still stands. "The government is responsible for the returned men, and its responsibility stops at that point."
In May of 1948 the then minister of reconstruction had this to say at page 3642 of Hansard:
Because of very high construction costs and because the building industry is now working at capacity, I do not think that the present is an opportune time to attempt the initial steps into the low-rental housing field. Certainly at this time I am not prepared to recommend capital subsidies or contributions to a rent reduction fund by the dominion.
To carry on a little further, the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) became leader of his party, and very shortly afterwards he made a statement which has been quoted many times in the house, and which fits into the chronological order of the things I have to say. I will therefore read it. He said:
No government of which I am a part will ever pass legislation for subsidized housing.
He watered that down a short time afterwards, when he gave a press statement in which he said:
For the present the government will not consider subsidized housing for the low rental groups since it is convinced that no further money put into housing programs could build a single additional dwelling.

I wish to take issue violently with that statement because it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the subject. As a matter of fact, commencing in 1949 there are a good many factors which indicate that, given some leadership and direction, we could build a great many more houses in 1949 than were built in 1948. The first factor is that the lumber situation is a great deal easier. Throughout the country one can get lumber now, and it was hard to get last year. Then again labour is a good deal easier to secure. A year ago you could not get a labouring man on a building job. The boss had to do the labouring work himself. In addition to that, carpenters are now coming into the residential field. I know of one builder to whom three carpenters came in a period of two days within the last two months, and he took on two of them. The labour situation in residential building is getting better every day.
As to steel, from the information I receive, and the reports that come out from time to time, steel will be easier to obtain this year. By the third quarter of this year there will be a great deal of steel on the market. Steel goes into the manufacture of bathtubs, sinks, piping, hardware, and many other things that go to make up a house. In addition to all that, if we look at a little booklet, "Supply of Building Materials in Canada" which was sent to us by the Department of Trade and Commerce yesterday, we find at page 14 that they have this to say about building materials: Increased production of twenty-one of the thirty building materials covered here is anticipated in 1949.
I would say to the Prime Minister, if he were here, and I say to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, who must now have these matters at his finger tips, that there is real hope for additional building in the year 1949. I have the temerity to say to him that if he wants any help from this side of the house and he thinks we can help him, and if he does not place too much weight upon what the Prime Minister tells him about the lack of building materials, or labour, or whatever it may be, we will give him the necessary advice, gratis.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to two paragraphs in the speech from the throne. The first is:
The provision of housing has received and continues to receive close attention. More new housing units were provided during the last calendar year than ever before.
That was in 1948, and we have no new thought for 1949 there.
Your approval will be sought for the establishment of a department of reconstruction and development

to continue the functions now vested in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, including the ministerial responsibility for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The only new thought I can find in that paragraph is that this department now is going to be called the department of reconstruction and development. In other words, apparently the minister is going to be given some authority and some powers in respect of development. We on this side of the house admire the new minister very much and wish him good luck in the job he has undertaken, but I really feel he has just been handed a bag of tricks. I do not believe he has been given the authority he is entitled to. It seems to me, from the statement of the former minister of reconstruction, that this was not the time to start any new program, that this very direction or instruction has been handed on to the new minister, and he is stalled before he starts. He spoke in Toronto on January 24 of this year. Unfortunately I was not able to hear him, but I believe he made a very good speech. But in that speech he did not say anything new.
I was rather surprised, because those of us on this side expect to hear a lot of good things from him, a lot of new things. All he told the people was that about eighty thousand houses had been built last year and he hoped about one hundred thousand would be built in 1949. He also said that if we had one hundred thousand additional housing units available right now there would be occupants for every one of them. That is what we have been telling them on the other side, that we are one hundred thousand houses short.
Then the minister said something which some assistant must have put into his brief, I am sure. He said there was a sort of backlog of $100 million for public investment, which his department had to fall back on, some of which was going to be used in future for housing. Well, as a matter of fact we have all known about the public investment fund since 1944. I have seen letters saying to a certain industry, "We believe your project should fit into this public investment undertaking. When the proper time comes, if your project measures up we will see that you get some of this money". I know the minister is going to have some of that money to use for housing; but after all that is a hedge against bad times. I am sure none of those on the treasury benches and none of us on this side of the house are looking for those bad times to come, and we do not want to have to dig into this public investment fund for a long while, if ever. So there is nothing very much in the pronouncement of the minister that this fund is there, ready to fall back upon.
The Address-Mr. Timmins However, Mr. Speaker, I should like to get down to some other practical matters in respect of this housing situation, and to take you back to the city of Toronto for a few moments. In that city on or about May 1 or June 1 next there will be a bad time in housing by reason of the recent amendment to regulations under the wartime rental order. The report of the welfare commissioner is to the effect that more than 4,500 families will have been served with eviction notices, and that 1,000 families may soon require emergency accommodation which the city does not have. In my hand I have a picture of Little Norway, one of the places where many of these more or less displaced persons have been put, people who had to go into emergency housing. The only way you can get into this housing is through a foot of water. In this picture I see people paddling to their homes; I see children playing in the streets in rubber boots. Those are the conditions under which they are living.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) knows all about this. He was in Toronto two weeks ago and spoke at a civic dinner. He had been taken around to see these places, and in his speech he mentioned that it was unfortunate that these emergency shelter projects had to be carried on, but that they were only intended to be temporary and that something would have to be done about it. He made quite a good speech, to which I shall refer in a few minutes. As a matter of fact, the situation in Toronto can be duplicated all over the dominion. I am told that by June 1 perhaps 13,500 people in eastern Canada will have been served with these eviction notices, so it is easy to see where we are getting with respect to housing.
When the Prime Minister was in Toronto on February 19 he devoted every minute of his speech at the civic luncheon, about thirty-five minutes, to housing. So I do not need to tell the house that the right hon. gentleman is pretty well seized of this question. Last evening he also spoke on the national network, when again he had a good deal to say about housing. These are some of the things he said in Toronto, first with respect to housing for veterans:
Housing for veterans he admitted to be a national responsibility, but Mr. St. Laurent declared that "it is not a part of the present plans of the federal government to move from veterans' rental projects into rental housing for civilians."
As a matter of fact, if the government would only do something about veterans' houses, if they only had a plan about veterans' housing, if they would only start there and do something about it, then we could go on to the next paragraph. But they have no plan,

The Address-Mr. Timmins and there was nothing concrete in the speeches of the Prime Minister either last evening or in Toronto by way of a plan for veterans' housing. In the army we used to have a saying, "Let George do it." We have the same saying now in the party opposite. The fact of the matter is that in his speeches the Prime Minister really was saying, "Let George do it;" let the other fellow do it; let the municipality or the province do it. We will come to that in a moment, however. He also said:
"We feel that the proper policy for the federal government Is one which is limited to extending financial assistance to individuals and corporations, whether home owners or landlords."
Federal participation at present is limited to slum clearance grants and loans to limited dividend companies for low-rental housing, but the Prime Minister said that "it may be that experience will show that other forms of federal assistance will be desirable."
Well, Mr. Speaker, I point out that in what the Prime Minister has said, and in what the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) has said either in or out of the house -and he has not really said very much about it in the house, though I presume he will do so later in this debate-there is nothing concrete by way of a plan for veterans, in the first place, and certainly there is nothing by way of a plan for any other citizens of our country. I quote further from his newspaper report:
The Prime Minister said his government is ready at any time to meet any provincial government In order to work out housing problems as between municipal, provincial and federal authorities.
In the house the other day the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) asked the minister of reconstruction a question. He asked whether the government was willing to discuss long-range housing programs with any of the provincial representatives. The answer the minister gave, as reported in the press, is that he was not in favour of a dominion-provincial municipal conference on housing at this time. You see, Mr. Speaker, there is a certain amount of buck-passing taking place. The Prime Minister says the responsibility rests to some extent with the municipality. I am sure that each of the municipalities that have veterans who need houses would be willing to do its share. I am sure that every province in the country will be willing to do its share, too, but some leadership must be given. In so far as the veteran is concerned, the Prime Minister admits that the responsibility rests upon the federal government. Why can we not have a plan? Why can we not have a start? Why must we go around looking for someone to start the ball rolling?


Robert Henry Winters: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to say that I think it would be helpful to the house if he were to read my answer from Hansard rather than from a report in the press.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I stand corrected if that was not the correct answer. Perhaps the minister would like to read it from Hansard now or when I have finished my speech.
A start must be made in all these things and I firmly believe that the start should be made in veterans' housing. I firmly believe that, if a start were made and we did have plans, the solution of the other problems connected with housing would follow right along. Something would then be done about emergency housing and, following that, would come the matter of slum clearance. In respect of all these matters, however, a start must be made.
The minister has also said, outside the house I believe, that he proposes to make a survey of housing in Canada so that he might know where to start. As a matter of fact, I presume every city and every town in Canada has a housing register. I believe such a survey could be made in a matter of two weeks. Certainly, it could be made by the end of this month. If housing is to be had in 1949, a start must be made almost right away. Following the survey I suggest that plans should be made immediately for the production of veterans' houses in every city and town in Canada where veterans' houses are needed. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has plans which have been going through its office for many years. This corporation has been dealing with the various expedients relating to housing such as land development, integrated housing plans, National Housing Act loans and all that sort of thing. I see no reason in the world why a plan for veterans' housing could not be produced within a matter of a few weeks after the survey is made.
Then, I think a conference of the mayors, provincial premiers or their deputies, along with the representatives of other municipal bodies should be called so that a start could be made, first of all, in respect of veterans' housing; secondly, for emergency housing; and thirdly, for slum clearance. I do think a start must be made now. Since we have a new minister and he has a new department with a new name, one word of which is "development"-which means dig, produce, erect, construct-all that is needed is more assistance from the treasury bench. The ability of the new minister should enable him to get that help. I do not often quote scripture here, but there is a verse in the

bible in which St. Paul is speaking to some of his followers in a distant city and he says:
Stand not upon the order of your going, but go at once.
I am saying to the minister that he should get started at once.


Mr. Ronald Moore (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne did not contain any legislation which might be termed controversial in nature. No doubt this is strategy on the part of the government since 1949 is likely to be an election year. The government candidates will find it sufficiently difficult to explain the policy of the government over the past three years without, at the same time, having to explain any controversial legislation which might have been disclosed in the speech from the throne.
It is unfortunate, however, that a side issue has been introduced into this debate, and that is dominion-provincial relations. I am not for one moment saying that dominion-provincial relations is not an important subject. It is. But I do insist there are before this government and before the country many other problems which should have precedence in this debate. One of those problems is the high cost of living in this country. I venture to say that the cost of living today is the main problem before the Canadian people. It is the main problem because it affects a larger number of people than any other problem in Canada. We have a housing problem and the possibility of an unemployment problem. We also have the problem of developing and finding markets for our agricultural products. At the moment, however, I insist that all those problems are subsidiary to the one problem of the high cost of living.
It is to be regretted that the government did not see fit to bring down legislation to deal with that all-important problem at this time. Reference has already been made in this debate to the high cost of living. As I say, it is unfortunate it did not receive more consideration. In previous sessions of this parliament, in 1946 and 1947, reference was also made to the high cost of living. Statements have been made by members in this house and by other people throughout the country that the reason for the high cost of living is the demands of labour for increased wages. I am not saying that when increases in wages are granted they will not increase the cost of living, but I do say that when people talk in that manner they should also give the other side of the picture. They should also deal with the extra profits obtained by large corporations which have also helped to raise the cost of living.
The Address-Mr. Moore
When these two subjects are considered side by side, I think it must be admitted that the increased profits of industry contributed a great deal more towards raising the cost of living than the increase in wages to the workingman. For a minute or two, I should like to develop that point. Unfortunately, I could not obtain figures dealing specifically with the Canadian situation. The figures I have, which deal with the situation in Canada, relate to one of our largest industries, namely, the iron and steel industry.
In the iron and steel industry, between 1945 and 1947, the workers received an increase in wages which amounted to nine per cent. During the same period of time the increase in the profits of the corporation amounted to sixty-six per cent. I submit that, when we are studying the reasons for the increase in the cost of living, we must give as much consideration to the increase in profits as to the increase in wages. I submit that up to the present time that has not been done. You can review the facts in connection with the pulp and paper industry, and a number of other industries in Canada, and you will find that the situation is similar to a greater or lesser degree; but the most important figures in connection with a study of this problem come from the United States. The Congress for Industrial Organization, one of the largest unions in the United States, has made a special study of this situation. They have carefully calculated how much a percentage increase in wages to the workers cost the plants which gave the increases. They have also calculated how much extra money the companies received by virtue of an increase in the price of the things which they had to sell. Here is the situation with respect to the United States, and I submit that I am being fair in presenting these figures for the United States, because the industrial picture of the United States is similar to the industrial picture in Canada. The standard of living in the two countries is somewhat similar, and generally speaking the economy of both countries is the same. Therefore, once again I submit that I am on solid ground when I say that the situation in the two countries can be considered on a par.
Take the iron and steel industry as an example. The iron and steel industry gave an increase in wages to their industrial workers, and at the same time an increase in the price of steel was given to the companies. The increase in wages cost the companies $170 million a year, but the increase in the price of steel netted the same companies $640 million a year extra.

The Address-Mr. Moore
Take the coal companies. They gave an increase in wages to their workers. That increase in wages cost these coal companies $150 million a year, but the increase in the price of coal netted the coal companies an additional $500 million a year.
Take the automobile manufacturers. Five of the largest corporations in the United States producing automobiles gave an increase in pay to their industrial workers. That increase in pay cost the companies $152 million a year; but, at the same time that the increase in pay was given, the price of automobiles was raised on the United States market, and that extra price netted the corporations an additional $540 million a year.
In calculating the increase in the cost of living in the United States you must take into consideration the fact that the owners of the industry get a much larger share of the excess prices than do the industrial workers, and that also explains the reason why we have a spiral in an inflationary period: A strike, an increase in wages, followed by another strike and an increase in wages.
I submit that the government have not dealt fairly with the people of this country because they have failed to deal with that situation. They have not dealt with the combines in this country. If all the legislation which is on the statute books of Canada to deal with the combines had been put into effect we should not have combines at this time. The first legislation enacted in Canada to deal with combines was enacted in 1889. Another act was put on the statute books in 1897. A combines investigation commission was set up in 1910. It was revised in 1919, and again revised in 1923. I believe a new act was brought into effect in 1935, amended in 1937 and again amended in 1945. After putting all that legislation on the statute books one would have thought that combines would not have got very far in Canada, but that is not so. The real problem before the people of Canada today is the control of these combines. I submit that both old parties have failed to bring about this control which would be in the interests of the average consumer in Canada.
I note one statement in the speech from the throne which said that there was a great danger in the world today from the spread of communism. Undoubtedly there is some truth in that statement; but I would have expected that the speech from the throne would contain another statement, namely, how they intended to deal with the situation in Canada. If they intended to deal with it, one of the first things that they would have said is, we are going to socialize or nationalize the large cartels and corporations which

are now in operation in Canada. If they had done that, they would have solved those problems which are the only ones that can lead to the development of communism in this country.
I am not a bit afraid of communism in this country. I am certain that it has not got a chance because the conditions which exist in Canada are entirely different from the conditions which existed in Russia at the time of the revolution, or the conditions which exist in China at the present time. A study of the economic factors in connection with these things will soon prove to anyone that communism cannot develop in a state as highly developed as Canada or the United States is today.
I now wish to deal for a moment with some of our other problems, some of the problems which I think should have been mentioned in the speech from the throne. It is often argued that the cost of living does not affect the farmer to the same extent that it affects the industrial worker. There may be some truth in that statement, but it must also be remembered that the cost of living has also increased for the farmer just as much as it has for the industrial worker, and more in some cases.
According to the bureau of statistics the average cost of living on farms today has increased by 38 per cent since 1945. But, in addition to that cost of living increase for the farmers, there is another increase, namely, an increase in the price of farm machinery and particularly an increase in the price of spare parts. It would naturally be argued that the farmer does not have to spend his money every year on renewing his machinery. That is quite true, but he must spend money every year to keep it up, and that involves the buying of spare parts. The costs of these spare parts at the present time are very high. I submit that the increased costs all the way down the line have taken from the people almost all that was gained during and after the war years in the increased level of operation of our national economy.
I am not going to review the history of the high cost of living; I am simply going to say that it is to be regretted the government saw fit to abandon price control at this time. The experiences of the government and the people of Canada were such as to prove that price control was the best possible method of maintaining the standard of living of the various groups throughout the country. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, when price control was lifted in 1947 on three hundred commodities in this country. These three hundred commodities were selected which did not figure too much in the actual cost of living. When the price ceilings were lifted the result

was a decided increase in the cost of living, sufficient to prove to this government and to anyone else that any abandonment of controls would lead to an unprecedented rise in the cost of living. But despite that information, which was available to everyone at the time, the government apparently yielded to the wishes of someone and gradually did away with price controls. In 1947 this was a pretty live issue. There was a possibility, when price controls were lifted, that great profits could be made from the sale of consumer goods. Naturally, some of our larger companies were extremely anxious that price control should be abandoned at the earliest possible moment. One of these gentlemen was the president of the Robert Simpson Company. This gentleman spoke to the shareholders of the company at a meeting in 1947. At that meeting he made this statement dealing with price control. I wish hon. members to listen to it, and decide who was more correct in judging the economic situation, the president of the Robert Simpson Company or the leaders of labour unions and leaders of farm organizations. Here is what the president had to say at that time:
An over-all and immediate lifting of ceilings would quickly react to the benefit of all consumers. The considerations which the government took into account as necessary in applying the over-all price ceiling in 1941, are now working to the disadvantage of consumers. In spite of subsidies, in some cases running into hundreds of thousands a year, standard lines at popular prices, many of them household and personal essentials, have not been produced except in token quantities, simply because a producer could keep workers employed making substitute articles which could be made at a profit in spite of the price ceiling.
And it goes on:
Even if these standard popular priced lines were produced to sell at a price somewhat higher than the ceiling the real cost of living would be less in total than at present. There has been such continuous propaganda on one side of this question that it is difficult for many to believe the truth of this "price" situation.
In view of what has happened since that speech was made, I leave it to any hon. member to decide who was the more correct, the president of that company or the leaders of the unions and farm organizations throughout Canada. With the cost of living where it is today, our decision can go only in one direction-against the company.
I should like now to say a few words in connection with agricultural marketing. Despite the expansion of our industrial production in Canada, agriculture remains our basic and our chief industry. It is also true, however, that agriculture depends to a very large degree upon a foreign market to maintain the standard of living of our agricultural producers and workers. At the present time almost 50 per cent of our agricultural pro-
The Address-Mr. Moore duction must go abroad. That means we must have a foreign market to take delivery of those goods.
At the present time, I believe, the British foreign market is the best possible market we can develop for our agricultural products. I believe that, not because I am of British parentage, but because Britain is the largest single market anywhere in the world for the delivery of agricultural products. I think all possible steps should now be taken to develop that market to the utmost for our agricultural industry.
At the present time there are great trading difficulties between this country and Great Britain, something which has been termed a dollar shortage. Britain's purchases from Canada are limited to the availability of United States dollars. At the present time it would appear that Great Britain may even have to cut down on her imports from this country.
A few days ago I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) if the government thought there was any possibility of Britain's adopting an austerity program toward this country because of her unfavourable balance of trade. He replied that he did not think there was that possibility. However, in view of the fact that, when we had an unfavourable balance of trade with the United States, we adopted an austerity program toward that country, I do feel the government here should immediately take steps to deal with the trading situation which exists between this country and Great Britain and do everything possible to retain the British market for the sale of agricultural products.
I should like to take a few minutes to express again a view which has been expressed by other hon. members. I do so because I think it is of extreme importance to the agricultural industry in western Canada. A few days ago the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) and the member for Skeena spoke about the necessity for developing barter trade between this country and Great Britain. I want fully to support what the hon. members said in that connection. I feel quite firmly that this government should take all possible steps toward developing a long-term agreement with Great Britain on a barter basis. I am not going to say for what period of time the trade contract should be made; but if the British government feel they would "like a ten-year contract, I would say we should go ahead and arrange a contract on the basis best suited to them. Once again we must remember that the British market is the largest single market in the world, and the easiest

The Address-Mr. Moore one to develop so far as Canadian agricultural products are concerned.
Then, in connection with foreign trade,
I should like to advance another argument. I am sure hon. members on all sides of the house are aware of the great development now taking place in India. Since the end of the war India has become a self-governing dominion. It is true that part of the country has divided itself from the other, and set up a separate government in Pakistan. Nevertheless great developments are taking place in that country. Iron and steel mills are being built. Textile plants are being built. A pulp and paper industry is being developed.
I am told that just recently the government of Pakistan has undertaken to institute a housing program, if you please; and that within eight years they hope to build approximately a million homes in that country. If this development takes place it will raise considerably the standard of living of the people in that country, with the result that there will be available a very sizeable market for the export of goods from this country; and I urge the government to bend every effort toward developing trade with India. If their standard of living is increased, the huge population of that country would provide a great market not only for Canada but for other countries as well.
I should like now to say a few words concerning the importance of the housing problem in this country. A number of speakers in the debate have already dealt with that subject; and at the risk of repeating what has been said already I shall deal with it for a few moments. It is important to remember that housing is not a problem of recent years in Canada. If anyone is interested, he or she may go down to the parliamentary library and look at newspapers as far back as 1911 which reveal that a housing problem has existed in Canada since that time.
There are editorials in the Montreal papers of 1911 which deplore the fact that in that year slums were developing in the principal cities of Canada-Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. The problem was not solved during the first world war, and was not solved in the years between the two wars. In 1938 we were still short by some 400,000 of the number of housing units required in Canada. In addition to that, according to the Curtis report there were another 175,000 homes which could be described as slums and which ought to have been destroyed and rebuilt.
Why is it that ever since 1911 we have not had sufficient homes adequately to house our people? I believe the reason is that there was not a large enough percentage of the working people of Canada with sufficient


means to build homes. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the average income of 45 per cent of our population does not come within any taxation bracket. Those are the people in Canada who are not in possession of homes. According to the same authorities, less than one-third of the people in Canada receive incomes greater than $2,100 per year. So the construction of homes in this country is limited to that small group of people whose incomes are above $2,100 per year. From 20 to 25 per cent of the working people in Canada have to provide homes sufficient for the whole of the country. Our experience in the past has proved that it cannot be done.
If we are to have sufficient homes in this country they can be provided only by the institution of a national housing program. That program will have to be put into effect by co-operation between the federal government, the various provincial governments and the local municipal authorities. Until that is done our housing problem will still be with us.
There is another point I should like to consider in connection with this housing program. The argument is often advanced that it will cost a great deal of money to carry forward this program. That is true, but at the present time the federal government is spending a great deal of money on a national health program-I want to hasten to say that I am thoroughly in agreement with it-but if nothing is done about our serious housing problem we will soon approach the time when the lack of housing will jeopardize the success of the national health program.
If this problem is to be solved, I urge that action be taken along the lines of the recommendations of the Canadian welfare council. I am going to quote the recommendations of that council because they have made a thorough study of Canada's housing problem and I think the recommendations will be of some concern and of much interest to hon. members in this house. They are as follows:
(1)	The objective of national housing policy should be a supply of housing sufficient to provide a decent home in a healthy environment for every Canadian family. The responsibility of the national government does not cease until this objective has been gained.
(2)	In order to overcome the high costs of residential building the federal government should:
(a)	Intensify its research activities for the development of more economical and efficient fabrication techniques.
(b)	Finance the establishment of industries for producing and assembling houses.
(3)	In order to overcome the lack of decent housing available to low income families and their incapacity to pay for new housing, the federal government should inaugurate a long-term program of public housing with the co-operation of the pro-

vincial and municipal authorities. This program should be started immediately in order that the whole administrative organization may be put into action in readiness for further expansion when required. For this purpose:
(a)	A national rent reduction fund should be established.
(b)	The loan facilities of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should be made available to local public housing authorities to be established by the municipalities.
(4)	The provincial government should provide enabling legislation for the establishment of local public housing authorities and define their areas of operation so as to encourage the greatest possible collaboration with local planning boards. Provincial governments should also be prepared to operate housing projects in rural areas and wherever local governments are inadequately equipped to assume such responsibilities.
(5)	The local housing authorities so established should assume responsibility for the development, ownership and management of public housing estates and should assume control of the wartime housing projects and other publicly owned housing within their communities.
(6)	The public housing program should be expanded and developed in such a manner and at such times that the nation's supply of new housing may be maintained at the required volume and so that the plant and personnel of the residential building industry may be kept in continuous operation.
I should like to say one word in connection with this proposed national housing program. If such a program is set up its purpose should be, first, to take care of the serious backlog of housing needs that exists in Canada at the present time. When that problem has been coped with, then arrangements should be made to meet the annual requirements of the nation out of new production. If that were done I believe it would contribute a great deal to the success of the national health program.
I want to say a word about a problem which exists in my constituency. I took this matter up last year with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and also with the provincial department of education of Manitoba, but I regret to say that as far as I know no action has been taken up to the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman to say that action has been taken and I understand that this matter is about to be straightened out satisfactorily.


Ronald Stewart Moore: I am pleased to hear that. I shall make just one short statement in order to inform the house of what I was talking about. I was referring to the school problem in Churchill, Manitoba. I thank the minister most heartily for his co-operation in finding a solution to this problem, although I have not yet been informed that the situation has been dealt with.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), whichever is more concerned.
The Address-Mr. Winters Last fall several announcements were made that the wages of civil servants would be increased. Naturally that announcement was most acceptable throughout the country and I want to congratulate those who were responsible for it.
However, there is a large number of people working in post offices who are not within the civil service. The increase to which I have just referred was granted to postmasters and those who come under the civil service, but these people who work in the post offices and who do not come under the civil service- incidentally they are as much in need of an increase as the others-have not received an increase. I should like the responsible authorities to look into this matter carefully and grant additional allowances to these people as soon as possible.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in rising to speak on the amendment to the amendment to the motion made by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) and at the same time to congratulate him upon his very fine speech when he moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I had the pleasure last week of being in the constituency of my hon. friend and I want to tell the house that I had a most enjoyable and successful visit through his hospitality and that of my equally good friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I want also to congratulate the seconder of the address, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Demers). He made an outstanding address and I am sure we shall hear more from him as the session progresses.
I rise at this time to deal chiefly with the shelf of public projects in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. I do so because of the fact that I recently tabled some information in the house and several members have commented that the government has, to quote one of them, "a meagre, puny and inadequate plan to deal with the potential unemployment in this country". If this shelf of public projects were the government's overall plan for dealing with potential unemployment in this country, I would heartily concur in the sentiment expressed. That, however, is not the case. The building up of a reserve shelf of public projects is only a part of the government's policy for maintaining high levels of employment and income. Another aspect of that policy, and closely related to public investment, is the encouraging of private investors, by tax concessions and credit provision, to take advantage of the tremendous field of industrial expansion that is still ahead of us, and to improve the

The Address-Mr. Winters amenities of life by better housing, well planned communities, and the enlargement and improvement of facilities for social and cultural development. To help maintain high levels of employment and income, the government is also helping substantially to increase the economic stability of the internal economy by such means as floor prices on farm and fish products, and special assistance to industries that are encountering difficulties. Recent examples of this are assistance to gold producers, the establishment of the maritime commission and the coal board, and the government's proposal to assist the production of steel. In that connection I refer to the speech from the throne, and I read:
You will be asked to make legislative provision for governmental assistance by loan to the producers of basic steel for the purpose of increasing production.
The government is also seeking to assure favourable and expanding markets abroad for our surplus production by supporting international efforts to unfetter world trade, and much has already been done directly by export credits and export credit insurance. Finally, the social security measures of the present government, unemployment insurance, family allowances and pensions for the aged and the blind, by increasing the stability of personal income, would help maintain consumer spending if we should run into a period of recession. This many-sided approach to the problems of employment and unemployment was the basic program laid down in the white paper of 1945.
The hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight), who expressed the opinion that the shelf of public projects was meagre and puny, also stated that "the famous white paper on reconstruction held out hope for a tremendous program of public works for any possible period of unemployment". I find nowhere in the white paper where the hope is held out of "a tremendous program of public works". On the contrary, what I do find is the statement that "the post-war employment problem is not to be solved by huge expenditures on 'public works'. Efforts to increase and stabilize employment and income must pervade all economic policies".


Clarence Gillis: You are very careful with your quotations.


Robert Henry Winters: I would say to my hon. friend that I try to stick to facts.


John Horne Blackmore: Let us hope you continue to do so.


Clarence Gillis: I wonder if the minister would mind answering a question.
(Mr. Winters.]	*


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Order.
I would ask hon. members to refrain from interrupting the speaker who has the floor.


Clarence Gillis: I would not want to embarrass him.


An hon. Member:: You could not.


Mr. Isnor:: He can take care of himself.


Robert Henry Winters: The white paper does say that "all governments, dominion, provincial and municipal, have a considerable backlog of public projects", and goes on to say that "the dominion proposes to press ahead with the planning of its own deferred works and invites provinces and municipalities to do the same".
The role of public works in combating unemployment should be kept in proper perspective. These projects, if properly used, can make a valuable contribution to maintaining the level of economic activity. The projects themselves should be economically and socially desirable. They should be undertaken when they can make a real contribution to alleviating a specific unemployment situation. Among other things, this involves consideration of the type of employment they will provide, both on site and off site, and the locality and the industries in which the employment will be provided. The timing in launching projects is also important if they are to produce a maximum effect. In general this means that public works should be used to maintain a reasonably high level of activity in the construction industry itself. The construction industry is one of the least stable of all our industries, and experience shows that when it is strong it contributes an important expansionary effect on the level of activity and employment in many other industries.
Public works programs cannot be used to make work for all kinds of unemployed persons. To illustrate, we cannot put watchmakers to work as sewer diggers without destroying their efficiency and potential contribution to the economy, and ultimately increasing the direct and indirect costs to the community.
The thought of the government at the end of the war, in proposing that public investment should be planned and timed, was that the dominion, the provinces and municipalities together would build up a reserve shelf of fully planned projects which would be roughly the equivalent of about one full year of public investment in reserve for implementation when the occasion arose. On the basis of the distribution of public investment that prevailed before the war, the dominion's share of the total is about one-third. The

dominion has now reached between one-half and two-thirds of the objective aimed at then, and is still adding to its reserve of planned projects.
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that the reserve shelf of public projects does not constitute all the public works that the dominion has in hand or can put in hand. These are the projects that are fully planned, that is, on which plans and specifications are completed, the site acquired, and all other details attended to with the exception of calling for tenders. Behind this shelf of registered projects there is a larger pool of projects in varying stages of development. There are many worth-while projects that various departments have been working on but which have not been advanced to the stage qualifying them for registration on the shelf. The planning of this additional backlog of public works is being advanced as rapidly as government engineering staffs are available to work on them. This work will be expedited as necessary. In other words, we are planning a steady development for many years ahead.
While in no sense passing the buck, or avoiding responsibilities that rightly fall on the dominion government, I should point out that, in thinking of public works projects as a buffer against unemployment, we must also consider the public works to be undertaken by provincial and municipal authorities. These authorities have not pushed forward their programs of planning during the past few years as vigorously as they would no doubt have liked to do if there had not been a shortage of engineering personnel. It was the proposal of the federal government in 1945, and it is still our hope, that an understanding will be arrived at with the provincial governments whereby the fluctuating portion of the public investment program of federal, provincial and municipal governments could be planned and timed to balance a decline in private investment.
It should not be inferred that the government envisages the passive role of merely increasing or decreasing investment to counteract fluctuations in the level of private investment. The government will continue in future to encourage actively a high level of private investment. One of the most important fields of private investment, and one that will provide a good deal of employment in future, is housing, where a large backlog of work is required to house the people of Canada adequately. A very large investment will be required in low-rent housing projects, slum clearance and community planning. This is a program to which the government
The Address-Mr. Winters attaches great importance and in which we stand ready to give the fullest co-operation. Since the war some 278,000 homes have been built in Canada at an over-all estimated value of roughly one and three-quarter billion dollars, providing direct employment of various types to about eighty-five thousand men per year on the average. New houses are now being built at a rate in excess of eighty thousand units a year, and the requirement is a continuing one. As long as it remains we shall have employment for a sizeable number of men annually. I mention this because it illustrates the type of government effort or government-encouraged effort that is not included in the list of projects on our shelf reserve, but which nevertheless provides a substantial safeguard against unemployment.
I shall not elaborate on the subject of housing at this time, because I shall have occasion to speak of it more fully when the estimates of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply are under consideration. With respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Timmins), and his quotation which he attributed to the bible, it is my understanding that the quotation is from Shakespeare-


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: That is true.


Robert Henry Winters: -from his well known play "Macbeth." I say that because it probably indicates to the house the tenor of some of his remarks. The hon. member said that in my speeches I had said nothing new. I should like to pay him the same compliment. By way of correcting what might be a wrong impression, and with the memory of the hon. gentleman's quotation fresh in mind, I should like to refer to my answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) at page 770 of Hansard. The remarks of the hon. member for Parkdale might well leave the impression that the federal government is unwilling to discuss with provincial governments the problem of housing. In my reply I said:
With respect to the matter of a conference, the government is of the opinion that at the present time more progress can be made by discussing with each province or municipality its own particular problems on their merits; and as the Prime Minister said in Toronto on Saturday, the government stands ready at all times to discuss this problem with any provincial government in an effort to work out satisfactory long-term arrangements among the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion.
You will be interested, Mr. Speaker, in learning some of the details of the federal government's shelf of public projects. This reserve shelf has been built up as much as a measure against inflation today as a protec-

The Address-Mr. Winters
tion agamst unemployment tomorrow. All capital investment projects of over $5,000 from all federal departments are screened by the public projects branch of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. The labour and material content of each project is analysed in relation to local supplies and conditions. The branch reports on cases where a proposed project would impose a serious strain on the local labour and materials situation.
In addition to the projects which are considered useful but which it would be uneconomic to proceed with at present, there are a number of long-range programs on which different departments of government are continually working and on which plans are being filed with the public projects branch.


Clarence Gillis: Would you mind elaborating on them?


Robert Henry Winters: These are programs such as natural resources development or national park improvements which will take years to develop and which can be accelerated or retarded in their development according to the general level of employment in the country. The result is that the government now has a reserve shelf of fully planned projects. In addition there is a large number of potential projects on which preliminary planning has been done, and a number of broad programs for resources development which will extend over a period of years. Obviously it is not possible to set an exact dollar figure on this combined volume of work at any time. It is, however, an illustration of our general approach to our public investment policy as an important factor in maintaining a high level of employment and income in Canada.
It has been my intention in making this statement this evening to indicate the purpose for which the reserve shelf of public projects was designated, since there seems to be some misapprehension as to both the role and the importance of the shelf in government plans for maintaining income and employment in this country. Behind the registered shelf stands a very much larger potential of government investment plans which would be put into effect in the event of any major and national recession. The public projects shelf was conceived when the end of the war was in sight and people were talking about and expecting recessions. It was intended as a part, and only a part, of our plan to take steps against possible unemployment.


Mr. Hodgson:: May I ask the minister a question?


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


Robert Henry Winters: The war has been over for about three and a half years-


Clarence Gillis: Exactly; he is talking in
parables.	*


Robert Henry Winters: -and there has been no recession. The best proof that the government's policies have been effective and have done what they were intended to do is that there has been no general unemployment-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Give us an example of those wares you have on the shelf.


Robert Henry Winters: -and that, over the entire period-


Clarence Gillis: The shelf has not been built yet.


Robert Henry Winters: -since the war the number of people employed has increased, until in this year it reached the highest level ever attained in the history of Canada.


Mr. Julian H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, it was indeed refreshing to hear from one of the most recent appointees to the Liberal cabinet. To listen to the minister one would almost think they had' unearthed a Moses to deliver them out of the chaos in which they now find themselves. I only hope the energy and enthusiasm of the new broom is not killed by the practices which have been adopted by this Liberal government for the past four or five years. I am afraid, though, that the predominance of neglect and mismanagement will override the enthusiasm of our young friend.
I would like now to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address. They did not have much material about which to talk, but they did a wonderful job. Probably one of the reasons for that is that the second name of the member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), is Ferguson. The practice of having the speech from the throne is followed in order to enlighten the people of the dominion to some degree as to what legislation may be expected from the administration during the coming session. In opening his address, the Governor General stated that the first concern of a government is to ensure peace and security. He went on to mention that attention would be paid to the development of the great navigation and power project on the St. Lawrence river; that public health projects would have due consideration and that the great mining industry of this country would be given some thought.
From the past performances of this administration, let us see what might be expected in connection with the items mentioned in the speech from the throne. Let us consider the very much discussed topic of housing. I believe that the great shortage in housing in

Canada today is primarily due to the fact that this government at no time laid its cards fairly and squarely before the people of this country responsible for producing construction materials or those responsible for the actual construction of the houses. During the war I found labour willing to work eight, nine, ten and twelve hours per day. Never at any time did labour shirk a duty when faced with a reality. This government has all the statistics necessary to point out the dire necessity for housing in this country.
This government brought forth glowing ideas in this House of Commons as to what was going to materialize from year to year, but what has really materialized is that people lack roofs over their heads and the country is still faced with a perplexing housing problem. I do not believe this government has laid the information it possessed squarely before the people who construct houses. Houses do not grow on trees. They are produced by the sweat of the brow of the carpenter and the bricklayer. The taxation imposed on these labourers has been so heavy, there was no incentive for them to put forth their best efforts. The longer they worked, the less pay they received. With that handicap and the lack of knowledge these people had as to the situation, the shortage of houses has grown. The failure to produce these homes that were discussed year after year is definitely at the feet of this government. No concise or definite plan has been formulated in co-operation with the people who actually construct houses which would enable this shortage to be overcome.
Members of parliament are not forced to come to this parliament, Mr. Speaker; they come here of their own volition. They volunteer to go before a group of people at election time and solicit their vote. They should all feel, irrespective of religion and politics, that it behooves them to do their duty towards their constituents on all occasions. Has this been done by the members of the Liberal government? Their actions in the past speak louder than any words of mine. The war has been over since 1945, and what has confronted this country? It has been one problem after another.
Let us consider the agricultural situation. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). He is an energetic politician. He has an answer for every question. He gives a very forceful speech in the House of Commons and is almost convincing in the manner in which he can cover up his shortcomings. His [DOT]explanation of the situation in connection with the export of apples is almost beyond .conception. During 1947 Canada shipped to
The Address-Mr. Ferguson Great Britain over 400,000 hundredweight of apples. In 1948 not one pound of apples was shipped to Great Britain. A pamphlet was published under the direction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) which stated that the prime reason the British isles did not import apples from Canada was the fact that the people there were able to work a miracle, never worked before, and produce more apples than ever before. This all took place in the period of one year. Now the apple growers of this country, and I come from a part of the country that grows the finest apples in the world, as judged by the apple judges of the greatest apple show in the world-


George Alexander Cruickshank: British Columbia.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is not British Columbia; it is Simcoe county in the province of Ontario. My interrupting friend will not deny that the prize was awarded to Simcoe county growers for the finest apples in the world.
What is the true picture of this apple situation? Did Great Britain grow all the apples she needed in 1948? The people of Canada want to know. The fact is that in 1948 Great Britain imported over 400,000 hundredweight more apples than were imported in 1947. Australia shipped to the British isles over a million hundredweight of apples in 1948, and in 1947 Australia shipped to the British isles a little over 90,000 hundredweight. New Zealand shipped no apples in 1947 but shipped over 300,000 hundredweight to Great Britain in 1948. The British isles purchased from foreign countries, apart from those within the British empire, over 300,000 hundredweight. Almost two million hundredweight of apples were shipped into Great Britain during 1948; yet we were told by the pamphlet, published by this government at the taxpayers' expense, that the British people were growing sufficient apples and that it was for that reason Canada did not ship apples to that country.
I come from a farming district and, to my knowledge, neither during the war nor since the war has this government properly informed the farmer about the requirements necessary for export purposes or the prices that might be received for farm produce, with the possible exception of wheat. The government has never informed the farmer about the price of feeding livestock or what the net result might be if the farmer specialized and produced large quantities. This is the very information which the Minister of Agriculture and the government had, and the fact that it was not imparted to the farmer left him completely befuddled and dubious about what crops he should grow.
1180	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Ferguson I say this is one of the weaknesses of government policy in regard to agriculture. Certainly for the first two years after the war they did know, and they were the only people in Canada who knew approximately what the farmers would have in the way of an export market. But I defy anybody to go into my constituency, or into the greater part of Ontario, and have a farmer give the figures that have ever been given to him as a guide. This government should be a guide for agricultural work, for labour for mines and for all the various occupations necessary for Canadians to earn a livelihood.


James Garfield Gardiner: We would be centralizing control if we did that.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Guiding is not controlling. The opinion of this government is that guiding is controlling and that they must be one. That is not true at all. This government should guide the people and stop controlling. They should let some person do the job who knows how to do it. The people of Canada will do that at the next election. The Conservative party will guide and not control. It will release the shackles of bondage from the people of Canada; it will relieve the shortage of housing, assist farm exports, and do all the other things that are necessary for a better Canada for Canadians.
Public welfare is mentioned in the speech from the throne. A few evenings ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) did enlighten this house considerably on things for which the government should be commended, which they are undertaking in order to relieve suffering in this country. This suffering is brought about because of a lack of proper facilities to look after the welfare of Canadians. But I should like to make one sincere plea to this government on behalf of the permanently disabled people who have no source of income, people who from childhood have been incapacitated, crippled through infantile paralysis and so on. A few years ago, at the instigation of the Conservative party in this house, the blind unfortunates of Canada from the age of twenty-one on were placed in a position to receive a pension. As a member of the Conservative party, I implore this government immediately to bring in an order in council-and they are experts on that-to provide a pension for every single man, woman and child in Canada who cannot provide for themselves owing to incapacitation through no fault of their own. This government has passed orders in council dealing with many things that were not as vital or as necessary. I do not think they would meet with any repudiation, condemnation or opposition from any man, woman or


child in Canada, or from any hon. member, if tomorrow or within a week from today they were to pass an order in council saying that they were going to investigate and, where they found it necessary, provide the wherewithal, in the form of protection, to ease the burden of the men, women and children of this country who are not able to look after themselves.
There is another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the government, namely, the foreign or immigrant child coming to this country. Until he has been here for a period of three years he is not qualified to receive family allowances. In my opinion that was a splendid piece of legislation, designed as a contribution to the betterment of the children of Canada. The thought was that, by aiding the child whose parents could not properly provide the necessary wherewithal for his welfare, the Canadian taxpayer would help in providing the necessary means to produce a better type of citizen as an adult to carry on in the service of Canada. If that contribution to the Canadian-born child is necessary, I believe we should recognize immediately that the immigrant child, who is brought to the shores of Canada not at his request but by the whim of his parents, should receive the benefits of the family allowances so that that child, who will undoubtedly become an adult citizen of this country, will not be handicapped in the slightest degree. We should never have it on our conscience, if we see a man or woman who does not reach the desired standard of Canadian manhood, that it was through our fault that this or that child did not receive such assistance, in common with every other child in Canada. It is nothing but gross negligence and shortsightedness on the part of this government to say that this little tot should have help and that little tot, a potential Canadian citizen of the future, should not get the same treatment.
As we sit here from day to day the C.C.F. members take great pleasure in referring to us as members of the Tory party. They speak of how we back up private enterprise, how we never try to solicit votes by weeping and gnashing our teeth. I should like to be fair. I might suggest to the members of the C.C.F. party that they cultivate a little fairness themselves. Rather than have one of their party on one occasion solicit from this government all imaginary possible public contributions for those who are not as fortunate as others, and then on another occasion have another hon. gentleman of the C.C.F. party say that private enterprise is sponsored by the Tory party, that private enterprise is a great octopus which takes from the poor and

never shows any degree of kindness or gives any reward at any time, I suggest that if they look at such concerns as the Bell Telephone Company they will find that private enterprise such as the Bell company merits the respect of every man, woman and child in this country. I have never owned a share of stock in the Bell Telephone Company, but I desire to be fair; and as I read over its financial statement I find it has some 38,000 stockholders in Canada; that over ninety per cent of these stockholders reside in Canada; that over five thousand of that number are either pensioners or present employees of that corporation; that that company provides some of the finest working conditions, second to none, for employees; and that it pays a dividend to those willing to invest and take a chance on their investment. Yet, I believe, the advocates of the C.C.F. party would like to see that corporation taken over and managed by dear knows who- not, I should hope, by members of their party, because I am quite confident that, irrespective of the party to which he belongs in this house, there is no man capable of managing the Bell Telephone Company better than it is managed at the present time.
The pulp and paper industries in this country, which consist of nothing but private enterprise, employed over fifty-one thousand people in Canada last year. They paid over $100 million in wages to the employees working in their plants. They paid $100 million to the men working in the bush, under private enterprise.


Mr. McCullough (Assiniboia):: What was the
profit?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Their profit would be about the same as that of Canada Packers. You get up on the hustings and you try to get up in the House of Commons and mislead the public by saying that Canada Packers were bleeding the public. I will give you the true picture of that situation. And if you can read a financial statement, you had better read it.


Clarence Gillis: By their own admission.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Now I don't mind taking you on one at a time One at a time, if you please, and I will give you a chance. Last year Canada Packers made $2 million net profit.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They did not have margarine then.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Now we have heard enough from you for the session. They did it at a profit of one-seventh of a cent a pound on all products sold. At the end of the year, after all the butter profit you are talking about, and with a profit of one-seventh of a
The Address-Mr. Ferguson cent a pound, they paid their stockholders a million dollars. The other million went to reserve.
And I will tell you what else they did. They paid to their employees as a bonus $6 million over and above the union rate of wages. This cost somewhere near three-sevenths of a cent a pound. Maybe you begrudge that three-sevenths of a cent a pound to the workingman.


Clarence Gillis: A million dollars illegal profits, according to Mr. McLean's evidence.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I defy you, or any of your party in this country, to get up and say that you would like to give that three-sevenths of a cent a pound to the consumer, and take it away from the workingman. Yet you always claim you are the great champions of the workingman. But that is what that private corporation, without your aid or solicitation, gave to its employees as a bonus-three-sevenths of a cent a pound on all goods sold. But their net profit, what they paid to their stockholders, was only one-fourteenth of a cent a pound on all goods sold.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you very much for the admission.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: And don't continue to come to the House of Commons and cry blue ruin and criticize, to deceive labour. I know about this, because I have employed labouring people. I have paid them higher than union wages. I know labouring people. They vote for me, and they give me a big majority because of my fair and unbiased treatment of both capital and labour. You must know that, from the results obtained by your C.C.F. candidate in my riding. You fellows tried to flim-flam the shipyard workers; but you did not make much headway with those men. They cannot be fooled. They think for themselves and they are on to you. Let us get the facts.


Edward George McCullough: Would the
hon. member permit a question?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You did not permit me to
ask one the other day.


Mr. Graydon:: He just said they were on
to you.


Clarence Gillis: He cannot answer the question.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Then, about provincial
rights-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am glad one Liberal member has pulled himself together sufficiently to shout "Hear, hear" when provincial rights are mentioned. I can see that my leader has

The Address-Mr. Ferguson apparently made some impression upon him, and that he now greets with some enthusiasm the mention of provincial rights in the House of Commons. And I am positive there will be many more points introduced by my leader in the House of Commons about which members of the Liberal party will shout Hear, hear-and with honesty and enthusiasm. It is most gratifying to see the enlightened expressions on the faces of many Liberals in the house since my leader has come here.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Now will you have
Duplessis or Drew?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I do not know why hon.
members on the government side bring in the name of Duplessis when they cannot handle even the present leader of our party. Dear knows what they would do if they had two ultra-intelligent men to face. How would you ever handle Duplessis in this house, when you cannot handle him even in Quebec? It is pretty nearly time you gave up trying, even down there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We admit we cannot
deal with him.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Duplessis must laugh
at your efforts and your remarks.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Tell us about Duplessis.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: What is wrong with him?


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is not the party
we believe in. Do you believe in him?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You remind me of a story-[DOT]


George Alexander Cruickshank: We do not want
Duplessis; you can keep him.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: How much you need him!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The hon. member has
reminded me of a story. It concerns a farmer in Idaho, where farm help was hard to obtain. However, one fortunate farmer did manage to get a hired man. Whenever this occurred neighbours would try to take the hired man away-with promises of better working conditions, and so on, if they could succeed.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Keep it clean.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: On the first Saturday evening the farmer walked into the store at the four points. His curious neighbours said, "How are you, Zeke; I understand you have a hired man. Any good?" Zeke said, "Not worth anything." But the neighbours were not content with that. They followed him into the store, and they finally said to him, "Zeke, do you mean that hired man is no good?" Zeke said, "No, he's no good. And I will tell


you more than that. He takes two hours to hitch up a horse-with me helping him."
That is like the Liberal party in this House of Commons. They could not even win in Quebec when they all helped down there at the last federal by-election.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I can tell a better story than that.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mining was mentioned
briefly in the speech from the throne. But what has this government done, apart from making promises?


Mr. MacNicol:: Nothing.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: What has it done for the great mining industry of Canada? They were able not many years ago, along with other countries tied to this monetary standard, to raise the price of gold from $20 an ounce to $35. Every working man and woman on the North American continent and in England, on that particular day, went about his or her daily business. Potatoes or other commodities did not go up or down in price. We heard there was going to be blue ruin. But it did benefit this country to the tune of about $70 million. That was due to the increase in the price of gold.
Today the cost of operation in the mining industry has increased by about 50 per cent. Yet this government has sat back for the last four or five years and watched that pegged price of $35 an ounce. I contend that the government could have done something to help the mining industry by increasing the price of gold to $50 or $70 an ounce, and thereby encourage the mining of gold in Canada.
Certain countries may say that the Canadian dollar, paper money, is not on a par with their money. But I do not know any country in the world that would refuse gold produced in Canada as payment for any commodity we might wish to purchase. This is an industry which provides millions of dollars in a commodity which is acceptable throughout the world. We have the gold; let the government encourage gold mining. Let it create opportunities for labour and produce wealth with which we can reduce the cost of living for our people.


Clarence Gillis: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The hon. member said so much prior to the question he wants to ask that I think he should sit down.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member cannot take it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I cannot take continuous nonsense, your blathering and blithering. That is pretty hard to take. How can we hope for a reduction in the cost of living-


Clarence Gillis: X intended to ask a sensible question but I did not expect a sensible answer.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The hon. member would not understand it if he did get a sensible answer. Just when the people were thinking a year ago that they could see a slight ray of sunshine, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) announced over the radio, without any authority from the parliament of Canada, that he was going to impose, and he did impose illegally, a 25 per cent tax on a great number of commodities that were absolutely essential to the proper living of the Canadian people, such as refrigerators, irons, stoves, purses, fountain pens-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Cosmetics.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Probably I do not know as much about those as the hon. member. He should be an expert on cosmetics; I am not. But the government was not satisfied just to place a 25 per cent tax, which was prohibitive, on these commodities. They did not want to see our factories kept going. They did not want to permit private enterprise to reap the benefits of its research and effort. This 25 per cent tax was not enough as far as the government was concerned. Do you know, if you buy a fountain pen in Canada today the tax over and above the actual retail price is 43 per cent. If around Christmas you felt that you wanted to give your wife a small leather purse costing $5, the tax over and above the retail price was not 25 per cent, it was 43 per cent.


Clarence Gillis: What about steel plate?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Rather than the government gouging the public the public of Canada should control the government. This government should act on behalf of the people of Canada and for the people of Canada. Why should a small group tell the people of Canada that they must pay 43 per cent tax on fountain pens or on leather purses? These things are essential. Why should that be done in order to give pleasure to the Minister of Finance?-although I imagined it gave displeasure to most members on the Liberal side. Why should that have been done to the great discomfiture of the Canadian people?
I think the government received a warning recently in the province of Quebec in spite of all the excuses they offer. That warning should be sufficient to indicate that the people want a common-sense reduction in taxation. Instead of waiting until the coming election the government had better try to get into the good graces of the electorate by introducing immediate tax reforms. Even then 29087-75
The Address-Mr. Sinnott their defeat will be certain, but it may not be an avalanche.
Through mismanagement and flagrant neglect of the people's welfare, the government have created high prices which have resulted in slight unemployment which no doubt will rapidly grow worse unless they take immediate steps to remedy the damage already done. The government will remember what I am saying tonight when this house resumes after the next election and the Conservative party is in power with the C.C.F. completely annihilated.


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: Stop dreaming.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am offering these words of warning, which I am sure will be well remembered and most emphatically admitted after the next election.


Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, after having listened to the remarks of the last speaker I am reminded of a joke. When the hon. member was up in his own riding he attended an auction sale. He was looking around for a place from which he could tell his constituents what a good job he was doing. The only place he could find to stand was on a manure spreader. Someone said, "Better stay there Fergy", and he said, "Set it up; this is the biggest load it ever had".


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is Hepburn's old joke.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I think the house will listen to that story for a long time. Being almost the last today to take part in this debate, I feel that I am a little late in congratulating the mover (Mr. Brown) and the seconder (Mr. Demers) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. However, I do wish to express to both these gentlemen my sincere congratulations. I should like also to congratulate the new members who have taken their seats in the House of Commons.
First of all I should like to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on the announcement he made recently in regard to the twenty-cent payment on western wheat. I also wish to offer my sincere thanks to the government for having placed a floor under coarse grains and butter.
Consistent efforts have been made by some members of the house to again have the open market system for the handling of western grain. One hon. member said that the farmers had lost what he considered was the astronomical figure of $2,000 million as a result of the grain having been marketed through the wheat board. At this point I should like to indicate what would have been lost if we had been dealing in the open market during the five years we have had
1184	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Sinnott wheat contracts with Great Britain-approximately $5,350 million.
Statements of this kind are unfounded and it seems to me that men who make such statements are only goaded by a desire for dollars, having no sense of reasoning in connection with humanity itself. The government of Canada was successful in obtaining a longterm contract with Great Britain, thereby establishing for the first time in history a really stable market as far as western grain was concerned. That had such a stabilizing effect that more farmers than ever before have been able to pay off their mortgages, improve their farm buildings, and buy better machinery. And, having a higher standard of living, they are in position to give their children an education.
It has never been stated by those who have advocated marketing grain by the open-market system just how much the farmers would have lost if the open market policy had been followed in the years after the war.
I	only need to refer to the figures which were put on the record by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce). These figures indicate that wheat sold in August, 1920, at $2.73 per bushel; in August, 1921, at $1.11 per bushel; and in October, 1923, at 95 cents per bushel: averaging $1.59 per bushel during those three years. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that when the present contract is completed we will have an average of far more than $1.59 per bushel for the whole five years.
You will see from the figures just released by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that conditions will remain stable for a considerably longer time than after the first world war. It should also be possible to remind the house that the present government will have given to the farmers, at the completion of the five-year wheat agreement with Great Britain, every dollar obtained for wheat sold, over and above the contract with Great Britain, to other countries under class
II	wheat, which has realized considerably more money. It was also put in the pool, giving the farmers a very substantial payment this spring, and $214 million will be distributed throughout western Canada.
I also wish to draw to the attention of the house the fact that the $214 million is not coming out of the consolidated revenue fund but from payments received by the government for their wheat, and only their wheat. In saying that, I wish to make it clear to eastern Canada that they are not contributing towards the stabilizing of western wheat growers. In view of what I have cited, I cannot help praising this marketing system. It has enabled western farmers to regulate their business for the first time in years.


They know what they will receive when their crop is harvested, and it also gives them ready cash for threshing bills, fuel, wages, taxes, interest on mortgages, and so on.
During the period of the open market when grain was handled on the grain exchange, and especially during harvest when a great volume was handled, prices would be depressed for the first two months, and then, when the grain was in the hands of the speculators, up the prices would go.
As I have stated before, when farmers were in need of money to pay their immediate bills they were forced by their creditors to sell a large amount of wheat in order to make payments. Under the present system the creditors of the farmer have no hesitation in giving him a line of credit as long as he is able to substantiate that he has in his granary numerous bushels of grain to take care of his debts. In other words, prices will not fluctuate the way wheat is handled now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Read more slowly.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: If these remarks are kept up I will take on the interrupters one by one inside the house or outside. I also wish to thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) for the broad health scheme which he has presented. Possibly what I said, as reported in Hansard' of July 15, 1946, did no harm. What I said is as follows:
No one can say that the need was ever greater than it is now for hospitals in every small community. The town in which I reside has been pleading for a hospital for the past twenty-five years and is still without a hospital.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You can have your laugh
first; I will have mine last.


Clarence Gillis: A coalition government.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Let me say through you, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to thank the minister at this time because through his health scheme the town in which I am interested, Beausejour, is going to receive $16,000 from the dominion government this coming spring for a 16-bed hospital. A little farther east, the town of Whitemouth is to have a 12-bed hospital, and is receiving $12,000 from the dominion government. Therefore the constituency which I have the honour to represent is benefiting from this scheme in the amount of $28,000 from the dominion government alone. The province of Manitoba is contributing a like amount, making a total of $56,000, before the people themselves are asked to contribute a dime. No doubt the people residing in these districts feel very

grateful to the government for extending to them this amount of money, and a program of this kind. The last vote in Whitemouth, which was taken on the 28th of February, carried by 92 per cent.


Clarence Gillis: Coalition co-operation.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I should like to deal now
with the matter of old age pensions, something that my friends on the other side have been harping upon, but if you will follow Hansard throughout the years you will see that I have been advocating the same thing, and I will continue to do so tonight. With the cost of living as high as it has been in the last couple of years, those who are receiving old age pensions are having a very difficult time trying to exist. With the high cost of food, clothing and shelter, I do not see how it is possible at all for these old people, many of whom have contributed largely to the early pioneering of Canada, to get along. I believe there are some 280,000 men and women in Canada who are at present receiving the old age pension, and there are many more who would like to receive the benefits. But, owing to their pride in being able to possess their own piece of land at the present time without any government help or interference, they are reluctant to make application for the old age pension. The government have been continually reminded by the opposition of the pitiful conditions of old age pensioners. The opposition has been encouraging the government to spend more and more and at the same time criticizing the government for their heavy taxation, and one is at a loss to know just how speeches of that calibre can bring any relief. I may say at this time that I believe the government always welcomes just criticism, but for many people who are here the criticism which has been leveled has not offered any remedy. There are some thirteen million people in Canada today, and they are able to produce twice as much as they can consume. Therefore if there is starvation among some-


Clarence Gillis: Two hundred thousand
unemployed.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -it is not because Canada as a nation cannot produce. It is because there is a lack of proper distribution. Therefore I want to draw this matter to the attention of the government. I think it is their duty to pay close attention to the matter of distribution, and I should like the government to give these old people an increase in the pension which they now receive. I am suggesting that, with the present cost of living, their pension should not be less than $50 per month. Some people will say this will actu-
The Address-Mr. Sinnott ally mean an increase in taxation. This need not be so. As I said before, there are 280,000 old age pensioners. An increase of $20 per month would mean that $5,600,000 would have to be distributed towards old age pensions. This in turn would provide that amount of spending power in Canada. Old age pensioners do not keep their money. They naturally go to their nearest store for their provisions. This in turn gives the storekeeper an opportunity to buy more goods from the wholesaler, and gives the wholesalers an opportunity to buy more from the producers. In other words, it stimulates Canada's consumption.
There seems to h a trend towards trying to provide help today to everybody from Shanghai to Timbuctoo. I believe it is high time that we started to provide for our old age pensioners first. I wish to submit to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that this money should be injected into the economy of Canada, or this purchasing power should be provided through the Bank of Canada. It would add additional distribution without any further taxation. I believe further that our health and social welfare schemes should be provided for from the same source. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if we are able as a nation to provide twice the amount we consume, a little more attention should be paid to the distribution of the wealth in the country.
I would like to say a word in connection with education and what the dominion government is doing to help finance this most important field. We have heard much talk about dominion-provincial relations, and at this time I wish to point out the benefits Manitoba has received since the last dominion-provincial agreement was signed. Formerly the dominion government contributed to Manitoba some $8 million and the province in turn did not see fit, with this small amount of money, to contribute very much towards education. However, since the last agreement was signed, Manitoba has received from the dominion government $13,500,000 or a gain of $5,500,000 over the previous figure. With this general increase the province saw fit last year to pass a larger amount of money on to the municipalities, thereby reducing their taxation. It is therefore quite plain that the dominion government is at the present time contributing $5,500,000 towards education in Manitoba.
Of all expenditures paid out of municipal budgets, the largest, most important and most continuous is in connection with education. In almost every school district education costs amount to almost fifty per cent of the total taxation, and many of the less wealthy municipalities find it most difficult to carry
1186

The Address-Mr. Sinnott the cost of education. Last year, after this additional money was received from the dominion government, tax cuts were quite noticeable throughout the municipalities. However, I do not believe it has been pointed out to the rural districts or to any of the school districts that the dominion government has contributed largely to these school grants. For most of the municipalities this plan will substantially ease the burden of educational costs which they have been carrying. It is a help which they need. Educational costs have been increasing over recent years; moreover, if the municipalities are to take advantage of other programs which will be available to them, in the way of road building, health and the like, the burden of education costs which they have been carrying must be reduced, if land as the main municipal tax base is going to carry the whole load successfully.
I may point out that the province is not allocating the full amount of this $5,500,000 to the schools, but is keeping some of this money in reserve to meet such services as technical education and other items which may develop in the future. If the municipalities think they are deserving of a larger amount, it will be up to them to make application to their provincial government for a further share of the amount the dominion government is contributing.
Before I conclude I should like to say a word about the urgent need for the early completion of the trans-Canada highway. I happen to be in this fortunate position, that this highway comes through my riding of Springfield regardless of where it is to be built. At the present time No. 1 highway extends from Winnipeg to the Ontario boundary and is hard-surfaced all the way. Therefore it will be very easy for the government to come to a satisfactory deal with the province. As has been stated before, a country like Canada, which is regarded as one of the major powers today, should not be looked upon as a country which cannot develop a national highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific. A highway of this kind will not only save us American dollars; it will bring an enormous tourist trade to the west. It will also enable the east and west to become greater friends. Having to travel through the United States in order to reach the western part of Canada, as we do now, is in large measure, I believe, why the east and west are so divided on certain issues. I trust that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. MacKinnon) will therefore lose no time in taking steps to complete this national highway. He is a man of foresight and vision and will not hold up this large undertaking on account of provincial economy. Some of [Mr. Sinnott.l
these so-called men who are advocating provincial rights have asked the dominion government to take the lead in this national undertaking, and I would therefore urge the completion of the trans-Canada highway at as early a date as possible.
I should like to offer one condemnation of the government; and it is something very easy to adjust, because this morning-glory that has blossomed during the last month or so will soon fade. I blame this government for not taking proper steps through its public relations department to place before the people of Canada the great social security plans which have been developed. I blame the government for not placing before the people many of the things it has done in the past. The federal government has been giving large grants to the various provinces, but in return what do we see? There is nothing at all in the press. Anything we see there would indicate that this money comes from the provincial governments themselves, and that is not so. This government is dishing out the money to the provinces, who in turn are doling it out to the municipalities. I believe this government should have far more publicity, so the people throughout the country will know where the money is coming from. I have seen speeches made in this house by various cabinet ministers who have placed their programs squarely before the people, but in the newspapers the next day we do not see a word about it. On the other hand, I have heard foolish speeches which have been published under headlines. If we are to have a sound administration I believe the newspapers should pay attention when a cabinet minister gets up and places an honest-to-goodness program before the people.


Mr. D. King Hazen (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, a statement of government policy is outlined in the speech from the throne on which I want to comment this evening, as it affects the future welfare and aspirations of the people of the maritime provinces.
That statement is contained in the sixth paragraph of the speech from the throne, and reads:
You will be asked to approve, subject to the approval of the United States authorities the agreement concluded in 1941 for the development of navigation and power in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin.
This statement of government policy has been received with a good deal of apprehension in the maritime provinces, for it means that another nail, perhaps I should say several more nails are being driven into the coffin of maritime hopes and maritime economy.

It means that another big step is being taken to centralize industry and power in upper Canada. It means that the promises made to the maritimes at the time of confederation are to be set at naught; that maritime ports are not to take their place among "the great emporiums of the world", and that all the resources of the west are not to flow to the bosoms of their harbours, as Sir John A. Macdonald promised and as successive governments planned.
It means that the geographical disadvantages of the maritime provinces are not to be overcome, and that these provinces and their seaports will not be placed on a transportation footing to compete with the other ports for the trade of the great west as was promised.
It means that the maritime ports and maritime interests will be by-passed in the interests of the mid-western part of the United States and of another part of Canada.
It is all very well for the member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), who moved the address in an excellent speech upon which I congratulate him, to say, at page 19:
The co-operative development of the great foreign trade route by our two* great countries for the purpose of sharing the benefits of new commerce will be a landmark in the history of international relations.
That sounds very well, but I am under no delusions about the matter. If canals are built to a depth of thirty feet from Montreal to the great lakes to enable ships of 20,000 tons to navigate that stretch of water, as the hon. gentleman stated is to be the case, not only will our railways which are having difficult times today suffer, but it will be only a matter of a few years before powerful interests will commence a powerful political movement to have that waterway kept open during the winter months-for some weeks past icebreakers have been busy below Montreal opening up channels which will take work away from our longshoremen in the Atlantic ports-and in the end the ports of Saint John and Halifax will be deprived of business in the winter season, business upon which the welfare and livelihood of many of their citizens, their longshoremen, their checkers, their port workers and merchants are dependent to a very great extent.
We have heard a great deal about the centralization of political power in the federal government and the threat to provincial rights. There is no doubt in my mind that this policy of centralization has been fostered by the present government and that it received a great impetus during the war years.
I am opposed to the centralization of power in the federal government at this stage of our
The Address-Mr. Hazen development, as I believe it is a menace to our federal system and a danger to national unity. But I am opposed also to the government adopting policies that will result in the future centralization of economic power in Ontario and Quebec at the expense of other parts of the dominion, particularly at the expense of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia who entered confederation in the belief and on the understanding that they were to receive a fair share of the benefits and profits that were to result therefrom.
I admit, and I admit quite readily, that some parts of Canada have greater resources than other parts; that, in the very nature of things, there are bound to be larger centres of population, greater wealth, more industries and better markets in some parts of this country than in others, as is the case in most countries. I admit also that distance and economic forces cannot be ignored. But I am opposed to a policy that would establish our Atlantic ports on the great lakes and deprive our longshoremen of work, and our people of business, and violate one of the promises that induced the maritimes to enter confederation.
No one can object to the development of electric power along the international portion of the St. Lawrence river for the benefit of Canada and the United States provided that development pays for itself. But to enter into the development of a deep-sea waterway from Montreal to the great lakes at great cost to the taxpayers of this country is quite another matter and I do not think any member of this house who represents a maritime constituency and who has the welfare of the maritimes at heart could conscientiously support it.
The governments of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia protested most vigorously, but so far without result, against a horizontal increase of twenty-one per cent in freight rates granted to our railways not very long ago. It seems to me that these governments should give serious consideration to the policy upon which the dominion government proposes to embark in connection with the deepening of the St. Lawrence to the great lakes. Its effect upon the maritime economy will be more serious than any increase in freight rates could possibly be.
I admit that the development of this country must continue, that it cannot be stayed. I acknowledge that I have read with approval Burke's address to the electors of Bristol, but I am not dealing with any one constituency when I speak of this matter. I am dealing with the two provinces by the sea and I deem it my duty to call to the attention of the government what I believe

The Address-Mr. Hazen will be the effect of this policy on the maritime provinces, and to tell the government that if it goes ahead with this policy at the expense of the taxpayers of this country it should see to it that the people in the maritime provinces and the maritime ports receive a quid pro quo. Perhaps I might better express it in this way, that the government should see to it that policies are adopted that will have the effect of developing the resources and the industries of those provinces and promoting the business of the

maritime ports. What we really need in this country is a new national policy.
On motion of Mr. Hazen the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: I move that the house do now adjourn. On Monday we shall continue with this debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at ten twenty-two p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 7, 1949