1949-09-22

Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I wish to table the report of the Department of National Revenue for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1949.
So far as the export petroleum and pulp-wood regulations are concerned, none having been promulgated since the last return was made, no report will be made with regard to this item. Likewise, no report will be made in connection with the following statutes, since no orders or regulations have been made pursuant to the authority vested in me thereunder:	Canada-New Zealand
income tax agreement; Canada-United States income tax agreement; Canada-United Kingdom Succession Duty Agreement Act, and the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1944.



PARLIAMENT HILL


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois) brought to my attention the inadequacy of the facilities for parking automobiles in the immediate vicinity of this building, particularly automobiles belonging to members of parliament. Immediately after the house rose last night I was in consultation with the Sergeant-at-Arms; and I am pleased to inform the house that already, in conjunction with the Department of Public Works, he has arranged for some additional space for members' cars to the right of the space occupied by the cabinet ministers.
I might also point out to hon. members that some time ago the Sergeant-at-Arms sent a questionnaire to members to ascertain who had automobiles in Ottawa. At the present time he has received notice from fifty-five members only that they have automobiles. It is impossible for him to know just what space should be allotted to members until he knows how many have cars here.
Hon. members will probably be interested to know that the parking area in the vicinity of the building has been allotted as follows:
There are eighteen spaces for ministers of the crown and the leader of the opposition, forty-two spaces for members of parliament, fourteen spaces for senior officials, and seventeen spaces for House of Commons employees.
The hon. member for Gaspe has handed to me the notice which he received with respect to the parking of his automobile. I find that it is not a summons, and that it was not served on him personally but was a notice that was put on his car informing him that the owner-who in this case happened to be a member of parliament-had parked his car for a longer period than is permitted in a space reserved for officials. There is no information on the card to the effect that a penalty will be imposed, and I can assure the hon. member that none will be.
I am sure that all hon. members realize the difficulty that the Sergeant-at-Arms has in providing space for the members. Some system has to be devised so that the limited space may be allotted fairly amongst the ministers, the members and the officials of the house. All I can add is a request to all hon. members that they try to conform to whatever system may be devised.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? In view of the judgment of the board of transport commissioners, issued this morning, and the serious implication of a further increase in freight rates, will the government delay any action on recommendations made by the commissioners until the house has been given an opportunity to discuss the matter, and interested provinces have had an opportunity of placing their views before the government if they so desire?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The part of the question which seeks information with reference to the recommendations made by the commissioners should be answered in this way. This is a judgment of a court of record, and not a recommendation made to the government.
With reference to the next part of the question, as a rule it is not the custom of the
144	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry government to interfere with judgments of the court or with ordinary legal processes.
With reference to the question of the rights of the provinces, or of any other parties who feel aggrieved by the judgment, there is, under the Railway Act, a right of appeal.


Mr. Green:: May I ask a supplementary question? Is this judgment supposed to be a judgment also in respect of the general rates inquiry, or is the board now to undertake a general rates inquiry having to do particularly with discrimination?


Lionel Chevrier: This judgment is divided into two parts. It deals first with a review of the 21 per cent increase in freight rates which was referred to the government by way of appeal, and, second, with an application made by the Railway Association of Canada for a general increase of 20 per cent in freight rates.


Howard Charles Green: I was referring to the instructions given to the board to make a general inquiry.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer clearly is that it does not deal with the general inquiry referred to by my hon. friend.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a supplementary question? While the minister states correctly that it is not usual for the government to interfere with the judgments of a court of record, in view of the serious implications of this judgment will the government not consider that it is in the public interest to defer any action to put these recommendations into effect?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman has virtually repeated his question. I am afraid I have to repeat my answer, and say that I have nothing to add to what I have already said.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the government consider interfering? That is the point.


Lionel Chevrier: Under the Railway Act as it stands I do not think that the government has any right to do so. I cannot speak for the government; I can speak only for myself. I say that it is not the usual practice or custom to do that.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of Canada's new disadvantage in the British market, caused by the devaluation of the pound, is the minister in a position to announce what steps are contemplated to maintain the British market, and

whether negotiations will be entered into with British officials for the purpose of renewing our food contracts?


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: The question begins by making an assertion which I hardly think is correct; it says, "In view of Canada's new disadvantage in the British market". I think, if anything, Canada is in a better competitive position in the British market than she was prior to devaluation. As to negotiations between officials in regard to trading relations, I may say that the continuing committee which was set up at the time of the visit of Sir Stafford Cripps a year ago, is meeting in Ottawa at this moment. It is a committee composed of United Kingdom officials and Canadian officials. I am hopeful that as a result of its deliberations an improvement in the marketing situation will result.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the minister whether food contracts for next year will be renewed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are two sides that must agree in order to determine whether the food contracts will be renewed. I am afraid I can speak for only one side.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. In view of the fact that we have no cheap land in the Toronto district, will he consider approaching the two steam railways with a view to providing a steam suburban service to accomplish that object?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: The hon. member brought up this question last year. At that time I felt it was fully dealt with. However, I shall be only too glad to look into it again.


Thomas Langton Church: Without such a service the minister's housing plan will not be of much assistance.


Mr. Graydon:: Commutation rates to Brampton would help.



SUPERANNUATED CIVIL SERVANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of repeated representations, and in view of the many promises made during the recent election campaign, especially by government supporters-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -will consideration be
given-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. SI. Laurent:: Is not that an infringement of the direction you gave the other day, Mr. Speaker, with respect to such questions as can be asked on the orders of the day?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the urgency-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not hear the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have not yet had a chance to state it.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say that in asking questions on the orders of the day, hon. members should ask questions and not make statements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Minister of Finance give consideration to the request of the superannuated civil servants for a cost of living bonus or other supplement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of my remarks of yesterday I think that this question should be put on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is extremely urgent to the people concerned.



FLAXSEED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Has the
Minister of Trade and Commerce before him an answer to the question I asked yesterday in his absence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Flax is being sold at the moment direct from the farmer to the private trade. The government has provided facilities for a growers' pool in flax, but since market prices are well above initial payment of the pool, no flax is being delivered to the pool. Therefore the proper method for the crusher in Saskatoon to follow in providing for its requirements next year is to estimate such requirements and purchase the flax on the open market.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, September 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maurice Boisvert for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate my first duty, and it is indeed a pleasure and not a perfunctory one, is to congratulate you on your elevation to the position of first commoner. I do so with personal pleasure; for over the years I have had the pleasure of observing that in your occupancy of the office of Deputy Speaker you have accorded to all hon. members that equality without which it is impossible to carry on properly the functions of parliament.
On this occasion, which in certain respects is different from similar occasions in the past, all I intend to do is to place certain suggestions before this house; because, as I see the situation, the Canadian people having spoken, and it being the duty of all hon. members to accede to the wishes and the will of the majority, what I have to say will not be a rehash of the election campaign. I shall endeavour to place before the government and this house certain matters in respect to which I believe changes might well be made.
When one comes here for the first time he expects resentment and recrimination to be the natural attitude as between parties in parliament. But, as was demonstrated a moment ago when I rose to speak, the generous attitude shown by hon. members opposite indicates that after all, there is, in this House of Commons, which is properly representative of the people, an abiding spirit of friendship and respect among members on all sides of the house. And, Mr. Speaker, without that friendship and respect parliament would be a place in which few of us would wish to be.
I have been impressed since the session has begun, as I am sure you, sir, and all other hon. members have been, by the high quality of the new members who have come to the house, constituting an infusion of new blood into this national assembly.
I was greatly impressed by the address of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert), the mover of the address, and also by the address of the seconder, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing). The presence of these hon. members in the House of Commons will raise the standard of parliament. Again, yesterday, I enjoyed very much the splendid address of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), who is able, as I wish I were, to speak with equal facility in either of the official languages. I was impressed, too, by the address of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne).
There was a demonstration of democracy yesterday, when one of the opponents of the union of Newfoundland with Canada rose in his place and, in a spirit of good will and compromise, and with the realization that
146	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker the majority prevails and that we have much to offer one to the other, joined in acclaiming the fact that Newfoundland is now one of the provinces of this dominion.
Democracy lives only when there is an infusion of able young men such as these whom I have mentioned, and there are others. Democracy lives only when there is a realization that there is a function to be performed by those who today sit to the left of Mr. Speaker-not immediately to his left, may I say, but somewhat removed therefrom. As I listened yesterday to the hon. member for St. John's West, and heard him describe the strangeness of the atmosphere of parliament-and it does have that effect upon all new members-I went to the library and got there, sir, a description of parliament which, with your permission, I should like to read. In its masterly language and in its breadth of vision it portrays something of what parliament means. It was written by the Hon. Quintin Hogg, one of the most distinguished of the younger parliamentarians in England. There is a feeling of frustration experienced by the member who comes to parliament for the first time, and surprise that parliament does not move faster. It is true that parliament moves in a traditional way with its procedure and practices brought up to date by changes, often belatedly, to meet ever-changing conditions. But, parliament is more than procedure-it is the custodian of the nation's freedom. Mr. Hogg describes it in these words:
Parliament is not like a building designed and constructed by a single architect such as the Parthenon, St. Paul's cathedral, or the Empire State building. Parliament resembles rather an ancient family mansion which has been lived in continuously for a period of centuries, and has served the needs of those that have dwelt therein by constantly modifying and adding to its conveniences from generation to generation . . .
To those who live in it, it is a priceless possession not to be exchanged for anything more meretricious and unified. But those who are unfamiliar with its history are sometimes apt to lose themselves in its winding corridors and to be surprised and trapped by floors built at different times and on separate levels.
That is what parliament means to me: Parliament, the protector of the people's freedom.
I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) upon his election to office. I have known him over the years, and in the earlier days of the Canadian Bar Association; and while we are separated by eighteen feet of green carpet, they do not lessen the respect I hold for him, not only personally but as the occupant of the high position he now holds.
I say, too, that in his address in this debate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) showed that he was possessed of that chivalry

in public life without which parliament becomes a mere sham. I shall not fight the election over again; we shall have plenty of opportunity for that. The government has an overwhelming majority; and the responsibility of His Majesty's loyal opposition has been thereby increased and intensified. In this country we do not uphold the doctrine of a single-party state. A single-party parliament denies democracy. It inevitably leads to the dictatorship of government which tends to destroy the rights to those who do not belong to the majority.
Both in the House of Commons and in the Senate, members of the government party have overwhelming majorities. In consequence there is placed upon the opposition responsibilities which are greater than they otherwise would be. While we of His Majesty's loyal opposition should accept the overwhelming majority of the government as a condition having the approval of the people of Canada, we shall not accept it as an endorsement of everything this government chooses to bring before the House of Commons, as though it had received a mandate from the people for every measure it proposes.
We in the opposition have a responsibility to assure the people of this country that any invasions of freedom, whether the fundamental freedoms or otherwise, shall be resisted in parliament.
Some have said to me since the election that with the increase in the majority supporting the government there would be little opportunity for those of the opposition to develop their arguments. I did not believe that such would be the case. During the last few days I think it has been shown that I was right; that the members of the government realize that we of the opposition, small in numbers though we be, have a responsibility to discharge, to the end that we may preserve inviolate those rights and privileges which from time to time might be subject to attack.
It used to be said that the function of an opposition was "to propose nothing and oppose everything." That is not the view of those who have a proper appreciation of our system. Some say parliament talks too much. Parliamentary democracy can exist only where there is public discussion and debate; where public discussion is denied, freedom itself will die, and the history of other nations has shown that freedom disappears when there is no effective opposition.
We intend to support-this has been the course I have always followed-all measures which we believe to be for the general benefit of the nation. We intend to be on guard and to scrutinize every action of the government

-but not, as Moncreiff has said, by "a wakeful and morbid suspiciousness", but carefully and fairly, we intend to examine all proposals that come before this House of Commons.
Governments with overwhelming majorities often make shortcuts through parliamentary procedure. They do not like to be held down by parliament. It is so much easier to pass executive orders. One of the great writers on British constitutionalism said recently that in the past twenty years the cabinets, the executives, of governments in all parts of the British commonwealth have regained almost all the powers that a cabinet had two hundred years ago. In two wars many of parliament's rights and prerogatives were abdicated. It is hard to regain them.
I think one thing the government should do at this time-I ask hon. members in all parts of the house to join me in this request -is to assure us that the course regarding orders in council adopted last year will be extended. On March 9 last the Prime Minister agreed to table from time to time all orders in council, or a summation of them. That is good so far as it goes, but it should go still further.
I should like to make a suggestion which would give an opportunity for service to the new members who have a feeling of frustration because of their inability to And anything to do. I should like to see a committee of parliament set up, that would examine delegated authority-in other words a committee on ministerial powers. At the moment I am not criticizing the principle of delegated power, but if it is carried too far it is a denial of the democratic system of government.
Delegated legislative power results from the technical nature of most legislation and the difficulties involved in legislating to meet complex conditions. In the United Kingdom it has been found necessary to set up a committee in this regard, and I should like to see a similar committee appointed by this house.
Such a committee would report to the house from time to time on all orders in council passed where there is a matter of principle in issue, and where the question of delegated power arises. Where legislative power is conferred, the committee would make the necessary criticisms of orders passed by civil servants under the powers granted by legislation enacted by parliament. Members of the house would be given an opportunity to serve. There should be no difficulty about the government having a majority in the committee. Its members would be charged with noting any breaches of parliamentary privileges and democratic
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker rights; in fact in orders in council it would be a watchdog in the preservation of our democratic rights.
I trust that the government will set up some of the committees very soon, particularly the radio committee. It is understandable that the radio committee was not set up at the last session. Since then, however, the question of television has been dealt with by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and a question has been raised with regard to increasing the radio receiving licence fee. If I know anything of the attitude of the vast majority of the people, they will resist any increase in that fee. The whole field of radio should be examined with a view to making recommendations, in accordance with the principles upon which our national radio was set up, to the end that such improvements as are necessary may be made.
The mention of government boards brings to mind that today an order was issued by the board of transport commissioners increasing freight rates in this country. It is not for me to say that parliament should have an overriding control over a board set up by parliament, and I make no such suggestion. In the three western provinces the average level of freight rates before the 21 per cent increase was 14 per cent higher than it was in Ontario and Quebec. When the 21 per cent increase across the board was added, that discrimination against the three western provinces was increased to 16-9 per cent. A further addition of eight per cent will increase that discrimination to approximately 18-25 per cent.
I realize that increases have become necessary; you cannot keep freight rates down when costs are rising. But I do say that it is untimely to have such an increase put into effect while the Turgeon commission is sitting. Before any further increase was made there should have been recommendations for the removal of the discrimination which exists today against the three western provinces, as well as others. This is a matter on which I want to hear some of my hon. friends from Saskatchewan speak when they take part in this debate. The announced increase is in effect a continuance and intensification of discrimination which has had a damaging effect upon the building up in the western provinces of other than an agricultural economy.
There is one other committee that I should like to see the government set up. It has to do with a subject with which I am not going to deal at length, but one which is important to the future of Canada, namely, the preservation of our fundamental freedoms.
In 1947 a committee of the house sat for a considerable length of time hearing evidence

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker on the subject of fundamental freedoms. At the end of its sessions it made a report, which in part read as follows:
At the outset, it was apparent that at the present session only preparations could be made tor a subsequent detailed study of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Consequently, your committee has invited the attorneys general of the provinces and the heads of Canadian law schools to furnish views and opinions on the question of the power of the parliament of Canada to enact a comprehensive bill of rights applicable to all Canada.
In the 1948 session the committee was again set up. It dealt in the main with an international bill of rights for the preservation of fundamental freedoms everywhere in the world. Among other things it said in its report:
The power of the dominion parliament to enact a comprehensive bill of rights is disputed. . . .
Clarification of the extent of the dominion's powers by reference of questions to the Supreme Court of Canada has been suggested.
In view of the fact that decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada in individual cases would be far more satisfactory than upon a general reference in determining the powers of parliament and the legislatures, your committee gave some consideration to the question whether the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada should not be enlarged so that by leave of that court appeals would lie on questions of law in some instances in which there is now no appeal. Your committee is of opinion that the government should give consideration to such an enlargement, and so recommends.
At this session of parliament I should like to see a committee on fundamental freedoms again set up, designed to place the subject before the people of Canada and make them conscious of any invasions of freedoms that take place. I believe there should be a submission to the Supreme Court of Canada for the purpose of ascertaining the delineation between dominion and provincial jurisdiction on the enactment of a bill or declaration of rights for the maintenance and protection of fundamental freedoms in Canada.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) the recommendation of the committee to which I have referred, so that the government may give consideration to the inclusion of the right of appeal in respect of invasions or infringements of the fundamental freedoms in the amendments that are to be made to the Supreme Court Act. The committee was presided over by the predecessor of the Minister of Justice, Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley. The committee unanimously reported as follows:
Your committee is of opinion that the government should give consideration to such an enlargement, and so recommends.
If the supreme court is to be the final court of appeal for all matters arising within our country, surely something should be done so to enlarge the powers of the supreme

court as to assure the preservation of the freedoms. When one's fundamental freedoms, which everyone who lives under the British tradition has by reason of his inheritance, are interfered with, there is no right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I suggest that the Minister of Justice give consideration to the inclusion in the Supreme Court Act of the power of appeal with leave of the court against unjust infringement and abrogation of civil liberties. Is it not a strange thing that when dollars are at stake you can appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but when civil liberties are at stake there is no appeal to that body which the Minister of Justice said the other day would assure equality of rights everywhere in this dominion? I trust that the minister will, even if opposed to a national bill of rights, while accepting the need of an international bill of rights, at least give accord to those whose rights and fundamental liberties have been invaded, the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I pass now to one other matter, and then I shall have finished. This session will be known as the constitutional session. There seems to be great haste in providing for all kinds of changes in the constitution. Let me read from the speech from the throne:
You will be asked at the present session to approve measures designed to facilitate the attainment of the constitutional limits of our nationhood.
We have not been denied that right at any time within a period of thirty or forty years.
You will also be asked to approve addresses praying the parliament of the United Kingdom to vest in the parliament of Canada the right to amend the constitution of Canada in relation to matters not coming within the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces nor affecting the constitutional rights and privileges of the provinces or existing rights and privileges with respect to education or the use of the English and French languages.
I do not quite understand that, Mr. Speaker. We are to secure absolute autonomy; we are to assert our independence. How are we to do it? By bifurcated methods of amendment. At this session we are to pass an address to the imperial parliament on certain matters. In other words we are to ask the imperial parliament for the power to amend our own constitution on matters in respect to which the provinces have never been consulted during the years.
As to other subjects the address reads:
My ministers will seek to arrange for early consultation with the provincial governments with a view to agreeing upon an appropriate procedure for making within Canada such other amendments to the constitution as may from time to time be required.
Are we to be half autonomous, or half independent, Mr. Speaker, when these things are

done? We are going to assert by an address to the crown the right to amend our constitution in Canada as to certain sections of the B.N.A. Act about which there is no dispute whatever. Then we are going to consult with the provinces about the other sections. Why all the haste to become half autonomous and independent? There is no question of disputed jurisdiction as between the federal and provincial governments. No question of economic or social security is involved in what is to be done at this session. It is a step, and it is a step that will be meaningless, unless, as a result of the conference, the provinces agree to the procedure for all other amendments to the constitution being made by the Canadian parliament.
I am not going into the particulars of the past, but the records since 1935 show

the Minister of Justice smiles, because he has read them-that never has it been possible, either in the committee of parliament which was set up in 1935 or in the dominion-provincial conference of 1936, to arrive at any common denominator which would permit amendments so far as the rights are concerned in respect of which this consultation with the provinces is to be had. In 1935 a committee met for some time. Most of the provinces would not make any representations. The committee reported as follows:
The committee recognizes the urgent necessity for prompt consideration of amendments to the British North America Act with reference to a redistribution of legislative power and to clarify the field of taxation.
The report continues:
The committee is of the opinion that before any decision upon the subject matter of the resolution is finally made, the opinions of the provinces should be obtained otherwise if at all possible, and for that reason recommends that a dominion-provincial conference be held as early as possible in the present year to study the subject matter of the resolution.
Well, the conference met, but nothing was decided. The reason for this was that political considerations, and extraneous matters, entered the discussions. The Minister of Justice is going to call a conference of the provinces. Surely he would defer to the advice of Mr. Mackenzie King with regard to the possible success of such a conference.


Mr. Garson:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he opposed to consulting the provinces on these matters?


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad that my hon. friend has learned that consultation with the provinces is necessary if the unity of this country is to be preserved. He did not know that last year.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Last year I was premier of Manitoba.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Speaker, we are arriving now at something. My hon. friend's opinion in respect to the constitution depends upon where he is located at the timh.
I suggest that instead of a dominion-provincial conference, there should be convened a constitutional convention, representative of all the provinces of Canada and of all shades of political thought in all the provinces of Canada. It should not be a meeting of the political heads of provincial governments and attorneys general, but representatives of the body of the Canadian people from every province and every political party. A similar suggestion was made in 1937 by a former prime minister, a great prime minister of Canada and an authority on the constitution, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. The Minister of Justice laughs at that observation, but he was a great lawyer and a great Canadian, irrespective of his views.


Mr. Pouliot:: You are a greater orator than Mr. Bennett ever was.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) will no doubt accept Mr. Mackenzie King as an authority.


Jean-François Pouliot: He was not a practising lawyer.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall not enter into a controversy on that subject, but he certainly was a constitutionalist. This is what he said on January 26, 1937, as recorded on page 281 of Hansard. He talks about amendments to the constitution and the manner of going about it. He had had experience with interprovincial conferences. He said:
One is the suggestion of my right hon. friend that the question should be considered by a constitutional conference, composed, as he has suggested, of members of the dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures, such membership to be representatives of all shades of political thought. I believe that method might be described as the ideal one.
To the Minister of Justice and the government I submit views of two former prime ministers. This is a problem that is not being faced in the speech from the throne. We are securing autonomy to do something that is not denied. We are dividing up the constitution and allowing the government of Canada to determine what affects the provinces and what affects the dominion. In my opinion we shall never secure those amendments, which I believe are so necessary to meet changing conditions while preserving and protecting minority rights in this country, by taking the uncertain steps designated in the speech from the throne. I suggest that something be done along the lines suggested by Mr. Bennett and Mr. King, to the end that this problem be faced and that we may come to a decision which will be

The Address-Mr. Herridge accepted unanimously in this country-a decision not dictated by the whims of the government of Canada, but arrived at as a result of wholehearted co-operation among all the provinces making up this confederation.
I come back, sir, to the point at which I started. This parliament has an appointment with destiny. We are not going to revive the recriminations and prejudices that characterized the election campaign. We in this parliament have a responsibility which transcends all others, that of preserving, maintaining and extending the boundaries of freedom. To that end, sir, I have suggested a committee on a national declaration or a bill of rights, in keeping with the international responsibilities we assumed a few months ago under the United Nations. We should assure to the individual in this country his right of appeal, when his freedoms or constitutional rights are invaded, to the supreme court which, after this session, if the government's proposal receives the support of the house, will be the highest court of appeal so far as Canada is concerned.
When amending the Supreme Court Act, I ask parliament to give to the man and to the woman, however humble they may be, wherever they may be, the constitutional right to carry their appeal to the foot of the throne when and if their constitutional freedoms are in any way interfered with. On the question of the amendment of our Canadian constitution, let us not proceed in a manner that can only arouse animosities. Let us endeavour to bring together in a constitutional convention men and women from all the legislatures of this dominion, no matter what their party may be, so that they may together in unity rebuild where necessary and desirable this country's constitutional foundations, while maintaining and assuring as fundamental and inviolable the minority rights of all our people under the British North America Act.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
rising to speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I wish first to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing). In doing so I am not going through some mere formality or simply extending courtesy. I am expressing sincerely my appreciation of effort and ability when I see it demonstrated in this House of Commons.
I should also like to join with others in extending a welcome to the members from Newfoundland who now sit in this parliament. I know their stay here will be to the

benefit of Canada and to the advantage of the province in which they live.
I am going to make a few brief remarks with regard to the speech from the throne, before proceeding to a subject that I wished to pursue last session but was unable to do so because of its short duration. First of all, let me say that I endorse wholeheartedly the approach of and the statements made by the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), when he spoke in this debate some days ago. I am pleased to note that the question of amendment of the constitution is being considered by the government, and that the government is attempting, with the provinces, to work out some convenient procedure by which that may be done here from time to time when necessary. I am of the opinion that such a move will meet with the support of the majority of the Canadian people.
I am also glad to notice that at last the government has officially, and in this parliament, recognized the seriousness of the housing situation. I listened with attention to the minister's statement yesterday, but until I hear further details and further explanations I shall not comment further on it. I trust that this government will not submit to pressure from certain groups for the abolition of domestic rent control. I have received letters from many types of organizations expressing great concern over this matter. Thousands of Canadians are anxious about this question, because they realize the inconvenience under which they would be placed should rent control be abolished now. I have received communications from trade unions, Legion branches, women's organizations, women's institutes and other groups interested in the cost of living and the cost of rent; and, as I say, I hope the government will not give way to the strong pressure that is being exercised from some directions for the abolition of rent control.
I am pleased to note that it is the intention of the government to proceed with assistance to the provinces in connection with the building of a trans-Canada highway. I am sure many people and many organizations throughout Canada will welcome this step. I presume that the government's action in this regard has been influenced to a great extent by the strong demand for some action that has grown throughout the country in recent years.
As one who represents many constituents who are particularly interested in forest conservation, I particularly welcome the reference to a measure being brought forward in this house with respect to forest conservation. While we have heard a great deal con-

cerning the devaluation of the dollar, I think the most serious devaluation the Canadian people have ever suffered to date is the devaluation of their natural resources owing to the lack of an over-all conservation policy.
With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish now to proceed to a subject in which I am personally interested, and one which interests many of my constituents. I wish to take the opportunity presented by this debate to bring to the attention of the house a matter which interests not only the people of my constituency but the people of British Columbia generally, and should interest all Canadians who have at heart the development of the country as a whole. Before proceeding further, for the information of the new members I should like to refer them to a speech which was made in this house. I do so not because I happen to have made the speech, but rather because it contains factual information concerning a large area of British Columbia, namely the Columbia river basin. If they are interested in this subject, and I trust that they are, I refer them to a speech I made in this house on February 21 and 22 of this year, dealing with the development of natural resources in the Columbia river basin, which is the drainage basin of the Columbia river system within Canada.
Since Thompson descended the Columbia in 1911, it has become rich in history and rich in romance, and day by day it is becoming richer in possibilities for development. I am sorry if this afternoon, in order to support my argument, I am obliged to quote somewhat extensively, but I intend to do so in order to give some proof of its validity.
First I wish to quote Professor William Denison Lyman, professor of history in Whitman college, Walla Walla, Washington, who wrote an excellent book on the history and the possibilities for development of the Columbia river system. This is what he had to say:
. . . Although not half as long as the Mississippi, the Columbia equals it in volume. Well Joined, in truth, are the sublime river and sublime mountains. One cannot fully understand the river unless he has seen its cradle and the cradle of its affluents beneath the shadows of the great peaks of British Columbia.
I want to review briefly the development of navigation in order to illustrate the importance of navigation in the past and in the future to the residents of the Columbia river basin, both in the United States and in the Canadian section.
The use of Hudson's Bay Company bateaux as one form of navigation on the Columbia commenced, generally speaking, in 1814, when the Columbia Express was organized to carry furs from Fort Astoria to Boat Encampment
The Address-Mr. Herridge on the Columbia river north of Revelstoke. All fur was transported from here over Athabasca pass to Edmonton, Edmonton to Churchill and Churchill to London.
Hon. members will be interested to know that in those early days the Hudson's Bay Company took out of the Columbia river basin approximately $20 thousand worth of furs a year. The Columbia river basin and its developments should be of interest to Canadians of French descent, because many Canadians of French descent played a great part in the development of the fur trade and in the development of the lumber industry. Some of their descendants live in the district today. While this development was proceeding on the Columbia river in connection with the fur trade carried on by the Hudson's Bay Company, there was a discussion between Great Britain and the government of the United States concerning the international boundary. That was known as the Oregon boundary question. After a great deal of discussion between both governments, and at one point it almost seemed as if war was imminent, the Oregon boundary treaty was signed on June 15, 1846. This district was still slowly developing when we had the advent of steam navigation. Steam navigation commenced on the lower Columbia about 1850 and after a few years the Oregon Steam Navigation Company was formed. In reading the history of this company at one time I found that such was its development that greater profits were made in comparison with capital expended than had been made in any western American developments to that date.
On the Canadian section of the river steam navigation commenced about twenty years later. Small steamers proceeded from south of the line carrying miners and prospectors to north of Revelstoke. The Kootenay Steam Navigation Company was organized under charter in 1890, and commenced to build a fleet of stern-wheel steamers. This fleet was purchased in 1896 by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and this company increased the number of steamers by building some larger ones and improving other ships. For some years, up until about 1925, they carried on a very fine service on the Arrow lakes, which are an extension of the Columbia river, and on the Kootenay lakes, to the profit of the Canadian Pacific Railway, according to the minutes of the directors' meetings of the C.P.R. of those days.
This service declined after the building of the Kettle valley railway, because then it was possible for people from the interior of British Columbia to proceed to the coast via that route. I would recommend to any hon. member who has not been out to British Columbia that he go to Revelstoke and take

The Address-Mr. Herridge a steamer trip south on the Arrow lakes and then proceed to Vancouver over the Kettle Valley railway. If he does so I am sure he will enjoy one of the finest inland trips in Canada. In that connection I want to quote Professor Lyman as follows:
The journey down the Arrow lakes from Arrowhead to Robson is one to dream of, one to recall in waking hours, and even, we almost suspect, in another life. The two lakes together constitute 130 miles of steamboating, and every mile has its special charm.
Then later came the development of navigation on the upper Columbia. The late Captain Armstrong, whom I knew very well, built and operated the North Star, the Gwendoline and the Ruth. Owing to the expansion of the district he informed me himself that on a few occasions he grossed over $2,000 a trip in his operations on the upper Columbia.
I want to deal briefly with the possibilities of navigation on the Columbia. The United States government has given serious consideration to this question; our government has not studied it to the same extent. As my authority for the possibilities on the Columbia, I am merely going to quote Professor Lyman's book. This is what he had to say in 1909:
When improvements now in view by government are completed, our river will be one of the most superb steamer courses in the world. That may truthfully be said already of the 220 miles from The Dalles to the ocean, as well as of the 300 miles from Kettle Falls, Washington, to Death Rapids, British Columbia.
That is north of Revelstoke. I continue:
The government engineers in Senate document 344, February, 1890, name the amount of navigable water on the Columbia and its tributaries at 1,664 miles. This may, perhaps, be an underestimation, since President Roosevelt has recently referred to it as twenty-five hundred miles, in which he probably included the lakes.
It will be a great day for the historic and scenic river of the west when some magnificent excursion steamer descends the thousand miles from Revelstoke to the outer headlands. And with canals at Celilo, Priest Rapids, and Kettle Falls, with some improvements at minor points, at no immoderate expense, the thing can be done.
Then I go on to quote Professor Lyman after his investigation of the upper Columbia:
Inspection of a map will show that the Columbia possesses the only water level route from the vast productive regions of the inland empire to the seaboard. As has been shown in the course of this volume, the river is navigable throughout the larger part of its course from Revelstoke in British Columbia to the ocean. In that distance there is one canal, with locks. That is at the Cascades, sixty-five miles from Portland. Before the river can be continuously navigable it will be necessary that a canal be constructed to overcome the obstructions at the Dalles, a few miles above the city of that name, another at Priest Rapids, seventy miles above Pasco, and still another at Kettle Falls.
IMr. Herridge.]
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, engineers of the dominion government, after an extensive survey of the upper Columbia river in 1914, found that navigation was quite feasible and practicable at considerable cost. I also recall, Mr. Speaker, listening as a boy to the discussions concerning the possibilities of hauling lumber, pulp and other forest products of the Columbia basin from Revelstoke to the sea, and also the possibility of transporting grain from Revelstoke to the sea. At that time navigation in the upper Columbia and the Arrow lakes section played a greater part than it does today. That was previous to the building of dams for power development in the United States section.
In order to indicate the value of river transportation even at the present time, which in our opinion has been greatly overlooked by this government, I wish to quote from the "Columbia Basin Joint Investigations River Transportation, Problem 21, United States, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1945." This is the result of an investigation to see what could be done in the further development of the lower Columbia in the United States for transportation purposes. In brief, this is what the report has to say in summing up:
The savings, which will accrue to the settlers and industrialists of the Columbia basin project by use of Columbia river transportation channels in the development and operation of the project, are a measure of the significance to the area of that river as a commercial route. These savings are computed on present rates for rail haul, and a probable future water rate, which it is estimated will prevail upon completion of the projects proposed for the Columbia river. Although the spread between rail and water rates may be less in the future, it is believed that rail rate reductions will result mainly from increased use of the river as an artery of transportation. Therefore, the estimated annual savings of $732 thousand represent the value of the improved river to the project area.
I have given these quotations to illustrate the importance of navigation on the Columbia today so far as the United States section of the Columbia is concerned, and how important it really is to us on the Canadian side.
I shall now deal with the point which I wish to bring before the house this afternoon. I refer to article II of the Oregon treaty which was signed on June 15, 1846:
From the point at which the 49th parallel of north latitude shall be found to intersect the great northern branch of the Columbia river, the navigation of the said branch shall be free and open to the Hudson's Bay Company, and to all British subjects trading with the same, to the point where the main stream of the Columbia, and thence down the said main stream to the ocean, with free access into and through the said river or rivers; it being understood, that all the usual portages along the line thus described, shall in like manner be free and open.

In navigating the said river or rivers, British subjects, with their goods and produce, shall be treated on the same footing as citizens of the United States; it being, however, always understood, that nothing in this article shall be construed as preventing, or intended to prevent, the government of the United States from making any regulations, respecting the navigation of the said river or rivers, not inconsistent with the present treaty.
Then further, Mr. Speaker, to indicate just how important navigation was considered at that time, and how important the right given to us under article II was considered by the government of the United States and by the public of Great Britain, I should like to quote from a senate speech in the United States, and also from the London Times of 1846.
Senator Lewis Cass of the United States senate said in 1846, with respect to the terms of the Oregon treaty-and he is objecting to the signing of the treaty, in the belief that the United States got the worst of the bargain:
We grant the free navigation of the Columbia south of 49 degree indefinitely, or in other words forever. The stipulation reads thus: "From the point at which the 49th parallel shall be found to intersect the great northern branch of the Columbia river, the navigation of the said branch shall be free and open to the Hudson's Bay Company and to all British subjects trading with the same, to the point where the said branch meets the main stream of the Columbia, and thence down the said main stream to the ocean," et cetera.
Here, sir, is a grant of free navigation, limited indeed in its use, but unlimited in its duration. It is to endure as long as the Hudson's Bay Company shall endure, and to ascertain the longevity of the one we must seek to ascertain the longevity of the other.
The Hudson's Bay Company was incorporated by Charles the Second, by a charter dated May 2, 1671. The third section of that charter provides, that "The persons named, et cetera, shall be one body, corporate and politic, et cetera, in deed and in name, et cetera, really and fully forever, et cetera. And the twelfth section provides, that the corporation shall enjoy et cetera, all and singular the premises hereby granted, with their and every of their rights, members, and jurisdiction, prerogatives, royalties and appurtenances whatsoever, to the, et cetera, and their successors forever, et cetera, paying yearly to us for the same, two elks and two black beaver, whosoever et cetera we our heirs et cetera shall happen to enter into the said country, et cetera.
Thus we find the corporate life perpetual; and applying the charter to the treaty, we have the true measure of the obligation, which this stipulation will impose upon us. No one in this body will deny that the grant is without limitation, and will exist as long as the grantee exists, unless there are restraining circumstances, which will reduce this broad term forever within narrower limits."
No objection was raised to that point in the United States senate. It was recognized at that time that this right of navigation to Canadian citizens from the upper reaches of the Columbia to the sea was granted forever.
I wish to quote from an editorial in the London Times of 1846, written in an attempt
The Address-Mr. Herridge to pacify and mollify British opinion, which was somewhat aroused owing to the loss cf the Oregon territory through the signing of the treaty. This is what the London Times had to say:
This would be a concession as far as superficial area of ground is concerned. It would leave the United States master of the greater part of Oregon. But it would secure the principal advantage of the country, the free navigation of the Columbia to the servants of the Hudson's Bay Company, as well as harbourage, anchorage, and settlements for English vessels trading with China and our possessions in Australia and New Zealand forever.
There we note the Times wishes to pacify British public opinion by pointing out that although they have lost a certain area of land they have retained forever this right to navigate the Columbia from its source to the sea, through United States territory.
What is the position at the present time? We know that in recent years there have been power developments on the Columbia river. Dams have been constructed, and it is proposed to construct others. The development of the water resources of the main stem of the river in the United States is planned by means of ten dams, three of which-Grand Coulee, Rock Island and Bonneville-are in operation; one, McNary, is under construction; one, Chief Joseph, is authorized by congress; three-Priest Rapids, John Day and The Dalles-are being recommended for authorization at the present session of congress, while the remaining two are potential projects with respect to which plans have not been finalized.
The building of the Grand Coulee dam affected our access to the sea, and that is the one with which I wish to deal at the present time. It is the one which prevents navigation from Canadian territory to the sea. Americans are developing navigation of the river from the sea to Grand Coulee. Deep-sea vessels come some distance up the river; then river craft are used for carrying the natural resources of that area to the sea. The building of the Grand Coulee without locks has prevented navigation to the sea.
Construction of the Grand Coulee dam, 151 miles downstream from the international boundary, was initiated in 1933 by the United States government and the dam was substantially completed late in 1941. This structure, which rises 550 feet from the bottom of the river, was built for irrigation and power purposes. The operating head on the power plants is 348 feet and provision is made for a total installation of 1,944,000 kilowatts, of which 972,000 kilowatts are in operation. Installations under way will provide additional blocks of 324,000 kilowatts in each of

The Address-Mr. Herridge the years 1949, 1950, and 1951. Neither navigation locks nor fishways are provided, but provision is made for transferring salmon from the downstream side of the dam to tributary waters in the United States.
Now, it appears that, regardless of article II of the Oregon treaty, no representations of any kind whatsoever were made by any Canadian government to the government of the United States to protect Canadian interests. In this connection I wish to refer to Hansard of June 13, 1935. This matter was first mentioned in the house by the former member of New Westminster, Mr. Thomas Reid, who took a great interest in it because of his general interest in the Pacific salmon fisheries. He has always been interested in wanting to find out the effect of the building of dams, the damming of waters, on the spawning of fish, so far as the salmon industry is concerned.
I would ask the house to bear with me while I quote from page 3590 of Hansard, June 13, 1935:
Navigation of Columbia River


Mr. Reid:: "According to a treaty entered into in
1846 between the United States of America and Her Majesty on behalf of Canada for the settlement of the Oregon boundary, in clause 2 thereof, it was expressly agreed that the Columbia river and its branches were to be kept open for the free use and navigation of all British subjects from the 49th parallel of north latitude to the Pacific ocean,-
1.	Is the government aware that the provisions of this clause have been violated?
2.	If so, what steps have been taken to protect the interests of the Canadian people so as to keep inviolate the provisions of the treaty and particularly clause 2 of the agreement?
3.	If not. will steps be taken to see that the terms of the treaty are lived up to in every particular?"


Mr. Bennett:: The question does not quite correctly state the terms of the treaty of 1846 for the settlement of the Oregon boundary. The second clause of the treaty reads as follows:
"From the point at which the 49th parallel of north latitude shall be found to intersect the great northern branch of the Columbia river, the navigation of the said branch shall be free and open to the Hudson's Bay Company, and to all British subjects trading with the same, to the point where the said branch meets the main stream of the Columbia, and thence down the said main stream to the ocean, with free access into and through the said river or rivers; it being understood, that all the usual portages along the line thus described, shall in like manner be free and open."
The government is fully aware of the development which is taking place in the lower Columbia river, in the United States of America, and of the possible relation of that development to article II of the treaty. It would not be in accordance with public policy for the government to state at this stage whether or not they are of the opinion that the treaty has been violated or may be violated by the completion of the construction plans which are under way. The question will continue to receive the attention of the government.
Although Mr. Bennett replied in that manner at that time I do not think any one can find evidence that the Conservative govern-

ment headed by Mr. Bennett of that day or the Liberal government since, has made any representations to the United States in respect to the violation of article II of the Oregon treaty and with respect to Canadian interests and rights.
The objections to the effects of the dam are two. There is interference with the salmon coming up to the upper reaches of the Columbia for spawning purposes, and there is interference with navigation to the sea. I realize that the direction of development has changed since early days, even since 1914, when there was considerable discussion concerning navigation on the Columbia; but I do not think that, in view of the fact that we surrendered a right which had been extended to us forever in article II of the Oregon treaty, the government of Canada should have attempted to protect our rights and to obtain some reasonable compensation.
I submit that all governments of Canada have failed to realize the immense developments that are possible in the Columbia river basin on the Canadian side of the boundary. In the past they have failed to give attention to the potential value of that rich and productive area. A satisfactory development of the Columbia river basin depends upon joint action by the governments of the United States and Canada. I am quite certain that if the government of this country approached the government of the United States our claims would receive reasonable consideration. I know personally that officials of certain departments of the United States government were quite surprised when no protest was made by the Canadian government about the violation of the Oregon treaty and the interference with fish coming up to the upper reaches of the Columbia.
This matter is important to the constituency which I represent, and to the surrounding constituencies, as well as to the people of British Columbia and the Canadian people generally. I submit that under the circumstances we are fully justified in making a claim for adequate compensation for the surrender of those rights.
The residents of my constituency are much concerned about the continuance and improvement of steamship service on the Arrow and Kootenay lakes. We realize that for many years the Canadian Pacific Railway operated a splendid service on these and other interior lakes, but since the building of the new lines traffic has lessened and the service has gone downhill because it is being operated at a considerable loss. In view of this situation with regard to the Oregon treaty, the loss of our right of navigation and other rights, I should like to make two or three suggestions.

I urge the government to bring this matter to the attention of the United States government where I am sure it will receive favourable consideration. If adequate compensation is obtained for the loss of the right granted to us forever in article II of the Oregon treaty, I suggest that it would be fitting indeed if that compensation were used to subsidize a further development of the steamship service on the Arrow and Kootenay lakes.
While it may be argued that I am somewhat local in my point of view, I think it must be admitted that this steamship service on the Arrow and Kootenay lakes and on other lakes in the interior of British Columbia constitutes a great tourist asset. As Canadians we would be making a great mistake if we permitted this service to lapse. Not only is it of value to the people there in making their living; it is of great value to the people of British Columbia and Canada generally as an unusual tourist attraction.
Finally, in order that the British Columbia point of view may be considered with complete knowledge and understanding as a result of direct contact with the people of British Columbia and a knowledge of British Columbia conditions, I urge again that the government consider appointing a qualified British Columbia resident to the joint international commission.


Mr. J. I. Hetland (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, being a new member I hope that you will bear with me if at times I get out of order. I am a westerner from Saskatchewan, one of those fourteen members, and as such I am greatly interested in agriculture. Before I go any further I should like to say that we in Saskatchewan were greatly concerned about the health of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). During the time he was in hospital I was amazed at the number of people who came to me from all parts of my constituency and expressed great concern about the minister's health. The agriculturists of this country know that they have a champion in the person of the minister. Before June 27 a number of people from the different parties came to me and said that they were quite satisfied with the way the Minister of Agriculture had handled our produce and our agreements in the years past. Because those views were held they voted for me accordingly and I am here today.
I am glad that I won and I think that is natural for any one who tries to win a race or any contest. I have always been interested in the east and I think the west should become better acquainted with it. We in the west certainly need the east and I think you in the east need the west. I think it would be a good thing if we could meet more
The Address-Mr. Hetland often with people from the east. I have as deskmate the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Cauchon), and if the other eastern members are like him at all I think we shall get on very nicely.
We have made a study of your problems in the east, particularly those of Newfoundland and the maritimes, and I think you should also study our problems, because that is the only method by which they can be solved to our mutual advantage.
I do not live very far from Saskatoon. We have a forestry farm near there, and it is a beautiful little spot. Thousands of people visit it every year. It has been suggested that a paved road be constructed to that forestry farm in order to keep down the dust. There is nothing more discouraging to a superintendent than to see fine grey dust settling on his flowers, his lawns and his trees. It takes a lot of moisture to keep them in good shape. I should like to offer a suggestion. If we cannot get a paved road, which naturally costs quite a lot of money, there is a great deal of oil in the constituency of the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater), and I believe the government should consider oiling these gravel roads. The cost would be small. With a certain amount of money they could cover quite a large area. That would serve my purpose. I think we would attract more people by hundreds to that very beautiful spot.
It has also been suggested that little cards be printed for use when crossing the boundary. I happened to pass through Kingsgate about six weeks ago. I drove up to the customs office. A lady came out and said, "You will either have to eat those peaches or destroy them." Because of that, the ladies in my party ate too many peaches, and they were quite incensed. Therefore I believe the idea of printing little cards is a good one, telling about the danger of bringing in fruit diseases into this country.
I have been sitting in the house for the lqst week, and have been quite amused at the way some of the backbenchers get after the government. They remind me somewhat of backseat drivers. You know what that means. If a backseat driver keeps pushing and prodding the driver he can be almost a menace. When I say that, I refer to some members, not all. I should like to point out to those members that in the driver's seat we have a man quite capable of driving, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), a man who has good judgment. He will not break any speed laws. He will keep within the speed limit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not in that much of a hurry.
156	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: We will get there safely and at the same time our car will be in good shape, which is very important.
Because I am a Liberal I believe in the Liberal government, and in the next four years I look forward to great things; I look forward to the future with pleasure and confidence.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity, I have had, and I should like to embrace it, to extend to you my very hearty and sincere congratulations on your election to the high office that you hold.
It is in no perfunctory sense that I likewise extend very cordial congratulations to the mover (Mr. Boisvert) and the seconder (Mr. Laing) of the address which is now under debate. The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert), in moving the address, made certain remarks in which I took particular interest. At page 15 of Hansard he said:
The French spoken in Quebec is not the fancy French spoken by the Parisian. It is the old French of the seventeenth century, which we jealously safeguard, knowing that from the standpoint of basic French it compares with Parisian speech.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I sometimes feel the urge to deliver speeches here in the French language.
I do not know if the French I use is invariably the seventeenth century idiom as also spoken by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert).
As a matter of fact, in the course of his visit to my riding during the recent election campaign the representative for Quebec South (Mr. Power) referred to the French I use in this house as "the Sorbonne-Oxford brand of French spoken by the hon. member for Eglinton". I am not very sure but it is quite possible that my French is simply Toronto French.
Now, Mr. Speaker, every time I make a French speech in the house, I do so as evidence of my sympathy with my Frenchspeaking fellow citizens. That is my modest personal contribution to national unity and to the mutual respect felt by the two great races that have built our beloved Canada. (Text):
I should also like to extend a special and very warm expression of congratulations to the Prime Minister. One would not wish to subtract anything from his triumph, which has been fully recognized in all parts of this house. There is one aspect of that triumph to which I should like to make special reference because I think it is a matter of direct interest to all members of the house. It is certainly something that I am sure is of


direct interest to all Canadians. In the political success which the Prime Minister has enjoyed, and which has been crowned so effectively by the Canadian electorate, I think the name of Madame St. Laurent is deserving of very special and grateful mention on the part of us all because of the very gracious and very great contribution which she has made to her husband's career. As one who counts himself honoured to be acquainted with the members of the Prime Minister's family, I want to say to him that in this country, whose greatness after all depends upon the strength of the Canadian home, his family has been a great credit to him, and as the head of that family he has been a model of the Canadian father and husband. It is worthy of mention also that the leader of the opposition and leaders of the other parties in this house can be congratulated upon the same score. I think that is a matter for pride on the part of the Canadian people and on the part of this Canadian House of Commons.
I do not propose today to discuss at length the terms of the speech from the throne. So far as it is indicated in that speech that measures are to be introduced at a later date, they can best be discusssd when the full measures are before hs. I believe I shall make a contribution towards shortening the debate if I confine my remarks to several subjects on which direct action appears not to be con templated and to one upon which action is contemplated in the speech from the throne.
In this country we congratulate ourselves, Mr. Speaker, on the improvement that has occurred in external relations during the past year. It is not quite a year ago that I had the privilege of traversing most of the countries of western Europe and of seeing there the beginning of the recession of communist influence. In a large measure this has been due to the show of united strength and determination on the part of the United Kingdom and the United States to stand up to Russian aggression. It has been due also to the generous assistance rendered by the United States to those countries west of the iron curtain. Marshall aid has performed an invaluable service in the recovery of those western nations and in their determination to resist any further westward march of communist aggression.
We have been taught one lesson, Mr. Speaker, and taught it clearly and emphatically. It is that those who direct communist aggression in the world today do respect strength. They respect determination; that has been abundantly shown. The Atlantic pact has already borne useful fruit. Now that it has been followed by the decision of the United States congress to aid in the rearmament of Europe we may look forward

with a measure of confidence to the restoration of better conditions, and to the checking of further communist designs in the west. Unhappily the same cannot be said of conditions in the far east. At any rate, the determination of the western nations to mass their strength to resist aggression has borne fruit and we applaud the results of the Atlantic pact.
Since this increased security and peacefulness have been enjoyed in the western world, peace seems to have permeated the atmosphere in this chamber. Since the opening of the session all has been peace, all has been tranquil. It is difficult for those of us who sat in the last house to adjust ourselves to this placid atmosphere. It may be that, in the past, it has not been my part always to contribute to the placidity of the debates in the house, but at this point I wish to say that I do not wish to subtract anything from the high plane on which my leader opened the debate on Monday.
I turn to the subject of trade, which is recognized as one of vast importance to all Canadians. The average Canadian has a greater interest in international trade than the citizen of any other country in the world. We have been through a crisis, and it is still with us. It is a crisis in trade, Mr. Speaker. The timing of the crisis, I am afraid, was one of the things that may have guided the government in the selection of June 27 as the election date. I am not going to go pack to review election issues, I want to make that clear. They are all water under the bridge now, but I do consider it the duty of members of this house to take cognizance of events that have transpired since the election.
The last reference to the subject of trade prior to dissolution in this house was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on April 25 and is recorded at page 2520 of Hansard. In reply to a question he said this:
The present state of our markets in the United Kingdom is quite normal.
He went on to say that his forthcoming trip to the United Kingdom was simply for the purpose of taking part in the opening of the British industries fair, not for any reason having to do with a changed situation in respect of British trade. We have his statement that trade with Britain was normal. You will realize with what surprise, then, just three weeks later in Toronto, I heard from the Right Hon. Harold Wilson, the president of the British board of trade, these words:
We have reached a critical situation in Anglo-Canadian trade.
The Address-Mr. Fleming
Those are the words of the opposite number of the Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce just three weeks after the minister's remarks in this house. Of course, Mr. Wilson was right. There was a crisis in Anglo-Canadian trade but the crisis was not admitted by this government until after the fateful day of June 27.
Our exports to the United Kingdom last year as compared with the previous year dropped by $67 million. During the first seven months of this year our exports to the United Kingdom have undergone a further reduction. But reductions more grave than these in their portent were announced on July 14 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he stated that Britain had found it necessary to reduce her spending in United States and Canada by $400 million during the current fiscal year. Imports of tobacco, cotton, timber, paper and pulp, non-ferrous metals, steel, copper, raw materials, machinery, manufactured goods and sugar would be affected. An official of the Department of Trade and Commerce, speaking to the press in Ottawa, is quoted in the press on July 15 as saying this:
He estimated on the basis of Sir Stafford Cripps' announcement in London cutting the United Kingdom's 1949 dollar purchases by 25 per cent, Canada would lose by sixty to eighty million dollars this year. "If the slashes continue, then next year- 1950-will be the crucial year," the official said. A continued 25 per cent cut next year in Canadian exports to the United Kingdom would mean the loss of more than $100 million.
That is full of the gravest portent for Canada and particularly for the Canadian primary producer. The disastrous effects of that decision cannot be overestimated in this country.
We must remember to what extent ERP has continued to maintain our exports to Great Britain. Up to July 31 the United States had appropriated through ERP for the purchase of commodities in Canada $785 million. The $785 million allotted to Canada represented 38 per cent of the total offshore authorizations made by ERP. Shipments to the United Kingdom up to that time had amounted to $648 million.
The continuance of ERP means so much to the economy of this country. When the Canadian Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) went to the United States recently to participate in the Washington discussions, I am sure it was a matter of great satisfaction to all Canadians that he returned with a tentative assurance that the United States would be prepared to appropriate $175 million for the continued purchase by Great Britain of Canadian foodstuffs, particularly our wheat.
I do not wish to leave this subject without emphasizing this, that the events which have occurred since this house was last in session
158	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming on April 30 have abundantly justified and vindicated what we in this part of the house said then in warning of an approaching crisis in Canadian trade.
Devaluation, Mr. Speaker, is not the whole answer to the problem. If Great Britain's purchases from Canada continue to be seriously reduced as is now threatened, regardless of whether devaluation had or had not occurred, we would still face a critical situation. However, devaluation has occurred and the purchasing power of the pound in the Canadian market has been reduced. The pound is now worth only $3.07 in the Canadian market whereas formerly it has been quoted at $4.03.
This afternoon I marvelled at the jaunty air of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) when asked a question about the effect of this reduction in the purchasing power of the pound in Canada on British purchases from Canada, particularly our foodstuffs and raw materials, when he shrugged it off and said that that is making an assumption, as much as to say: "Well, who can say that it does mean any reduction in British purchases in Canada?" Does any serious person think that the reduction in the purchasing power of the pound in the Canadian market will not be reflected in reduced purchases of Canadian goods?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: That is not the assumption that was in the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the implication that was in the question, if the hon. member will have regard to the question.


George James McIlraith: I have. I have read it carefully and accurately.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I am sorry that the hon. member has not more intelligently interpreted the question, because the whole purpose of it was to invite the Minister of Trade and Commerce to indicate what steps, if any, the government might have in mind in view of the fact that we are being faced with a reduced purchasing power of the British pound in the Canadian market.
This matter of the ten cent devaluation of the Canadian dollar is no final solution of our problem here. It is only an incident and nothing more. As a matter of fact, our own Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), on arrival in England on July 19, was asked about the possibility of cuts in the value of the Canadian dollar. As reported in a Canadian press dispatch from London, he said:
I do not think dollar cuts are a sure cure for anything. There has to be a positive solution.
Sir Stafford Cripps on June 7 made this statement at Blackpool:
You cannot possibly find any solution to our present problems by juggling with money, incomes or finances or fiscal measures.


Those are words with which I think no one can take issue. This is not a solution. As a matter of fact, everything that was wrong before in our exchange relationships continues fundamentally, because the rigidity is there, as is the artificiality and the attempt by government to manage trading relationships. Those things are all there. We have made no step whatever toward the restoration of convertibility, and convertibility must be our goal. We may not be able to achieve that goal today or next week, but our efforts-and Canada has a mighty stake here-must be directed towards achieving the convertibility of exchange. We shall not achieve that end simply by trying to retain all this artificiality in our exchange relationships, all these attempts by government to master-mind the whole of our exchange relationships. We have seen that it just does not work. Britain tried it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has tried it and he has failed. Surely we have seen that nowhere in the world in any government are there minds big enough to be able to master-mind the trading and exchange relations of the world.
Before I leave this subject of devaluation, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is quite apparent that we are to be faced with more restrictions on trade. We have had an intimation of that already from the Minister of Trade and Commerce in a statement he made on July 13 in which he indicated that more import restrictions on United States goods might be expected. We have had it also in a recent statement made by the Canadian high commissioner, Mr. Dana Wilgress, at the conference that is taking place at Annecy.
There are two matters that I just wish to mention before leaving this subject of devaluation. I wish that the government could take some account of the plight of the imperial pensioners in this country. They will suffer seriously as a result of the reduction in the purchasing power of the pound sterling. I wish that the government could also take account of the plight of those who have immigrated to Canada from the United Kingdom in recent years and who, under the United Kingdom exchange control regulations, are permitted to withdraw from the United Kingdom only 250 pounds per annum for the first four years of their residence in this country. This devaluation will mean a serious crimping of the means of those who have immigrated to this country from the United Kingdom since the war, and it will also probably have a discouraging effect on others who may be purposing immigration to this country, bringing with them needed skills.
I mention briefly the subject of gold because reference was made to that yesterday in the statement made by the Minister of

Mines and Resources (Mr. Gibson). The gist of the statement he made is that, having regard to the fact that, in consequence of devaluation gold has increased by ten per cent or $3.50 per ounce, a corresponding reduction is to be made in the subsidy paid to producing gold mines under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, commencing January 1. I submit that this statement indicates that no adequate account has been taken by the government of the fact that the restoration of the ten per cent discount on the Canadian dollar has simply had the effect of restoring the price of gold which Canadian gold producers received up until the time of the devaluation in June, 1946. In that intervening period the costs of gold producers in Canada have increased at least thirty per cent. They are now given a restoration of the price that was reduced by ten per cent at that time, and now the government says: You must accept a corresponding reduction in the benefits that were promised to you under this three-year act.
As every hon. member of this house knows, the act gave assistance to the producing mines but it did not give assistance to development work carried on apart from the big gold producers. I am waiting for some members representing constituencies in northern Ontario and supporting the government to rise in this house and make some plea for assistance to the gold mining industry. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, it is not just a question of assisting the stockbrokers in Toronto. I am not making any plea for the Toronto Stock Exchange. I am making a plea for the recognition of the difficulties of an industry which means a great deal to the economy of this country and which contributed substantially to pulling this country through the depression of the thirties.
A great and well-informed Canadian recently had something to say about the failure of members of parliament to recognize what the gold mining industry has contributed to Canada. I refer to Dr. Charles Camsell, former deputy minister of mines and resources. In a prepared address that was delivered at Oxford on July 14 last, he is quoted as saying this to the fourth Empire Mining and Metallurgical Congress:
Many of Canada's legislators do not appreciate to what extent gold has been responsible for the development of Canada . . . "The influence of gold on our Canadian economy has been vastly greater than mere production statistics would indicate." A casual trip through the belt extending through northern Ontario and Quebec revealed the influence of gold deposits in developing the country and making it possible for permanent industry or agriculture to "live and thrive." Canada today needed strong mining industry more than ever before, particularly for strategic reasons.
The Address-Mr. Fleming
Then going on to speak of the northwest territories, Dr. Camsell said:
I know of nothing that will take any considerable body of population into that country except the lure of gold or some other mineral such as uranium.
When he spoke in northern Ontario in the election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), gave certain assurances to the gold mining industry as to the extension of the benefits of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. I take it that these assurances are to be given legislative effect, notwithstanding what was said yesterday by the Minister of Mines , and Resources (Mr. Gibson). It may be that these assurances were what he was referring to in the concluding paragraph of his statement, although, sir, it is not altogether clear.
I should like to turn briefly to the subject of housing to make preliminary and passing comment upon the statement made in the house yesterday by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters). It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that we must wait for the legislation which he indicated in his statement, before being able to make a completely considered statement upon the policy that the government announced. The statement, while timely, was perhaps inevitably vague, and I do not propose to make detailed comment upon it until I see the legislation.
There are one or two features of it which the house will receive with pleasure. The first is that, at last, the government is recognizing we have not in this country been keeping pace with the housing problem. The minister said as much in his statement yesterday. Statements have been made by responsible officials before this. Last April we had a statement by the assistant general manager, Major-General Young, of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, when he said that Canada's housing situation is getting worse instead of better. At last, Mr. Speaker, we can apparently expect an end to these airy statements which we used to hear so often from the government about the improvement in housing conditions, and the worst being over, and our having passed the hump- statements that bore no relationship to reality. At last we have an admission of the fact that the problem has been growing bigger. The fact that at last we have that admission is encouraging.
The second thing I should like to say about the statement is this. The dominion government has accepted, in terms clearer than we have heard hitherto, at least a measure of responsibility in connection with housing. We have heard so many denials of responsibility, so many statements to the effect that it was the responsibility of the provinces, that

The Address-Mr. Fleming this indication of some proposed limited assumption of responsibility on the part of the dominion in respect to housing conditions in Canada is indeed welcome.
In the third place, if the statement is to be considered as going the full way and justifying the interpretation that has been put upon it in some quarters, that the government is willing to assist in providing for subsidized housing, then the government has gone a long way since October 27, 1947, when the Prime Minister said, "No government of which I am a part will ever pass legislation for subsidized housing". The statement made yesterday represents an advance and I am sure the house will welcome it.
In the fourth place, I would like to comment on the fact the statement does recognize that this country must look to private enterprise to provide in principal measure the answer to the problem of the lack of housing.
I wish to make a special observation, sir, on the proposal to assist in the purchase of new houses by contributing an additional mortgage advance of one-sixth of the building loans provided for under the National Housing Act so as to help to bridge the gap between the present loan under the National Housing Act and the purchase price of a house. The house will welcome this, but the house will regret that the government has been so long in doing something that it obviously ought to have done long ago. The need was there. The need was debated in this house. I well remember hearing the then hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, the distinguished Mr. C. C. I. Merritt, whose absence from this house today I deplore very greatly, more than once pointing out to the government the great deficiency which was being created in our housing measures by the fact that the government, through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, was giving a very rigid and unsympathetic Interpretation of the provisions of the housing act. In section 4 the National Housing Act deals with the extent of the loans which are permissible under part I. It bases this upon the percentage of lending value, but the lending value as administered by the government agency did not bear a close relationship to the cost of construction. In that way, by writing down the lending value of the house, the government agency created that big spread between the price of the house to the home owner and the amount available to him by way of loan under the National Housing Act.
The province of Ontario took action two years ago to fill that gap in dominion legislation, a gap which this parliament and this government, which are responsible for dominion participation in redress of our housing

problem, should not have permitted to continue. But now at last the government invites us to believe that a new day is dawning simply because it is moving now to copy the example which the government of Ontario gave two years ago when my leader was premier of that province. Yes; it was this government and its agency which largely nullified the intent of parliament and the National Housing Act, necessitating this additional provision of dominion assistance, which this house will welcome, although it will be regarded as too late.
More will be said on this subject when the house has the bill before it, and there will be an opportunity of reviewing what the government's proposals, are, if any, to assist in slum clearance, to assist in the provision, in greater supply, of needed building materials, and precisely what they propose to do in the statement they have made in regard to assisted rentals, always bearing in mind, sir, that just as important as legislation will be the spirit behind the administration. If there is drive and determination behind the administration of this legislation we can look for some improvement. If there is to be lackadaisical administration, if the government is to countenance, as it has done at times in the past, the nullification in part of measures that parliament has approved, simply because it has not put drive behind those measures, then I think the house will expect to call the government to account.
I shall mention just one other subject because my time is passing quickly. I refer to communism. In the speech from the throne there is only one reference to the subject of communism, and it is in these words:
The menace of communist totalitarianism continues to threaten the aspirations of men of good will.
The measures which the government has in contemplation with respect to this menace of communism apparently are external only. There is no suggestion in the speech from the throne about any measures which may be taken within the four corners of Canada to combat this menace of communism. We congratulate organized labour in this country on the determined steps which it has taken in recent days to expel communism from its ranks, to combat this evil menace. Their example might well inspire this parliament. I recall that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) had this to say in his speech at Montreal on July 19, as recorded in the press. He told the Montreal Rotary Club:
The domestic threat of communism must be met "by strengthening, if necessary, our criminal code against actions which threaten the security of the state."

I scanned with interest the speech from the throne to find any indication that we were to strengthen the Criminal Code against actions which threaten the security of the state, on the part of these communist enemies of Canada who are working within our midst.
I found no such indication, however, and when he returns to his place in the house from the important duties he is discharging elsewhere I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will have something to say in support of legislation to strengthen the Criminal Code, the necessity of which he admitted in the speech he made in Montreal on July 19.
Sir, failing that there will be, I trust, further opportunity at this session to raise that question. Because, believe me, resolute action within this country-by democratic methods, yes-must accompany our efforts in the external field to combat the ravages of aggression by communist totalitarianism.
I do not need to repeat what has been said in the house about the responsibility of the opposition. The vast government majority puts a heavy responsibility upon those of us who sit in this part of the house. We will not be daunted by the fact that government supporters not only fill the side of the house to your right, Mr. Speaker, but overflow to this side in numbers greater even than the official opposition.
Those of us who sit here have Liberals in front of us, Liberals to the right of us and Liberals in a hurry to the left of us. We are surrounded by Liberals, and Liberals in a hurry. But, sir, we have no intention of being daunted; we have no intention of being turned aside from performing that duty which the Canadian people expect of us. Whether they are numbered among the 1,742,000 electors who honoured us with their support, or whether "they voted for other candidates, nevertheless they appreciate and will insist upon the importance of the duty laid upon His Majesty's loyal opposition under our parliamentary system.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has commented upon the tranquil atmosphere which has descended upon the House of Commons. For a moment or two I thought he was going to break that atmosphere of tranquillity. Now there are certain dangers in an atmosphere such as that, because a legislative body can become embalmed in tranquillity. In some ways this government has already reached that stage.
Today I am going to speak on certain matters of policy about which the government can feel no tranquillity at all. First of all I should like to refer to the statement made
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart respecting housing by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters). I shall comment upon this at some length. I think we know from his statement just what the government's policy is, and what its intentions are. My only hope is that the policy will show improvement by the time the legislation is brought before us.
I listened carefully to his statement. In common with many others I have read it even more carefully. As I read it and thought it over it became obvious to me that although the mountain had groaned in the pangs of birth something considerably less than a mouse had been born.
For some weeks the minister travelled across the country from city to city. On the one hand he may have been a peripatetic record of "his master's voice." On the other hand he may have been trying to find out some of the facts of life about housing in this country. But what he displayed to us yesterday in the way of policy certainly was not very encouraging. In almost every city he went to he delivered an address which dealt with the fact that he was proud of the record of his government. I am not surprised at that pride, because I have found so many Liberals who worship the very ground their heads are buried in.
Even during the election campaign we were told how proud the government was of the fact that 81,000 new housing units had been constructed in this country. They kept careful silence about the other fact that there were 90,000 new families in Canada, families created either by the marriage of Canadians, or through immigration to this country. And there was even greater silence over the fact that the average cost of those homes in this country must have been in the neighbourhood of $7,000-and I think that is a rather conservative estimate. In my constituency the average wage is between $37 and $38 a week. I fail to see how a man earning that sum, with prices as they are, and with the cost of living as it is today, could possibly hope to buy a house-even with the reduced down payment

costing at least $7,000. And until the government tackles that problem it is merely toying with the housing situation as it exists in Canada today.
In the minister's statement I detected certain changes of mind-at least I hope they were such. For instance, I recall one of the lengthy debates we had in this chamber in 1946 on the subject of housing. At page 3686 of Hansard for July 22,	1946, the then
minister of reconstruction and supply said this, concerning housing:
This government, as a matter of policy, is not prepared to introduce subsidies either in the form of a grant towards capital cost or subsequent contributions to a rent i eduction fund.
162	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
I would be the last to say that the government is eating its own words; but at least it would seem that it is starting to nibble at them. And I should hope that there would be some further enlightenment upon this matter of subsidies when legislation is brought before the house.
A year after that was said the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is now Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), speaking at a meeting at McMaster university on November 4, 1947, said this:
I am against subsidized housing because it would be available to a few privileged ones.
There I say the right hon. gentleman showed a complete lack of appreciation of the housing problem, and how it can be handled in this country. Then he went on to say-and with a horrible reflection upon some of his colleagues-
It would be risking temptation to put into the hands of politicians a few thousand houses which could be given to certain persons. It would be a temptation to buy votes.
As I say, the right hon. gentleman knows his colleagues much better than I do; but I am certain of this, that with any adequate housing scheme in this country certainly members of parliament would not have the responsibility of allotting a few thousand houses to individuals here and there. If the job is to be done properly it must be done at the municipal level, and all that parliament can do will be to authorize funds and supervise expenditures.
The report of the speech of the then Secretary of State for External Affairs goes on to say:
He emphasized he felt it unwise to build and provide housing units at less than cost, repeating, "I'm against subsidized housing."
Apparently he has changed his mind-and the change, indeed, is a very welcome one. But there is another area in which there has been no change. At page 3688 of Hansard for July 22, 1946, the then Minister of Reconstruction and Supply said:
Slum clearance, however, is considered to be inopportune at the present time. The requirement for shelter is so great that the government cannot afford to permit the destruction of livable shelter of any kind. Slum clearance will come later when the pressing need for the occupation of every housing unit is lessened.
How late is "later"? When is a "pressing need" pressing? In my constituency I have seen people living in chicken coops, garages, basements, shacks, garrets and shanties. When is "later"? I say we are entitled to know that.
Yet the present Minister of Reconstruction and Supply takes roughly the same attitude by stating that the time is not opportune to take the people out of the slums; the time is

not opportune to give the people that dignity about which the Liberal party spoke so glibly during the campaign. One of the planks in their platform-an admirable one indeed- was their belief in the dignity of man. There is no dignity in man when you compel him to live in a slum. There can be no dignity when you compel people to live in poverty. By the inaction of this government thousands of people must continue to live under these conditions. Does the government think that people like to live in slums? Does the government think that people prefer squalor, that they want to bring their children up under these wretched conditions rather than in decent homes? If so, it had better change its mind because such is not the case.
Yet the minister tells us that in 1949 although 100,000 new houses would be built in this country we would be barely keeping up with current needs and would be making no inroads into the backlog. In other words, the minister has condemned these people to live in slums and to continue to live in slums knowing that there is no method by which they can get out of them. If that is the policy of the government then it is time it was changed. The government has an unprecedented mandate to do the job' it has the power to do the job and there can be no excuse for not doing it.
I should like to give the minister a few facts about the situation in my own constituency of Winnipeg North. I am sure that the condition which prevails there is not unique to that city but can be duplicated in every city in this country. In one area, Point Douglas, 44 per cent of the houses have more than one person per room. When you have that situation you have overcrowding and, when you have overcrowding, if you have not a slum already you are starting to build one. But what is worse is the fact that in these overcrowded slum areas there is an obvious and serious increase in juvenile delinquency. As yet the only answer our society has far juvenile delinquency is to punish the delinquents. Those who should be punished are those who are responsible for creating the slum conditions which lead to juvenile delinquency. The answer is not to send these youngsters to prison; the answer is not to punish them; the answer is the awakening of the conscience of the community to the point where its responsibility is realized. We in this parliament of Canada are the voice of the communities of Canada and we cannot ignore our responsibilities.
Slum areas all across Canada are creating social casualties. Every time there is a social casualty who cannot be rehabilitated the responsibility must be laid squarely on the doorstep of this parliament, and especially of

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
this government which has the power to help. In this one area of Winnipeg fifty infants out of every thousand born will be dead at the end of the first year. Statistical records show that the infant mortality rate for Winnipeg as whole is 35. Therefore, because of the slum conditions and poverty in this one area, we are condemning fifteen infants to death. Yet we still prattle about our concern over human dignity and human life.
It is scandalous that a society should allow its human resources to be wasted in such a way. I can assure the government that the families of the poor have as much affection for their children as do the families making up any other group in this country. They suffer as much sorrow and heartbreak at the avoidable death of an infant as would any one in this chamber. And yet in this area in Winnipeg, as in other areas throughout the country, we have these slums and. this increase in infant mortality which, as I said, is a shocking, scandalous and unforgivable waste of human life.
It has been said that statistics show that the slum population is moving. In my area the population is moving out of the slum areas, but what they are doing is simply to move from one overcrowded area to another. The population is moving but it is still doubling up and sharing accommodation with others. It is moving from one overcrowded area but is crowding another area and is spreading the wretched disease of overcrowding and potential slums further throughout the city.
I do not know whether the minister saw some of these slum conditions when he was in Winnipeg. If he had got in touch with me I should have been happy to have taken him around. I make to him the same offer that I made to his predecessor three years ago, and I shall willingly subsidize the minister. I suggest that he come to my constituency and live in a room in one of these slums. To make sure that he suffers adequately I shall give him $10 per week, which is what an old age pensioner gets. Let him live in that room amidst filth and vermin and dirt and then at the end of the week let him come back here and tell us that he adheres to the same policies.
According to the last report I have received, in Winnipeg there is not one vacant apartment; there is not one vacant suite; there are 22 vacant houses, eight of which are unfit for human habitation and 14 of which are for sale. Yet I have here a report of 56 families made up of 22 adults and 58 children, 80 souls in all who have to live in stores, garages, sheds, shacks and cellars; but we are told that the time is not opportune to remove slums.
On other occasions I have told this House of Commons of the conditions under which some of our people live. I have here the report of Mr. Austin, chief inspector of the sanitation and housing division in Winnipeg. He reports one two-and-a-half storey house containing eighteen rooms in which 17 family units live. There are two water closets, one bath, one wash basin and three sinks to take care of those 17 families. The comment of the inspector is very brief, as follows:
Cooking and sleeping in every room. Unvented gas ranges.
Any one who has been in rooms like these knows what an unvented gas range can do to an infant lying in a cot or to a youngster who is brought up in that poisonous atmosphere. Here is another house of two and a half storeys containing 16 rooms in which reside nine family units totalling 30 people. There are three water closets, one bathroom, no wash bowls and five sinks. The comment is that the house is in very dilapidated condition, with defective plumbing and then there is the tremendous understatement that it is overcrowded and verminous.
There is another one-storey house of three rooms containing two family units made up of five men, six women and five children, 16 human beings in all. We are again reminded that there is gross overcrowding.
The next is a terrace of eight houses-88 rooms in all-in which reside 57 family units totalling 140 human beings. This terrace is reported to be in an advanced degree of dilapidation, continually in the city's hands for plumbing defects and so on. One could go on giving description after description of these houses in which people have to live against their wills. As I said, I have yet to meet a man or woman who wants to live in a slum out of choice and I repeat that this situation is not unique to Winnipeg.
The Curtis report which was published a few years ago should have warned, and indeed did warn, the minister of the situation. It said that for the next decade after 1946 there would require to be built in Canada 731,000 homes and that 543,000 homes would require substantial repairs in that time. According to the last statistical information in 1941 there were 650,000 farms that had no bathing facilities. Almost as many are dependent on outhouses for toilet purposes. In twenty-seven cities there were 281,000 houses with either no flush toilets or shared flush toilets. There are 428,000 houses with no baths, or baths which are shared. The housing shortage is not something new. The need for it has been evident for years, and yet the government apparently does not recognize its responsibility. It still depends upon private enterprise, and yet private

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart enterprise cannot be expected under any circumstances to provide the type of housing which is needed for the underprivileged third of the Canadian people who are earning less than $1,600 a year.
If these people are going to be housed adequately, then housing has to be subsidized; and since the financial power in Canada is in the hands of the federal government then the federal government must take the responsibility for the subsidizing of these homes. We know that the Canadian housing industry is one of the most inadequate and incompetent industries there is. It is still in the horse and buggy age. Therefore there should be some impetus on the part of the government towards improving the methods of building, and when the legislation comes before the house perhaps the minister will be able to tell us what has been .done by way of research.


Mr. Ferrie:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: With his permission.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: May I ask a question?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Surely.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Do you want all the material in the cities? You are talking about housing. Do you want to have all the material in the cities?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I certainly do not want all the material in the cities. If the hon. member had been listening he would know that I was dealing with the situation about which I have firsthand information. I have some knowledge of the situation in rural areas, but any firsthand knowledge which I possess is of the cities. I said that the situation which exists in Winnipeg can be duplicated in other cities, and I also pointed out the lamentable lack of facilities on the farms. Certainly there are slum homes on farms as well as in the cities, and I want to see slum homes on the farms eradicated just as quickly as possible.
One of the things which I noticed in visiting some of these houses in the city was the prevalence of old age pensioners in slum homes. They had no desire to be there, but with the present pension of $40 a month they have hardly any other alternative. Furthermore, many of them in Manitoba were paying as much as $20 a month for rent which left them $20 a month, if they were lucky, to subsist on for the rest of the month. I am convinced that the government will yet adopt another measure which we have advocated for so long and increase the pension to $50 because the need is desperate. I am just as convinced that, despite the fact that the

other night the government would not vote for the removal of the means test, and our amendment was defeated, they will yet be compelled to remove the means test. The government will also be compelled by force of public opinion to lower the age at which the pension is payable to sixty-five. I know many instances of men who have worked on the railroads, and who are retired compulsorily at the age of sixty-five, very often with a small pension of $25 to $30 a month. They have to live between the ages of sixty-five and seventy on that miserable pittance, and it is impossible to make ends meet. In their old age they are compelled to go out and seek further employment. That is not right. I do not think it is humane to expect our aged to go out to work for their living after they have reached the age of sixty-five.
Speaking of pensioners there is one other matter which has been brought up in the house on many occasions, and which I now bring up again, a matter in which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I have been interested. I refer to the men who went out on strike from the C.P.R. shops in 1919. Many of them had many years of employment with the Canadian Pacific Railway. In 1904 that company had instituted a non-contributory pension scheme. When there were wage negotiations between the men and the company, the company frequently informed the men that it was building up this pension plan, and that the men should accept payments into the fund by the company as an increase in wages. Very often wage increases which were well merited were not given.
In 1919 came the strike, and the men who went out on strike were rehired afterwards with complete loss of all pension benefits. I point out that the Canadian Pacific Railway is the only organization in Canada which has continued to discriminate against its employees in this manner. Representations were made repeatedly to the C.P.R., and in 1939 Mr. Coleman, then vice-president, said-
We have kept in close touch with this matter for a considerable period of time, always encouraged by the hope that sufficient improvement might take place in the financial condition of the company as to enable us to realize a firm conviction which we have always held that, in such improved conditions at least, some relief might be forthcoming.
Heaven knows I can read a balance sheet, and the position of the C.P.R. has improved appreciably over the years. Yet there has been no alleviation whatsoever forthcoming.
As a result of the representations which were made to the government, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) appointed an investigator, Mr. Johnstone, who in his report came to the conclusion that a royal commission should be appointed to investigate the matter,

but that was the end of it. The report of the investigator has been filed away. The Canadian Pacific Railway apparently is quite prepared to carry on without paying these men what is their moral right, and the government is doing nothing about it. The Minister of Labour is not in his place today. Therefore I shall not give certain opinions which I possess, but I think there is a moral responsibility on the part of the company to pay these men that which is their due and legitimate right.
There is one other matter which interests me, and which has been mentioned already by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). A year or two ago the houses of parliament appointed a special joint committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms. I was a member of that committee, and I formed the opinion that it had been conceived in confusion, born in doubt, and unquestionably died of paralysis. Many of us had hoped that out of it there would come some lead towards giving the Canadian people a bill of rights, but we were wrong. I am only going to deal with one rather narrow aspect of the rights of the citizens of Canada at this time, but I should like to remind the house that under our constitution as it stands the government has the right to deport a Canadian citizen who was born in this country. Under the constitution as it stands there is the right to deny the vote to citizens of Canada because of race or colour. Under the constitution as it stands trade unions can be forbidden to affiliate with other bodies outside the province in which the unions are situated. Under the constitution as it stands individual Canadian citizens can be denied the right to work because of their ethnic origin, religious beliefs or colour. Under the constitution as it stands Canadian citizens can be denied the right to enter restaurants or resorts, again because of their creed or their colour.
That is a lamentable situation in a country such as ours, a country which is a nation of minorities. There is no one majority in Canada. We are all minorities, and where one minority is hurt obviously the rights of all are in danger. The rights of minorities have been gravely endangered in the past. Therefore to protect them it is essential that we have a bill of rights in Canada. On the committee on which I sat there was a very obvious conflict of opinion. There were those who argued that human rights came under the property and civil rights sections of the British North America Act. There were others like myself who argued that the human rights of the nation were the responsibility of the nation to safeguard, and the only way they
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart could be adequately safeguarded was by the parliament of Canada.
I am indebted to Professor Frank Scott of McGill university, an expert on constitutional law, for much of what follows.
The house will remember that there was a universal declaration of human rights proclaimed by the general assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. I am informed there is not much in this universal declaration upon which this parliament cannot take a stand.
Some have argued, so far as a bill of rights is concerned, that an amendment to the constitution is necessary. I was one of those who wanted an amendment to the constitution. Now I am willing to compromise on legislation because I think legislation would be better than nothing. It may be argued, "Well, legislation can be revoked by another parliament or by the same parliament". That is true. I think we ought to remember, however, that in the British House of Commons Magna Carta, habeas corpus and the bill of rights can be repealed by a single majority of the British house. That legislation has never been repealed. Indeed, it has proven to be of enduring value. Perhaps we may follow that example.
The aspect of human rights with which I wish to deal now deals with discrimination against minorities because of their race, creed or colour. I think there is one simple and quite elementary way of partially solving that problem. It is to make it a criminal offence to discriminate against Canadian citizens because of race, creed or colour. This would bring the whole question within the purview of parliament.
I should like to quote a page from an article by Professor Scott which is published in the "Canadian Bar Review" for May, 1949. He said:
Where the criminal law power is but little used today, and where it might be better used for the protection of freedoms, is in regard to the creation of new crimes against freedom itself. It is a crime to disturb a religious ceremony, but it is not a crime, or at least as precisely defined a crime, to disturb a public meeting or to prevent the distribution of literature. It is a crime for employers to discharge an employee for trade union activities, but it is not a crime for them to use labour spies. It is a crime to libel an individual but not a crime to libel a group or race. It is a crime to hit any man over the head with a stick but it is not a crime to refuse to serve him a meal in a public restaurant or to refuse him a room in a hotel because of his race or religion. It is a crime for any public official, whether federal or provincial, to take a bribe, but not a crime for him to discriminate against races or creeds in granting licences or franchises. It would be wrong to imagine that freedom can be created merely by adding new crimes to the criminal code, but this is not to say that certain practices which violate human rights ought not to be made criminal where now they give rise only to

The Address-Mr. Green a personal action in damages if there be an action at all. The law can buttress moral principles, and make the path of the wicked more difficult. Thus there seems to be good sense in the suggestion of Mr. Varcoe to the joint committee of parliament, that a new section be added to the criminal code setting forth new prohibitions against interference with human rights.
I believe Professor Scott's ideas are worthy of consideration. I hope that, if not at this session then most certainly at the session coming, the government will once again set up a special joint committee on human rights, designed this time not to bring forth the frustration which was experienced but some practical solution to these problems of human rights which confront us. I should like to see that committee set up to consider ways and means whereby we could combat the terrible social consequences of religious intolerance and racial prejudice.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure on rising to address the twenty-first parliament of Canada for the first time to be able to congratulate you upon your selection as Speaker of this honourable assembly; in the first place because of our long personal friendship extending from the time when we came into the house together in 1935; and in the second place because of your activities in the intervening years, more particularly one activity of which the new members will not have heard. That was when from 1935 to 1945 you acted as the president, chairman and general dictator-and a most kindly dictator, may I say-of the veteran members of parliament and of the press gallery.
In that capacity you had no rules of order to help you conduct the meetings. If you had a sergeant-at-arms he was usually against you. Yet the meetings of that group of veterans of the house and of the gallery were the finest and friendliest gatherings there have been since I came here in 1935. Those of us who remain of that group are more than delighted that you are now the Speaker of this assembly. We know that you will show not only fairness and dignity but also a deep human understanding and great kindliness. I am quite sure that your name will go down in history as that of one of the great Speakers of the House of Commons of Canada.
Then too there is something inspiring in having in this parliament members from Newfoundland. As I listened yesterday to the

remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) I thought that he brought to this chamber a breath of fresh air, an idealism, an oratorical type of speaking and a broad outlook which will contribute greatly to the deliberations of this assembly. I have no doubt that the other members from Newfoundland will be of the same calibre. But speaking as a member who comes from the other remote part of Canada, the other part of Canada which is thousands of miles away from Ottawa, I should like to give them a tip, and it is this. When you have some problem facing Newfoundland upon which you need action here in Ottawa, be sure to "gang up" on whatever government may be in power. We in British Columbia have found that procedure pays good dividends when there is a problem that has to be handled. I see my old friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is here, and I would remind him of Ripple Rock. The removal of Ripple Rock is a good example, although he has not got it removed yet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a bad example.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: That is the worst example.


Howard Charles Green: When a question affecting Newfoundland arises, I suggest to hon. members from there that they will get much better results if they all stick together, regardless of party. I think I can promise them that all the members from British Columbia will be glad to support them.


Mr. St. Laurent:: If they are ganging up on the government.


Howard Charles Green: In this house, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent one of the new ridings, namely the riding of Vancouver-Quadra, which has been carved out of the old ridings of Vancouver East and Vancouver South. The riding is composed of a strip across the centre of the residential portion of Vancouver, extending almost from the eastern boundary of the city right out to the university of British Columbia at the tip of Point Grey.
There is something extremely significant in that name of Quadra. I am going to take a few minutes to explain to the house just why it means a great deal to us on the Pacific slope. Quadra was a famous Spaniard on our coast. In 1775, when a young naval lieutenant serving at the Spanish base down in California, he went on a voyage of exploration up the west coast, finally reaching a point as far distant as Alaska. His ship was a small schooner called the Sonora, a vessel thirty-six feet in length, with a twelve-foot beam and a draft of eight feet. There were

twenty in the crew. By the time they arrived off what is now the coast of British Columbia, many of the crew had scurvy. At one time there were only two of them able to carry on, Quadra and one of his men. Two ships started on this voyage, but the other one turned back. Quadra went on. He got up to what is now Alaska and finally arrived back in California, having made a great name for himself as an explorer. Then in 1792 we find him back again on the coast of British Columbia, this time as the governor of Nootka, in command of a Spanish post at Nootka on the west coast of Vancouver island.
Between the times of these two expeditions the British had established a post at Nootka and then the Spaniards had seized it. There had been a threat of war, but finally a treaty of peace was signed under the terms of which envoys from Great Britain and Spain were to meet at Nootka to try to decide upon who should hold what territory. Captain Vancouver was sent out as the British envoy.
On his way to Nootka he explored our present harbour of Vancouver, which he named Burrard inlet. In the course of his explorations in the vicinity of the present city of Vancouver he met two ships from Quadra's squadron just off the tip of Point Grey, which of course is just off the present riding of Quadra. They did some exploring together for Vancouver refused to interrupt his explorations in order to sail over to Nootka to meet Quadra. He explored the waters between the present Vancouver island and the mainland, right up around the tip of Vancouver island and finally reached Nootka on the west coast, which is in the present riding of Comox-Alberni. There he and Quadra tried to settle this territorial dispute but were unable to agree; however, they became fast friends. Captain Vancouver named the island which is now Vancouver island, calling it "Vancouver's and Quadra's Island"; later he visited Quadra in California and was warmly welcomed by this friendly Spaniard.
So you see the name of Quadra has great significance for us on the Pacific coast, and I hope that fact will always be remembered by the person who represents the riding of Vancouver-Quadra in this house. We face the Pacific. While the people of British Columbia are practically all from the east, either from eastern Canada, from Europe or from the United States, we face the Pacific. Our problems are primarily the problems of the Pacific. We are Canada on the Pacific; and I think it is the responsibility of members from that province to see that the other
The Address

Mr. Green members of this house are kept informed on Pacific problems which are of interest to Canadians.
At this time there are problems which are of deep concern to us. First of all, there is the problem of trade. Our greatest industry is the lumber industry. About 25 per cent of our timber production must be sold abroad if that industry is to be prosperous. In fact, if the province is to carry on without having a great deal of unemployment we must sell at least 25 per cent of our lumber abroad. We must also sell a large proportion of our canned salmon abroad, of our apples and of our metals. Therefore we are greatly concerned over the loss of the markets in Great Britain and Europe, in Australia, in New Zealand and in the Orient. The devaluation of the pound and the Canadian dollar will make it more difficult for us to sell these commodities to Great Britain and to the other parts of the commonwealth, in fact in practically all countries overseas, although I think it is bound to give us some advantage over the United States in those markets because of the 10 per cent reduction. But no one as yet knows on balance what the result will be.
I am afraid that our position will not be greatly improved by the devaluation.
I do suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that there are some steps that can be taken. He mentioned this afternoon that there is a committee or a council meeting now in Ottawa to discuss the promotion of trade between Great Britain and Canada. That is all to the good. I suggest that some such arrangement be made with regard to trade between Canada, Australia and New Zealand. At one time Australia was Canada's third best customer and New Zealand was a good customer also. Now they are both a long way down the list. It might even be worth while for the minister himself, or his deputy, to go to the Antipodes after the end of the session just to see whether some way cannot be found by which the trade between Canada and those two sister nations could be increased. It will be easier now for them to buy goods here than in the United States. There may be an opportunity to switch some of the trade which has been going to the United States.
With regard to China, there is a real danger that that country will be cut off for many years. Always one of our great hopes on the Pacific coast has been that there would some day be a huge trade between Canada and China. Today of course the communists have swept over a large part of that country, and they may even attack Hong Kong. The city of Hong Kong is the port through which a good deal of the trade from other parts of

The Address-Mr. Green
the world enters China, and it is of the utmost importance to Canada that Hong Kong remain intact in British hands. Should Hong Kong be taken over by the communists the results for Canada would be very serious. We certainly have a stake in the protection of Hong Kong. That was put clearly by the Vancouver Sun in an editorial on August 17, just a little over a month ago. It is headed, "Hong Kong Emergency." The final paragraph of the editorial reads:
As for Canada, the loss of Hong Kong by the British might not be of immediate moment so far as defence is concerned but Canada is a Pacific country, as we on the west coast are well aware- and as we were painfully aware after Pearl Harbor. Ultimately we, too, are concerned with the unchecked expansion of soviet power in the regions across the Pacific bowl.
That brings me to the next question which is of concern to us on the Pacific coast. We believe that there should be a Pacific pact similar to the North Atlantic treaty, a pact designed to hold communism in the Pacific. The president of the Philippine republic spoke to the United States senate about six weeks ago. In the course of advocating some such pact he used these words:
Asia, with more than half the population of the world, and with "incalculable resources," must not be lost to communism by default.
Not only are the Philippines anxious for the pact but also Korea, Australia and New Zealand. I believe that the Canadian government should take a stand in favour of a Pacific pact before it is too late. I hope that some such step will be taken by the government.
A third subject about which we are concerned is that of shipbuilding and shipping. During the war we built a great many merchant ships, more than any other part of Canada. We also built many naval vessels, but since the war the Canadian shipbuilding industry has been gradually fading away. On our coast the work now is largely repair work. There is some naval construction promised and for that we are grateful. No attempt has yet been made to build fast cargo vessels. Canada still has many of the old slow vessels which were built during the war, but they are quite unable to compete with the fast modern vessels being built by other countries. Unless some building program is started, and started very quickly, I am afraid that the Canadian merchant marine will be a thing of the past, and that would be a tragedy for a country which has such a long maritime history as Canada, and a country to which the exporting of goods is so important.
The devaluations which have taken place during the last few days are going to make it much more difficult for the Canadian merchant m a tine to carry on, just that much harder for them to compete with the ships

of Britain, Norway, Sweden and all other countries who have devalued to a greater degree than we have. There is an announcement in the speech from the throne that some measure is to be brought in to aid shipbuilding and shipping. It should have been taken this spring when a similar promise was made in the speech from the throne. The Canadian maritime commission, set up two years ago, was supposed to give a lead in working out these policies, although personally I think the obligation has always rested and still rests with the government rather than with the commission. I do hope that at this session the government will announce a definite and broad policy for promoting shipbuilding and shipping in Canada.
Another word about shipping; I have been appalled by the disaster in Toronto. It is almost unbelievable that in 1949 a great passenger vessel lying in a berth in a port, the second largest city in Canada, could be destroyed with a loss of over a hundred lives. I think it calls for drastic action. If the regulations under the Canada Shipping Act are proper regulations then somebody has been criminally negligent and should be prosecuted. On the other hand, if the regulations are not sufficient, and I suspect that that is the position, then it is the responsibility of parliament to see that proper regulations are enacted at this very session, because Canada cannot afford to have another disaster such as the burning of the Noronic.
The responsibility for safety at sea rests with the Canadian parliament, certainly with the Canadian government. We have had the same problem in a smaller degree on the west coast. There an attempt has been made to whittle down expenditures a bit, and to save a little money, by taking radio operators off full-time and letting them act as freight clerks, or do some other odd jobs. They are taken away from their apparatus, just on the chance that nothing is going to happen. That has been protested against in the house by other members from British Columbia. It serves to illustrate just how careful we must be all the time to see that we have proper safety regulations, and then that those regulations are enforced.
We believe that on each coast there should be a Canadian coastguard. May I suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that it is humiliating when, time after time, with vessels in distress along our coasts, the United States coastguard service has to come to their rescue. Just on August 17 last a Vancouver press dispatch stated:
Fishermen protest rescue by U.S. Declare navy vessel, not U.S. coastguard, should have saved the B.C. ship.

This was an instance when a Canadian naval vessel started out and was then recalled. The United States coastguard vessel came all the way from Astoria, Oregon, and without hesitation. It came up to help this Canadian ship and that United States coastguard vessel was fourteen hours further away from the scene of the accident than the Canadian vessel.
There is no reason at all for that sort of thing. The other afternoon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was saying that Canada is a nation-and I agree that she is. I do not agree with everything else he said-because certainly he spoke a good deal of "eyewash," if he will pardon my saying so. Certainly there is no reason why this nation of Canada should not have a coastguard service on the west and east coasts, and I hope there will be no further delay in getting it.
In British Columbia we are also particularly interested in two broad groups of subjects, the first being that of veterans affairs and the second general welfare measures. We have a larger percentage of veterans than any other province in Canada. They have come there in large numbers since the war and, as hon. members are aware, we had very heavy enlistments. Furthermore the people of our province have always been social-security minded, taking great interest in welfare measures.
With regard to veterans affairs, may I suggest once more to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) that there should be a standing committee of the house on veterans' problems. We have pressed for that time and again, but without result. Problems of the veterans, in my experience, have been adequately dealt with only when a special committee on veterans affairs has been set up. I say there should be a standing committee.
Last spring an increase in the war veterans allowance was provided, not by way of an amendment to the act but by a vote. That means that such votes will have to be passed each year. It does not provide for a definite increase. The way it is working out is that if a veteran can pass a second means test he can perhaps get help by way of getting money for a new suit of clothes, or something of that kind. I believe the war veterans allowance should be increased as a matter of right to $50 for the single man, without a second means test at all, and that there should be a corresponding increase for the married man. I suggest also that imperial veterans, some of whom have been in Canada now for nearly thirty years, should be made eligible for the war veterans allowance. I say the men of the merchant navy should be treated as though they had served in the fighting forces. They 45781-12
The Address-Mr. Green are not now treated in that way. For example, while they have been given certain vocational training benefits and given those only after the utmost pressure had been exerted in the House of Commons they have been refused vocational training as from the end of June this year. They could not qualify unless they were under thirty years of age at the time of application. Those restrictions should be removed. They should be made eligible for university benefits, and should have a broader eligibility for pensions. I have known many sad cases where men of the merchant navy have incurred different disabilities, particularly by way of disease, and yet it has been impossible for them to get pension. They receive no consideration in connection with veterans housing projects, and they are not eligible for the civil service preference. All these defects should be remedied, and remedied quickly; and I am afraid it can be done only if a committee on veterans affairs is set up.
Then, with respect to general welfare measures, we in British Columbia believe-at least during the election campaign every candidate believed it, no matter to which party he or she belonged; and I must assume they meant what they said and published-that there should be a general plan of social security on a contributory basis. I do not believe our welfare troubles in Canada will ever be solved until we have a general contributory pension plan under which people will contribute as they work, and then will receive adequate benefits as of right without having to go through any means tests. That is the Canadian way of settling this problem of social security. I am disappointed to see nothing on that subject in the speech from the throne. It is perhaps the most important question which could be dealt with by parliament at this time-and yet we see no word of it in the speech from the throne.
Then, a very serious defect requires remedy in connection with old age pensions. At the spring session of the House of Commons an increase of $10 a month was granted. The rate was raised by $10. That, too, was done only after great pressure. However, while the rate was raised by $10 the ceiling was not lifted, so that if a person is earning a small income over and above the amount of pension, he receives no benefit whatever through the increase of $10 because the ceiling on general income was not raised. I am amazed that that is not being remedied at this session. I have here articles from two of the Vancouver papers, including the Vancouver Sun, which is a strong supporter of the government, pointing out this injustice and appealing to parliament to raise the ceiling at this session. I hope the government will change
170	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Green its plan and bring in a measure amending the Old Age Pensions Act by raising the ceiling to correspond with the increase in the pension itself.
Finally, I hope consideration will be given at this session to means of furthering certain promising developments in this nation. I have in mind, first of all, atomic energy. Canada is fortunate in being a producer of uranium, and being one of the big three in the development of atomic energy. I believe that atomic energy is just as important today as was the development of the steam engine over one hundred years ago; I think it can mean just as much to the world. It may be the one thing that will put Canada in the forefront of the nations.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has just returned today from a meeting in Washington at which there were discussions concerning a new agreement between Canada, Great Britain and the United States on atomic energy. A few weeks ago reference was made in the press to the giving out of information concerning atomic energy, the question raised being how far the United States should go in disclosing information to Great Britain and Canada.
I submit that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should make a full report to this house concerning the situation on atomic energy. I have here a press dispatch of July 28, 1949, headed, "Congress authority on A-bomb granted. Release of secrets outside President's right." The first paragraph reads:
Washington-President Truman has conceded the right of congress to pass upon the release of atomic bomb secrets to Great Britain and Canada, according to word sent to Capitol Hill through State secretary Acheson.
In the press reports of yesterday we find that during the negotiations which took place this week the President made it clear that he is committed not to enter into any atomic agreement without consultation with congress. Right from the start, back in 1946, the United States set up a committee composed of members of the senate and house of representatives to advise on atomic questions, a watchdog committee. I urged on behalf of the official opposition that Canada should have a similar committee. The Minister of Trade and Commerce-I forget what minister he was then because he has been so many in the meantime-refused to have a committee set up. In subsequent years he has softened a bit. Last year when I suggested that there should be a similar committee in Canada he said it was a good idea and we could have it. But week after week went by and no committee was set up. Then there was an election, which perhaps some of you have heard about. In any event no committee was set
	I

up, but what do we find? I quote from a dispatch dated August 22 as follows:
U.S. atomic energy officers study Chalk River layout.
The external affairs department today disclosed that five U.S. atomic officials spent the last two days at nearby Chalk River talking over the administration of the atomic pile there with Canadian officers.
Two of those five officials were members of the congressional committee, Senator W. F. Knowland of California and Representative H. M. Jackson of Washington. They came up here and were told what Canada is doing, yet the Canadian House of Commons knows nothing about it. President Truman goes to congress to consult them after this conference and the Minister of Trade and Commerce comes back to Canada and consults himself as the member for Port Arthur. That is the ridiculous situation existing in Canada today. I repeat that there should be a committee of this house to go into the whole question of atomic energy.
Another promising development is that in connection with oil. There have been great oil discoveries in Alberta. Last year we passed a pipe lines bill providing for the establishment of pipe lines to carry this oil. When the bill was sent to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines I was surprised to learn from the representatives of Imperial Oil Limited that perhaps that pipe line would go through the United States. We now find that such is to be the case. This pipe line is to go from Alberta to Regina and then, instead of going to Winnipeg and the head of the lakes through Canada, it is to by-pass Winnipeg, go down into the United States and end up at Superior, Wisconsin, from which place the oil will be carried by ships to Sarnia.
Surely it is in the national interest, regardless of cost, that the main pipe line carrying Canadian oil should be laid in Canadian soil. Think of the difference in employment in Winnipeg, Fort William and Port Arthur. Think of the potentialities for development. I see by the press that it would cost more to run the pipe line that way. I have no objection to a branch line going to the United States or to our selling to that country oil we do not need, but I do suggest that the main pipe line carrying Canadian oil should be laid in Canadian soil. I regret that that is not to happen in this case. I think this is a great mistake in national policy. I suspect one reason it is being done is that Imperial Oil want to sell oil in the United States.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: I am sorry to disagree with a member of my own party, but I do.


Howard Charles Green: I think the plan is to sell a great deal of oil in the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is there anything wrong with that?


Howard Charles Green: If we have surplus oil that is quite all right, but as a matter of national policy the main pipe line carrying Canadian oil should be laid in Canadian soil.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a good thing the United States does not take that view.


Howard Charles Green: The right hon. minister can make his speech in due time, and I hope he will explain the whole subject.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will not be as foolish as this one.


Howard Charles Green: That is the usual reply by the minister, to accuse the other person of being a fool. But in a great many instances it has been proved in due course that the fool was on the government side of the house.
This brings up the question of coal. I shall not go into this matter except to say that because of devaluation coal is going to cost more in central Canada. This is the time to develop a national coal policy so that Alberta and Nova Scotia coal may be brought into the markets of Quebec and Ontario to a much greater extent.
The next promising development I should like to refer to is iron. There have been tremendous discoveries of iron in northern Quebec and Labrador. I ask hon. members of this house to make sure that that iron ore is used in Canada to the largest possible degree and not simply shipped to the United States for smelting and then brought back here in the form of finished products. If that ore were made into steel in Cape Breton it might alter the whole picture in the maritimes; certainly that would be a wonderful thing for that part of Canada. If it were smelted in Quebec, where they have vast water power, that would mean a great deal to that province. I repeat: Let us in this house see to it that that iron ore is used to the greatest degree in our own country. It should be our policy to develop all these resources and use them in Canada to the greatest possible extent.
In conclusion let me say that my vision of Canada is that she should be a great nation with a population of fifty or seventy-five million; one of the great nations of the world. I think that is possible. Because of the various changes that are taking place in the world today, and the developments within Canada, this twenty-first parliament will have a great deal to do with the future of the nation. We have a great responsibility, perhaps greater than any other parliament of Canada for many years. If we do our work well, then I believe we can help Canada to attain the destiny I have pictured. I must 45781-121
The Address-Mr. Higgins say, Mr. Speaker, that looking around the house I believe the members are here with great earnestness of purpose. I think this parliament is going to do a fine job for Canada. I hope that, when the four or five years have expired, during which this parliament will last, the people of Canada will be able to say of us that we have done our work well.


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, following the eloquence of the hon. members who have spoken today, and the broad scope of their addresses, I feel somewhat diffident in speaking to you tonight on matters chiefly concerning my own province. Nevertheless, as our problems in Newfoundland are now the problems of all of Canada, I feel it only fitting that you should acquire all the knowledge you can of our particular worries and fears.
In speaking on the address I should like to join my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr, Browne), in expressing thanks to all those members on both sides of the house with whom I have come in contact for their many courtesies to me and I am sure to all other Newfoundlanders in this house. I wish to offer my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation to the high position which is now yours.
I should also like to compliment the mover (Mr. Boisvert) and the seconder (Mr. Laing) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the real excellence of their addresses. I should like to offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the results of the election. Whilst the ridings of St. John's West and St. John's East did not follow the other ridings of Newfoundland in supporting the party which he has the honour to lead, nevertheless I can assure him of a very warm welcome when, as I hope he will, he returns to visit us again in Newfoundland. I may add that we are eagerly looking forward to a return visit from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). As you might well expect, he created a most favourable impression on his visit to our province.
I am afraid I must apologize to the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) for the somewhat unusual lack of warmth displayed to him on his visit to St. John's; but speaking for my own riding, which was the only riding contested by his party, I should like him to know that there was nothing personal in the lack of warmth, but merely that he had no opportunity to explain properly the doctrines of his party to our people. I can assure him that he will receive a warm welcome when and if, as I hope he will, he decides to come and see us again.

The Address-Mr. Higgins
The leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) did not visit us, but if he decides to do so I can assure him also that he will be very welcome. I suggest to him, however-and I hope he will not take it amiss-that before doing so he should learn to pronounce the word "Newfoundland", because some of us regard its pronunciation as being quite important. I suggest not only to the leader of that party but also to many hon. members of the house that the simplest way to remember how to pronounce it is if you use it in the context, "you must understand new found land". I think you will find it somewhat easier that way. I do not object, I may say, to "newfundland" provided there is a possibility of our acquiring some new fund that we have not any knowledge of as yet. I can assure you it will be very welcome. I particularly stress that because of the financial gale we are going to have to weather very shortly. A new fund will have to be provided from some kindly people somewhere. Possibly the members of the government may feel inclined that way.
It was stated in the speech from the throne that, with the admission of Newfoundland, the Canadian nation attained the geographical limits planned for it by the fathers of confederation. I am very happy to know that Newfoundland made this contribution, that as a result Canada is now a complete and full nation, and I presume has no further territorial ambitions. As to the new province I have a few pertinent remarks to make, which I hope will not be misconstrued. First and foremost, let me say that the confederation of our country with the other provinces of the great dominion has now been accepted generally even by those of us who were not in favour of it. I say that quite frankly. I was one of those who fought confederation as hard as I could and right to the bitter end. My presence here is ample proof of what I say, that it has now been accepted generally by the people all over Newfoundland.
A number of my fellow Newfoundlanders were not in favour of confederation, and I may add that the number was not inconsiderable. The voting at the referendum showed that 71,334 people voted for the restoration of responsible government, and 78,323 for confederation. The chief reason among the great number of the people of Newfoundland who were opposed was that the financial terms of the confederation agreement were not adequate. As the Prime Minister will recall, during the meetings of the delegation from the national convention with the special committee of the cabinet in 1947 I raised this particular point. Subsequently on the visit of the second delegation, following the acceptance by vote of confederation, the

financial terms were somewhat increased, but they are still inadequate, and are not sufficient to enable us as a province to pay our own way in respect to government services.
Now, this fact has been borne out by the record of revenues for the months of April to August of the present year. I speak of the official record issued by the Department of Finance. The total revenue, including federal grants and income tax payments for the year 1948-of course the income tax payments are non-recurring-amounts to $15,556,997. Of this sum $8,450,270 was for income tax payments for that year. As I said before, they are non-recurring. The proposed tax rental agreement to be signed by our province and the government will give us approximately $6,800,000 per year, possibly a little more, but that is as close as I can come to it at the present time.
The total expenditure for the same period under review, namely, April to August, amounted to $10,735,780. Deducting the amount received from income taxes from the total receipts, it leaves an amount of $7,106,727. This leaves a debit balance of $3,629,053 for a period of five months, or a debit of some $725,000 per month. If the debit continues for twelve months at the same rate it will amount to approximately $9 million. As I said before, we shall receive from the tax rental agreement approximately $6,800,000. This will leave us with a debit, based on present expenditures for the first year of confederation, of something over $2 million. Remember this is only with present expenditures. The additional cost of our health services and the maintenance of our new sanatorium at Corner Brook will have to be added. This sanatorium is as modern as any on this side of the water. Apart from that maintenance and the original capital cost of the other planned extensions in our health services, there is also to be considered the cost of highroads.
In this connection, I trust that the recent statement made by the premier of Newfoundland, the Hon. Mr. Smallwood, will not be carried into effect. Mr. Smallwood stated that he proposed using the pick and shovel for the building of the highroads. That may be a perfectly good way to distribute relief, but to me it appears to be going back to the old days in road making.
The cost of providing relief in Newfoundland during the winter will also be high. It has been estimated for me that for the full year we shall very likely have an over-all deficit of approximately $5,000,000, so it will be necessary for new taxes to be imposed by the provincial government. As you can well realize, this is going to be an extremely difficult matter during the coming year, since we

are already beginning to feel what our United States friends call a recession. I should like to point out to you also that this debit balance has been incurred at a time of the year when we have comparatively little in the way of relief payments to make. In today's press I noticed an item to the effect that the price of liquor in Newfoundland has been increased by 50 cents a bottle. It is terrible. I trust some of my friends who buy a liquor known as "screech", who formerly paid $2.50 for their bottle of "screech", when they come to pay $3 for it-


An hon. Member:: They will screech.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Screech is quite right.
Now, Mr. Speaker, deficits of this size may seem very small to you who are accustomed to dealing in large sums. I would imagine that a deficit of $5 million is merely chicken feed to many of the provinces up here. I can assure you, however, that a $5 million deficit for the province of Newfoundland-if that is what it amounts to and I sincerely hope it does not-is something frightening.
During the negotiations with the second delegation from Newfoundland in 1948 a memorandum was issued by the government in which it was stated that an effort would be made to make the amount of surplus sterling held by Newfoundland available to Newfoundland in dollars within one year after the date of union. This was money that had been on deposit in England and, so far as we were concerned, was blocked sterling. We were rather doubtful of obtaining it. Quite recently I was informed that the government of Canada has made this blocked sterling available to the province. I sincerely hope that is true, because we shall certainly need all the money we can get this year to enable us to carry on and handle our unemployment problem. Only today I was informed that the United States bases in Newfoundland have paid off 600 people. Those 600 people are now on the list of unemployed. Again, the number may seem small to hon. members but it is by no means small to us.
I should like you to understand that, as a result of confederation, our secondary industries have been hit very hard. It is problematical whether our clothing factories, our breweries, foundries, tobacco factory, paint factory and the rope manufacturing plant will be able to withstand the competition from the mainland. If that happens, Mr. Speaker, it will have serious repercussions not only in the districts represented by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) and myself, but in the entire country. I hope that, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, some form of assistance will be rendered to the secondary industries by some government
The Address-Mr. Higgins intervention. I do not know how it can be done, but if it can be done it will be a wonderful thing for industry. Now, Mr. Speaker ana hon. members, do not for a minute think that we Newfoundlanders are coming to you with our hat in our hand begging you for assistance. That is not so. I merely wish to point out to you that at some future date the federal government will be faced with the problem of making additional grants available to Newfoundland, so that she will be able to maintain her place as a member in equal standing with the other provinces of this great dominion. By the terms of confederation we have given to Canada full value, and in the future still greater value will be obtained from the assets we have turned over. I may add that I am not at all unmindful of the splendid services that have come to Newfoundland and of the cost of those services to Canada. But bearing all that in mind, I still say that we have given good value and will continue to do so.
For the benefit of some hon. members who may not be fully aware of what Newfoundland turned over to Canada in real property, I am just going to go through the list quickly for you so that you will have a slight idea of what you obtained for your money and what you will continue to get. First, there is the Newfoundland railway, including rights of way, wharves, dry docks and other real property, rolling stock, equipment, ships, and other property. That means that the whole railway system together with all our ships have been turned over to the federal government. A great many jokes have been made about our railway, many funny stories have been told about it and many funny verses have been sung; but I can assure hon. members that, as far as we in Newfoundland are concerned, our railway system is still first-class. At the time of our pre-confederation talks that item alone was valued by the officials of the railway at $70 million. You have also obtained-and I may say that this is not an auction sale; I am merely repeating the things we have sold-the Newfoundland airport at Gander, including buildings and equipment, together with any other property used for the operation of the airport; the Newfoundland hotel; public harbours, wharves, breakwaters and aids to navigation; bait depots and the motor vessel Malakoff; military and naval property, stores and equipment; public dredges; the public telecommunication system, including rights of way, land lines, cables, telephones, radio stations; real and personal property of the Broadcasting Corporation of Newfoundland; and customs houses and post offices. In actual property value, all that represents an extremely large sum of money. It has been

The Address-Mr. Higgins suggested that you are taking over dead property, but that is far from the case. I will not give you any real value because I cannot do so, but you can be quite sure that it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I put it to you that if Newfoundland went into confederation as a province and these services were not there, they would have to be provided by Canada. You are now taking over or have taken over a going concern. All we ask is that it be kept going.
In the speech from the throne, reference was made to the new air agreements between Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. I believe those agreements have been concluded. That is my understanding from the contents of the speech from the throne. I hope it is so. I understand that additional traffic stops in the United States and in the United Kingdom have been provided for Trans-Canada Air Lines. I speak without full knowledge of the facts, but from the information I have gathered the chief factor in the making of those agreements was the fact that Canada now controls Gander airport and Goose airport-Gander especially- which enabled Canada to bargain with the United Kingdom and with the United States and get the wonderful advantages she has obtained for our Trans-Canada Air Lines. When I speak of the value of Gander in this way I am speaking simply of the commercial value. But do not ever forget the strategic value in time of war of that great airport at Gander, of that great airport at Goose, of that other airport at Harmon field and of that other airport at Torbay; and do not ever forget that the beginning of the winning of the" battle of the Atlantic took place right from our little island of Newfoundland.
There are seven major international air lines operating from Gander at the present time, namely Pan American Airways, TransWorld Airways, American Overseas Air Lines, British Overseas Airways, KOM of Holland and Sabena of Belgium, the Scandinavian Air Line System and of course Trans-Canada Air Lines. I believe there are also some five or six non-scheduled carriers operating out of Gander as well. This has meant regular employment for a considerable number of my fellow countrymen, and I sincerely hope that nothing will be allowed to interfere with the operations at Gander, as was stated recently by the chairman of the air transport board prior to the conclusion of these air agreements. If these United States air lines are refused permission to land at Gander or if their operations are in any way interfered with, it will be an extremely serious matter tor a great number of Newfoundlanders employed there.

In addition, to further increase the earning power of this dominion we bring you our great fisheries, which, added to your own, will probably increase their value by one-third. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. May-hew) will probably remember the figure. Incidentally, for the benefit of hon. members from Cape Breton, I should like to quote to you an extract I read in a book issued by the food and agricultural organization of the United Nations entitled "Salted Cod and Related Species". The quotation is as follows:
The east coast fisheries of Canada, which are the only Canadian fisheries of importance to the salted fish trade, began in the early days, when Cabot voyaged to Newfoundland in 1497 and Jacques Cartier to Canada in 1534.
I presume the hon. members from Cape Breton are still interested in the landfall of Cabot. If so, that should settle the issue for all time. But, Mr. Speaker, the chief value of our fisheries in the present money crisis is in the fish that we ship to the United States. The great bulk of our fresh-frozen fish goes to the United States and of course payment is made in United States currency.
In connection with the fisheries, by the terms of union our fishery laws and our Newfoundland fisheries board are to continue for a period of five years. That is five years certain, and thereafter until changed by the parliament of Canada. I would like you to understand that the fisheries board is doing excellent work, and has since its inception, and I sincerely hope that no change will be made in its constitution in the future. I know that the chairman of the board, Mr. Raymond Gushue, has the full confidence of all the people of our country, and I understand that he is just as highly regarded by the chief officials of the fisheries department at Ottawa.
Included also in the assets which we bring to you are our pulp and paper industries, our two great mills situated at Corner Brook and Grand Falls. In Corner Brook some 7,500 permanent and seasonal workmen are employed and the annual pay roll approximates $14 million. The annual productive capacity of the mills at Corner Brook is 300,000 tons of newsprint and 54 thousand tons of sulphite pulp. I have not the figures for the mills at Grand Falls but I understand they are somewhat lower. However, the annual turnout for both mills in 1948 was 382,000 tons, Newfoundland being the third in the list of countries producing newsprint, being exceeded only by the United States and by Canada herself. The largest percentage of our newsprint is being sold to the United States and of course being paid for in United States currency. This is another fine asset that we bring to you.

I should also like to draw to your attention the great possibilities of our territory of Labrador. We have down there iron ore, forests and one of the greatest waterfalls in the world. No accurate estimate of the timber resources of Labrador has been prepared as yet to my knowledge, but from what knowledge I have been able to gather it would appear that there is a considerable quantity of first-class standing timber in Labrador at the present time, and quite ample in amount to operate another pulp and paper mill. Labrador is also the location of Grand falls, which has been estimated to make possible a hydroelectric development of better than a million horsepower. Our iron ore in Labrador is of extremely high quality, and all reports to date indicate a very large body. As hon. members know, plans are being made now to put a railway in from the Quebec side to connect with the Quebec body of ore and to operate that body and the body in Labrador at the same time, I believe.
The issue of the Financial Post of September 17 makes reference to Labrador iron, and the paper states that Republic Steel, Armco, Inland and Wheeling Steel, U.S. Steel and Bethlehem Steel are classed as being interested. The paper states also that production is thought to be five years away, but it is said to be no longer a guess that United States steel companies will be taking a share of it. Those of you who follow iron ore must know that the Mesabi range is very closely approaching the exhaustion point, so you can see the value of these deposits of iron ore in northern Quebec and Labrador and the great value it should be to all of the dominion in the years to come. I shall make a further reference to a particular aspect of Labrador in connection with the supreme court bill which is to come up again shortly.
Apart from the Labrador possibilities we have three other mines in operation. We have an iron mine situated at Bell Island in my own constituency, which has been in operation since I believe the beginning of the century. It is owned by Dosco, and the great bulk of the iron ore is now being used at Sydney. Prior to the war a great deal of it used to be shipped to Germany. In fact, before both world wars Germany received a considerable quantity of that ore. There is also our very valuable lead, zinc, copper mine situated at Buchans. This mine is being operated by a subsidiary of American Smelters and possesses a very high grade ore. The only other mine in active operation at the present time is a fluorspar mine at St. Lawrence, which is also being operated by another United States company. We have also other great possibilities for various industries in the future because, Mr. Speaker,
The Address-Mr. Higgins we have a country that is as yet unspoiled, a country that we say will be a mecca for tourists. All that we need is proper tourist facilities and of course adequate means by which tourists may get into the country in the cheapest possible manner and with the least inconvenience to themselves, and that of course is by road. But we have to cross that little narrow neck from Sydney to Port aux Basques. We hope and trust that as soon as a trans-insular road is completed a proper ship will be put on the gulf so that a tourist can drive in with his car in comfort and drive out in equal comfort when he gets to our little island. The provision of a suitable ship is part of the terms of confederation. I am merely reminding hon. members and the government so that they will not forget.
These are some of the assets that we bring to you. These are the visible assets. The asset of which we are most proud, the asset of which I am sure all Newfoundland members in this house are most proud, is that we bring to you provinces and to you representatives of the provinces of this great dominion 328,000 people who are the salt of the earth, people who are independent, people who are going to make first-class Canadians.
I went into this matter somewhat in detail to show you that we did not come to vou with empty hands. We are still a puor country, and poorer in the thing known as money-but in everything else we are wealthy. In money we are poor, and we are not able to enjoy the standards of living which you in the rest of Canada can enjoy at the present time. I would therefore ask all hon. members from all parts of the house when the time arrives, as it must, when a request is made that the financial terms of confederation with Newfoundland be revised upward, that you will all give it your favourable consideration.
I should like to refer to the terms of union which deal with this subject. Section 29 states that:
In view of the difficulty of predicting with sufficient accuracy the financial consequences to Newfoundland of becoming a province of Canada, the government of Canada will appoint a royal commission within eight years from the date of union to review the financial position of the province of Newfoundland and to recommend the form and scale of additional financial assistance, if any, that may be required by the government of the province of Newfoundland to enable it to continue public services at the levels and standards reached subsequent to the date of union, without resorting to taxation more burdensome, having regard to capacity to pay, than that obtaining generally in the region comprising the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.
All I can say is that if we in Newfoundland have to wait for eight years before the terms of this agreement are going to be considered,

The Address-Mr. Higgins then the best illustration I can give you is to tell an old political story which has been told in Newfoundland for many years. A member of the government was addressing his constituents, and said to them, "When this government came into power you were groaning under taxation. How are you now?" A voice came from the back of the hall, "We are too 'wake' to groan." I hope this will not be let go so long that we in Newfoundland will be too weak to groan about having a revision of this union of our province with Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has spoken forty minutes. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Thank you; I appreciate that. Then, turning to that part of the speech from the throne which deals with the amendment to the Supreme Court Act, let me say I hope it is not the intention that in abolishing appeals to the privy council former decisions of that body will not be followed. I have reason to believe that a prominent member of the judiciary in Canada made a statement this year indicating that it might be so. I hope it is not so, because that very important and historic case, the Labrador boundary case, in which a decision was given respecting the boundary between Quebec and the present province of Newfoundland, is most important to us. The issue of that case was the ownership of Labrador. As hon. members recall, the decision of the privy council gave the great part of Labrador to Newfoundland.
In view of the statement made this year by the premier of Quebec that he intends to reopen the decision in that particular case, it is most important that some provision be secured in the bill whereby the rights of the province of Newfoundland to Labrador will be secured. I shall not say anything further on that matter at this time.
In the speech from the throne notice is given of a proposed bill respecting assistance to the shipbuilding industry and merchant shipping. In this connection I would draw the attention of hon. members to the unfortunate situation of Newfoundland seamen who served in Newfoundland ships during the war. As you may be aware, Canadian merchant seamen serving in the war years were paid a bonus of 10 per cent of their wages at the end of their period of service. Our merchant seamen who went through the same risk-and you will recall the torpedoing of the Caribou between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, and the consequent great loss of life-are refused that payment on the

ground that they were not members of the manning pool. Well, that is perfectly in order; but-and I speak now as president of the Newfoundland seamen's association-if I have to go back to the members of the union of which I have the honour to be president and tell them that because they were not members of the manning pool the government will not pay them these moneys, it is going to be extremely difficult to explain it to them.
I notice, too, the proposed legislation with respect to the trans-Canada highway. I hope and trust that Newfoundland will be able to participate in that. I hope also that the contribution by the provinces will not be based upon a flat rate but rather on the work to be done and on the ability of a province to make a contribution. Otherwise, if we are all going to have to pay a flat rate, I am afraid the contribution from Newfoundland will be more than we can meet.
With these few remarks I shall close, thanking the house for its patience and courtesy in listening to me.
(Translation):


Mr. Haoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, since the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne gives members of the house the opportunity of making themselves heard for the first time, I wish to avail myself of this privilege while craving the indulgence of which I am in such great need.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in the language of the majority of the hon. members of this house. I do not expect that my congratulations will add greatly to the unanimous tribute which greeted you when you were elected the Speaker of this house, but I merely point out that this universal approval shows beyond doubt that you are the right man in the right place.
I suppose you have noticed that my first words in this house were spoken in the language which my mother taught me. I should like hon. members to understand that if I do not speak fluent English it is not because of any lack of consideration for one of our official languages. As a humble country doctor I have devoted my time to my profession and to the social problems of my community and I was not in position to retain all that I had learned in my youth.
However, to prove my good will in this connection I should like to relate something personal. I have seven children and as they grow up I send one of them to an Englishspeaking part of the country so that he or she can learn the English language and use it later with greater ease and advantage. Two

The Address-Mr. Poulin
years ago I sent my oldest daughter to Moncton, New Brunswick. Last year I sent my oldest son to Ottawa. During the present year my second daughter is in Toronto.
We all wish for peace, harmony and bonne entente in this wonderful country of ours, but this can be obtained only through mutual understanding, which can be achieved only through a common language. I do not hesitate to say that not only is it the duty of French Canadians to endeavour to learn the language of the majority; English-speaking Canadians should endeavour also to learn something of the language of the minority. This afternoon I was glad to hear the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) deliver a speech in the finest French an Englishspeaking man could use.
(Translation) :
Mr. Speaker, I wish to carry on for a few minutes in French. The throne speech contains some extremely interesting pronouncements of great import. Among these must be numbered the abolishment of appeals to the privy council, a step which should have been taken long since. We see no reason why Canadians should not have confidence in the fairness of their own supreme court, whatever the racial origin or the past political allegiance of the members of the judiciary. In fact, a decision of the privy council, epochmaking in the province of Quebec, sanctions this attitude, I believe, on the part of the people of Quebec. Would it have been better to consult the provinces? Bearing this proviso in mind, Mr. Speaker, I think I can say that this will be an excellent piece of legislation, even though it comes very late.
We are informed in the speech from the throne that the government will endeavour to obtain for our country the right to amend its own constitution "in relation to matters not coming within the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces". I believe this to be acceptable, although I realize that perhaps the door will remain open to acrimonious differences of opinion between the federal and provincial governments, as to whether a particular matter does or does not come within the exclusive purview of the federal government.
I believe, and this is my humble opinion, that in all circumstances the provinces should first be consulted.
I shall now pass on to another subject and if I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a suggestion to the government. I believe that special aid should be provided to the crippled, to those who suffer from chronic physical or mental ailments, to those who are handicapped by some infirmity for the rest of their lives. Others have made this
same suggestion in the house since the beginning of the session. I am referring, of course, to those people who are bereft of the necessities of life.
The state of mental depression in which these people find themselves all too often may be ascribed not so much to their physical handicap as to the fact that others around them are so much better off. There is nothing socialistic about helping these people. On the contrary, that would only be a Christian and humanitarian attitude.
I would also like to suggest to the government that the family allowances be raised somewhat; shall we say up to ten dollars per child?
While practising out in the country I have had an opportunity to see at first hand, so to speak, the way in which this allowance money is spent. Time and time again mothers would bring their little ones of all ages to me to be examined, even though they did not consider them to be sick, but just to find out if anything could be done to improve their health. After their children have been examined and prescribed for, when necessary, these mothers are very proud to bring their allowance cheque out of their handbags, saying: "This is how we can take good care of our children."
I know for a certainty that the same thing happens when these little children must be clothed, fed and, in short, supplied with all they need for their normal development in order that they may become sturdy Canadian citizens.
I believe that increased family allowances would help to raise the standard of living of the small children in our large families.
There is more and more talk in this country about social welfare; there is even talk about state medicine. I realize that it is a ticklish subject. I am perfectly aware that a large number, I might say the majority, of the political groups in this house are in favour of state medicine. I do not say all the groups because I have just seen one of our colleagues-a doctor-make a sign in protest. Naturally this does not include every one but I may say that there is a heavy demand for state medicine. I believe that increased family allowances would greatly help the welfare of our people and would undoubtedly postpone the advent of state medicine to some extent. In fact this delay might give the Canadian government and the people a chance to see what happens in other countries. We could thus profit by the experience of other countries and avoid the many mistakes made by these countries.
Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know whether I would be breaking the rules of the house if I

The Address-Mr. Poulin referred to what is done in another country, but I understand that the United States, our neighbour, is marching rapidly toward state medicine. We might be well advised to wait until we have seen what happens there. The neighbouring country, immensely rich, perhaps feels the need of going into costly experiences, but as regards Canada, which is far from being as wealthy, would it not be preferable to wait and let others indulge in that luxury, in order to profit by their experience.
I feel that the increase of family allowances would be far more advantageous; it would enable us to avoid the errors which may be made in organizing state medicine.
However it may be, I make bold to say this: we shall have to be most prudent if some day strong pressure develops and that system of state medicine is organized in this country. We shall have to proceed with the utmost prudence, as I said, so that state medicine may not destroy plain medicine in this country.
Mr. Speaker, there is in the province of Quebec a great and broad riding called Beauce. I have no illusions! I know that all the ridings in this country are great and of wide extent. I know that each and every member of this house thinks-which is quite all right-that his riding is the greatest and the largest. And it is because we all consider our electoral districts so great and wide and interesting that each one of us can earnestly devote his activities to the welfare of his riding and its population. Nevertheless, Beauce is a great and broad county. Its people, who are intelligent, industrious, thrifty and proud and who have large families, have asked me to represent them here and it is among these people and nowhere else, believe me, that I got the ideas I have endeavoured to convey to this house tonight.
This same population, in the near future, will be asking the government, through my humble self, for no special privileges but for benefits it normally considers itself entitled to.
I trust the government will not be cool towards our good population for not having elected a member of the Liberal party.
Incidentally, may I congratulate the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leaders of the other parties who have been re-elected. The fact that these hon. members have been re-elected, in spite of the great Liberal sweep, is sufficient proof to me that they are men of great worth, men who are ready to serve not only their constituents but the country at large.
As for the sweep, I do not hesitate to say it was launched and sustained mostly by the personality of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
During the recent electoral campaign, the Prime Minister honoured Beauce by paying us a visit. He was even so kind as to spend with us the last twenty-four hours of the campaign. He was extremely courteous and gracious. In return, the people of Beauce gave him a royal welcome. They received him like a prince. That was only normal and to be expected. I am indeed pleased to add that I represent that fine constituency where the distinguished wife of our Prime Minister was born.
Those are some of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why the people of Beauce were so happy to welcome that great Canadian and his gracious lady, who has proven to be such a worthy wife and mother. That is why we outdid ourselves.
The Prime Minister did not go so far as to ask the electors to vote for me; on the contrary, however, I can now assure him that if the majority of the people of Beauce did not support his official candidate, it was not because they were opposed to the Prime Minister, of whom they are very fond, but rather because they preferred your humble servant.
I can assure you that among those who supported me in the recent election a few thousand must have done violence to their feelings when they voted for a candidate who was persona non grata.
I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that for having been so outspoken, so loyal and so plucky, the good people of Beauce can count on generous treatment from the government.


Mr. Henri Courtemanche (Labelle):: May I
be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to follow the example of the hon. Leader of the Opposition in congratulating the hon. Prime Minister on his electoral victory., I wonder whether the result would have been the same had it not been for his personal prestige in the province of Quebec. As a group, the Liberal party had much to be forgiven, and its recent victory must not be considered as an incentive to carry on its erring policy but rather to correct its political inspirations.
Not being sentimental, my constituency was logical and fair in voting for Mr. Drew and the party which he leads with such distinction and sincerity.
I have the honour of representing a large constituency which is mainly agricultural. The constituency of Labelle, like so many others, did not secure from this government all it was entitled to expect. I am not blaming anyone but my presence in this house proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the people in that section of Quebec wanted to protest most emphatically against

the repudiation of principles stated often but rejected on every occasion.
Representing as I do an historic constituency, I do not want to omit mentioning the man who has brought such renown to it, that is to say the eminent patriot and great statesman Henri Bourassa.
Many of those who sit here have known him well and they recall the battles he waged in defence of our rights, our language and our religion.
Unfortunately, he retired from active political life at a time when his eloquence and his experience would have been so helpful to us. However, if this outstanding orator can no longer be admired on the political scene, his ideas have gone forward and no one should be surprised today if the electors of Labelle have shown a reaction and proved that the people are still capable of thinking and passing judgment.
Above political parties must stand the Canadian motherland, which is still sacred to all well-born men and which must be the supreme guide of all honest citizens. There is nothing wrong in supporting one party or another, but we should not sacrifice everything to political parties. Before voting Liberal or Conservative the people should vote in accordance with the common weal and the general interest.
One of the measures of great interest to the members and the population of Quebec was the statement concerning Canada's constitutional future. We are told that the Liberal government intends to ask the house to approve "measures designed to facilitate the attainment of the constitutional limits of our nationhood". It was with a surge of pride and some astonishment that we heard about this welcome piece of news. Nations, no less than individuals, aspire to maturity, to majority. Canada came of age one hundred years ago. Therefore, that measure is not premature; on the contrary. We have only praise for the government concerning that inspired move. Common sense and judicial sense are not the prerogative of any one nation. Our jurists are just as competent as those of other nations, even those of Great Britain. It is very good and even beneficial to build up a legal structure.
In principle, any true Canadian will consider it antiquated that a so-called autonomous country should have to take its cases to a foreign court. By abolishing appeals to the privy council we would affirm our sovereignty. The principle of the law is excellent. However, when there is evidence of subtlety and tactics in disputes between federal and provincial governments, we may wonder whether the rights of minorities will eventu-
The Address-Mr. Courtemanche ally be well protected. Once the supreme court becomes the last court of appeal, will it be a complaint instrument in the hands of the government?
Another matter, Mr. Speaker, of great importance, is that of the amendment to the constitution of 1867. The matter has been brought up before.
Building our confederation took years of labour by jurists and patriots. Then again, in principle, the amendment is a good thing but in practice we must proceed with care, with vision, lest we infringe the letter and the spirit of the pact of 1867.
Present evils are blamed on the constitution, which is claimed to have become a strait-jacket, not only delaying but impeding Canada's development. That is only a smokescreen.
The great principles set forth in 1867 must be respected, especially as far as the rights of minorities are concerned. The constitution can only be amended after careful and honest scrutiny of the people's sovereign rights. Was that not the intention of the fathers of confederation? One of thefn, Macdonald, who became prime minister of Canada, asserted that there were "neither victors nor vanquished".
The aim of the constitution was to enable the two main ethnical groups of Canada, the French and English-speaking elements, to co-operate in the achievement of Canada's destiny.
In Canada, peace and happiness on the one hand, or internal division, discontent and impediments on the other hand, will depend on the wisdom and the fairness with which these measures are implemented.
I sincerely hope that this epoch-making session will enable our country to attain a degree of development truly in keeping with the wealth of its soil, the sterling qualities of its people, and the exceptional geographic and economic advantages that are Canada's heritage.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I may say without exaggeration that, on the international scene, Canada's destiny is at hand.
(Text):


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, may I add my congratulations to those that have gone before on your elevation to your present high office. As a new member representing Saskatchewan, I appreciate the great honour, I am sure, of addressing you in this house. I should like to compliment my good friend and colleague the member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) on his address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. 180	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Harrison
Laing), who gave such a masterly address, also deserves commendation. These were two outstanding examples of fluency in our two official languages. I do not think I have heard anything better at any time. Of course, many great speeches have been given in this house.
I understand that one member who has been here for many years but who, unfortunately, is not at his desk this evening, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), displays a great ability in the art of oratory. He was once able, while sitting on the opposition benches, to secure a railroad station for his town. However, I believe the two new members I have mentioned did a great honour to all the new members generally, and I was surprised that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) should mention the fact that not many of the new members had spoken. Three or four years from now, possibly, he will be more concerned if one of those gentlemen descends into his riding.
I should like to thank the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Cavers) for his gift of peaches. I wonder, however, whether he is setting a precedent; we may arrive some morning to find a wet tuna on our desk, a present of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Winters); from the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank)-nuts. I was pleased with one part of the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South. I thought he made a nice gesture to the minister from his own province, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew). Coming, as I do, from Saskatchewan, where we have raised some very prominent ministers of agriculture, we make no apologies for the minister we have at the head of the Saskatchewan delegation. I think you will agree with me that of the great ministers of agriculture which Saskatchewan has usually produced, the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in the most trying of times, has proved himself to be the greatest that Canada has ever had.
I should like to compliment the members of this house. Many of them, I am sure, have given up more remunerative positions in order to serve their country. We have never had a greater example of this in Canada than that of our present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Last night I had a bad dream in which I thought the leader of the Liberal forces in the other place made some remarks of that kind. Although I had them written down previously, I thought that possibly he was stealing my thunder.
As a new member from Saskatchewan, I have watched with much interest and have listened attentively to the impressive procedures of this house. On every hand I have

been confronted with the contribution of those Canadians who use the French language as their mother tongue; and on every hand, and especially in this house, they add to the decor and dignity of our surroundings. It is fitting that an English-speaking member from the west should pay this just and true tribute to those of French descent in the east. We have here in these two great races the basis of a culture and a unity which no one can match. Indeed, it is already manifest in the unparalleled growth of Canada to recognized fame as a world power. Oddly enough, we ourselves have been the last to recognize this growth. The first official stirrings are seen in Bill No. 2 now before the house. We would never have achieved this place among the nations without the leaders of vision in both our great races who held before them one goal and one goal only, namely unity. I refer of course to those great leaders, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Sir Wi1 'rid Laurier. I trust that this house, in all its deliberations, will make Canadian unity pre-eminent above all other considerations.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I do not speak French correctly but I have a great deal of respect for the gallant race that has contributed to Canada's greatness.
Out of consideration for this language, one of the two officially recognized in the country, and for the French-speaking electors of my constituency, I wish to assure my colleagues in the house that my foremost aim will be to foster the still greater improvement of the relations which now exist between our two races in order that Canada may become strong and united.
(Text):
The riding I have the honour to represent, Mr. Speaker, a new riding formed under the last redistribution, is the riding of Meadow Lake, which is a rather large one in the northwest corner of Saskatchewan, stretching along the Alberta boundary for some 450 miles north to the Northwest Territories, and it is about 125 miles in width. Travel by plane is required in order to cover the northern part of it. As the constituency is of such great length, there is a great diversity of effort among its people. In the south end we have a grain belt; in the centre we have mining, fishing and some production of timber; and, in the far north, I think time will show that we have one of the greatest deposits of uranium to be found on this continent.
From some of our Saskatchewan members you have heard a rather doleful story, especially from some of the southern Saskatche-

wan members. My good colleague the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) told you a rather sad story with regard to his part of the country. He said quite rightly that he did not know of any good reason why he should stay there. But he is an example of the kind of stock from which these people come. I just wish to correlate this incident with something I noticed in the discussion of the estimates, and this is what I am trying to get at. There was some discussion about the cost of experimental farms. Speaking to you for people who have had some benefit from them, I want to say that the expenditures on those farms have contributed more to this country than possibly any other expenditure that ever was made. That is what the hon. member for Maple Creek was getting at when he said that they were going to stay there, regardless. Those experimental stations have developed techniques that are from day to day improving and are enabling us to raise crops, by various methods other than those we have usually used, on land that we had previously found to be unproductive. I do not blame the hon. member for staying where he is. I know that these experimental farms will find the answer to productivity in that part of the country in any year. The farmers there have produced in many years, even with present methods.
However, it is not a doleful story that we hear all over Saskatchewan. I happen to have the honour to represent the riding of Meadow Lake, which has always produced. There are parts to the south of it that are sometimes hit by drought also. But there is no more fertile land in the whole Dominion of Canada than that around Meadow Lake itself. Just to give you an idea of what is produced there, I should like to give a few figures. In 1943 just out of the town of Meadow Lake itself we shipped 100 cars of northern lake fish, 512 cars of livestock, 900 cars of grain, 120,000 railroad ties, 10 million feet of lumber and 100,000 pounds of wild blueberries. The fish and the lumber are no longer turned out of Meadow Lake owing in most part to the socialist policies of the government we have in Saskatchewan. Grain production, however, has greatly increased. In 1948 1,500,000 bushels were delivered to the elevators in the town of Meadow Lake. This year, with crops ranging as high as 138 bushels of oats to the acre and 78 bushels of wheat to the acre, there will be delivered to those elevators in the neighbourhood of 3 million bushels of grain. I do not believe there is on the whole North American continent another delivery point of that size. Last year there was delivered to the town of Meadow Lake $1,500,000 worth of vari-
The Address-Mr. Harrison ous hay seeds, mostly alfalfa. I should like to point out to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that these mostly go over the border and provide much-needed United States dollars. Our uranium deposits as they are developed in the north will naturally contribute also toward that end.
For some time Meadow Lake has been represented in the house severally by Mrs. Nielsen, who represented North Battleford, and Mr. Townley-Smith, who was a member of the C.C.F. party. We take our politics fairly seriously in that constituency, but not too seriously. During the campaign just finished I was on good terms with the C.C.F. candidate. We were personal friends and very likely will always continue to be. During the election campaign the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) was in my riding.


Gordon Graydon: I am afraid I elected you.


John Hornby Harrison: Thank you. I might say that many of his compatriots of good substance found it fitting to support either me or the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)-I would not know which for sure.
There is one crying need in the riding which I represent and which I place on the highest priority. Some years ago, just when the drought was settling in the west, an attempt was made to grade a piece of railroad from St. Walburg through to Beaver Crossing, which is a distance of some ninety miles. At that time there was not a great deal of agricultural land broken up in that area, and now there is and that is where this alfalfa and all of this grain is being produced. The grade is in but some of it has deteriorated in the meantime. We had not only the depression of the thirties, but the ensuing war conditions and so on, when people realized that they could not have this railroad completed at that time; but they do not see any particular objection to having it completed at this time. I can assure you that along parts of that line double the acreage is now under cultivation as compared with a year ago, and that breaking is going ahead quite rapidly. There is also a short strip that needs completion, which is known as the Heinsburg gap between Heinsburg and St. Walburg. I trust that the minister will take note of these and see if he can give us some action on the railroads mentioned.
May I refer to another priority? We have a good deal of fishing in my constituency and it is centred at a place that is known as Buffalo Narrows, which is the centre of the great waterways running to the north. It has been fished pretty well most of the year. Our experience in the west has been-and I think that is true of everywhere else-that you cannot continually reap a crop without
182	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Harrison sowing some seed. I should like to point out to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) that a fish hatchery is much needed at that point. Fishing supports the Metis in that part of the country.
An Indian tuberculosis wing is also required on the hospital at lie a la Crosse. During my travels I found that a number of Indians, especially younger children, are sent to Prince Albert, which is a very good institution for treating tuberculosis, but unfortunately the makeup of the Indian child is such that it more or less pines away when it is away from its parents. In spite of the best of care in Prince Albert, these children do not respond to treatment as they would if they were at home where their parents could visit them from time to time.
I have taken great pleasure in informing you about the constituency of Meadow Lake. As I said, it is a large one to cover. I covered it three times during the campaign, twice before the election and once afterwards to thank the people for the way they had treated me. I took Mrs. Harrison along with me and one of our daughters. We flew through to the north side of lake Athabasca to the gold fields area and to the mining development going on up there. I speak of my constituency firsthand, and I am able to tell you that I am the first representative from that constituency who has been able to speak firsthand of it, because none ever travelled up in that northern area before.
Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to compliment the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I have never had an opportunity to meet him personally, but I have been impressed with his attitude, and I might say his contribution to decorum, in this house. I appreciate that to the fullest extent. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) was kind enough to come over and say hello to a new member when we came in. I have not had an opportunity to meet the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), but he was in my riding. He is a very able man and I do not doubt that we shall get along very well even though we are on opposite sides of the house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that in spite of certain reverberations which have come from behind me I am on my feet; I also assure you at the outset, sir, that I shall not continue very long. But I do want to bring to the attention of yourself and the house two matters which I regard as somewhat important, one probably local and the other somewhat general. Before doing so I wish to add my congratulations first, sir, to you and then to the chairman of the committee of the whole, to the
fMr. Harrison.]

clerk and to the clerk assistant, and to the mover and seconder of the address. I must say with respect to the seconder, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing), that it has been my business for more years than I care to remember to listen to speeches. I do not mean those made in this house which of course are of the very highest order at all times. One can say things here with his tongue in his cheek and under our rules nobody can dispute him. I must say about the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South-I speak seriously-that as a matter of sheer eloquence it was in my judgment just about the finest thing that I have heard in the five years, this being the sixth, that I have been here. It was eloquent not merely in phrase-making. It was the eloquence of a man who must write, I am sure, because it had a solid foundation of ideas behind the wonderful expressions which he used.
I am going to speak briefly on only two matters. May I assure you, sir, with respect, that I have been tempted many times but I am not going to try to shoot for a minute and a half into French-which I am sure will please you and all other hon. members. We have it suggested that many new committees be set up. I think that a committee should be set up among the French members who would censor the French pronunciation of those persons to whom French is not the mother tongue. We might even include the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) because he looks to me so differently at times. When he changes language he changes personality, but may I say to him in compliment that with each change he gets better and better all the time.
I am going to make a request of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), and I hope I shall be making it of the proper minister. It is this. In view of the change in the value of our currency it is time that he, or those charged with the responsibility, should make a re-examination of the problem of coal to these middle Canadian provinces. It seems to me that this 10 per cent must be to them a heavy factor. I refer to the price that they are paying right here in Ottawa. I noticed in yesterday's paper that the minimum price of what is called furnace coal, right here in Ottawa-and in brackets were the words "American coal"- was $24.35 a ton.
Perhaps I am the one member, apart from the then minister of mines and resources, who read carefully from cover to cover the report of the coal commission. While there were a lot of words in that report, we now have a problem of great importance to those people out there, and to the people in this

portion of Canada where, in view of the dollar situation, a great contribution might be made to ourselves, while at the same time assisting our railway people and all others who would be engaged in the transportation of that product. I know we have certain subventions in railway rates.
I pay great compliment to my old friend Frank Neate who, I believe, knows more about coal matters in Canada than anyone else in Canada. I would mention, too, Dr. Camsell, whom I met in the elevator only yesterday. But it does seem to me there is a real opportunity for reconsideration and restudy of this whole problem.
We are told-and I am sure it is true-that our No. 1 currency difficulty is in connection with the securing of American dollars for the purchase of coal in the United States. I make these observations, not in any critical sense at all, but merely as a suggestion to those who are responsible, and would urge my view that this is an excellent time to re-examine the whole problem. The benefits to Canada as a whole are certainly large; the prize is worth while. It is worth examination and striving for to bring about unity in our country-and I mean unity in the economy of our country. Perhaps it would bring us together and do all of us a great deal of good if we were to examine that problem.
I apologize to you, sir, and to my old personal friend and political colleague for having interrupted him a moment ago when he referred to the transportation of oil. Let me say that the increase in the production of oil in Alberta is nothing less than phenomenal. I do not think anyone can laugh off 65,000 barrels a day. That can be greatly increased, of course, the moment we are able to bring it to market. It seems to me the only solution of this whole problem is that our oil from Alberta should find outlets in the United States, and that oil from the United States on an exchange basis should enter eastern Canada, thereby making our dollar situation infinitely easier and giving us a tremendous shield by way of markets.
I am sure we would find that our American cousins would agree with that, because we know that in so far as new discoveries are concerned in the United States, they are not beginning to keep up with the consumption of the product in that country. May I, to my good friends from Saskatchewan, and particularly my hon. friend the member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison), who spoke a moment ago, give a little bit of good news-theoretical as it may be. Some weeks ago I spent an evening with an old friend who, I believe, is the outstanding geologist in that country, and who has had longer experience there than
The Address-Mr. A. L. Smith anyone else. I refer to my friend Dr. Ted Tink, who was with the Imperial Oil Company, but who is now retired and acts as a consultant. He showed me a map showing what is called the sedimentary basin-because it is admitted now by all geologists that oil comes from the dissolution of marine life in sediment.
So we have this sedimentary basin; and there is a trifle more of it in Saskatchewan than there is in Alberta. From a geological standpoint, that sedimentary basin in those two provinces is larger than any or all similar basins in the United States-Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Michigan, Illinois, and all those states where oil is found.
I mention this to put before the house not the certainty, probably not the probability, but certainly the possibility in that tremendous prairie area of an oil field greater than this world has ever known. We need not speak of the economic possibilities of that; do not let us confine it to its equivalent in American dollars. Let us think of it on the basis that perhaps-and God forbid-we may be in another war. Everyone knows now that wars are fought on gasoline. With the exception of a small amount of oil from the Roumanian fields, the Germans fought the last several years of the last war on synthetic gasoline made from coal. Here we are in this country with amazing coal deposits. Scientists have not changed the volume. It is still 14 per cent of the world's known coal deposits.
I have mentioned these things because they are problems for study, and may throw some light on our future. I am sick and tired of listening to people who point out to me the difficulty we are in and the certainty of depressions-and even collapse-next year or the year after. I am thoroughly fed up with all those people who tell us about the housing difficulties-and there are difficulties -and about the small amounts of money that some of our people earn.
These things are true. Then they blame it all on the system known as the free enterprise system, individual enterprise-call it what you like. But, admitting there are many things wrong, I think it is just about time to say that the people who do all this complaining would not be here if it were not for that same system. Let us never forget that, while there are things wrong with it, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. You try to improve the system, if you have a nickel's worth of brains in your head; and you do not try to destroy the thing and start all over again from nothing.
You will remind yourself, Mr. Speaker,- and you are younger than I am-that in your time we got the telephone and the electric
184	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. L. Smith light. Where I lived we got indoor plumbing. We did not complain about things. Why? All this is comparative. In Regina, where I was born, everybody was broke and because everybody was broke we did not know we were broke. So we all had a splendid time.
I speak with some experience of that country. My people drove into Regina in 1882 ahead of the C.P.R. from Indian Head and got there in February 1883. At that time I was not even a twinkle in my father's eye, as I was not born until 1886. But my mother has told me of the first winter when they lived in a tent on frozen potatoes and buffalo meat. Were they unhappy? Certainly not. We were a splendid people. Many of us have survived and some of us have achieved something. But we did not bite at everything and blame the government for it. We did not live that wTay.
At that time we had the old government of the Northwest Territories. I remember going up there as a high school youngster. I was about to say that I went upon my bicycle but I remember that bicycles were not even invented. I ran up there and I watched Sir Frederick Haultain take the hide off an old friend of mine, Viscount Bennett as he later became and who now is gone. As you know, Sir Frederick died in Montreal only a short time ago. I have been politically minded ever since, but I had to wait until 1945 when the weakness of my political enemies put me down here-and I got back again in 1949. But 1 claim no right to be a statesman or anything of that kind.
I am glad the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) is here and I am sorry the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is not. I should like at this time to make a special plea which may be somewhat out of place. In your absence I made a speech the other night about football during the agricultural estimates and no great harm was done to anyone at that time. The matter I wish to bring up was not mentioned in the speech from the throne.
I make a plea on behalf of the older superannuated mounted police.
These men have been to a number of governments but they have not got anywhere.
I appreciate the difficulty of this government and of the government between 1935 and 1940 when faced with this problem. I appreciate that the minute you alter the superannuation pay for any government servants you probably open up a subject which may be too large and too difficult to deal with at one time. That is the answer these men have always been given.


I speak of these men with more than sympathy; I speak of them with enthusiasm. I was born in the place which was the headquarters of that force. I saw them go- off to the South African war. I saw them go off to the Klondike trail. In fact my only successful business transaction, outside of the money I make from reading the law books on the walls of my office, was made at that time. I stole a hockey stick from my father's store. That was the beginning. I traded it to a lad by the name of Cameron Bennett for a dog and I sold the dog to the mounted police for $4. As I say, that is the only successful business transaction I have ever had. I am sorry it had to begin with a theft, but after all my father had a lot of hockey sticks in his store.
Many of the men I am speaking about are alive today and perhaps that is all you can say for them. The answer that has been given to these men by both Tory and Liberal governments-I make no distinction-is that this is a civil service matter. It seems to me that that answer is completely wrong because in a sense these men were not civil servants. They were men of the army. They were under discipline. They did not have an eight hour, a nine hour, or whatever it may be, day; they were on duty-not actively it is true but on call-for twenty-four hours in the day.
The'ir numbers have been cut down by violence. As a youngster I heard of the famous case involving an Indian by the name of Almighty Horse who killed Sergeant Col-brook. We lost half a dozen policemen trying to capture him up near where the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) comes from. I remember the facts of that case. Colbrook was told to bring in this fellow and he and a young half-breed interpreter went out for him. They met up with this Indian buck. He told Colbrook, "Come one step further and you are a dead man." Colbrook had been told to bring him in alive; he took that other step and was shot right between the eyes. That is not civil service; that is the case of a man going out in defence of decency.
I can remember the first time we had trouble with the Doukhobors. Thank goodness they have left us and gone to join our friends in British Columbia. They say they find themselves more at home there, and now they are burning up schoolhouses, shooting at one another and that sort of thing. I can remember an old police sergeant who was there when they first went on one of their nude parades in the vicinity of Yorkton. The police went out and brought them in and they were quartered in what we called the riding school. You have nicer names for those buildings now, you call them armouries and

all that sort of thing, but we called it the riding school. They lived upstairs but they were not very good residents. For one thing, they would not take a bath. If you had a rope with two pails attached they would walk along and perhaps splash it over themselves, but beyond that they just would not take a bath. We kids used to go up and watch them eating grass. They would roll it up into little balls, push it in their mouths and eat it. But they refused to bathe.
You can imagine the condition of things. They were not exactly as sanitary as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) tells us they should be. The police brought them down to Wascana creek, which the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will remember quite well. At that time we did not have the beautiful lake there is there now; there was just a little dam which made a swimming hole for us.
I have no doubt the minister has been there many times.
They took them down there and there was one chap who called himself John the Baptist. He was a most recalcitrant creature. They asked John the Baptist if he would go in and take a bath and he said he would not. Four mounties picked him up and-one, two, three, four, and in went John. The weeds in that creek were something. Talk about the sedimentary basin in Alberta! We certainly had one there. Out came John the Baptist and he said that he would not walk back; they would have to carry him. It was then as a youngster that I learned for the first time what a frog march really was. The way they did it was this: There was one on each arm and one on each leg and they marched him with his stomach toward the front. Then as they went along and when John least expected it the fifth man came in with an awful push in the middle of his back and John walked. That is neither here nor there.
What am I seeking for these men? I have their consent to say what I am saying inasmuch as they have their own veterans organization. I had hoped to have the parliamentary assistant from Coast-Capilano to help me, but I know I have his sympathy. All I am asking at the present time is that these old men who are ill and crippled, and who have retired on these pensions granted long ago, which we all know are not sufficient to maintain life itself, let alone a living in decency, be allowed hospitalization on the basis of military service.
I say, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to everyone here, that is not asking a great deal. I realize that it requires the
The Address-Mr. A. L. Smith co-operation of two or probably three departments. There are not many of them left. They are pretty well all gone now. It seems to me that the cost would be small and would not violate any principle except to convince ourselves that those men were keepers of the peace who did not leave their jobs at five o'clock. I am not criticizing people who do; do not misunderstand me. In the old days, and I think it is still true, a mounted policeman who lost a prisoner after five days on account of lack of sleep was put in the clink. That was true then.
I remember a poor chap who brought one down to Battleford. There was no railway through Battleford in those days. I know that, because in 1903 I walked from Lloyd -minster to Battleford and from Battleford to Saskatoon on the top of the railway dump, and it is 100 miles in each lap. I do know that I never enjoyed a walk more in my life, just a couple of hundred miles before breakfast.
I know of one man who is still confined in one of our mental institutions. He is a very old man now. He had a prisoner and he travelled for five and a half days with him. The only thing he could do was to handcuff him to himself. He arrived in Battleford. That was before North Battleford was ever heard of. In those days Battleford was a police post. I could give you instance after instance of which I have personal knowledge.
I know that the heads of the proper departments will be sympathetic, but I ask them not to treat it as a difficulty which cannot be overcome because of interference in some larger plan. It is not a part of a larger plan if we regard these men as having given not civil but military service to our country, which they have been giving from the days of the Riel rebellion. You can take the whole history of this country, and their major service has been that of maintaining law and order. The country was not as civilized then as it is now when every time a person puts out his hand and does a nickel's, worth of work for himself he asks for ten cents from the government. Many of us are getting into that habit. Thanks very much; I will accept a retainer at any moment from any member of the government.
I do say with the greatest respect and deference that those of these men who are still alive, and who are in the Belcher hospital in Calgary or some place like that, should be allowed to live out their last days in comfort and, having eaten a sausage for breakfast, not worry whether they should or should not have saved half of it for their dinner that night.

The Address-Mr. Fulton


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, after the marvellous stories of western Canada with which we have been regaled during the past forty minutes, the house might be willing to have the debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As provided by the terms of the motion adopted on the first day, we will proceed with government business tomorrow. The first order of business will be the second reading of the bill to amend the Supreme Court Act, and, after that is disposed of, estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What department?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Department of Agriculture has not been completed. If it is completed, I understand that the Minister of Justice is prepared to proceed with his estimates.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Friday, September 23, 1949