1949-03-07

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker: I should like to submit to the house a motion which has to do with the business of the house and of which notice is to be found on page 38 of Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. It reads:
That, except on Wednesdays, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair at six o'clock p.m. until seven-thirty, and shall adjourn the house at ten-thirty p.m. without question put, unless the closure rule (standing order No. 39) be then in operation, this order to be in effect until and upon the last sitting day of the month of April.
In making this motion I do not submit it as a recommendation to the house. As hon. members know, the motion under which we now sit in the evening from seven-thirty until ten-thirty has to do only with the period during which the address in reply to the speech from the throne is under discussion. If at the conclusion of this debate there were no motion before the house to continue these hours of sitting, the house would automatically revert to the eleven o'clock rule. I have heard comments on both sides, some as to the advisability of reverting to the eleven o'clock rule, and some in favour of continuing for a further period with the ten-thirty hour of adjournment. For the purpose of allowing the house to make its preference known in that regard, I am submitting this motion.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, at the time the earlier motion was presented I made an observation which I repeat now. There have been long-established practices as to the hours of sittings of this house, and it seems to me that if they are to be changed they should be the subject of discussion among representatives of the different parties to the end that more satisfactory hours be arranged than those which obviously are not entirely satisfactory to most hon. members. It seems to me that that is a simpler method of dealing with the matter than this slipshod practice which does neither one thing nor the other. It makes the
dinner recess half an hour shorter and the final adjournment at night half an hour earlier. It does not diminish the non-attendance at the opening of the evening sitting, for the obvious reason that there are many hon. members who have more to do than eat between the time the house rises at the end of the afternoon and the time it reconvenes after dinner.
It seems to me that the more the hours of this house are made to accord with the necessity of doing certain work in our offices as well as fulfilling ordinary requirements, to say nothing of retaining some measure of social contact outside the house, the better it will be for everyone and the better it will be for the attendance in the house. Instead of adopting a compromise between something and nothing-which is all this motion amounts to-it would be much better if the house met at two o'clock, adjourned at six, reconvened at eight and adjourned at ten. If the house would give me the opportunity of putting it in written form, I would move by way of amendment that after debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is concluded the house meet at two o'clock, adjourn at six, reconvene at eight and adjourn at ten.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: In
view of the divergence of opinion represented by the motion and the suggested amendment, I think what should be done is to accept the original proposal of the leader of the opposition, and have a discussion among the representatives of the various parties in the house. I am not in favour of either of the proposals made today, and to vote suddenly on them is not the way in which to settle the matter. I suggest to the Prime Minister that the motion be held over for a day or so in order that members may think about it.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I have not changed my view since the matter was first discussed in the house by the Prime Minister some ten days ago. I still think a committee should be set up to discuss the whole question and bring in a recommendation which will resolve all the various opinions into a resolution acceptable to the house. If the Prime Minister desires to proceed with his motion today, I am afraid I shall have to support the amendment of the leader of the opposition.

House of Commons


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: a backbencher may enter a discussion among the leaders of the various parties- I lead my own party-may I say that I do not approve the motion. I understand it is not a government measure. If there is to be an amendment-and I hate to be in accord with the leader of the opposition or the leaders of the other two parties-I think we should go all the way. Why not consider the maritimes and the western provinces? Let us sit on Wednesday evenings, and, so far as I am concerned, Saturday as well, and finish the session. If the motion is not a government measure I do not think it should be proceeded with at this time. I suggest that an amendment be introduced to provide that we sit on Wednesday evenings, and let us finish the session.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not want to insist upon having the motion put, but it is apparent that if we have a committee there will be as many divergent views expressed as there were last year, and the result will be no change. 1 have no objection to that, because I am perfectly willing that the present standing order be applied. I felt, however, that it was only proper, in view of the experiment that had been made, that the members be given an opportunity to express their preference in the matter. If it is desired that the question be held over until tomorrow, I have no objection. If it is the desire of the house that the standing order apply, I shall be satisfied. My only purpose was to try to meet the desires of the greater number in the house. But I do think it is only fair to be realistic, and to admit that if we set up a committee we shall simply be going back to the standing order which has been in effect for a long time.
It is immaterial to me whether the motion be dealt with now or be allowed to stand until tomorrow. I think that the setting up of a committee would have the same result that was reached last year: we would not be able to bring in an agreed recommendation for a change. That might be the better result. We have the standing order, and unless there is an overwhelming desire to change it, perhaps it should be adhered to.


Solon Earl Low: How does the Prime Minister feel about the two o'clock proposal?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The two o'clock proposal would create extreme difficulty for the cabinet. We have to meet in council every day at two o'clock. That has been going on since the first day of the session. It would be difficult to substitute the hour between ten and eleven at night for the hour we now use, between two and three, for the purpose of dealing with the business of the government. 1 have not

consulted my colleagues, but I believe it would interfere with the proper and expeditious conduct of the business of government if the house were to meet at two o'clock instead of three. We shall never get 245 minds in agreement, and if we set up a committee there will not be agreement. We have at least had agreement in practice under the standing order and it may be best to leave it as it is. If it is the desire of the house that the motion be withdrawn, I am prepared to withdraw it, because I put it forward not as my view but for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the members of the house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that, without formally appointing a committee, the whips of each party might meet? From some of the comments made as to different hours of sitting, it is obvious that there is a divergence of opinion. It is possible that as a result of the experiment which has been made some new views may be indicated. The Prime Minister has stated that two o'clock would be an inconvenient hour for the house to meet in the afternoon. After all, it is the business of the house to decide its own affairs, and that should be done with recognition of the problems of the government and its administrative responsibilities. I would point out, however, that the House of Commons of Great Britain, which also has very heavy responsibilities, meets even earlier, and they adjust the hour of meeting of their cabinet council. It would seem that the time might be so adjusted here. This suggestion would approach the matter with some sense of reality. At the moment I do not think the present practice accomplishes anything, except to provide a disturbing break in the dinner hour, and not a very conclusive advantage at the end of the day. I suggest that the whips meet before tomorrow and see if any general opinion is taking form.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is quite agreeable to me. I would remind the leader of the opposition that there is no dinner adjournment in the British House of Commons.


George Alexander Drew: I know.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: I
do not think this is a matter that the whips can settle. They may be good whips, but they cannot meet all the private members and find out what their opinions are. 1 suggest to the Prime Minister and to the leader of the opposition that the matter be allowed to stand until Thursday afternoon. In the meantime the caucuses of the various parties will have been held, and this is a proper subject for them to discuss. This proposal will not interfere with consideration of the amendment offered by the leader of the opposition or the motion of the Prime Minister.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps we might leave
it until tomorrow. It may be that tomorrow we shall wish to accept the suggestion of the hon member for Vancouver East and put it over until Thursday.
Motion stands.



COARSE GRAINS


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I wish to make an
announcement to the house in regard to the oats and barley equalization fund for the year ending July 31, 1948, as administered by the Canadian wheat board.
The final accounting in regard to these two funds has now been completed. After allowing for payment expenses, the surplus in the 1947-48 oats equalization fund is $4,269,706.84, and the surplus in the 1947-48 barley equalization fund is $4,402,527.75. On the basis of 1947-48 producers deliveries, as reported to the board by handling companies, the per bushel payment on oats will be 5-881 cents, and on barley 6-780 cents per bushel.
These payments will be made in two parts. Cheques to individual producers delivering oats and barley to country elevators or authorized dealers from August 1,	1947 to
October 21, 1947 have been prepared and will be distributed through elevator companies commencing on March 7,	1949.
Delivery records for this period were already in the hands of the board, since the board made the dominion government payments of 5 cents per bushel on oats and 11 cents per bushel on barley applicable to deliveries of oats and barley during the period when price ceilings were in effect.
The board now has on hand the record of deliveries from October 22, 1947, to July 31, 1948. Cheques covering oats and barley deliveries during this period will be written at an early day and distributed to producers through the various elevator companies.
As the collection of equalization fees on exports of oats and barley was discontinued on August 1, 1948, the present payment will represent the last distribution of oats and barley equalization funds.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ANSWER TO INQUIRY AS TO CHOICE OF ROUTES

Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources):: On March 2 the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) asked for information on a certain route of the trans-
Ministerial Statements Canada highway which I believe he said had been recommended in the early thirties by the federal government and by the different provinces.
From the information available in the department I cannot find any record of the federal government having designated a coast-to-coast route, or of the provincial governments having designated complete or continuous routes in the provinces during the period mentioned by the hon. member. Between 1930 and 1939 various provinces selected certain sections of their main east and west roads as part of a trans-Canada highway when requesting financial aid from the federal government under unemployment relief acts for main road improvement.
I understand that the sections of road designated by the provinces were generally along the main east and west roads as then established across Canada, and beginning at Nanaimo on the west coast the route went through the following cities or towns: Victoria, Vancouver, Kamloops, Revelstoke, Golden, Banff, Calgary, Medicine Hat, Moose Jaw, Regina, Brandon, Winnipeg, Fort William, Schreiber, along the north shore of Lake Superior to Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, North Bay, Pembroke, Ottawa, Hawkesbury, Montreal, Three Rivers, Quebec, Riviere du Loup, Edmundston, Woodstock, Fredericton, Saint John, Moncton, Amherst, Truro, New Glasgow, Antigonish, Port Hawkesbury, and Sydney.
Federal assistance to the provinces on the above route is totaled at some $28,650,000. I wish to add further that this material has not been depended upon in any consideration recently given to the matter of the trans-Canada highway.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Timmins) has given me notice of the following question:
Where a veteran purchases a house under the V.L..A. and subsequently structural defects occur, which the department gets repaired, and when subsequently the veteran vacates the house and the department proceeds to consider the amount of his reestablishment credit, does the department propose to rule that the cost of remedying such defects constitutes a benefit to the veteran concerned or not?
This matter has been under consideration by the department, and we have felt it desirable to ask the Department of Justice for an opinion. If the hon. member has a specific
1192

Questions
case in mind, I should be glad to let him have further word, if he will give me the particulars.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: 1.	Does the Department of Agriculture pay compensation for cattle which are T.B. reactors?
2.	If so, what amount do they pay?
3.	What steps have been taken by the government towards raising the amount of such payments?


Mr. Gardiner:: May I be permitted to answer this question orally? The answer to part 1 is yes. The answer to part 2 is that the maximum amount upon which the payment is based is $60 for grades and $150 per head for purebred cattle.
As to part 3 I do not think it would be possible to give a definite answer for some little time. All I can say at the moment is that a recommendation has been made to the government and legislation in respect to the matter is under consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.


Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: Could I not have some more information from the minister? If the government do recognize that these amounts should be increased, will the higher rates be made retroactive?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Ross (SI. Paul's):: 1.	Are any taxes paid to the dominion government by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	Are sales taxes, excise taxes and customs duties paid on purchases made by the corporation?
3.	What is the amount and nature of the taxes payable by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to each provincial government?
4.	What is the amount and nature of the taxes payable by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to each municipality on premises owned by the corporation?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes. See answer to No. 2.
2.	Yes.
3.	Nil.
4.	No taxes are paid by the corporation to municipalities. Payments are made, however, for such services as water and sewage in some localities.



Mr. Henderson:: 1.	What was (a) the purchase price: (b) the sale price, by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, of the property on the east side of Yonge street, between Jackes avenue and Summerhill avenue?
[Mr Gregg.)
2.	From whom did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation buy this property, for what purpose, and at what cost?
3.	What was the cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the old Havergal college on Jarvis street, and the adjoining property to the north?
4.	What has been spent on these properties per annum, for improvements, since purchase?
5.	Were buildings formerly used for housing units torn down and others built on this old Havergal site? If so, at what cost?
6.	What has been the total expenditure on this property in (a) capital expenditure; (b) maintenance charges, per annum?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	(a)	$50,000; (b) $65,000.
2.	North American Life Assurance Company. Contemplated as a site for studios and offices. See 1 (a).
3.	$120,000.
4.	(1) Conversion and alterations to adapt property to meet technical requirements for broadcasting purposes, $204,095.32.
(2) Fiscal year 1946-47, improvements, $14,298.85.
(3) Fiscal year,	1947-48,	improvements,

5.	No.
6.	(a) Exclusive of purchase price, the expenditures on building and property alterations and improvements to January 31, 1949, amounted to $243,915.95.
(b) Annual maintenance charges for buildings and grounds:
1944- 45	$	469.501945-	46	
5,013.851946-	47	
5,685.171947- 48	;	
17,305.101948-	49 (to	Jan. 31, 1949)	
7,559.33


$36,032.95 IRRIGATION  LILLOOET, B.C., AREA
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Are any negotiations under way for development of irrigation projects in the Lillooet, British Columbia, area?
2.	What representations have been received to date from the province of British Columbia with regard to development in this district or any other district in accordance with the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, made on May 14, 1947? Give particulars.
3.	What action has been taken and what is the present position with regard to each of the projects referred to in such representations?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	No. The need in that part of the Lillooet area where we are operating is for diking and drainage, and the sum of $282,137 has been spent by the dominion since 1946 on such works.
2.	The province of British Columbia submitted the following list of projects for

consideration under the policy announced by the Minister of Agriculture on May 22, 1947: Westbank, St. Mary's Prairie (Kimberley); Winfield Okanagan Centre, Camp Lister, and North Creston; Kelowna (Mission creek), Duck Lake reclamation; Similkameen, Columbia river reclamation; Penticton West Bench, South Thompson pumping; Armstrong (Grandview flats), Niskonlith (Pritchard); Salmon Arm, Campbell creek; South Okanagan, Merritt flats; Okanagan Falls, Balmoral flats; Midway Rock Creek Balfour, Tappen; Walhachin, East Lillooet; Ashcroft.
The following specific requests have been received from the province since that time: for construction of the Chase irrigation project; for construction of the Johnson-Western Canada ranching irrigation project; for construction of the Westbank irrigation project; for construction of the Okanagan Falls irrigation project; for survey of the South Okanagan irrigation project; for construction of the Niskonlith irrigation project; for construction of the Cawston Benches irrigation project.
3.	Chase irrigation project-constructed; Johnson-Western Canada ranching project- constructed; Westbank irrigation project- under construction; Okanagan Falls irrigation project-approved and awaiting completion of land control by the province. Survey of South Okanagan project-completed as requested. Niskonlith irrigation project-surveys and designing completed. Cawston Benches irrigation project-surveys and designing completed; Mission Creek irrigation project-preliminary surveys under way; West Bench (Penticton) irrigation project- exploratory surveys for dam site under way. It is the intention to examine and survey additional projects in order that a suitable priority of construction may, in consultation with the province, be established.


FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL
Mr. Poulioi:: How much in American dollars did the foreign exchange control board furnish (a) the Trades and Labour Congress and (b) the Canadian Congress of Labour for remittance from Canada to the United States (i) during each one of the war years of 1939. 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945; (ii) during each one of the following years?


Mr. Belzile:: Since the commencement of exchange control it has been the policy to provide foreign exchange for payments of fees or dues in connection with the membership of Canadians in international labour unions, trade and professional associations, fraternal societies and other similar international bodies. The foreign exchange control board does not maintain records of remit-
Questions
tances made by or to particular organizations or classes of organizations within this general category.


NATIONAL HEALTH
Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Of the hospitals listed on page 836 of Hansard of February 23, 1949, which hospitals were planned prior to (a) April 1, 1948; (b) May 14, 1948; (c) June 30, 1948; (d) after June 29, 1948?
2.	Of the hospitals listed on page 836 of Hansard of February 23, 1949, which hospitals were under construction prior to (a) April 1, 1948; (b) May 14, 1948; (c) June 30, 1948; (d) after June 29, 1948?
3.	How many hospital beds are represented by the hospitals in each category of the answers to questions one and two?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	Information not available.
2.
(a)	Province-Hospital Prince Edward Island-
Beach Grove.
Nova Scotia-
Eastern Shore Memorial.
Quebec-
Hopital Lafleche, Hopital Ste. Marie, St. Joseph des Convalescente, St. Joseph Sanatorium, Sanatorium Cooke, Sanatorium Begin, St. Eusebe, Sanatorium de Macamic, St. Croix, Hotel Dieu Notre Dame de Beauce, Sanatorium St. Georges, Saint-Sauveur, Notre Dame de Lourdes de Blanc Sablon, Youville. Manitoba-	;
Killarney General.
Saskatchewan-
Assiniboia General.
Alberta-
Three Hills Municipal.
British Columbia-
Royal Columbian, Vernon Jubilee, Langley Memorial, St. George's hospital.
Alberta-
Rimbey Municipal hospital.
Manitoba-
Boissevain hospital, Altona hospital. Ontario-
Trenton Memorial hospital, Oshawa General hospital, Cornwall General hospital. Quebecl'Hotel-Dieu d'Amos, l'lnstitut Medico-Pedagogique du Mont Providence.
Nova Scotia-
Victoria County Memorial hospital.
(b)	Those listed under (a) above and the following:
Province-Hospital Ontario-
Leamington District Memorial, Cobourg General.
1194	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
Alberta-
Stettler Municipal hospital.
(c)	Those listed under (a) and (b) above and the following:
Province-Hospital Nova Scotia-
Lunenburg, Guysboro Memorial.
Ontario-
Sudbury General.
Manitoba-
Carberry hospital (Fox Memorial), Gilbert Plains.
Alberta-
Olds Municipal.
British Columbia-
Fernie Memorial.
Ontario-
Alexandra hospital.
Quebec-
Hopital de la Providence.
(d)	Province-Hospital Nova Scotia-
Queen's, Twin Oaks Memorial.
Quebec-
Hotel Dieu de Montmagny.
Ontario-
West Lincoln Memorial, Hamilton General, St. Peters Infirmary, St. Joseph's General.
Manitoba-
Steinbach General.
Alberta-
Vulcan Municipal.
British Columbia-
Provincial Mental, North Vancouver General hospital, Princeton General hospital. Manitoba-
Benito hospital, Cartwright and district medical nursing unit, Fisher Branch Outpost hospital.
Ontario-
Haldimand War Memorial hospital, Oakville Trafalgar Memorial hospital.
3.
(a) 5090, (b) 95, (c) 422, (d) 797. Total 6404. This includes minor adjustments necessary since list of February 23 was tabled.


* HEALTH GRANTS-PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Major James William Coldwell: Under what authority has the dominion committed itself to the province of Quebec for 140 per cent of the amount authorized by P.C. 3403 dated July 28, 1948?


Mr. Martin:: The order in council to which my hon. friend directs attention provides that payment of the federal share of the provincial hospital construction project is made not when the project is approved but in successive instalments at specified times (Mr. Martin.]
during the progress of construction. Each instalment is paid from the provincial allotment of the grant for the year in which it falls due.
Accordingly, while the total of all projects which have been approved under hospital construction for Quebec is greater than the province's share of the grant for this year, the actual expenditure and commitment for the fiscal year 1948-49 do not exceed the amount provided under order in council P.C. 3403. The actual expenditure of federal funds for hospital construction will be spread over a considerable period of time during which the construction of the approved projects is taking place. In no year will the province receive an amount greater than its share of the grant for that year.


Major James William Coldwell: What I had in mind was, first, the authority; second, how can the present parliament possibly commit succeeding parliaments?


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.


* COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN
Major James William Coldwell: Under the health plans now developing in the Department of National Health and Welfare, by what year could Canada put into effect a comprehensive nation-wide health insurance plan concerning all health hazards?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot answer this question better than by referring my hon. friend to what I said in this connection at page 835 of Hansard for February 23 of this year.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.


HOSPITAL BEDS FOR PATIENTS SUFFERING FROM CERTAIN DISEASES
Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	By provinces, how many hospital beds per thousand of the population are there for (a) those with acute diseases; (b) those who are convalescing; (c) those who are critically ill; (d) those suffering from tuberculosis; (e) mental cases?
2.	Has the government made an estimate as to how many hospital beds per thousand of the population there should be in each of these categories?
3.	If so, what is the estimate in each of these categories?


Mr. Marlin:: 1.	(a) Prince Edward Island, 4-82; Nova Scotia, 4 09; New Brunswick, 4-74; Quebec, 4-23; Ontario, 4-28; Manitoba, 5-40; Saskatchewan, 5[DOT] 44; Alberta, 6-37; British Columbia, 6-34. Canada, 4-73.
(b)	Hospital statistics indicating the number of hospital beds for persons who are convalescing are not available separately.
(c)	Hospital statistics indicating the number of hospital beds for patients who are critically ill are not available separately.

(d)	Prince Edward Island, 1-54; Nova Scotia, 1-43; New Brunswick, 1-73; Quebec, 0-98; Ontario, 0-89; Manitoba, 1-05; Saskatchewan, 0-95; Alberta, 0-57; British Columbia, 0-82. Canada, 0-97.
(e)	Prince Edward Island, 2-66; Nova Scotia, 4-19; New Brunswick, 1-83; Quebec, 3-64; Ontario, 3-60; Manitoba, 3-33; Saskatchewan, 4-36; Alberta, 3 09; British Columbia, 2-91. Canada, 3-51.
2 and 3. The following is a rough guide for the country as a whole of the number of hospital beds per 1,000 population in each of the three categories given in part 1 above. These ratios may be higher or lower for any particular province. The health surveys now in progress will provide a careful assessment of the adequacy of hospital accommodation in any given area.
For acute disease and incurable patients, excluding tuberculosis and mental patients: about seven beds per 1,000 population.
For tuberculosis patients: about three times the average number of deaths, annually, from tuberculosis over the previous five-year period for which information is available.
For mental patients: about 5-75 beds per
1.000	population. This includes four beds per
1.000	population for the mentally ill, 1-5 beds for mentally deficient persons and -25 for epileptics.


MINIMUM PRICE TOR UNMARKETED APPLES
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Has the Minister or the Department of Agriculture received any representation from the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association for the establishment of a guaranteed minimum (floor) price for unmarketed apples of desirable sizes, varieties, and grades, consequent on the loss of the British market?
2.	If so, what action is being taken to meet the request?
3.	If none is being taken, why not?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The agricultural prices support board has been authorized to guarantee a return of $2 per packed box (to a maximum of 200,000 boxes) for the varieties Newtown, Stayman and Rome Beauty of sizes 180, 198, 216 and 234, and for the variety Winesap of sizes 216, 234 and 252. This is in conformity with the recommendation of B.C. Tree Fruits Limited.
3.	See answer to No. 2.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Has the Minister or the Department of Agriculture received any representation from the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association for the extension of the provisions of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to assist in enlargement of irrigation facilities within the tree fruit area of British Columbia?
Questions
2.	H so, is any action being taken to meet this request over and above the separate projects in the course of development as at January 21, 1949?
3.	If no action is being taken as requested, why not?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Copies of records of annual conventions of the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association have been received containing resolutions recommending construction of the Westbank project and the Cawston Benches project.
2.	The resolutions, as stated above, referred to specific projects. The Westbank project is under construction; the Cawston Benches project has been surveyed and allocation of the necessary water from the Similkameen river is under review by the international joint commission.
3.	See answers to No. 1 and No. 2.



ROYAL NAVY MANOEUVRES OFF TRINIDAD


Mr. Church:: 1.	Will the Canadian navy be represented at the joint manoeuvres of the Atlantic and West Indies squadrons of the Royal Navy off Trinidad this month?
2.	If so, by what type of ships and submarines?


Mr. Baker:: 1.	Yes.
2.	One light fleet carrier, one cruiser, three destroyers, one frigate. There are no submarines in the Royal Canadian Navy.



U.S. ATLANTIC FLEET-MANOEUVRES IN CARIBBEAN SEA  CANADIAN REPRESENTATION

Mr. Church:: Was Canada represented when the United States Atlantic fleet began six weeks of manoeuvres on February 14, last, in the Caribbean sea, testing submarines?


Mr. Baker:: The Royal Canadian Navy is being represented at these manoeuvres by an observer, Lieut. Commander (P) T. C. Brock.



CANADIAN NAVY


Mr. Church:: 1.	What ships and submarines has the Canadian navy in the Pacific?
2.	Are any manoeuvres contemplated there this year, and will any submarines of the Canadian navy take part?


Mr. Baker:: 1.	Cruisers, 2; destroyers, 6; frigates, 3; Algerines, 4; auxiliary vessels, 2; submarines, nil.
2.	Normal training manoeuvres are contemplated during 1949 on the Pacific coast. There are no submarines in the Royal Canadian Navy.

Questions



WHITEHORSE, YUKON, FEDERAL BUILDING

Mr. Black (Yukon):: When is the federal building at Whitehorse, Yukon, for which plans and specifications were made several years ago, to be built?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: The answer to this question remains the same as that given to a similar question asked last year, and is as follows:
Sketch plans and estimates only were prepared in 1946 for use in determining the magnitude of the project. The whole question of when projects such as this one shall be proceeded with is one that depends largely on the supply of labour and materials, which, at present, are being directed primarily to veterans housing, and, secondly, to the expansion of industry.
The priority that is given to the construction of new public buildings is very low. The present policy is to restrict new construction to an absolute minimum and to proceed only with maintenance and repairs of existing structures. At a later date, when the aforementioned demands have been satisfied, attention will be given to the construction of new public buildings.
This is the policy that is being followed with relation to new buildings throughout the country. As the building at Whitehorse is a new project, it is felt that it should remain in the deferred class as there is no greater urgency for this particular structure than for others of a similar nature throughout the country.



VETERANS


Mr. McKay:: 1.	What is the total number of veterans at present
receiving pensions for disability of (a)	100 per
cent: (b) 95 to 99 per cent; (c) 90 to 94 per cent; (d) 85 to 89 per cent; (e) 80 to 84 per cent; (f) 75 to 79 per cent; (g) 70 to 74 per cent; (h) 65 to 69 per cent; (i) 60 to 64 per cent; (j) 55 to 59 per cent; (k) 50 to 54 per cent; (1) 45 to 49 per cent; (m) 40 to 44 per cent; (n) 35 to 39 per cent; (o) 30 to 34 cent; (p) 25 to 29 per cent; (q) 20 to 24 per cent; (r) less than 20 per cent?
2.	What is the present yearly liability with regard to veterans pensions?
3.	How many veterans are in receipt of war veterans allowances?


Mr. Mulch:: 1.	Return as at December 31, 1948
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)Class 1 pension-100%	(98 to 100%)	
7,667Class 2	pension-	95%	(93	to	97%)	
114Class 3	pension-	90%	(88	to	92%)	
740Class 4 pension- 85%	(83 to 87%)	'	
520Class 5	pension-	80%	(78	to	82%)	
4,498Class 6	pension-	75%	(73	to	77%)	
l'()02Class 7	pension-	70%	(68	to	72%)	
2,403Class 8	pension-	65%	(63	to	67%)	
583Class 9	pension-	60%	(58	to	62%)	
4,154Class 10	pension-	55%	(53	to	57%)	
695Class 11 pension- 50%	(48 to 52%)	
6 920Class 12	pension-	45%	(43	to	47%)	
816Class 13	pension-	40%	(38	to	42%)	
7(007Class 14	pension-	35%	(33	to	37%)	
2,883Class 15	pension-	30%	(28	to	32%)	
9,292Class 16	pension-	25%	(23	to	27%)	
8^298Class 17	pension-	20%	(18	to	22%)	
19^340Class 18	pension-	15%	(13	to	17%)	
16^534Class 19	pension-	10%	( 8	to	12%)	
39'392Class 20 pension- 5%	(5 to 7%)	'	23*644Total	
156,502
Note: Schedule A of the Pension Act, as amended in 1948, provides for the payment of disability awards as indicated in the scale of percentages shown in column (3) above.
2.	Disability awards of pension.$64,666,038 Dependent awards of pension 25,555,697
Total	$90,221,735
3.	24,345. (This figure does not include awards to widows and orphans).



IMPORTS OF HOUSE BROOMS

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What quantity of brooms (house) have been imported into Canada during (a) 1947; (b) 1948?
2.	From what countries have these imports been made and what quantity from each?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Brooms not separately
classified. Statistical item reads "brooms and whisks". Quantity not recorded under this item. The value as shown in import statistics during calendar year is as follows:
	1947	1948
United Kingdom . .	. . .$ 1,401	$ 69Hong Kong 	. . . 81	1,433Italy 	. . . 33,446	417Sweden 	... 171	829United States 	... 15,761	49,675All others 	. . . 50,860	52,423



POTATOES


Mr. Nowlan:: What steps have been taken by the government to provide, on and after April 1, 1949, a system of floor prices for potatoes grown in the province of Nova Scotia?


Mr. McCubbin:: Under order in council P.C. 5488, potatoes grown in the province of Prince Edward Island and in the counties of Carleton, Victoria and Madawaska and the Hazen settlement of Restigouche county in the province of New Brunswick are eligible for sale to the agricultural prices support board at a price of $1.15 per 100 pounds in the bin. With this price available growers in the defined area need not sell their potatoes at a lower price. Since nearly all of the surplus potatoes grown in the eastern provinces are in the defined area, the effect of the price support program is to enable growers in other areas to sell their potatoes on the market at the equivalent of the support price. This effect extends equally to Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and those parts of New Brunswick which are not within the defined price support area.



PUBLIC DEBT

Mr. McCullough (Assiniboia):: 1.	What was the amount of the gross national debt for 1947?
2.	What was the total amount of interest for 1947 on this debt?
3.	}Vhat was the amount of the gross national debt for 1948?
4.	What was the total amount of interest for 1948 on this debt?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	Total liabilities, March 31, 1947, $17,698,195,740.07.
2.	Interest on the public debt paid in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1947, $464,394,876.26.
3.	Total liabilities, March 31, 1948, $17,197,348,981.17.
4.	Interest on the public debt paid in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1948, $455,455,203.64.
Questions



IMPORTS OF TRACTORS

Mr. McKay:: 1.	Since the discontinuation of the duty on imported farm implements have any tractors been imported from the United States?
2.	If so, how many have been imported for each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta up to December 31, 1948?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Imports from United States through customs ports in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta:
Calendar	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Albertayear	No.	No.	No.1945 ...	3,312	5,186	3,3761946 ...	4,262	5,367	4,1521947 . . .	5,160	7,441	6,1651948 ...	6,939	8,889	7,797VETERANS AFFAIRS	EMPLOYMENT COMMISSIONED OFFICERS	OF


Mr. Blackmore:: 1.	How many former commissioned officers are now employed by D.V.A.?
2.	Of these, how many were (a) brigadiers', (b) colonels or lieutenant-colonels; (c) majors, or officers of equivalent rank in other services?


Mr. Mutch:: Return at March 7, 1949, for Department of Veterans Affairs, Canadian pension commission and war veterans allowance board:
1.	1,386.
2.	(a) 8; (b) colonels, lieutenant-colonels, officers of equilavent rank: 122; (c) majors, officers of equivalent rank: 269.



COST OF TIMBER CONTROL

Mr. Hodgson:: What was the total cost to the government for timber control for each year since June 24, 1940 to date covering actual out-of-pocket expenses, administration expenses, salaries, traveling and other expenses, for the timber controller and all persons acting under his authority?


George James McIlraith: Not available. The records of the Department of Munitions and Supply, the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, and the treasury office have not been maintained in such a way as to make it possible to segregate the cost of timber control.



PRINCE ALBERT NATIONAL PARK


Mr. Bowerman:: 1.	How many miles of highway have been built by the federal government in the Prince Albert national park during 1948?
2.	What construction firm did this work?
3.	What was the cost to the government of this construction work?
4.	What was the basis of the contract?
5.	Was there any management fee paid for this work? If so, how much?

Questions


Mr. Maybank:: 1.	Seventeen miles constructed and 11-6 additional miles cleared.
2.	W. C. Wells Construction Company, of Saskatoon, Sask.
3.	$287,000.
4.	Cost plus fixed fee.
5.	Yes-$16,500 (the fixed fee).



NATIONAL HEALTH


Mr. Isnor:: Has the Minister of Health and Welfare any recent information regarding the epidemic among Eskimos in the Chesterfield Inlet area, which has recently been mentioned in the press and over the radio?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. A telegram was received last week and a report by long-distance telephone today from departmental officers in that area. The situation briefly is as follows:
Late last fall, Dr. J. P. Moody, the doctor employed by the Indian and Eskimo health services directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare situated at Chesterfield Inlet, reported some cases of a disease which was causing paralysis and which had occurred in the Eskimo Point and Padley areas. Dr. Moody visited both these points, which are located in the area between Churchill, Chesterfield Inlet and Baker lake. One case was brought to Winnipeg for further investigation.
During February a few cases occurred in the Chesterfield Inlet area and, lacking facilities for diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Moody requested assistance. Through the co-operation of the R.C.A.F. a plane was made available and a well-equipped medical party was organized.
Dr. A. F. W. Peart, head of the epidemiology division of this department, flew to Winnipeg and joined Major Smillie, R.C.A.M.C., and Professor J. D. Adamson of the university of Manitoba, who is recognized as a leading authority on virus diseases. Dr. W. J. Wood, regional superintendent of Indian and Eskimo health services, co-ordinated the efforts being made, and this party, with considerable equipment, arrived at Chesterfield Inlet on March 2.
The telegram received last week stated that there were then 60 cases (half of whom were suffering from some degree of paralysis) in the Chesterfield Inlet area and that there had been 13 deaths, the last occurring on March 2.
The report received today by long-distance telephone from Winnipeg was to the following effect:
No new cases have developed.

Thirteen cases-those suffering from the worst degree of paralysis-have been flown to Winnipeg and admitted to the King George hospital. During the flight a nurse was in attendance, and the patients were accompanied by Dr. Peart, Professor Adamson and Dr. Wood. These cases will continue to be under the professional care of Professor Adamson.
Dr. Moody has remained at Chesterfield Inlet in charge of the balance of the sick there, all of whom have recovered sufficiently to allow their return to their homes. Equipment for the treatment of paralysis by physiotherapy has been flown into Chesterfield Inlet from Winnipeg and an attempt is now being made to secure the services of an expert physiotherapist to treat those at Chesterfield Inlet who are suffering from paralysis.
The Department of Mines and Resources has arranged for relief issue of necessary food, supplies, etc. to all stricken families.
Dr. Moody will keep this Department and Dr. Wood fully advised of any developments. The epidemic seems however to be fully under control.
Professor Adamson thinks it probable that the disease is anterior poliomyelitis, but this is not entirely confirmed. Apparently the Eskimos have no resistance to this disease, as almost every family in the area has been attacked. Although no white persons have been seriously ill, it is possible that some may have had the disease in a mild form.



VETERANS LAND ACT


Mr. Jutras:: How many veterans have been established on small holdings under the V.L.A. in (a) Manitoba; (b) Saskatchewan; (c) Alberta?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Return at January 31, 1949, of number of cases where financial assistance has been approved under the Veterans Land Act for settlement on small holdings: (a) 994; (b) 308; (c) 975.



HEALTH GRANTS


Thomas Langton Church: Under the national health grant for 1948-49, how much has been allocated towards the expense of the hospital accommodation in the city of Toronto and to what hospital units has this fund been applied so far, for (a) soldier veterans; (b) civilians?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No moneys have been allocated for hospital construction under the national health grant for 1948-49 for the city of Toronto.

A request from the Ontario department of health for assistance in the construction of an addition to the Toronto East General and Orthopaedic hospital for civilians, in an amount of $145,000, was received by the Department of National Health and Welfare on March 4 and is now receiving consideration.
The national hospital construction grant does not provide for assistance towards the construction of veterans hospitals.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	What have been the government expenditures by years, stating total, under the prairie farm rehabilitation program in each province?
2.	What have been the government expenditures by years, stating the total, on irrigation and water storage projects, by provinces?
3.	What particular irrigation and water storage projects have, or are estimated to have, cost $50,000 or more, stating the estimated cost of each when completed?



EXPORTS OF WHEAT AND OTHER COMMODITIES

Mr. Bentley:: 1.	By countries, what was the amount of class II wheat sold during the crop years 1946-7, 1947-8, 1948-9, to date?
2.	What was the average price per month obtained by Canada for this wheat in each of those years?
3.	What is the present amount of money in the Canadian wheat board's treasury?
4.	How much of the Canadian loan has been made available for the financing of the sale of wheat to Britain in the current crop year and the 1949-50 crop year?
5.	By countries, what quantities of the following commodities have been exported during the past five years: wheat, beef, bacon and eggs (shell and powdered) ?



DELIVERIES IN CANADA AND SALES TO OTHER COUNTRIES

Mr. McCuaig:: 1.	What amount of wheat was delivered by wheat producers to the Canadian wheat board in the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948?
2.	What amount of wheat was sold outside of Canada by the wheat board in the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948, to (a) the United Kingdom; (b) mutual aid countries; (c) non-mutual aid countries?
3.	What was the price received per bushel in each of the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948, from (a) the United Kingdom; (b) the mutual aid countries; (c) the non-mutual aid countries?
4.	How much money has accumulated in the four-year pool, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 in excess of what has already been paid out, as at December 31, 1948?
5.	Does clause two, having regard to the United Kingdom wheat agreement, cover the years 1946 to 1947?
6.	How much wheat was sold by the wheat board for domestic consumption in Canada in the years
Orders for Returns
1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948, and what price was received by the wheat board in each of the above years for this wheat?
7.	Will a further payment be made to the growers for each of the above years?
8.	What amount of wheat was sold to the millers at a subsidized price?
9.	What was the subsidized price per bushel?
10.	What were the total subsidies paid?



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

Mr. Fleming:: Up to December 31, 1948, under the National Housing Act, 1944 (a) how many contracts have been entered into under part I; (b) what is the total number of houses for which loans have been authorized under part I; (c) how many of such houses have been completed and are now occupied; (d) what is the total amount of the loans authorized under part I; (e) how many contracts have been entered into under part II of the act; (f) what is the total number of rental housing projects for which loans have been authorized under part H; (g) how many of such rental housing projects are low-rental housing projects; (h) how many of such rental housing projects have been completed and are now occupied, and how many of them are low-rental housing projects, and where are they located; (i) what is the total amount of the loans authorized under part II; (j) how many limited dividend corporations have been recognized as qualified to receive loans under section 9 of the act; what are they and where are they authorized to operate rental housing projects; which ones are institutional housing corporations, and which are institutional holding companies; (k) which of such limited dividend housing corporations have received loans under part II; (1) (i) to how many municipalities have grants been made pursuant to section 12; (ii) what are the individual amounts of such grants and what municipalities respectively received them; (iii) what are the other terms, if any, of the said grants; (m) (i) how many municipalities have applied for grants pursuant to section 12; (ii) how many have been refused; (iii) how many of such applications are still pending; (n) how many contracts have been entered into under part III; (o) (i) what is the total number of houses for which loans have been authorized under part III; (ii) how many of such houses have been completed and are now occupied; (p) what is the total amount of the loans authorized under part III; (q) how many contracts have been entered into with manufacturers of plumbing and heating equipment or other component parts of houses, pursuant to section 15; (r) how many payments have been made under part IV, and what is the total thereof; (s) what studies and investigations, planning and research have been carried on under part V; (t) what expenditures have been made pursuant to part V, out of the $5 million authorized by parliament in 1945, under section 27A?



ONTARIO CUSTOMS OFFICES OPENED AND CLOSED


Mr. Ross (Souris):: 1.	How many customs offices have been (a) closed; (b) opened, in Ontario since January 1, 1928, and in what locations?
2.	What was the volume of business for each year in each customs office in Huron, Grey and Bruce counties from 1928 to 1948?


Mr. McCann:: Return tabled.

Orders for Returns



' WAR ASSETS


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	What sales were made of war assets in Newfoundland of goods or property yielding $20,000 or more?
2.	On what dates were any such sales made, to whom, and what was the class of goods or property involved in each sale?
3.	Did an agent of the dominion government or War Assets Corporation participate in any such sale?
4.	Were all such sales made by open tender, and what conditions were attached to a buyer's right to purchase?
5.	Were any of such goods resold, and did the government or War Assets Corporation give approval of any such resale?
6.	What was the class of goods involved in such resale, and what was the markup over the original selling price?



UNEMPLOYMENT


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Under the program of public works described by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply on page 818 of Hansard of February 23, 1949, how many workers could be employed in each province in one month, six months, one year?
2.	How many projects would there be in each of the provinces?
3.	How many unemployed must there be before the government starts some of its projects?
4.	Why have projects not been begun already in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and British Columbia?
5.	Does the list of projects include (a) a bridge or other crossing of the strait of Canso; (b) a bridge or other crossing of Halifax harbour?



PUBLIC WORKS-PARISH OF PARENT, CHAPLEAU COUNTY, QUE.

Mr. Caouetie:: 1.	What construction has been done by the dominion government at Parent, county of Chapleau, since July 1, 1945?
2.	What amounts have been allocated each year during the above period by government departments for work in the parish of Parent and for what purpose?



WESTERN AND EASTERN WHEAT


Mr. Charlion:: 1.	What was the initial price paid by the wheat board in each of the crop years 1944 to 1948 inclusive for (a) western wheat, basis number 1 northern, Fort William/Port Arthur, or Vancouver; (b) eastern wheat, basis number 1 soft wheat, Montreal?
2.	What amount per year was paid on account of participation certificates in each of the said years in respect of the said (a) western wheat; (b) eastern wheat?
3.	On the basis of government policy, as announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, what further amounts will be paid in each of the said years in respect of the said (a) western wheat; (b) eastern wheat?
4.	How much was exported as flour by the wheat board or by milling companies in each of the said years of (a) western wheat; (b) eastern wheat?



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	How many actions have been instituted in Chicoutimi county by the wartime prices and trade board since the date of its inception?
2.	How many such actions were won by the board?
3.	How many such actions were lost by the board?
4.	What has been the total amount of fines collected following such prosecutions?
5.	Who were the solicitors for the department, in each case?
6.	What amount was paid to each of them (a) for cases won; (b) for cases lost?
7.	What was the total expenditure by the government for such cases and proceedings, all costs included?



TRADE AND COMMERCE


Mr. Fraser:: 1.	How many priorities were issued by the priorities branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce, or by any other priorities branch of any other department of the government, during the year 1948 for building materials?
2.	How many priorities were issued for each class of building material?
3.	Were any individuals, or firms, given priorities for steel nails in quantities of 500 kegs or more?
4.	If so, what are the names of individuals, or firms, to whom these priorities were given, and what number of kegs to each?



PUBLIC DEBT

Mr. Caoueiie:: 1.	What was the total national debt of Canada at the close of the following years: (a) 1867; (b) 1900; (c) 1913; (d) 1920; (e) 1930; (f) 1939; (g) 1945 and (h) 1948?
2.	What has been the total sum of interest (service of the debt) paid by Canada since its existence?
3.	What proportion of such interest was paid directly to the chartered banks of Canada?
4.	What was the total national revenue in (a) 1867; (b) 1900; (c) 1913; (d) 1920; (e) 1930; (f) 1939; (g) 1940 and in each of the subsequent years?
5.	What was, for each of the above-mentioned years, the aggregate production of Canada?
6.	What sum of money was appropriated to the reimbursement of the principal of the debt in 1867, 1900, 1920, 1930, 1939, 1940 and in each of the subsequent years up to January 1, 1949?
7.	What has been the total amount of money paid since confederation for the amortization of the debt?



BROADCASTING-PROGRAMS SPONSORED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Do any departments, or agencies, of the dominion government sponsor programs over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or any other broadcasting stations throughout Canada or the United States?
2.	If so, what are these programs?
3.	What is the object in each of such a broadcast?
4.	What is the cost per week for each of these broadcasts?



WAR ASSETS CORPORATION

Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Is War Assets Corporation still operating?
2.	If so, how many men and women were employed in 1948, and where?
3.	What was the total amount paid out for salaries and wages by the War Assets Corporation during the year 1948 in all departments of this corporation?
4.	What was the total amount paid out during 1948 in each department of War Assets Corporation, including salaries and wages, for guard duty?
5.	Did War Assets Corporation sell any steel nails during 1948?
6.	If so, to what individuals, and firms?
7.	Has War Assets Corporation an interest in, or control over individuals, or firms operating under names of, War Surplus Supplies; War Surplus Stores; War Surplus Sales Company?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Gingues:: 1.	How many Esthonians immigrated to Sherbrooke, Quebec, in 1948 and 1949?
2.	By what company are they employed?
3.	Are the wives and other members of the families of such immigrants working for other employers?
4.	Has the city of Sherbrooke rented the former barracks of the Lord Sherbrooke military centre to house such families?
5.	Who applied for permits of entry for these immigrants?
6.	For what reasons were these permits granted?
7.	Has the Dominion Textile Company guaranteed, at the same time, more employment for Canadians?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	Have any optometrists been employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs since January, 1948?
2.	If so, how many were employed and on what basis?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I understand that the hon. member who asked this question has agreed to a return giving the number of optometrists as applied to Canada only. Subject to that, the question may pass as an order for return.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many orders in council were passed between (a) September 1, 1939 and September 1, 1945; (b) September 1, 1945, and date hereof?
2.	Of these orders in council, how many were passed under the provisions of the (a) War Measures Act; (b) the several emergency powers acts?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. McKay:: How many officials and staff are now in the employ of the prairie farm rehabilitation branch, Department of Agriculture (a) in Canada; (b) in Saskatchewan?
Orders for Returns



IRRIGATION-EAST AND WEST BERRY CREEK, ALTA.

Mr. Quelch:: 1.	What has been the total cost to date of building the two main dams on the east and west Berry creeks?
2.	What will be the acre feet of storage available in the reservoirs created by the dams built on (a) the east Berry creek; (b) the west Berry creek?
3.	What is the estimated acreage that can be irrigated from (a) reservoir on east Berry creek; (b) reservoir on west Berry creek?
4.	What is the map location of each dam?



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-PAYMENTS TO PERSONS WITH OTHER OCCUPATIONS, ETC.

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Was payment made of the prairie farm assistance allowance to any persons in 1948 who (a) for a major portion of the year did not live on the land farmed by them; (d) had an occupation or carried on business additional to farm operations?
2.	If so, how many cases are there in each of said
categories?	[DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to point out to the members asking these three questions that we must write to western Canada for the answers, so there will be a delay in securing the information. I should like to have these made orders for returns, and I will give an undertaking that the information will be brought down as soon as it is received here.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: As to the question standing in my name, that is all right, provided that the information is brought down quickly.
I have been waiting since February 7 for the answer to another question about prairie farm assistance.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Quelch:: For a copy of the surveys to date of the proposed Red Deer river diversion project, along with a statement showing an estimate of cost of project. Also copy of map showing location of dam on Red Deer river, canals and storage reservoirs with area that may be irrigated under this project.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL

Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of each of the following orders in council; P.C. 859 of March 2, 1948; P.C. 938 of March
6.	1948; P.C. 1051 of March 16, 1948; P.C. 1101 of March 16, 1948; P.C. 1186 of March 23, 1948.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of order in council P.C. 465, of February 9, 1946, approving the agreement between the crown and Sorel Industries Limited.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of orders in council P.C. 209/2066, and P.C. 210/2066, dated May 14, 1948.

Inquiries of the Ministry



LILLOOET LAKE, B.C., LAKE LEVELS    CONTRACT WITH HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of the contract awarded by the prairie farm rehabilitation administration or the Department of Agriculture to the Highway Construction Company Limited, of Vancouver, B.C., for work in connection with the lowering of Lillooet lake, British Columbia.



COMMUNISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statements made during the past two weeks by the national leaders of communist parties throughout the world, to the effect it is their intention to sabotage preparations for defence and assist the soviet union in the event of war, is the government prepared to announce any steps, by way of legislation or otherwise, to deal effectively with this pattern of treason which has been disclosed?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The leader of the opposition was kind enough to write me a lengthy letter dealing with the background which prompted his question. In answer may I say that these matters are constantly under careful surveillance by the Department of External Affairs. I am sure the leader of the opposition will not mind my saying that his letter contained a suggestion that a statement had been made in Canada by Tim Buck. I should like to ask him if he would indicate to me when that statement was made, because I have inquired about it and we have no knowledge of any recent statement by him. The exact form and terms of any such statement would be a matter of concern, because it might constitute an overt act which would come within the existing provisions of the Criminal Code.
I might add that there is a bill on the order paper-it is being carefully examined by the law officers of the Department of Justice- dealing with the possibility of taking effective action to counteract the activities of communist parties. The Department of Justice has not yet made its report on that proposed legislation or on like measures adopted in other countries, and the practical effect of such legislation. I should be obliged to the leader of the opposition if he would call to my attention, either here or by some other means, any recent statement of a communist leader in Canada, because it would be given 
careful scrutiny to ascertain whether it fell within the provisions of the Criminal Code.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Prime Minister will object if I read one sentence in my letter to which he referred:
The uniform pattern of these statements gives a new meaning and an entirely different significance to a similar statement made by the leader of the Canadian communist party, Tim Buck, some time ago.
The occasion to which I referred was a speech Tim Buck was reported to have made in Vancouver on November 13, 1946. As I pointed out, this was not a recent happening-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In 1946?


George Alexander Drew: It occurred in 1946, but it gains a new meaning in the light of this recent pattern which has been announced. The reports of that speech stated that Tim Buck had publicly stated he would not defend Canada in the event of war with the soviet, but would in fact follow the same course as he had followed during the past war. This report was carried extensively by the press at that time. I would be glad to furnish the Prime Minister with the reference to the clippings, if they are not already available to him.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sure the clippings are available, and I will have them looked at. My chief concern was whether it was something as far back as that, or something more recent.



TRADE WITH BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
in u.s.-comment in News Chronicle On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the attention of the government been called to an article appearing in this morning's Ottawa Journal, headed "Sees possibility of Britain severing wheat agreement", and reading in part as follows:
London, March 7 (Monday) (Reuters)-The News Chronicle says today that if the United States were to declare wheat a surplus commodity, "we might be compelled to ask for a release from our obligations under the Canadian wheat agreement."
Is the government in a position to make any comments on this article, and is there any possibility of Britain's severing the wheat agreement with Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been no official communication to the government in that regard. The only comment I would care to make is that it has not been the practice of the government of the United Kingdom to repudiate

its contracts or to ask to be relieved of them, and we have no indication that this will become its practice.



CABBAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. Sinnoit (Springfield):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, notice of which I have sent to him. In view of a press report that western Canada will soon import cabbages from the United States, will the minister investigate the situation with a view to seeing if anything can be done to sell the large stock of cabbages now in the warehouses of the Manitoba Vegetable Producers Association in Winnipeg?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Before the decision was made by the import control division to permit resumption of importation of United States cabbages, officers of the board made inquiries throughout Canada, through the trade and otherwise, and ascertained that the supply of domestic cabbages was close to exhaustion, and that the ones that remained were in most cases of inferior quality. It may be, of course, that there are in stock some which were kept a little longer than was necessary, in the hope of obtaining higher prices. I do not suppose that is so with regard to the situation referred to by the hon. member for Springfield. But speaking generally the supply of domestic cabbages in Canada is pretty well exhausted. It was for that reason that the import restrictions were lifted.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I had a delegatioh down to see me a few weeks ago, and my information is that there are thirty carloads now on hand.


An hon. Member:: Good cabbages?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Good cabbages.



NAVAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Probe (Regina City):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I sent to him a few hours ago. In view of conflicting statements being circulated about a reported mutiny aboard the Royal Canadian Navy destroyer Athabaskan, will the minister please indicate to the house what the facts are with respect to the Athabaskan incident?


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: As reported to me, the facts are as follows:
H.M.C.S. Athabaskan is one of the Canadian vessels proceeding to the manoeuvres to be
Inquiries of the Ministry held in the Caribbean. On Saturday, February 26, while the Athabaskan was taking on fuel at Manzanillo, Mexico, a number of junior ratings asked to see the commanding officer. There were no petty officers, leading seamen or senior ratings in the group.
After the commanding officer of the ship, Commander M. A. Medland, had met the men concerned and spoken with them, they carried on their duties without hesitation. The commanding officer's interview with the men lasted twenty minutes. Ten minutes later, normal routine in the ship was resumed, and there was no further incident. The ship completed refueling and sailed from Manzanillo according to her schedule without interruption of her program. Since then, normal leave has been given; the ship was open to visitors in Acapulco, and the conduct of the 'ship's company has been in accordance with normal good standards.
On the basis of reports so far received here, it would appear that the incident was a minor one which was settled by the commanding officer in short order and without difficulty.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver South):: Apparently the Daily Telegraph of London, England, this morning carried a dispatch which has been reprinted in certain Canadian papers, to the effect that the adjourned commonwealth conference to deal primarily with Pacific and Far Eastern questions, which was to take place in Ceylon in May, may now be held in Ottawa in April. Is the Prime Minister prepared to make a statement with regard to that dispatch?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am prepared to state that no such arrangements have been made.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question? Can he say whether the conference is to take place in May? If so, where is it to be held, or is there to be any further meeting?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was a suggestion that a conference of ministers of external affairs might be held in Ceylon some time in May 1949. It is not to be held in May 1949. Correspondence is proceeding at the present time to determine whether it will be held at a later date, or whether there will be an opportunity for something that would take its place at the time of the meeting of the United Nations in the autumn of 1949.
1204	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry GOLD



SALES BV SOUTH AFRICA AT PREMIUM-INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND RESTRICTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, notice of which I have sent to him. In view of the reported success of the South African government in selling gold on the open market above the pegged price set by the international monetary fund, is the government prepared to take steps to negotiate for relaxation of the restrictions on the marketing of gold imposed on Canada by the international monetary fund?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his question. I am not, of course, 'aware whether or not the transactions referred to were successful. I have been informed that the matter is still under discussion between South Africa and the international monetary fund. Other than that, I am not prepared to make any statement.



USE OF TERMINAL FACILITIES AT PRINCE RUPERT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. G. Archibald (Skeena):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it the intention of his department to use the terminal facilities for handling wheat at the port of Prince Rupert during the forthcoming crop year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am unable to make a commitment at this time. The use of the Prince Rupert facilities will depend on the size of the crop, the availability of shipping, and other factors that cannot be determined now.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources. On March 3 I asked him whether or not he would table the orders in council passed since July 1, 1948, legalizing the illegal entry of various people into this country. He said he would take the matter under advisement. I now ask him whether or not he will table those orders in council.


James Angus MacKinnon: There are two questions on


this subject, I believe, one from the hon. member for Lake Centre and one from the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross). Consideration is being given to them, and a statement will be made shortly or a return tabled.


John George Diefenbaker: Why is it so hard to pry loose these orders in council?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think that is a comment that is justified by the circumstances. The hon. member has asked a question which in its present form cannot receive the kind of answer he would accept. There have been no orders in council legalizing the entry of anyone who entered illegally. There were some orders in council which permitted persons who have entered Canada illegally to remain, notwithstanding the fact that they had entered illegally. But that is not the same thing at all.
The second part of the hon. member's question was for orders in council changing the statute. There have been none changing the statute. The statute provides that regulations may be made, and there are regulations made under that authority. There have been orders in council waiving certain of the provisions of those regulations, in certain cases. All those orders in council will be brought down.


John George Diefenbaker: They have not been tabled yet?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Or published in the Canada Gazette?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Or published in the Canada Gazette. The hon. member the other day had an order made for a return, which will be brought down. I inquired for it today, but it is not quite ready. There are several thousand orders in council, and I am having a consecutive list prepared-I am not choosing them at all-of the first one hundred, descriptive of each, with a note as to which were tabled, which were published in the Canada Gazette, and which were considered as merely executive decisions not requiring to be published or tabled. When that return is brought down-and I think it will be tomorrow or the next day-if the hon. member wishes to have us give a description of more than the one hundred, that will be done. But I think when he has seen, from that one hundred, which will be the first hundred of the period, what the distribution is, he may consider that it will not be necessary for us to continue the work and make a description of the others.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Assiniboia):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Owing to the dissatisfaction and misunderstanding with regard to the principle of the basic herd in computing income tax for farmers, has the government taken steps to clarify the principle of the basic herd? Will the minister make a statement to the house in this regard?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, on March 3, as
appears at page 1091 of Hansard, a question similar in substance was asked by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I then said that a statement would be made shortly in the form of a directive from the department with reference to basic herds. The question just asked by the hon. member is; "Has the government taken steps to clarify the principle of the basic herd?" The answer is yes. I repeat that a directive dealing with the matter will be issued shortly.



BASIS OF INTERIM 1949 RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or to the Minister of National Revenue. Should persons who are this month filing their interim 1949 income tax returns estimate their tax and pay their March 31 instalment on the basis of the same tax rates as prevailed in 1948?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should say that they should let their conscience and the provisions of the statute be their guide.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Angus MacInnis: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is he prepared to make a statement today as to the conditions he found in Vancouver, where I understand he went for the express purpose of investigating the employment situation? I should also like to know the remedies that are proposed.


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: In the first place I did not go for the express purpose of making an inquiry into labour conditions. I had many purposes, and that
Inquiries Of the Ministry was one of them. Either the Minister of Labour or I will make a statement on labour conditions some day soon.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: On
February 9 this house passed a motion of mine for the production of certain papers. It is now March 7. Can the Minister of Mines and Resources give me some idea as to when these papers may be produced?


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the return is in course of preparation. I hope it will be ready shortly.



COMPENSATION FOR T.B. REACTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Andrew Ernest Robinson: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, arising out of an earlier answer to a question of mine. Will the government consider making retroactive any increase in compensation which may be made for tuberculosis reactors, in order to cover the heavy losses sustained by owners in the last couple of years?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think my answer was perfectly clear on that point, namely, that a recommendation has gone forward, and of course the recommendation would not be for anything other than a possible increase. The question whether there will be any increase, and if so what that increase will be, is a matter which will be decided by the govern ment when the legislation comes before it.



SILVER FOXES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct three related questions to the Minister of Agriculture. I apologize for not giving him notice of these questions. Have any applications been received for establishment of a floor price for silver fox pelts? If so, by whom? If these applications have been made, what is the government's intention?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will have to take the questions as a notice, and give a reply later.

The Address-Mr. Hazen SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. D. F. Brown for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. D. King Hazen (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, there is another matter in connection with the Atlantic ports with which I want to deal briefly. On February 6 of last year, in the debate on the speech from the throne, I charged that the government had failed to live up to the well-established policy of shipping Canadian goods through Canadian ports when it permitted the Canadian National Railways officials to reduce rates over the Grand Trunk lines to Portland, Maine, a United States port.
I protested against the reduction that had been made and asked the government to have the railway policy of this country lived up to. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), when he replied, said:
The traditional and historic policy of successive governments of encouraging trade through national ports and national harbours had never been violated.
He said also that I based my whole argument on a false premise and upon facts that were not accurate. I have yet to learn that facts are not accurate, but I do not propose to quibble with words.
My protest was based on the fact that on November 17, 1947, the Canadian National Railways reduced freight rates over its lines to Portland on eleven different export commodities. For instance, it reduced the rate on newsprint about 30 per cent; on wood pulp about 24 per cent; on lumber 24 per cent; and on other commodities, rubber tires and parts, acetone and acetic acid, sewing machines and liquors, about the same amounts. These were substantial reductions. These reductions made the freight rates to Portland, Maine, on these commodities the same as the rate to the Canadian seaports of Saint John and Halifax.
This encouraged the transportation of Canadian export freight through a foreign port, and put our maritime ports at a disadvantage, as the rail haul to Portland is shorter than the rail haul to Saint John or Halifax over the Canadian National railway lines.
In reducing these rates the officials of the Canadian National Railways were not encouraging the transportation of freight through Canadian ocean ports, nor were they using "their utmost endeavours," to develop trade
IMr. Gardiner.]
through Canadian channels and through Canadian ports.
When the annual report and accounts of the Canadian National Railways were presented to the committee on railways and shipping in April of last year I had an opportunity to obtain some enlightenment about this reduction in rates by questioning the officials of the railway.
The reason the Canadian National Railways took the initiative in this matter, Mr. Alistair Fraser, one of the vice-presidents of the railways said, in reply to a question I asked him, was:
The situation was this: Moore-McCormack had a service all during the winter operating between Saint John and Halifax, a sailing a month. In April (1947), they had a ship destined for Halifax but they gave public notice that the sailing was cancelled, that the ship would not go to Halifax but would proceed to Boston. We went to Moore-McCormack and suggested that was a hasty decision and urged that perhaps they would not have to go to Boston but could continue their service to Halifax and Saint John.
They flatfootedly refused to do it.
Thereupon, we said to them "If you will not come to Halifax or Saint John, will you go to Portland?" The reason for that was that the Canadian National Railways could participate in the business to Portland. They said, "We will go to Portland instead if you will give us, as you have always done in the past, equal rates with Halifax and Saint John." We said we would and they changed from the port of Boston to the port of Portland.
I asked Mr. Fraser:
Was it in consequence of the rates being reduced that Moore-McCormack Incorporated used Portland?
He replied:
Yes, I think I answered that, Mr. Hazen. They agreed to leave Boston and come to Portland if the rates were reduced by us.
He said that the reduction was a purely voluntary one on the part of the Canadian National Railways officials, that there was no law that compelled them to reduce the rates to Portland. In reply to the question:
Q. Does the use of Portland as an ocean terminal of a railway owned and controlled by the government of Canada give employment to United States workers?
Mr. Fraser replied:-
A. I would think so, yes.
Mr. Vaughan, president of Canadian National Railways, had the following to say, as reported on page 87 of the minutes:
The statement has been made and repeated time and again that Moore-McCormack were going to Boston or New York. All our officers did, and it was a proper thing for them to do, was to endeavour to hold the business for the Canadian National Railways, which is owned by the people of Canada. Our people would not be true to their duty if they had not made every attempt to get the business for the Canadian National Railways, so long as they did not divert it from Canadian ports. It has been proved

beyond doubt that the Canadian National Railways officials took no action to divert business from Canadian ports.
There is one further portion of evidence that I want to place on record. At page 77 Mr. Fraser was asked:
Did the action of the Canadian National Railways in reducing freight rates to Portland. Maine, in the United States of America encourage the transportation of trade through American ports?
His answer was:
No, it did not.
He was then asked:
You say that the officials and directors of the Canadian National Railways were in all respects and in good faith using their utmost endeavours to have Canadian goods carried to Canadian ocean ports as the law provides and to develop trade through Canadian channels and through Canadian ports when they lowered the freight rate to Portland.
He answered:
Yes. I am satisfied that it is so and the reason why I say that is this: The business was in Boston, and the only question was one between Portland and Boston.
This evidence shows the mental processes and the point of view of the Canadian National Railways officials in dealing with this matter. The reason the Canadian National Railways officials reduced these rates is stated quite clearly in the words of Mr. Vaughan, which I have already quoted and which I shall quote again. They are:
All our officials did, and it was a proper thing for them to do, was to endeavour to hold the business for the Canadian National Railways, which is owned by the people of Canada. Our people would not be true to their duty is they had not made every attempt to get the business for the Canadian National Railways, so long as they did not divert it from Canadian ports.
I join issue with Mr. Vaughan on that statement. The reason given by Mr. Vaughan, while it might be a good business reason under certain circumstances, violates the well-established railway policy of this country that has been put into statutory form by this parliament. That policy was referred to in this house by me on February 6, 1948, and the Minister of Transport replied on February 11 when he quoted section 13 of the Canadian Northern Railway Act of 1911. The minister's statement is to be found at page 1112 of Hansard of February 11, 1948 and is as follows:
I refer to that act particularly, because it contains in essence what parliament intended the policy of Canada and of the railways should be:
The company must agree (1) that all freight originating on its lines, not specifically routed otherwise, shall when destined for points in Canada be carried over the railways within Canada; (2) that the through rates on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports; (3) that all such traffic not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper shall be carried to
The Address-Mr. Hazen Canadian ports; and (4) that the companies shall not in any matter within their powers directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall in all respects, in good faith, use their utmost endeavours to fulfil its conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
Can it be said that the officials of the Canadian National Railways were encouraging the transportation of freight to Canadian ports, as this act provides, when they reduced the rates to Portland, a reduction that was purely voluntary on their part, one that they did not have to make?
Can it be said that the officials of the Canadian National Railways were using their utmost endeavours to develop trade through Canadian channels and through Canadian ocean ports, as the act provides, when they voluntarily reduced freight rates over a line that runs to a foreign port?
It seems to me that the answers to those questions must be in the negative.
It is my contention that the evidence I have quoted clearly establishes that in their efforts to obtain this freight and carry it to Portland ffiese officials either overlooked or neglected to live up to the well-established railway policy of this country.


Mr. Chevrier:: Will the hon. member allow me to make an interruption? The hon. gentleman is asking two questions which have nothing to do with the reduction of rates. His whole statement is based upon the fact that rates were reduced, but the railways did not reduce the rates to Portland; they equalized them, which makes an entirely different argument.


Douglas King Hazen: It seems to me that we are just quibbling with words when the minister says that the rates were equalized rather than reduced. I quoted Mr. Fraser's answers to the questions I asked him and he said that they were reduced. It seems to me that that is just quibbling with words. It clearly was a reduction in that they were reduced 24 per cent, 25 per cent, and in one case 30 per cent. I have quoted some of the figures.
The policy states positively that railway officials shall use their utmost endeavours to have Canadian goods carried to Canadian ocean ports, and develop trade through Canadian channels and through Canadian ocean ports.
It is my submission that, when these officials reduced the rates to Portland, or gave an advantage to Portland that it did not previously have, they were using their utmost endeavours, perhaps unintentionally but certainly without regard to the well-estab-
1208	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hazen lished railway policy of this country, as enacted by parliament, to have freight carried to a foreign port and to develop trade through a foreign port.
I did not claim, and I do not claim now, that there was any discrimination against the ports of Saint John and Halifax, as the Minister of Transport alleged, any more than I would claim that the manufacturing industries of Ontario and Quebec would be discriminated against if the government removed all tariff barriers against importations from the United States. I do claim, however, that the well-established government policy was violated as a result of the officials of the Canadian National Railways reducing these rates.
I bring this matter to the attention of the house for one reason only, because I think that the officials of the Canadian National Railways have been forgetting what our railway policy really is. I want to bring the matter to their attention again, and to the attention of the Minister of Transport, and I ask that the policy be lived up to.
I should like to point out that the amount that was earned by the Canadian National Railways by the reduction of these rates did not justify the violation of policy. I asked Mr. Fraser this question at page 83:
Now let us suppose you did not reduce the rate to Portland; how would it have affected your business and to what extent?
Mr. Fraser answered:
Instead of hauling it all the way to Portland we would have had to hand it over to another line at some junction point-one of the lines serving Boston and New York-the Boston and Maine-and taken less revenue than by hauling to Portland.
It appeared from page 84 of the evidence that the additional amount that the railway made by hauling to Portland was only $15,000, but Mr. Fraser said, "$15,000 is not to be sneezed at". As the operating revenues of the Canadian National Railways in 1947 amounted to $438 million, the sum of $15,000 that was earned does not justify a violation of the traditional railway policy of the dominion, a violation that has the effect of building up a United States port at the expense of maritime ports, and that has the effect of depriving Canadian maritime longshoremen and maritime port workers of employment.
There is another angle to this matter to which I wish to refer. Mr. Fraser stated that the question of the reduction of rates to Portland was never placed before the directors of the Canadian National Railways, and that the directors of the Canadian National Railways never gave their approval to this reduction in rates. Mr. Vaughan said

the matter was never submitted to them. Mr. Fraser said:
I can hardly imagine any case in which a change in rates of this character would ever go to the board of directors. It is an adjustment which would normally be made by a rate clerk.
Mr. Vaughan, the president of the board, said:
I did not know that the reduction had been made. It was purely a routine matter. Those things do not come before the president-all of them.
I submit that it was intended that matters of this kind affecting railway policy should come before the directors of the railway. The law so provides. The Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act of 1933 provides by section 14 that the directors:
-shall so direct, provide and procure that all freight destined for export by sea which is consigned within Canada for carriage to national railways either at point of origin or between that and the sea, shall, unless it has been by its shippers specifically routed otherwise, be exported through Canadian ports.
The clear meaning of the section is that the directors shall see to it, shall direct, provide and procure, that all export freight be exported through Canadian ports unless it has been specifically routed otherwise by the shippers. If the directors fail to have this done they are, in my opinion, guilty of neglect of duty.
There is another matter I propose to deal with if time permits. It has to do with the amending of the British North America Act, which forms a very important part of our constitution. I want to say a word or two on this subject because of the argument that was advanced in the house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) a week or two ago. The province of New Brunswick has taken the position that, before any proposed amendment to the constitution can be implemented by legislation, the approval of the provinces that were consenting parties to the original agreement must be first obtained.
An instance of the provinces' stand is found in the correspondence that passed between the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of New Brunswick in 1937, when the Prime Minister requested the consent of the province to an amendment to the British North America Act that would place unemployment insurance within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.
The New Brunswick government, the premier said, fully appreciated the ultimate object of improving the social security of the individual. Nevertheless the proposed constitutional amendment, or any similar proposal, must necessarily be submitted in definite form. Only on this basis might a decision be

reached, since the different provinces might have varying conceptions of what was proposed. The premier said that the legislative assembly alone must speak-not the government of New Brunswick but the legislative assembly of that province alone must speak.
In taking that stand the government of New Brunswick was not invoking a new principle. The stand was taken because of the fact that confederation was based on a compact or treaty that was sanctioned and given legal permanency by the British North America Act.
An examination of the history of the confederation movement during the years preceding the passing of the British North America Act, and the spirit in which that act has been interpreted from time to time in connection with the relationship and status of the federal and provincial powers, confirms this view.
The attitude of the imperial government prior to the passing of the British North America Act also supports the view taken by the province of New Brunswick that confederation was based upon the agreement and consent of the provinces concerned. The attitude of the imperial government is shown in a dispatch-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I must insist on the rules of house being carried out, Mr. Speaker. Those rules and regulations provide that a member may speak for forty minutes. The other evening the opposition was not good enough to let the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) complete his remarks, though he was interrupted eighty-one times, so I ask that the rules of the house be respected.


Mr. Speaker:: I am grateful for the assistance of the hon. member, but I must call his attention to the fact that it is the responsibility of the Chair to see to the enforcement of the rules. The hon. member has not yet exhausted his time.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Time!


Douglas King Hazen: I was referring to a letter or dispatch from Downing Street to the Hon. Arthur Hamilton Gordon, lieutenant governor of New Brunswick, dated March 18, 1865. In this letter cordial approval is given the proceedings of the Quebec conference. Measures based upon the plan drawn up by the delegates to the Quebec conference would be submitted to the imperial parliament if-and here is the important part-the provincial legislatures should sanction the plan. It is evident from this undertaking that the right was conceded to the provinces to conclude an agreement which would be in the nature of a treaty among themselves. In 1866 the province
The Address-Mr. Maybank of Canada, that is Ontario and Quebec, sent a delegation to London to ask the imperial government to force the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia into a union based upon the Quebec resolutions. The imperial government refused to do so, saying in effect that it would not sanction a union unless the provinces first arranged a properly authorized agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Ralph Maybank (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to deal shortly with two matters this afternoon, with one of them very briefly. Some references have been made already in this chamber to the possibility that Trans-Canada Air Lines may remove its headquarters staff from Winnipeg to Montreal. Just a short time ago the president of T.C.A. made a public statement to the effect that no removal would take place until October of this year; still I understand that the decision of T.C.A. is what is called in commercial life a firm decision.
I concur in the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in reference to direction or non-direction of crown companies by the government. When a corporation is set up and the crown gives it a set of officers to look after the business of that organization, I do not think the government should interfere in administrative details. It should leave those matters to the responsible officers. However, I do question whether a decision involving the movement of probably 140 families from one city to another can be classified as an administrative detail. Despite statements to the contrary, I rather fear that this may be not the end but the beginning, and that further transfers of personnel may follow.
The members of this parliament might be said to be a special body of shareholders of Trans-Canada Air Lines, appointed by a larger body of shareholders, that is, all the people of the country. We are charged with the responsibility of examining the affairs of that crown company. We have done it ever, year, and we will be doing it again this year. So, as I say, while I concur in the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce about non-interference in administrative matters, 1 believe we have here something too large to be classified as a mere administrative detail. For that reason I urge that the officers of this crown corporation be directed that no firm decision should be made on this matter at present and that, if they have made what they would call a firm decision, it should be unmade and the question should remain completely open. Trans-Canada Air

The Address-Mr. Maybank Lines should be told that this matter should not be finally disposed of until the parliamentary committee of this house examines the affairs of that corporation this year, and particularly that no commitments should be made and no plans should be advanced or developed by T.C.A. in reference to such a movement until an examination of the kind I have mentioned has taken place. I think it would be a very welcome statement from Trans-Canada Air Lines at this time if they would say the matter will be held completely in abeyance until such time as their report is considered by the committee of this house.
That is the first matter about which I wish to speak. There is no other way in which I can declare my views, and for that reason I am placing them before this house and making them a matter of record.
I should like to turn now to a subject which has been dealt with in the house a great many times and which I suppose will come up from time to time as long as this session and probably as long as this parliament lasts. I refer to the question of federal-provincial relations. I am not going to deal with the question whether offers made by the central government to the provinces were sufficient or whether the supposed offer of the then premier of Ontario, now the leader of the Conservative party, computed by some algebraic process, was better than some other offer. Nor am I going to deal particularly with the question of who scuttled the conference. A voice from the rear reminds me that everyone knows that. The leader of the Conservative party, premier of Ontario at the time, unquestionably scuttled the conference. He can deny it from now until doomsday-


Mr. Fraser:: That is only your thought.


Ralph Maybank: The Tory claque has commenced with that one still voice: I expect it will grow, as usual. As I say, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) can deny it from now until doomsday, but the fact of the matter is that he waited until it was quite apparent that no further raising of the federal offer could be made, and then came forward with something that could not possibly be considered by any responsible government. When a man waits until he knows there is no possibility of improvement and then offers a fantastic proposal as the price of settling, then if the meeting then breaks up there is no question about who ended the conference. But it is not with that aspect of the matter that I wish particularly to deal. As I understand the position of the Tory party at the present time, it is that they do not want the payment of subsidies at all, or at least they want them kept to the minimum.

In one very long speech, the Tory leader indicated that subsidies were the ruination of federations. He said that several times during the course of his remarks. The only instance which he gave of that having happened was towards the end of his speech when he said that, in the Grecian peninsula about two thousand five hundred years ago, there was a federation which was ruined because of too much subsidization. The Tory position has been made clear throughout the country as well as in this house. Instead of subsidies, they would rearrange the taxing powers of the various provincial governments of this country. Jurisdiction would be so distributed then that all the provinces could get through taxation the moneys that are necessary to carry out their responsibilities under the terms of confederation. I think that is a fair statement of the Tory position as it has been advertised from time to time.


Mr. Harris (Danforth):: That is your statement.


Ralph Maybank: I did not hear what the gentleman said.


Joseph Henry Harris: The interjection was, "That is your statement."


Ralph Maybank: Yes, of course; I was not attributing it to the hon. member who just rose. I am glad we are in agreement. He understands it is my statement as drawn from the various declarations his party has made.
I think it is a fair representation of the Tory position.
I shall deal shortly with one difficulty in their position, and that is that you cannot make any changes in the constitution except with the complete agreement of all parties to confederation. From the statements they have made in the house, that necessarily follows. The hon. member who preceded me this afternoon spent some time making that point clear, that the only way changes could be accomplished by way of enlarging the field of taxation would be by all the provinces agreeing to whatever proposals might be advanced.
In other words, if it was desired to enlarge the field of taxation for the province of Manitoba, it could not be done unless every premier from one coast to the other agreed. If there were to be any enlargement of the field of taxation, the Tories' ally in the province of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, would have to agree. This was made plain a short time ago when they said, with reference to another matter, there should be a conference with all and a satisfactory conclusion to the conference. When they say they would, in preference to subsidies, enlarge the fields of

taxation for provinces, they are only offering something which they know they can prevent the provinces from attaining. Some person will always disagree with a proposal and, of course, any conference which they institute can be scuttled. If the Tories had not said so much about this compact theory of confederation, it would not have been so clear that they are offering to do something which they know they will never be called upon to do.
Setting that constitutional difficulty aside for a moment and disregarding entirely the difficulties the party puts in its own way in order to guard against the implementation of its promises, there are important substantive reasons why the Tory offer is useless to all the provinces of Canada, excepting the two central provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Those two tax-wealthy provinces might benefit by certain tax field changes, but none of the other provinces could benefit. The new province of Newfoundland, of course, could not benefit either. As a matter of fact, I think the Tories know quite well their offer is valueless; they know they are offering a stone when a loaf is asked or giving a serpent instead of a fish. I think they know it, but if they do not, it is time they wakened to that fact.
It is a fact that certain changes would help the wealthy corporations in the central part of the country, but it could not help anyone else. A widening of the bases, as I say, will accomplish nothing. The provinces will not be able to obtain any additional tax money because the base has been widened. In this respect, the prairie provinces can be taken as an example, as could any of the other provinces. The prairie provinces produce wealth. The wealth in the hands of those provinces is not taxable. Certain types of taxation, of course, could be levied on the wealth produced in the provinces, but they are objectionable forms of taxation which no responsible government would ever impose. For example, no person would ever think of imposing a tax on production such as a certain number of cents on a bushel of wheat, oats or barley, or a certain tax per pound on livestock. Such taxes on production would never be countenanced by any responsible people.
In the prairie provinces, as I have said, a reasonable measure of wealth is produced. Taking it year in and year out, man for man, they produce just about as much wealth as is produced in the tax-wealthy provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Any table showing the per capita production of wealth from 1925 to the present will illustrate this. I have before me a few figures which I have obtained. In 1925, the central provinces per capita pro-
The Address-Mr. Maybank duction of wealth was $365, while in the prairie provinces for that year it was $392. For some few years the production per capita figures were in favour of the prairie provinces. During the depression years the position was reversed. The prices of primary products dropped to a very low point.


An hon. Member:: That was during the Tory regime.


Ralph Maybank: Yes, it was during the Tory regime. At any rate, the fact is that the prices on primary products dropped very low, but the price of manufactured articles did not drop so rapidly. In 1932, the per capita production for the central provinces was $225, while in the prairies it was $158. I should say that I am using round figures in most instances. In some cases there will be a few cents taken off or a few cents added in order to state the figure in the most convenient form. The per capita production favoured the central provinces for a number of years. For example, it was $378 as against $261, and $473 as against $293. The first figures were for 1940 and the second for 1941. By 1942 they had come up more nearly equal to each other, $577 being the per capita wealth production figure in the central provinces and $523 being the figure for the prairie provinces. But on the whole, in normal years, in the production of wealth the two areas just about equal each other, on a per capita basis. Man for man the farmers on the prairies have produced as much wealth going into the national pool as have their brother Canadians in the central provinces. The same thing would be true, if the case were examined for British Columbia and the maritime provinces. But it is the nature of the prairie wealth production that makes such an examination, as a starting point, extremely important. It is of the kind that cannot be equitably taxed directly. It is chiefly agricultural and other primary production. This is not the case, of course, with the central provinces; there the production is largely manufacturing.
I do not mean to say that the manufacturing process as such makes it any easier to effect taxation on an article. It may or may not be the case; that is not the point I wish to make. But when you have an economy in which a large proportion of the wealth produced is by manufacturing, you get a concentration of capital, corporation life, and in general a situation in which the profits remain where the wealth production process has been effected. This is not the situation in other parts of Canada.
I do not suppose that it needs a great deal of argument to establish the fact that in the western provinces the wealth produced is

The Address-Mr. Maybank chiefly in the nature of primary products; as a matter of fact, it is mainly agricultural. Any person who is interested can get from the dominion bureau of statistics figures that will make that quite clear. For instance, in 1940 the agricultural wealth per capita in the prairie provinces was 157. If you compare that with the situation in the central provinces, you will get the figure of 60; that is to say, in the central provinces there is not anything like the production of agricultural and other primary wealth that there is in those provinces on the prairies. Back in the 1920's, even, the figure was 104 in the central provinces as against 343 in the prairie provinces. Those figures are for 1928.
As to the fact that manufacturing is chiefly, in the central provinces, the great producer of wealth, perhaps no great argument is necessary either. As most people know, the central provinces produce more manufactured wealth per capita than do the prairie provinces or any other single section of Canada In the central provinces the per capita figure is 158 as against 36; 204 as against 49; and 336 as against 72. These are figures for various years chosen at random. If you take all the years from 1925 up into the 1940's, you will get the same sort of picture. The larger figure I have mentioned in each case is for the central provinces, and the smaller one is for the prairie provinces.
I am not criticizing the fact that there is this concentration of manufacturing and this concentration of that kind of wealth production in the central provinces. Our national policies probably have had a good deal to do with creating that condition. Perhaps the concentration of good coal not far away has had a great deal to do with it, along with water transportation in between the coal and the place where it is to be used. Water transportation generally may have had something to do with it. There is no complaint about this sort of thing, because wherever work can be most efficiently done is where it ought to be done. But it is a fact that you have an entirely different kind of wealth production down here in the central part of Canada from what you have in other parts of Canada. We have a nearly equal per capita production in the various parts. But when we get to the completed process, or the final picture, the case is quite different. We have wealth centred in the hands of corporations. In this wealth are the final profits. After all expenses have been paid, whatever is left is profit. That is the place where taxation can be naturally and most easily applied, and no place else. It is in the central provinces that the opportunity to get taxes from profits exists. It does not exist in the other parts.


Here we have vast sums that can be taxed, while in the prairie provinces the amounts are meagre.
In 1944, for example, the corporation income in the central provinces was $359,198,000 for Quebec and $569,567,000 for Ontario. This makes a total of $928,765,000 or close to a billion dollars. That is a vast pool of wealth. In it there are profits-sometimes larger, sometimes smaller-to be taxed. The comparable figure in the prairies is only $92,000,735, something less than one-tenth of the amount that is found in the central provinces. Out of that one-tenth, Saskatchewan had only about $8 million of that kind of wealth.
I spoke of the per capita wealth production. That was about equal year in and year out. But now when we come to this sort of taxation money-because that is what it might be called-we have the comparable figures as follows. In the central provinces, on a per capita basis, you have the figure of $129.24, but in the prairies the figure is only thirty-eight cents. There is no wealth there of this kind that can be taxed. To widen the base of taxation, or to give new rights of taxation, will avail nothing. There is just no way of changing the taxation laws in general in order to relieve those provinces from the difficulty in which they find themselves. This the Tories know quite well, and have always known it. Most of them have known it, although some may not; it is so patent that I think that all must have known it. I think those who were making the offer, when they proposed a widening of the taxation base, knew quite well they were not offering anything at all. It is a great deal like giving to a family a fine set of dishes or some sharper knives and forks or something like that, when they have no food nor any way of getting food to put on the dishes and cannot possibly get any steaks to cut with the sharp knives or to hold with the sharp forks. That is the kind of effort the Tories are making and have been making from time to time, although there is among them one Tory whose speeches might be read, in which he described the effect of such proposals. But at that time he was premier of Manitoba and of course he was seeing things quite differently. He and his ideas have been discarded for the present leader; for the ideas that he attacked at the time when he was presenting truth.
If we deal with a local bank, if we deal with an insurance company, if we deal with a mortgage company, or if we buy manufactured goods, we send our money down to the head offices of the large corporations. All of that money-coming from the maritimes, from the prairie provinces and from British Columbia-settles in the central provinces, until you get such large collections of money

as 1 indicated a few minutes ago. These large corporation accumulations are the only big sources of wealth from the point of view of the maker of taxation law. These vast profits can be taxed in these two provinces. The outlying provinces desire to have some share of the wealth which they have created; and it is only as I have indicated, that the law could be changed in order that they might be able to get it. But it is well known that if the law were changed they could not get it. There is no way to redivide that wealth of Canada, created by all the people of Canada, except for some central body to effect certain taxation and make a redistribution of the wealth.
It might very well be said that this Conservative party proposition is just a smokescreen to hide a complete bankruptcy of policy. I myself think that is what it is; but from time to time it will be necessary to blow that smokescreen away. From time to time it will be necessary to make it clear that in spite of the veto policy which they have adopted, the veto policy under which any premier can prevent progress, can padlock progress, the smoke behind which they are hiding will have to be blown away from negligible and useless offers which they put forward.
From time to time there will be some other matters in relation to this on which I should like to speak-I can think of a couple now, but I fancy that my time is running out, and I would not be able to conclude them before my time was up. I do not want any favours; therefore I shall stop at this point.


Mr. Anthony Hlynka (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I should like to discuss the present position of agriculture and its outlook for the future. At the outset I may say that in this country there are still some people who hold the view that Canada's agricultural industry has made a killing during the war period, and that on the average it has received fair treatment over the years. This group also holds the opinion that representatives of agricultural constituencies are unjust in their criticisms of past and present federal agricultural policies. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I consider it necessary to place authoritative figures on the record showing exactly how the agricultural industry has fared as compared with other industries.
In past years, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) and I placed figures on the record showing the inadequate share of the national income which the farmers receive. I now have almost up-to-date figures covering a period of twenty-two years, namely, from 1926 to the end of 1947 inclusive, showing the net income of agriculture in relation to the total national income. These figures were
The Address-Mr. Hlynka prepared by Dr. E. C. Hope, economist of the Canadian federation of agriculture. His source of information was the Bank of Canada statistical summary for October 1948.
I may point out that Dr. Hope's percentage table of the agricultural actual net income and the necessary percentage for parity appeared on page 6 of the Canadian federation of agriculture's brief presented in December, 1948, to the royal commission on prices. At this point I should also explain that Dr. Hope accepts the 1926-29 average farm income as parity. There are of course other economists who maintain that parity prices should be much higher. At any rate, Dr. Hope's figures give an interesting picture of Canada's agricultural position from 1926 to the end of 1947. I should explain also that the column giving the gradual decrease of farm population is based on the rate of the decrease of farm population given in the 1931 and 1941 census figures. I would appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if the house would give its consent to have this table printed in the form in which it has been prepared.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Anthony Hlynka: I am sure that hon. members will find these figures instructive. Mr. Speaker, have I permission to have these figures printed?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Anthony Hlynka: The figures are as follows:
Net income of agriculture in relation to total national income 1926-1947
Agriculture's share of
Farm population national income
percentage of Canada's total
Year	population
1926	.... 32	91927	.... 32	61928	.... 32	21929	.... 31	91930	.... 31	51931	.... 31	01932	
30	51933	
30	11934	.... 29	61935	.... 29	11936	.... 28	91937	.... 28	41938	.... 28	01939	.... 27	71940	.... 27	31941	
26	81942	.... 26	61943	
26	11944	.... 25	61945	.... 25	41946	.... 24	91947	.... 24	5Average	
1926-1929 average
percentage
	Necessary
Actually	for parity
received	income
16-9	14-1
14-9	14-0
14-6	13-8
9-4	13-7
8-6	13-5
4-5	13-3
4-2	13-1
4-1	12-9
6-7	12-7
7*6	12-5
7-9	12-4
8-1	12-2
9-3	12-0
10-7	11-9
9-7	11-7
8-3	11-5
130	11-4
10-7	11-2
12-5	11-0
10-0	10-9
11-6	10-7
11-2	10-5
9-7	12-3
13-9	13-9

The Address-Mr. Hlynka On examination of these figures which I have just presented, it will be found that the Canadian farmers received parity prices only in seven out of twenty-two years, while in the other fifteen years the farmers operated at a loss. The only years in which the farmers received parity prices were 1926, 1927 and 1928; then 1942, 1944, 1946 and 1947. It will be noted that in every year over the stretch of fourteen years, that is from 1928 to 1942, the farmers operated at a loss.
In view of these figures I would suggest, to those who think that the farmers are complaining without reason, that they study this table carefully. Of course it may be said that we should forget the past. It may also be said perhaps that the farmers have done fairly well during the last few years. However, it should not be forgotten that during the war years it was the war conditions which were responsible for the rise in agricultural prices; and since the end of the war the economic boom was brought about by UNRRA, IRO and ERP funds. This boom was also brought about by Canada's own loans, gifts and credits to commonwealth and European nations during the years from 1940 to 1947. This information was disclosed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and it appeared in the Edmonton Journal of January 5, 1948. The Canadian Press report reads: Canada gives $5,500,000,000 to aid Europe and Empire.
Ottawa (CP): In the last seven years, Canada has contributed more than $5,500,000,000 to European countries and members of the British commonwealth in outright gifts, various forms of relief and credits and loans.
And again:
This is the first time that these details have been officially released in such complete form and they come at a time when the United States congress is deciding on the European recovery program (Marshall plan) under which Canada may be asked to make further contributions.
The figures given to the Commons Wednesday showed the outright gifts were $1,000,000,000 to the United Kingdom, $19,332,078 in wheat to Greece and $2,211,070,000 to nine countries under the mutual aid section of the War Appropriations acts.
The break-down for the nine mutual aid countries was $91,119,000 to Australia; $5,518,000 to the British West Indies; $26,597,000 to China; $23,629,000 to France; $12,000 to Greece; $18,826,000 to India; $15,278,000 to New Zealand; $159,113,000 to Russia; and $1,870,978,000 to the United Kingdom.
It will be seen from the foregoing that it was Canada that financed or paid for much of our agricultural export. Incidentally the present government learned that it was possible to finance or pay for $5,500 million of export trade. The government should also have learned that it is possible to find ways and means by which Canada's home consumption can be assisted. In the 1930's Canada's governments did not know how Canada's own citizens could be provided with

the barest necessities of life. What hypocrisy! I think at this point I should quote from an editorial which appeared in the January, 1949, issue of the Farm and Ranch Review, which deals with this problem as follows:
First and foremost is the question that must arise in the minds of our producers, can the Canadian government afford to allow a currency shortage to become an insurmountable obstacle to the flow of Canadian food to Britain? Have the best minds in the Canadian government and the British government learned nothing in the last eighteen years? Are we again heading into a period of starvation in a world of plenty?
And again:
Is this the direction in which we are heading today? During the war we devised methods of getting around currency shortages. If we had not we would not have won the war. Surely some method can be found in time of peace.
It is now apparent that ERP funds and the various loans and credits are about exhausted. This is how the U.S. News and World Report of January 7, 1949 describes the position in which Canada finds herself at the present time:
Canada is worried about cutbacks in food purchases by the British.
During the war and after, Canada pushed production of things Britain needed.
Then Britain cut down her buying of Canadian salmon, poultry, apples, beef, timber and newsprint. Now Britain is to take less bacon and eggs. Cheese purchases will be far below the wartime peak. Canadian wheat will be bought this coming season, but Britain apparently isn't willing to pay world prices.
Canadian producers are beginning to wonder where they can sell their big surpluses as Britain turns to Europe, Australia, New Zealand for these products.
Need for foods such as Canada produces still is great around the world. But most buyers shy away from Canada as a "hard" currency country.
As a result, Canada may have to invade the United States market in a big way. This will be hard to do, since the United States also is heading into food surpluses.
In view of the situation in which we find ourselves, Canadians want to know something of the government's intentions for the future. I think this house should have statements on this matter from the ministers concerned. We should have a statement from the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) telling the house what guidance and advice he is prepared to give the agricultural industry at this time. He should state whether the dominion government will guarantee parity prices to the farmer. Will he provide prices-support legislation for agricultural products? Will he advise the farmers to store agricultural products or will he advise them to cut down production? In brief: What is the policy of his department for the immediate future and for the next few years?
Then we should have a more complete statement from the right hon. Minister of

Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) than the one he gave the house on March 1. For instance, what will be the future policy of his department as far as agricultural trade is concerned? What effort is being made in the promotion of the marketing of agricultural products? What are the marketing possibilities of the future? Does the Department of Trade and Commerce contemplate introducing marketing quotas for agricultural products within the next few years? Briefly again: What is the government's future marketing policy so far as agricultural products are concerned?
Coming now to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), what is the attitude of his department with regard to these problems? What part is the Department of Finance prepared to play in the matter of assisting the Canadian agricultural industry, so far as longterm agricultural credits are concerned and also with respect to assisting our domestic consumption and export trade? Will financial considerations be allowed to impede Canadian domestic consumption and the exchange of goods with other countries?
These are questions on which the Canadian farmers should have full information. I may say that the time for action is now, not after the prices of farm products have fallen to rock-bottom. I believe that this whole matter is important enough to warrant statements from the three ministers concerned.
Before turning to another phase of the subject I should like to make one reference to the speech of March 1 of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In his reference to the marketing of wheat the minister said, as recorded on page 1013 of Hansard:
In this house we have heard a good deal about wheat but I think we are going to hear less about it in the future, because any mention of wheat is going to remind the farmer that his return for 1949 and for 1950 will be higher than the returns to any farmer in any other comer of the world.
Further down he goes on to say:
It may be well to look at the final results before counting our losses.
Perhaps the minister may be right when he speaks of 280 million bushels of wheat which is to be marketed in 1949 and 1950, but I think that along with his statement the statement of Paul G. Hoffman, United States foreign aid chief, made on February 3, should also be placed on the record. It appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of February 3, 1949. The article is headed:
United Kingdom "Wheat Buys" in Canada Saved $50,000,000-United States.
This is a British United Press dispatch from Washington.
Foreign aid chief Paul G. Hoffman said today that United States financed British wheat purchases 29087-77
The Address-Mr. Hlynka in Canada have saved United States taxpayers at least $50,000,000. He made the statement in a letter to Senator Milton R. Young, Republican, N.D. Young had protested to Hoffman over British purchase of $55,000,000 worth of Canadian wheat with United States foreign aid funds. Hoffman said a British-Canadian agreement enabled Britain to buy wheat in Canada at prices from 43 cents to $1.20 a bushel below prices in this country. Consequently, he said, British wheat purchases with United States funds cost at least $50,000,000 less than if they had been made here.
I do not believe I need to make any further comment on this matter except to say that personally I have no particular criticism of the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreements. But, in fairness to all, any sacrifice which was made as a result of the agreements should have been borne by the entire nation and not by the wheat growers alone.
I wish to turn now to another subject for a few moments. 1 want to deal with the government's taxation policy as it is applied to farmers in western Canada. May I say at the outset that the government's handling of farm income taxation is the worst bungle imaginable. Not only does the taxation department lack any clear-cut, well defined income taxation policy, but the handling of assessments is so muddled and confused that something must be done about it without delay.
In the first place, in order not to lose votes in 1940, the government did not tell the farmers that they were expected to file income tax returns from 1941 on. Nor were the farmers told that they should have kept account books showing their expenses and their income. At that time the majority of farmers were in debt, and not even a thought entered their minds that the government might some day send out assessors and ask for a detailed accounting.
Five years passed, and yet the government did not say a word. The election of 1945 took place, and there was still not a word by the government about the filing of income tax returns. Immediately after the 1945 election, however, the government sent out a crew of assessors to check on the farmers. As if from the blue sky, farmers were told that they should have kept account books, and that they should have filed income tax returns. In view of the fact that the farmers did not keep any record of their incomes and their expenses, the government proceeded to assess the farmers on what is called the "net worth" system. Under this system the farmer is forced to accept the arbitrary assessment of the assessor. Further, the farmer is considered guilty of failing to file his returns, and he pays a penalty for each year plus interest up to the date on which the penalty is paid. In addition to that, if the assessor decides that the farmer

The Address-Mr. Hlynka should have paid, let us say, $100 as income tax for 1941, the farmer must also pay interest on that amount from 1941 until the date when the indebtedness is paid in full. The farmer pays similar penalties and interest for every year for which he is found to owe money.
The farmer can argue and protest, but the assessor's estimate of the cost of farm produce consumed by the farmer is also arbitrarily fixed. Then, too, if the farmer could not sell his 1942 wheat crop, let us say, because of quotas at that time, and he sold it in 1944, he is taxed on both crops in 1944 unless he can prove that he did not voluntarily carry over his 1942 crop, but sold it at the first opportunity. These are only a few of the injustices imposed upon the farmers of the prairie provinces. In northern Alberta the farmers are simply terrorized by the taxing authorities.
I should now like to put on the record a sample of what the taxing authorities of this government are doing in Alberta. Here it is:
Department of National Revenue Taxation Division
Tower Building, Edmonton, December 1, 1948.
Dear Sir:
Your letter dated November 27, 1948, is acknowledged. You will recall that on the 18th of March, 1948, you called in person at our office regarding your income tax returns which were filed at this office. At that time explanations were submitted by you to the effect that as the net income earned from your position as agent for the Imperial Oil Limited was not sufficient for your personal living expenses, it was necessary for you to supplement this income with income earned from card playing. As this form of income is considered taxable $1,500 was added to other income for the years 1945 and 1946. If there is any further information required please do not hesitate to get in touch with us and we shall endeavour to explain everything to your satisfaction.
Yours faithfully,
H. E. Boulay,
for Director of Income Tax.
May I point out that this young man- I did not put his name on the record for obvious reasons-served in the army during the recent war. What is more, he gave me his word that he never plays cards. The young man explained that the income tax official in this case got away from the serious subject and asked what the people did out in the country for pastime during evenings. The young man replied that there were many things they could do. The income tax official suggested cards. The young man agreed that some people did entertain themselves by playing cards. The conversation ended there, but in a few days the young man received the letter I just read. This sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, is scandalous and outrageous.
To complete the case I want to say that, following receipt of the letter which I quoted, the young man called at the income tax office again and explained that a mistake must have been made in regard to his assessment, as he never played cards. He was told then that if he was not satisfied he could appeal to Ottawa. Two or three weeks later he received this short letter:
Department of National Revenue Taxation Division
Tower Building,
Edmonton, February 18, 1949
Final Notice
Re: 1945-46 income tax arrears, $631.26 Dear Sir:
As payment has not been received on the above mentioned tax, it is the intention of the department to institute legal proceedings unless the amount is paid within ten days of receipt of this letter.
This may be through the exchequer court or by way of garnishee to your employer.
Yours faithfully,
H. A. MacDonald,
For Director of Income Tax.
And the letter was registered. I need only add, Mr. Speaker, that under the law the padding of accounts by any person is a criminal offence. I say, the same law should apply to the padding of assessment accounts by income tax officials.


John Oliver Probe: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has been going on now for a considerable time. In preparing my contribution to the debate I looked at the interval between the debate of a year ago and the present time. Hon. members will be aware that there have been ten by-elections since the time last year when the Liberal administration outlined to us its program for the coming year. In those ten by-elections the Liberal party has suffered a net loss of four seats, two going to the C.C.F. and two to the Conservatives. The Conservatives have made a net gain of one seat, made up of two gains from the Liberal party and one loss to the C.C.F. The C.C.F. party, to which I belong, has shown a net gain of three seats, composed of two gains from the Liberals and one from the Conservatives.
In reviewing the results of these appeals to the electorate I am sure any objective observer must come to the conclusion that there has been a definite indication on the part of the people of Canada that they are not in accord with the policies of the present administration; and the distribution of the by-election gains made by the opposition parties from the government in that period indicates, I would say, that in the selection of an alternative to the present administration the C.C.F. party stands as a three to

one favourite over the party to my right, the Progressive Conservatives.
Of course there has been a great fanfare in the press and over the radio accompanying the initiation of the new leader of the Progressive Conservatives into this house. But I should like to tell him, as I want to tell the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), that I come from what may be called the grass roots of this country and that I take occasion to find out what the ordinary men and women are thinking about political matters. So I may tell these two distinguished gentlemen that the harping we have heard in this house on provincial rights and the bringing up of stories about the Hong Kong disaster and the responsibility in connection with it show that neither of them knows what is uppermost in the minds of the people of Canada. I can tell them that uppermost in the minds of the people are such simple matters as bread, butter, shelter and security. As they did when I came here in 1945, the people of my riding want me to repeat to the house and to the leaders of these noise-making parties that the government had better have another look both into the public conscience and into the public purse before they say no, for example, to low-rental housing subsidies for our low-income groups. In my city we still have approximately one thousand veterans and their families looking to the government for some form of decent shelter.
My riding depends for its well-being on a healthy, agriculture; and our citizens are disturbed because our foreign trade, especially in agricultural products, seems to be slipping away. In that regard we resent the apparent domination of our foreign trade policy by big business from other countries. We find a glut in flax, where a year ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) recommended that our farmers grow more flax. Apparently there is a glut in apples and in lumber. We seem again to be overproducing.
Then in my riding we regret the niggardly appropriation for national health. We are worried about its unequal application up to this date, and we hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will implement the promise he made to us last summer when the bill was under discussion, that because one province had gone ahead with an enlarged hospital construction and health program it would not be handicapped in obtaining its share of such funds as were to be distributed by the dominion treasury. I am just a little alarmed at the present figures of hospital construction authorized for the purpose of receiving 29087-771
The Address-Mr, Probe federal grants. As of February 28 last those figures were as follows:
Hospital
Beds
Authorized
Saskatchewan		 15
Alberta	 H3
Manitoba	 165
Nova Scotia	 184
Prince Edward Island	 249
British Columbia	'.... 532
Ontario	 899
Quebec	   4,250
I would be the first to admit that undoubtedly there is a backlog of authorizations still to come forward; but in my own city of Regina we have been attempting to construct additions to two hospitals, the Grey Nuns and the general hospital. Construction of the addition to the general hospital is held up at the present time because we have run out of funds;	and	unless the Minister of
National Health and Welfare changes the basis on which grants are to be made we may find difficulty in completing that project.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was your hospital built after April 1?


John Oliver Probe: No, it was built before.


Angus MacInnis: It was built on the basis of your proposal of 1945.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no; that had nothing to do with it.	[DOT]


John Oliver Probe: At any rate, we have not the means to effect the completion of our program for the Regina hospital. I have discussed it with the minister. I hope there is some way in which we may be able to do so through the grants which are now being made available.
Regina has not been so adversely affected by the present unemployment that has been mentioned by many speakers in this debate. However, I should like to have a better assurance from the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) with respect to the size of the commitments for public works than he gave the leader of my party about a week ago. At that time the minister said that, after one year of the implementation of these public works, five thousand men might be taken off the unemployment relief rolls of the country. The trans-Canada highway alone should employ ten times that number of workers. Our prairie irrigation projects should require a larger number of workers than that.
According to the figures supplied me by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in answer to a question a few days ago, after all the years the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act has been in operation, there are less than
1218	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Probe two hundred square miles of agricultural land under irrigation in my province. In Saskatchewan there are large sections which have been subjected to drought for four consecutive years. During the Rosthern by-election of last year, the Minister of Agriculture promised us a general irrigation project; that was before the by-election. Owing to the shortage of water in my city, we are interested in the construction of irrigation reservoirs and would like to see the Minister of Agriculture proceed with the implementation of the projects promised during the Rosthern by-election.
Recently the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) announced there was an Atlantic seaway project which could be completed in five years and to which the government of Canada proposed to give assistance. We are in favour of that, but we feel that the other sections of the country should not be overlooked. The superannuated civil servants in my city have pleaded with me to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) for a modification of the rigid system of granting pensions, so that a cost of living bonus may be included. To those who are derisive of governments that are progressive with respect to social legislation, I should like to remind them that in two places superannuated civil servants have received a cost of living bonus, one being the province of Saskatchewan and the other Great Britain.
Whatever the government might be willing to do by way of solution of these problems, I think everyone in this house recognizes the grave national problems facing the country in the form of better housing, job security, a complete health program and adequate provision for years of retirement. There is one problem, however, about which I wish to speak, which grows more serious as time passes. Many Canadians have failed to note the existence of this problem, which is, how best to use our ever-increasing leisure.
Vague dissatisfaction was voiced last year when Canadians failed once again to place well up in the Olympic games. We grumbled when Canada's international hockey entry performed so poorly recently in the one team game, hockey, wherein we felt Canadians excelled. Our inherent leadership in this game was conceded for many years. The Edmonton Grads dominated women's basketball in world competition for years; but suddenly, with the retirement of coach Percy Page, Canada dropped out of the top ranks of basketball. For as long as I remember, Canadian tennis players have consistently lost to minor stars from other competing countries.
A woefully small number of individual Canadian stars, by their own courage and at their own expense or with the aid of a few


friends, have twinkled briefly in the international sports firmament. Names such as Barbara Ann Scott, Ethel Catherwood, Jack Guest, Joe Wright and Percy Williams rise to view too seldom to be explained away by the excuse of a sparse population. Olympic successes by other small nations will bear out my thesis that Canada's small population is not the major reason for our sports entrants faring so badly in competition with those from other countries. I do not argue that a long string of firsts in international games is necessarily a desirable thing. I feel that the constant lack of these firsts indicates that we have a big problem which we should tackle on the national as well as on the local scale.
I am sure it was a shock to Canadians to find that there was so high a percentage of military rejections on medical grounds among our volunteers for the armed services during the war recently ended. Even among those who were accepted as fit, thousands of service personnel broke down physically or mentally early in the training grind, and long before they were exposed to the shock of actual battle. I clearly remember an exercise at Aldershot, England, in the spring of 1943, in which my regiment made a practice march in full kit over a distance slightly less than thirteen miles. Our colonel set a pace which gave us the divisional record for the distance, two hours and twenty minutes. More than seventy men, however, practically all youngsters, failed to finish the route and were picked up by regimental ambulances where they dropped. This happened after two years of military training.
In addition to the instances of physical softness which I have noted, I could refer to the increasing numbers of mental and emotional cases being treated by hospitals, psychiatrists and social workers in all parts of Canada. There seems to be a growing breakdown of the mental equipment of so many of our people. I do not wish to minimize the extent to which the physical or mental weaknesses of Canadians is attributable to poor housing conditions, to inadequate diet, to worry about jobs or debts, or to the periodic economic depressions of the past. It requires a new Canadian social order to remedy all these causes.
There are other causes as well which are common to all economic groups of Canadian society, the rich as well as the poor. We can build a proper antidote against these if we are willing to get on with the job. In the past four or five decades a great change in the living habits of most of our people has come about. We have all become part of an increasingly complex system. Our environment has changed from a simple, predominantly rural one, where the greatest initiative

and self-reliance were necessary for survival, to a specialized and highly mechanized one. This perfected us in one small respect, perhaps, but it made us more dependent on other specialists in every other respect. Perfection of techniques, so far as bread and butter occupations are concerned, has changed us all from physical and mental individuals into varying forms of living robots.
Our highly organized society has shortened our working hours. It has increased our hours of leisure. But it has not made provision for us to retain or to acquire the skills needed for the proper use of that leisure which our ingenuity has provided. As a result, our native creative instincts are being permitted to shrivel and die.
Very early in life we cease active participation in recreational pursuits; we become passive spectators. It is simpler to pay admission to watch our favourite team or actor from the grandstand than it is to become one of the players. Sports writers comment on the increasing number of serious accidents to trained athletes, and old-timers deplore the lack of stamina and endurance of even professional performers. The inherent sturdy tone of mind and body, which was the normal adjunct of pioneer living habits, is disappearing, and we have failed to appraise the changed situation wisely enough to counteract its evil effects.
What should be done about it? Progress will not reverse its steps to make us pioneers again. If we have lost much of the hardiness of a less advanced social state, we must surely seek some substitute for the necessary qualities we have lost. Many individuals, some communities, and a few nations are working out their solutions. As for coming to grips with a serious problem which is having serious national consequences, Canada is still largely nibbling away at a solution, whereas I urge it to take a man-sized bite.
The government will likely say that parliament did in 1943 pass the National Physical Fitness Act, which set up a national council to promote the physical fitness of the people of Canada. By this act, this council might (a) assist in the extension of physical education in all educational and other establishments; (b) encourage, develop and correlate all activities relating to physical development of the people through sports, athletics and similar pursuits; (c) train teachers, lecturers and instructors in the principles of physical education and of physical fitness; (d) organize activities designed to promote physical fitness and to provide facilities therefor; and (e) co-operate with organizations engaged in the development of physical fitness in the
The Address-Mr. Probe amelioration of physical defects through physical exercise.
The actual carrying out of recreational projects was properly to be the responsibility of the provinces and communities, and all possible latitude to do this was permitted them by the act. To implement this laudable program which I have outlined, $255,000 maximum grant from federal funds was provided for, of which $225,000 was allocated to the provinces on a per capita basis, and the balance was to be for central administration. For all its idealism, this program works out to a per capita grant of two cents, and two of the provinces of Canada-Ontario and Quebec-have not seen fit to avail themselves of even this stingy entitlement. Small as the amount is that was appropriated for this great work, the public accounts show that never since the act was proclaimed has any full year's appropriation been spent.
Considering the financial resources at the command of the fitness council, it is doing a grand job. The administrative staff, under the direction of Dr. Doris Plewes, give a visitor to their office the view of a big task to do. They make one feel that they are prepared to do that job, and that there is no handicap that more ample funds could not overcome. But they will never do what thev have the foresight to see as necessary until this parliament sees its job of providing the financial means.
Two cents per capita for physical fitness and over $40 per capita for liquor-according to a return made a few days ago to a question asked by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson)-is to me a discomforting contrast. We call ourselves Christians; we pay lip service to Him who "increased in wisdom and in stature and in favour with God and man." We read about youthful gangs terrorizing "Toronto the good"; we decry divorce in the provinces of Canada; we smugly denounce communism, even while we put up signs "keep off the grass"; we put a lock on playground gates on Sundays and holidays, and crowd our people into tenements in the richest country in the world.
There are many community-minded individuals and groups, with the soul and the vision of what a creative being man could be, who give their time to hobby-minded youth, to drama groups, to community sports, with no thought of material reward. But they need encouragement, training and technical direction the better to do their voluntary labour for their fellow man. The trend from farm to city is, so far as youth goes, only a response to a lonely and desolate social and recreational void.

The Address-Mr. Probe
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has, in the fitness act, the skeleton at hand on which he can build to reality a wholesome and healthy Canada. Treatment of the sick is necessary, and his $30 million a year for a national health program will never do the job.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a fairly good start.


John Oliver Probe: But while he is making some provision for the salvage of those who have already broken down, even greater provision should be made to prevent others from requiring, unnecessarily, hospitalization and medical attention. Olympic honours and acclaim in hobbies and the arts are outward symbols only of health and vigour and will follow a creative program where each portion of the nation accepts its own role to secure them.
I suggest to the minister that he find money to provide, at national expense, free courses in a wide variety of hobbies, arts and skills of a recreational nature, to nominees selected by the provinces from such citizens as are willing to make recreation and health their profession. Make these courses available to all provinces that pledge themselves that the graduates of the federally sponsored courses will set up courses in turn in each of the participating provinces for volunteers at the community level, such volunteers to be either career people or local hobbyists who are willing to spend spare time helping to give creative pleasure to their fellows. Capital expenditures for community halls and playground facilities, made by the municipality, or interested groups within it, could be encouraged by token money grants from federal funds. We should encourage construction of community recreation centres in every village and lonely municipality in Canada. Grants for this purpose are certainly as justifiable as grants to flying clubs or exhibition boards-however desirable these may be.
At the federal level, provide instructor coaches of team games and training facilities for Canadian entrants to international field and track events. Then, too, let us use national parks and playgrounds for more than to sell postcards to gullible tourists. Let us make it possible for our poorest family to relax there. It is their playground. By arrangement of the national council on physical fitness the minister convened a meeting of leading sports groups of Canada in the railway committee room here last January 7 and 8. The purpose of the meeting was to provide an opportunity for the sports-governing bodies, among other things, to promote a greater participation in sports, thus increasing the fitness and pleasure of our people. One


important outcome of that meeting was a resolution requesting the government of Canada, during the next three fiscal years, to appropriate and make available the sum of $10 million for the provision of sports facilities in Canada. The government of Canada has never been asked to make a more constructive investment in the well-being of its people, young and old.
A health program has both its curative and its preventive aspects. To a nation able to waste nearly a billion dollars yearly on liquor and tobacco, which expense is itself a symptom of misuse of leisure time, surely one per cent or two per cent of that sum, invested in a wise expansion of a physical fitness program for Canada, will pay to us all the most satisfying future dividends. If the minister has the courage and vision to recommend it to his colleagues and to see that a generous program is carried out, he will have justified his assumption of the most important portfolio in the Canadian cabinet; and he will have earned the gratitude of children and parents from one end of the country to the other.
If it is to be a choice between playgrounds and strait-jackets, let us vote for playgrounds.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.
Mr. Douglas G. Ross (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that in taking part in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I am the 116th speaker. I do not apologize for taking part in the debate because I think I have something important to say. First of all, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Brown) and the seconder (Mr. Demers) upon the splendid way in which they did their jobs. They had difficult jobs to do because they had so little material to do them with.
May I congratulate also the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) upon the high honour he has attained even though it may be for but a short time. I should like also to congratulate the newcomers to the house. May I congratulate our party upon selecting such a magnificent Canadian as leader of the party and now leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I know he will prove a worthy successor to men like Sir John A. Macdonald, Cartier, Tupper, Sir Robert Borden, Viscount Bennett and many others.
It is quite natural that I could not debate all the things referred to in the speech from the throne, but before I turn to the matter about which I want to speak particularly

I should like to deal with one or two other matters. The question of pensions for the blind has been well taken care of. I should like to say a word to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) about having the tax removed from such things as hearing aids, spectacles and aids for the disabled. Expenditures made by individuals for these aids should be allowable as deductions for income tax purposes.
I would refer to the iniquitous tax on the pop that the children love to buy and also the extraordinary tax of 25 per cent on things such as this $2.50 watch I have here and on which I paid a tax of 70 cents. That is an absolutely absurd thing to have to do. I cannot condemn the government too strongly for having overtaxed the people of Canada by some $600 million, I suppose in order to be able to show a large surplus in an election year.
I should like to make mention of the health league of Canada, which I think has done a magnificent job. They should be given a grant in recognition of the national work they have done. There is no doubt about the good work they have done in the past in connection with the pasteurization of milk, and educational efforts in the field of toxoids for the immunization of children from the terrible ravages of diphtheria. They have some funds, but I think the success of a voluntary organization such as this has great effects upon governments, and I should like to see this organization recognized.
The matter about which I wish to speak is radio broadcasting. Radio broadcasting in Canada, or in fact in any country, is of greater importance to the people than they realize. The impact of radio influences our way of thinking, our way of living, our morals, the language we speak, what we eat and drink, what we wear and how we play. I suppose the average individual listens to radio broadcasts for four or five hours a day.
The control of radio broadcasting in Canada, therefore, is of paramount importance to the people. Under our system of monopolistic control the opportunity for arbitrary decisions is fraught with great danger if this control should ever be in the hands of an unscrupulous government. It points at the very heart of our way of life, at our freedom of speech and of thought, at our personal freedom. I could point out examples in the past and in the present known to everyone -nazi Germany and fascist Italy. Today we have the example before our eyes of the soviet union and its satellites behind the iron curtain. Hitler could never have attained to the absolute power he did, and neither could
The Address-Mr. D. G. Ross Stalin keep in subjugation the people of Russia, without complete control of the radio.
The C.B.C. have complete control of radio broadcasting. They have control over what shall be broadcast and how it shall be broadcast. To go one step farther, that control could be extended, as was done in nazi Germany, to the control over individual radio receivers. There would then be control over what the people could listen to. It may be said that it could not happen here, but it did happen in other countries.
Make no mistake about it, we have bureaucrats in Canada today and I do not suppose there is any greater example than the C.B.C. It is a perfect picture of centralized power. Of course this is right down the alley of my socialist friends to my left. They like it; they have been fighting to retain it. If they ever happen to get into power, which God forbid, aided and abetted by their communist friends, almost anything could happen.
Let us consider for a moment the use of radio in Canada. It is true that free time is allotted to the members of the various parties in the House of Commons, and when a minister of the crown requires to use the radio for some public announcement when parliament is not sitting he gets it. Most of these announcements in the past have been to the advantage of the government, but I do recall one that was not. The fact is that ministers have that right while ordinary members have not. Again, it is such a simple matter for news items to be coloured when broadcast over the radio.
The socialists talk glibly about the dangers of exploitation by capitalist monopolies. It is good propaganda, but it is just so much bunk. There is never a word about the existing radio broadcasting monopoly. Never a word has come from their lips about the loss of coverage, the loss of the usefulness of channels, suffered by the Canadian people through the arbitrary refusal of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to grant power output up to the limit of the maximum allowable on the channels allotted to Canada under the Havana agreement. Those of them who were on the committee, and who heard the evidence, know of this irreparable loss to the Canadian people. The Liberal members are just as much to blame. Of course, they were mostly liberals with a small "1", but no one who heard or who has read the evidence given by such a distinguished scientist as Professor Bayley could help but be alarmed at what he said. My only conclusion must be that the political aspect of the whole question of radio in Canada took priority in the minds of the majority of those who were
1222	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. D. G. Ross on the committee. Professor Bayley had no axe to grind. He simply stated the facts as they were. I will say more about that a little later.
In the speech from the throne I find these words:
It is the view of my ministers that there should be an examination of the activities of agencies of the federal government relating to radio, films, television, the encouragement of arts and sciences, research, the preservation of our national records, a national library, museums, exhibitions, relations in these fields with international organizations, and activities generally which are designed to enrich our national life and to increase our own consciousness of our national heritage and knowledge of Canada abroad. For this purpose, the government intends at an early date to establish a royal commission.
The gambit of subjects set out for review is so vast and all-embracing that to any thinking person it will have to be a permanent royal commission. The passage I have quoted reads like the curriculum of a university. It says that there should be an examination of the activities of the agencies of the federal government relating to all these matters, and for this purpose the government proposes to set up a royal commission. These objectives are greatly to be desired, and we all want them, but they are the job of the government. They all come under the jurisdiction of one minister or another, supposedly responsible to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada. What have these ministers been doing in the meantime about these matters during the fourteen years that the government have been in power? If a royal commission is necessary now, this proposal is a castigation of the ability and diligence of those who now hold office. If that is the case, and a royal commission is necessary, then it is about time that they get out of office and allow others to take their place who know how to do the job better.
To my mind this proposal is iniquitous. When one thinks of the army of employees in each minister's department, employed there for just such purposes, in the national research council, and many other departments, the proposal now of a royal commission, with the accompanying expenditure of money that will be required, shows a dereliction of duty which should not and will not be condoned by the people of Canada. I suggest that this proposal really means nothing. It is just so much window-dressing, eyewash and election bait to cover up the delinquencies of the government. It is also put in the speech from the throne to cover up the lack of intestinal fortitude, shall we say, that the government shows in its repeated refusal to tackle the question of radio broadcasting in its various branches. If ever any question needed prompt attention, that of the control of radio broad-

casting in Canada does. It is necessary now; not a year from now, but as quickly as possible.
Year after year we have had a radio committee of the House of Commons. It has been composed of an overwhelming number of Liberals, with a small "P, aided and abetted by their socialist friends to the left, as so often happens. The reports of the committee have not been unanimous, and seldom if ever has concurrence in them been moved. The reports have not been in the best interests of Canada, and have not been founded on the best independent evidence and scientific advice. Evidence has been given by the Canadian association of broadcasters year after year. It is said that they had an axe to grind. Of course they had an axe to grind, but they also showed very plainly where the best interests of the Canadian public lay, and how the Canadian public could receive better coverage and programming if they were not stultified by the regulations and autocratic power of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Time will not permit me to read the evidence which was presented before the committee by the association, but for those who wish to inform themselves the evidence is there year after year. British justice has been mentioned before in this house. Is there any British justice or Canadian justice in the setting up of radio control in Canada? I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). The C.B.C. is an operator; it is the controller. It is they who recommend licences and regulate power. They are the policemen. They prosecute, and they are the judge and jury. Their decisions are final; there is no appeal. Their decisions cannot but be biased, since they are influenced by what is in the best interests of the C.B.C. and its broadcasting activities. They are certainly not always in the best interests of the people of Canada. As a consequence, as I said before, many of these things are not in the best interests of Canadians.
There is the question of coverage. As I pointed out earlier, I can say without fear of contradiction that many radio channels or frequencies which were allotted to Canada, and of which the Canadian people should have had the advantage, have lost a great deal of their usefulness. Their coverage has been greatly reduced and limited, far more so than the Canadian people think at the present time. From time to time over the years applications for the installation of broadcasting stations, and for the use of wave lengths, have been made. To say the least, there has been no promptness in setting aside fre-

quencies, with the consequence that, when finally some of these applications were granted, there was a very serious increased cost in the installation, and loss of coverage due to priority of occupation by United States stations.
Applications for increased power on the stations already existing, in order to more fully fulfil their obligations to the public, were refused. As a consequence, when the increased power was granted, the full use of the power could not be taken advantage of because of protection which had to be given to stations in the United States which had a priority of occupation, and which had increased their power and extended their coverage to such an extent that the protection which had to be given to these stations was such as to greatly limit the coverage which might have been given, besides increasing the cost of installation.
Though the C.B.C. was supposed to be an independent corporation, to a great extent it has been so in name only. In respect of power and the allocation of channels it has been compelled to function in accordance with government policy, keeping at ridiculously low levels the power permitted to stations in competition commercially with the C.B.C. Government policy originally was to allot
1,000	watts as a maximum to any private station, but the corporation got alarmed at the mounting evidence of loss of coverage, and decided to increase that power. So in many cases they increased the limit to 5,000 watts.
There is no question but that government policy in connection with broadcasting in Canada has been one of continuous muddle, and certainly not in the interests of the Canadian public. The officers of the C.B.C. have admitted some of these allegations. During the session of 1943 the radio committee was warned by Professor Bayley, professor of electrical engineering at the university of Toronto, who was one of the accepted experts on the technical side of radio. I want to quote just a few words from what he said:
___that because of present limitations of power,
beyond those limitations contained in the Havana agreement, Canada has already lost permanently much possible radio coverage and that, unless all increases in power possible under the agreement are made as soon as conditions permit, Canada will lose a great deal more of her potential radio coverage. Now, I am not arguing who should have these increases in power or where; that is immaterial. The point is that if Canada does not occupy fully the channels assigned under the Havana agreement, the chances are very good that she will lose some of her rights to the air.
He repeated the same statement to the committee in 1946. Coming from a man of such standing in Canada, this is a pretty
The Address-Mr. D. G. Ross serious allegation. You will note that he says Canada has already lost permanently much possible radio coverage. It does seem to me this should have been sufficient warning to have had some action taken by the government. Again, he said that unless all possible increases in power were made as soon as conditions permitted, Canada would lose a great deal more of her potential radio coverage. What has been done? Very little.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the position with respect to television? There are applications pending, I do not know how many; but Dr. Frigon has stated that there will be no television in Canada until the kinks in technique are ironed out by somebody else. He proposes to wait for the situation in the United States to clear, and in the meantime the C.B.C. is giving the matter little or no thought. There may be a limited amount of research being done by the corporation, but no encouragement is being given private stations. There is no point in anyone applying for a licence, for the C.B.C. has not even established the conditions under which licences may be granted. Is this the fruit of public ownership? Is this country of scientific enterprise a scientific vacuum? Are we to stand idly by in this country waiting for others to perfect techniques that we are going to copy at some future date? It does not seem to me this is the spirit we should have as Canadians. Canada had a proud name in regard to research and accomplishment during the war, which is not in keeping with the little, narrow-minded paternalism of the C.B.C. And what a strange contradiction we see, when only last May the corporation declared that Canada should not lag behind in television. Now we are told nothing will be done.
I understand some twelve channels for television broadcasting have been allotted to Canada. Blair Fraser in a recent article stated that not long ago he had a conversation with Mr. Wayne Coy, chairman of the federal communications commission of the United States, who dropped a broad hint that the television channels in the United States were being overcrowded, and that unless Canada made use of its channels they might consider taking over some now allotted to us. I understand some conferences are going on between Canada and the United States at the present time in this connection. How are we doing? Are we going to lose coverage in Canada again, just as we lost coverage in days gone by, because of the policies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the government, and the way they dilly-dally in these matters?
1224	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. D. G. Ross
Television is expensive, and people who go into it are liable to lose their shirts. So far the C.B.C. seems to think that Canadians should be protected from this venture. Within a few years the United States will have one national network, if not more, for television. Where will we be? It is this excessive caution, Mr. Speaker, that smothers this imaginative project for Canadians. It' is this type of thinking that makes our young men say, "Oh, what's the use", and emigrate to the United States. The little thinkers on the government benches are afraid they may lose control over broadcasting to those who can do better. There is some apprehension that private stations would have to rely almost wholly on United States programs, but whether we like it or not all those living along the border from Prescott right through to Sarnia will receive broadcasts from the United States. This could be offset by some of our own productions, since I understand that even now some recordings are being made in Canada and exported to the United States. We will never get anywhere in this country in regard to television or any of these other things unless someone tries.
Now, at long last, comes the announcement in the press that the government is considering giving assistance to the C.B.C. in connection with television. If the report is correct, it means spending millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money, and in the end the results are uncertain. Why not let private enterprise do the job? Not for years will television be brought to all Canadians. Only the larger cities can hope to have it for a long time to come. Why should the taxpayers generally, other than those in the large centres, have their money used for the benefit of the people in the big cities? That is beyond my comprehension.
In the last two years it has cost the taxpayers of Canada a million dollars for the collection of radio licence fees. That is a million dollars gone down the spout. The truth is that the C.B.C. does not want private stations to get too far ahead. That is their dog-in-the-manger attitude. They feel that no matter what the consequences, or what amount of public money they spend, or how much by way of coverage we lose in this country, they are going to get in the field first.
Our socialist friends, for political purposes, talk a lot of nonsense about vested interests. It is pointed out that the air waves belong to the people, and so they do. The air, for transportation purposes, also belongs to the people, as do the mineral rights and the rights of newspaper publication. Do the newspapers not have just as many vested interests as any of the others that have been mentioned? The 

newspapers use the streets, the roads, and the air to deliver their product. I say there is no difference; they are all in the same boat. This country was built up by the pioneering spirit of private enterprise. Vested interests can be properly controlled.
I should like to say a word about radio licences. I have spoken on this subject so often in the past. First of all, a man pays a tax of ten per cent when he buys his radio. Then, he has to pay $2.50, but he pays no more whether he has one radio or twenty radios. Is there any fairness in that, Mr. Speaker? I do not think there is. There are approximately thirteen million people in Canada, but there were only 1,997,879 radio licences issued. It is difficult for me to think that everyone who should have bought a licence in Canada actually bought one. I venture to say there are thousands of citizens who did not pay the licence fee. There were 12,524 prosecutions for failure to obtain licences. What an indignity to put upon people!
The amount collected last year for the C.B.C. was $4,798,291. The amount paid for the collection of these licence fees was $325,000. This was paid in the form of commissions and so on. By whom was it paid, by the C.B.C? No, it was paid by the taxpayers of Canada. It cost $221,350 to issue the licences. Who paid that, the C.B.C.? No, the people of Canada paid that. This means that $546,000 was paid by the public to have nearly $5 million handed over to the C.B.C. In order to give pleasure to yourself and your friends through radio programs, you had to pay this fee. It should be cut out altogether. It is also one of the most disreputable ways of accounting.
No royal commission is needed to inquire into radio broadcasting, television or facsimile. What is needed is courage, which the government has not got, and decision, which it lacks. The C.B.C. should operate as a public service, Mr. Speaker, and do the job it was intended to do. It should not be allowed to compete with private enterprise. Let us get away from controls, and away from the idea of the government being in the radio business. The C.B.C. is operating in the commercial field as a business, but it pays no taxes to any provincial or municipal body. It is subsidized, yet it is operating in competition with private enterprise and the Canadian public pays $5,345,000 for that privilege.
The C.B.C. operates in competition with private stations who are not placed in the same position as that corporation. These private stations are prohibited from using lines or having hook-ups. Why should the C.B.C. have commitments which prevent it

from broadcasting programs which are originated at no cost to the corporation? The Toronto symphony orchestra cannot get on the air from time to time because the C.B.C. has commercial commitments. The control of radio should be removed from the corporation entirely and private broadcasting stations should be permitted to have hook-ups and use wires. Private station chains should be encouraged so as to overcome the great danger about which I spoke in my opening remarks, that of monopolistic control in the hands of an unscrupulous government. This is necessary to preserve freedom of speech and personal liberty, Mr. Speaker.
It is necessary to have another voice in radio which is not controlled by government. If we can do this, Mr. Speaker, and have our private stations operate as they should, we will have a decentralization of propaganda. A board should be set up to control radio, including the C.B.C. There should be a board of radio commissioners with proper powers for the issuance of licences and the control of radio in conjunction with the transport department. It might be said that such a board would cost money. No doubt this is true, but it would be a small price to pay, thinking in terms of the future, for the preservation of freedom and the restoration of democracy in radio. This should have been done long ago but, in any event, it should be done at once before any more damage is done. There is no necessity for incurring the expense of a royal commission to investigate radio, but under this government one cannot envisage its happening. We cannot do anything about it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to congratulate the mover (Mr. Brown) and the seconder (Mr. Demers) of the address on their splendid efforts. I will not stop there, however. I wish to congratulate each of my colleagues on the splendid speeches they have made during this debate. Some people complain about the length of the debate on the address, but to my way of thinking it is the finest debate of the session. Every member is given an opportunity of expressing his views and making suggestions concerning the needs of his constituency without being called to order unless he uses abusive language. This permits each member a wide range of subjects on which to speak in complete freedom. What each member has to say is most interesting and the session would not be the same if it did not commence with the debate on the address.
At times I have been accused of using strange language and of being quite alone in the promotion of certain ideas. If I am
The Address-Mr. Pouliot permitted, sir, I should like to quote some statements that were made in January by an important gentleman.
In any event, we are at a stage of life which calls for a business technique quite different to that of the war period. Now, it is the part of prudence for business executives to mend their fences and get back to fundamentals-
Then he continued:
The future of Canada's export trade which up to now has been supporting approximately thirty per cent of our people bristles with complex problems.
Its impetus at the moment stems chiefly from our own gifts, credits and loans, and from the generosity of our good neighbour to the south-which condition cannot continue indefinitely. A change in the pattern of our trade appears to be imminent.
This was said a long time ago by the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), and more recently by Mr. J. L. Carson, president of the Bank of Toronto.
May I also quote, Mr. Speaker, what was said by a prominent gentleman not long ago:
There is nothing in our foreign trade picture today about which we can afford to be complacent. Our present peak of business is being maintained to a large extent by artificial respiration in the form of credits from Canada and the United States. To realize our position we need only imagine what would be the state of our commerce-and therefore of our standard of living-if the economic recovery program and our own loans to Europe were suddenly cut off.
This was said by the member for Temiscouata two or three years ago, and more recently by Mr. Sydney G. Dobson, president of the Royal Bank of Canada.
I should like to quote another statement:
The danger arising from the excessive concentration of our markets is being very clearly stressed today. . . There is, it would appear, a very slight chance of rcovering, in the near future, the important place we occupied on the British market in pre-war days. . . . The Canadian Exporters Association recently emphasized the fact that our exports to all the commonwealth countries reveal a decline all the more alarming in that it is especially due to restrictive measures affecting our products.
This was said by the member for Temiscouata some years ago, and more recently by Mr. C. E. Gravel, president of the Banque Canadienne Nationale. I quote again, not with satisfaction but with sorrow:
Unfortunately, however, the problems of payment remain and, even with the vital assistance of the European recovery program, most overseas countries continue to be extremely short of dollars and are restricting their dollar expenditures accordingly. This has already had a serious impact on Canada's trade. Britain, for example, has ceased to buy our apples and our canned salmon and has severely curtailed her purchases of our lumber. The British dominions and colonies have drastically restricted their purchases of Canadian manufactured goods and we have lost and are losing many traditional markets . . .
In other words, the business outlook is a mixed one-in some directions one of growing shortages, and in others, one of marketing problems overseas

The Address-Mr. Pouliot and at home. Were it not for defence considerations. one might express the view, with some degree of confidence, that we were close to the peak of the post-war inflationary movement. As matters stand, I believe we shall be well advised to maintain a questioning attitude in regard to the economic outlook, remembering that our business structure is now more vulnerable to any reaction that might occur in the United States, and that we face difficult and perhaps increasing problems in overseas export markets.
I now come to the last quotation from the same gentleman:
It is well to remember that we have improved our position, in part, by almost ceasing to sell on credit to Britain and other overseas customers whose ability to pay us is, in turn, heavily dependent on ERP aid ... In the interests of maintaining our exports as well as of contributing further toward European recovery, due consideration should be given to providing for some additional sales on credit when our exchange position has improved sufficiently to justify such a course. It would be unwise to rely too heavily on offshore expenditures of ERP funds, particularly as supply conditions in the United States improve. Already we are finding it difficult to seU grain to most European countries, apart from Britain, largely because the grain supplies of the United States-the country which is providing the funds for the European recovery program -are bountiful.
This was said some years ago by the member for Temiscouata, and more recently by Mr. H. D. Burns, the president of the Bank of Nova Scotia, at its annual meeting.
I have no more quotations, Mr. Speaker, although I could have obtained others from the annual reports of the other chartered banks. These should be enough to establish the point I have in mind. When I stopped speaking about the loans and gifts some years ago, I was discouraged. I had no success in the house. I said that the time would come when I would get some support, and I have obtained support from most unexpected quarters, namely, from the presidents of the chartered banks. One may say whatever he likes about the views expressed in the house; but the views of these gentlemen, even if they are not shared by all, are views that must be respected. I did not expect that they would mention my speeches as a reference for their own; it would have been extremely presumptuous on my part.
I said that I had no satisfaction in reading these excerpts from speeches made by prominent bankers because when I spoke as I did in the house I expected to be in error. I never expected that events would justify what I then said, because I was mostly alone in saying it. I was discouraged. I stopped speaking in the house for some time. I went outside of the house to meet some Englishspeaking audiences and to repeat before them exactly what I had said here in the house without any success; and I was well received.
I respect the freedom of all my colleagues. They may say whatever they like; they may

think whatever they like. We live in a free world; and if there is one place where we should be free, it is right here.
At this point I wish to congratulate the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who has been most careful. He inherited a heavy legacy and he has been extremely careful not to embark on dangerous schemes. He deserves congratulations for that. I remember the time during the war when every unsound financial scheme was all right, including the financing of the sterling area. The Minister of Finance was ashamed to call it the financing of the British empire. He gave a currency name to the British empire, to my amazement; he called it the sterling area. I asked him: "Is this the British empire that you are financing?" He said: "No, it is the sterling area." I did not know exactly what it was. I asked him what it was and finally he gave me the complete list of all the British possessions throughout the world which we were financing, from the United Kingdom down. Did we have the backbone to do that? Did we have enough financial possibilities to do that? No, sir. When I said "no" it was not because I was antiBritish but because I saw what was coming. It was no use speaking to the House of Commons at the time. Nobody would listen to me. Nobody would listen to the handful of hon. members who were saying that that policy was absurd. Afterwards the leaders of the various parties and groups came one after the other to complain of the taxes. I told one, two or three of them: "You have no right to complain about the burden of taxation because you were the very cause of it, the tremendous expenditures. You voted for it with closed eyes." That is what happened at the time, to my great surprise and amazement. Now those who are in charge of great financial responsibilities, who are the trustees of the wealth that the Canadian people have deposited in the banks, men from all political parties, men of all races, say how much concerned they are about the future of trade unless we have real trade.
I suggested barter. I did not mention my reference, but I have a good one. My reference is a suggestion made by the London chamber of commerce in 1930, at the time of the depression. They did not know what to do, and exchange was difficult-I mean currency exchange. Then they resorted to barter. I am told that recently some bartering of grain and coffee was done with South America without the exchange of United States dollars. That is a fine thing and it is a primitive way of trading; but it is not because a thing has been done from ancient times that it should be regarded as absurd and discarded as such.

In this country everybody is trading. When some people say that the prairie provinces are poor cousins, I do not believe it. The average person in the prairie provinces is just as well off as anyone in the eastern provinces or in British Columbia. With a few exceptions, which exist everywhere, the average way of living of the Canadian citizen is normal. As our Lord said, the poor shall always be with you. It applies to Toronto, Montreal and Quebec city as well as to Winnipeg, Vancouver or anywhere else. There are poor people everywhere who deserve special consideration. But that the average citizen of the prairie provinces is worse off than anyone in the east or anyone in British Columbia is something that I cannot believe.
I remember, sir, what happened ten years ago. It is not a new story; it happened ten years ago. We had laments from the prairie provinces. On the first lament the dominion government gave a guarantee to the provinces; on the second lament, the dominion government gave a loan; and on the third lament the dominion government transformed the loan into an outright gift. That is the story of the financing of the prairie provinces by the dominion government some years ago. Most extraordinary explanations were given by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Dunning. I hold in my hand Hansard of April 21, 1939, and at page 3049 the following appears:


Jean-François Pouliot: But what I want to know is whether sufficient payments have been made until now by each province to repay the amounts lent for unemployment and agricultural purposes from 1930 to 1935.


Mr.   Dunning@: -
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you know what Mr. Dunning was at the time. He was Minister of Finance, and at the present time he is a tycoon in Montreal.
I continue with the quotation:


Mr.   Dunning@: Doubtless the answer is no. I
would have to verify it, but I am certain the answer would be in the negative.


Mr. Heaps:: That is on a refunding basis only?


Mr.   Dunning@: No, repayment. I understood the
hon. member for Temiscouata wished to know if there had been sufficient repayments to reimburse the dominion for the amount lent between 1930 and 1935. Without reference to the public accounts I cannot answer that with finality, but I am quite certain that there have not been.
There have not been any payments. I have all the data here, which I can pass over to my hon. friend. Then I went on:
On the other hand if that policy is sound for the west I do not see why there is not an understanding between the dominion government and the provincial government to provide the same assistance for the settlers of Temiscouata county.
I thought that if it was good for the prairie provinces it should have been good for my
The Address-Mr. Pouliot county; but Mr. Dunning explained to me the reason why the guarantees had been transformed into loans, and the loans into gifts. He said:
The test under this legislation as to the eligibility of a province for a loan is, first, its demonstrated inability to take care of its own share of the expenditure under consideration.
He went on:
In that case also, only if a province demonstrates that its own revenues prevent it from going into the scheme without the aid of a loan from the dominion is a loan made.
Therefore, in order to get the loan, the provinces had to come to Ottawa and say: "Will you lend the provinces some money? We are in very serious financial difficulties and we expect to have some help." If another province was too proud to do that-well, it got nothing. The aid was given only to the begging provinces, and that is the explanation we have from the report made by Mr. Dunning.
On February 1, 1937, the present leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) moved the setting up of a parliamentary committee to recommend amendments to the British North America Act for the improvement of social and economic conditions. That is almost twelve years ago-how time flies! The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), by quoting himself, has set me a bad example which I have to follow, but my quotations are different from his because I have been consistent. I regret to have to do this, but this is what I said on the same date, as reported on page 455 of Hansard of that date:
I am in favour of a committee of the House of Commons to study the British North America Act, not with regard to social legislation but with regard to taxation, in order to see how taxation should be divided, in order that each province should be at home in its field of taxation, in its sphere of action, and that the dominion government should be equally at home in its field of taxation and its sphere of action. It is not in order to create any kind of trouble between the dominion and the provinces; it is so that we may have order as between the federal government and the provinces, and that order will come when taxation is adjusted, when the provinces spend only the money they get from their own taxation and when Ottawa will not have to distribute to the provinces or municipalities money obtained by federal taxation.
Two weeks later, on February 16, the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King), who was then Prime Minister, said, as reported on page 922 of Hansard:
In these circumstances, we propose to appoint a royal commission of inquiry to investigate the whole system of taxation in the dominion.
That is what had been suggested by the member for Temiscouata. He was no more given credit for that by the right hon. member for Glengarry than he was given credit by the orthodox or legitimate bankers for
1228	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Pouliot what he had said about another system. I shall go on making suggestions which may be approved or rejected. I do it sincerely for the good of my country. The right hon. member went on to say:
-to study the division of financial powers and financial responsibilities between the dominion and the provinces: and to make recommendations as to what should be done to secure a more equitable and practical division of the burden to enable all governments to function more effectively-and, I may add, more independently-within the spheres of their respective jurisdictions.


Mr. Williams:: I am a new member here and I have not a plan of the house before me. I wonder if the hon. member could tell me who this member for Temiscouata is? He is such a wonderful person that I would like to know about him.


Jean-François Pouliot: I think I can answer the hon. member's question by saying that the sitting member has been here nearly a quarter of a century. I refer to myself in that way because I do not like to use the word "I". I prefer to speak in the third person. The commission was established. When that suggestion was made by the then Prime Minister I thundered "Hear, hear"; it was quite loud but it does not appear in Hansard. I have here some other data about the royal commission. The fact is that that royal commission was established to put some order in dominion-provincial finance, but when the war broke out it was used for the financing of the sterling area or the British empire. The provinces had a certain modus vivendi, but now that the war is over the provinces, particularly the prairie provinces, have again started the same tactics that were successful before the war.
The fact that the Liberal party has been sitting so long to the right of the Speaker is due to the grace of the province of Quebec, with the exception of those few years during the war when the King government was supported by Mr. Hanson and the Conservatives. I wrote some other articles which appeared in La Presse during February and March, 1938. I did that to inform the public about some of the fundamentals of constitutional law, so that they would understand different speakers when they referred to some of our problems. But there was more to it.
At the time of the dominion-provincial conference of 1941 an eminent Liberal who was very close to the then premier of Quebec, Mr. Godbout, asked me to write three articles for the editorial page of L'Action Catholique to warn Mr. Godbout so that he would not make any blunders by coming to the conference and expressing views which were not in conformity with the feelings of the great majority of the people of Quebec. Those articles were published in January, 1941.

I shall not insist any longer on those articles being followed, but I want to tell my colleagues that the fundamentals of the relations between the dominion and the provinces are the exclusive jurisdictions of both sides. The premiers of the provinces are just as important under the constitution as is the Prime Minister of Canada, but they cannot deal with these same matters. Their field of jurisdiction is entirely different. According to the laws of precedence the Prime Minister of Canada ranks first. The premiers of the provinces follow, and according to a certain order that is established. But there should be no confusion between the jurisdictions. I cannot see how Ottawa can collect money and give it to the provinces to be spent by them. My contention now, and the contention that I have expressed in these articles which date back some years ago, is that here in Ottawa we should have all the power, all the jurisdiction within the bounds of the constitution, and the provinces should also have the same powers within the limits of the constitution. Therefore there can be no difficulty about it.
I only have five minutes more, and I will mention another item. This is the first time in my long career as a member of parliament that I have attended a new session with a new leader of the government and a new leader of the official opposition. I had something to do with it. Last year in June, when the then Prime Minister said that he would remain Prime Minister even after the choice of a new leader, I protested, and I was alone in my protest. I did not protest because I had any disregard or lack of loyalty for my old chief. It was because I felt that, if he himself had decided that there should be a new leader of the Liberal party and of the government, then the new leader should have full power. The new leader should be the Prime Minister and not be under the tutelage of anybody else. I wanted the leader of my party to be the boss. There can be only one leader of a party. We have one, and he is our leader. At times we may agree or disagree with him. We live in a free country, but the leader must have authority; the leader must have patronage; the leader must be the boss.
Because I said that, I aroused a storm in certain quarters. Somebody said, "This is the vilest thing I have ever heard in the house", that the man who had written a letter under his own name to select a successor to himself should remain in office after the choice of that successor. What I did was painful. It was hard for me to say that, but I thought it was my duty to do so because I want order in government. I want order in

this country. I think that the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is of age, can behave himself properly, and does not need to be held by the hand by anybody else. I was abused, I was insulted, and I was called names; but finally the Financial Post, the Recorder and Times of Brockville, a very fine paper, and all the papers, said, "Now that a new leader has been selected to head the Liberal party it is time for the past leader to retire, as he called the convention himself." That was said by all of the papers. No credit was given to the member for Temiscouata. There was no reparation for the abuse and insults. I was the only one to say that in the house. It fell flat when I said it; it is true it fell flat. I said it because it was true; I said it because I believed it; and I said it because those who looked shocked believed it also.
My earnest wish is that my colleagues will say in a loud voice what they think, not what they say privately, because that is private conversation. I have cited these instances to illustrate the fact that the duty of a member of parliament is very hard to fulfil. At times it is unpleasant. It is very hard. But, whatever one may think about the soundness of various utterances that have been made in the house, my colleagues will at least give me credit for having been fair with them, and will at least admit that I have been sincere, and that what I have said I have said for the public good even when I was ahead of my time.


Mr. D. J. McCuaig (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate to discuss wheat, markets, agreements and prices. Farmers have had various experiences over the years in marketing and selling wheat. In 1918 we had the wheat board, which did a very good job. We had the open market grain exchange. We have had the Bennett and the Liberal wheat board from 1935 together with the open market. Now we have our present wheat board. The uppermost thing in the minds of western farmers today is markets for wheat, and prices for wheat. They have not forgotten the 19 cents a bushel for No. 1 northern at country points in 1932. At that time wheat reached the lowest price level in 400 years. They have not forgotten the 600 million bushels of wheat stored in terminal elevators, country elevators, annexes, bins, barns, empty houses, and open bins. That was in 1942. They have not forgotten that they were paid $4 an acre for every acre of land that they took out of wheat production in 1941. In 1942 they were still paid not to grow wheat. They remember the five and six bushel delivery quotas, which were still in effect in 1944, four years
The Address-Mr. McCuaig after the commencement of the war. A continuation of those conditions, Mr. Speaker, would not only have bankrupted the whole agricultural industry of Canada; it would have bankrupted this country itself.
Back in the thirties we had the grain exchange in operation, with no restrictions, with the whole world to which it could sell wheat. But when it came to setting prices the grain exchange was powerless to set a price level that would meet the costs of production. They just were not in the wheat business to do that sort of thing. Mr. Bennett set out to help the grain exchange. He set up a wheat board, and they were both in operation at the same time. Mr. Bennett was going to do the blasting, to make it easier for the grain exchange to get more suckers. As a real grass-roots farmer, I have seen all I want to see of the grain exchange free enterprise system in connection with the marketing of wheat. The day of the gambler in foodstuffs is over. From 1929 to 1943 the marketing of Canada's wheat was the No. 1 national problem. Today it is an international problem.
The idea of a wheat board was not something new to the farmers. We had a wheat board in 1918, thirty-one years ago, which gave the farmers most satisfactory and efficient results in the marketing of their wheat in my memory. But in spite of the persistence and insistence of all farm bodies in their efforts to have that wheat board continue to market Canada's wheat, that just was not done. Twenty-five years later, on September 17, 1943, four years after the start of world war II, the world scarcity increased the demand for wheat and prices were on their way up to the highest levels in seventeen years. Then the government saw fit to set up a wheat board. In principle this was exactly what all farmers and farm bodies had been asking since 1918, so they went along with the government. They remembered the 1918 wheat board. They had faith in the government. They trusted the government to sell their wheat at the best price that could be obtained, as the 1918 wheat board did. But things turned out somewhat differently. I think a full explanation is due this house and the wheat growers of Canada by the responsible officials of this government as to why the government sold 600 million bushels of wheat on such terms. I have here a clipping from the Regina Leader-Post which reads:
London, January 17. Well-informed circles here said Saturday that agreement has been reached on a $2 price for the fourth year of the wheat agreement . . .
One official said he would be prepared to bet that the Canadian farmers would not receive any

The Address-Mr. McCuaig lump sum as compensation for the $300,000,000 lost by them on the agreement to date. Britain has not the money, he said.
Meanwhile, British government sources seem to be preparing the public for further reductions in the volume of purchases of Canadian foodstuffs.
Then in this morning's Ottawa Journal I saw this item:
London. The News-Chronicle says today that if the United States were to declare wheat a surplus commodity we might be compelled to ask for a release of our obligations under the Canadian wheat agreement.
Now that the United States has a surplus, and with no more money available, there may be difficulties in the way of Canada marketing her wheat. The idea is spreading among the growers of western Canada that the way the British wheat agreement was drawn up was a deliberate attempt on the part of the government to put forever out of the minds of the farmers the idea of a wheat board, that this is a subtle way of undermining that ideal. They are really working hand in hand with the Winnipeg grain exchange. Neither of them has any use for a wheat board. We found that out when, in spite of our persistent requests for a wheat board, they would not have it. They are both exploiters of common humanity, and apparently they are going to stick together.
I am not going to enter upon an argument as to whether Britain should or should not have cheap wheat. I do say, however, on behalf of the wheat growers of Canada, that they should not foot the bill. Farmers pay all the taxes other people pay, and then some. They are entitled to every cent the best markets will pay. If Canada wants to make a gift of wheat to other countries, let all Canada do it and let all Canada pay for it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with another agreement, the agreement the Liberal government made with the millers, the feeders and the distillers covering all domestically consumed wheat in Canada, at a price of $1.25 per bushel. This was in force from September 27, 1943, to February 17, 1947, when the price was increased to $1.55. During those four years approximately 350 million bushels of wheat were sold in Canada at a difference of approximately $1.50 per bushel as between the world class II price and the Canadian price of $1.25. Multiply that by $1.50, the difference between the two prices, and you find you have $525 million as the loss to the wheat growers of this country. The government had no power or authority, except by dictatorial methods to cause the farmers' wheat to be sold in Canada below the world market prices. It simply means that the wheat growers of Canada, by government order in council, were compelled to subsidize 
the national food supply in Canada to the tune of $525 million. I say this is an imposition, Mr. Speaker. If it were necessary for the government to subsidize wheat for home consumption, that should have been done by the government.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) have told this house the farmers are better off than they ever were. In doing this, they are simply making a comparison with the days of the hungry thirties and the low prices the farmers have received for seventeen years. They are simply making a noise and trying to bamboozle the people. I can tell this government that, if it wants to make 50,000 communists in western Canada, the way to do it is to put the wheat producers in an exploited class like the slaves of other colonial lands. If there is any agency or any action that is making communists in Canada today, it is the action of this government.
We must be very sure that this Atlantic pact, about which we have been hearing so much, contains provisions for a full and free exchange of goods and commodities so they can be directed to the places in which they are needed. If the world is going to be divided into two parts and we continue this austerity program, ERP, ECA, the dollar shortage and the high discount rate between nations, we are licked before we start. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the real war started when the shooting war stopped. The real battle is on now, and it is the battle of food. The victor will be the nation that can answer these questions: Did you feed him when he was hungry? Did you clothe him when he was naked? Did you give him shelter and care when he was sick? If a nation cannot answer these questions in the affirmative, without any ulterior motive, no amount of prayers, ritualistic ceremony or holy water is going to save us. God searches the hearts of men.
This currency exchange and discounts between nations is the world's greatest racket. It is the world's greatest sin to perpetuate a system that will starve humanity in a world of great abundance. If we persist in this sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, our doom is just as certain as that of Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. We are fools.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: Mr. Speaker, the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne is a friend of mine. I am glad to say that I have a few friends on all sides of this house. Like many others who have spoken before me, I wish to congratulate him on a task well done. Had the address contained more subject matter, I believe the member for Essex West (Mr. MARCH 7, 1949
Brown) would have done an even better job. The seconder of the address (Mr. Demers) deserves the congratulations of this house, because that was his first speech in the house.
I should like also to congratulate all those who have taken their seats in the house for the first time this year. If the calibre of the men who have entered parliament this year is any indication of the kind of men we may expect to be attracted to this house in the next parliament, I for one have not any doubt as to the destiny of Canada in the years that lie ahead.
I think most members will agree that, in the past nine years, I have taken very little of the time of this house unnecessarily. I should like to bring to the attention of the government, however, a few of the things that are worrying the people in my part of the country. The county of Huron does not have to take second place to any other part of Canada. It is a rural community. We have no cities and very few large towns. We have a good farming area with a number of small towns and villages. My reason for speaking at this time is that I believe the time has come when those of us who are farmers must have something to say about the government's policy. I did not have any intention of participating in this debate until I heard the filibuster, shall I call it, staged by the Minister of Agriculture the other night.
After hearing him use such strong language in his attempt to defend the government's policy, and especially Liberalism, you would have thought, to hear him speak, that unless you were a Liberal you did not amount to anything-that the Liberal government was the only government that had ever done anything for Canada, and that the Liberals comprised the only statesmen. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture has not been much more interested in Liberalism and Liberal morale than he was in doing the job we expected him to do, the protection of our agricultural markets. Our agricultural markets have been almost completely lost. After hearing the minister speak, I for one feel we have been sold down the river. As a matter of fact, as it stands now, we would have been much better off without a Minister of Agriculture at all during the last six years. At least, we would have received the world market price for what we did produce and sell. Today, we have not even that.
If the Minister of Agriculture thinks that kind of speech will win votes for the Liberal party, I should like to tell him that if he keeps delivering that type of speech, for every vote he wins for the Liberals he will drive two votes to the support of His Majesty's loyal opposition. I must agree with the Minister of Agriculture that the farmers are receiving
The Address-Mr. Cardiff more this year than they have heretofore, but I would remind him we are still getting less than our fair share of the national income. Agriculture has only enjoyed three short periods of prosperity during the last thirty-five years, part of which was between 1925 and 1929. Of course since 1944 we have been doing a little bit better, but it is still below what we should have. Over the years the urban people have had the advantage over the rural population. Of necessity we must receive more consideration.
A much different picture is facing us in 1949. Our markets have started going downhill and, while it is true that some made money in 1948 on beef cattle, I am not so sure but that these men will lose not only all they made in 1948 but much more besides, and I am one of them. I am sure the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin) will agree with me. The same could be said about eggs, butter and cheese. Even hogs may show a loss before the end of 1949, owing to the high cost of feed. I am told that the hog population in the United States will be almost double before the end of 1949. I am one of those who told the minister a few years ago to give us the grain at a price at which we could feed at a profit, and we in Ontario would produce all the hogs he wanted. This has not been done; we find that feed has become so dear that we are not able to feed hogs, cattle and poultry at much of a profit. The result is that our hog population has gone down to such an extent that we may find it hard even to supply enough pork for our own people.
When farmers are receiving fair prices, everyone enjoys prosperity; but when farm prices begin to drop, jobs start to disappear and soon everyone else is feeling the pinch. There are many reasons why prices are starting to recede. Some wonder why prices ever got so high in the first place. I shall try to give a few of the reasons. In so doing I will lay the blame right where it belongs, and that is on this government the Minister of Agriculture was telling us so much about.
Most hon. members can remember back to 1941 or 1942, when we started building airports. I take airports as an example because I know more about them than about anything else. There were many other reasons. We had five airports in my riding when the government started building them. The contracts were let on a cost-plus basis; and the more they cost, the more the contractor made. There was no inducement to try to keep costs down. Men who, up to that time, had never made more than $2.50 or $3 per day were offered $1 per hour. So long as you were able to drive a nail and saw a board, you

The Address-Mr. Cardiff were classed as a carpenter and received $1 per hour. Some will say: What else could you do? We had to have airports. True, we did have to have airports; but just before this time, this government had taken a census and they knew where every man was. Some were drafted into the army, air force and navy and their rate of pay was set at a price, and it was not $10 a day. The men who were needed to build airports could have been drafted in the same manner at the same rate of pay plus living allowance, had the government been as efficient as the Minister of Agriculture led us to believe they were. The result of this action was that the cost of living started going up, and men everywhere started demanding higher rates of pay. We had strikes; farm help could not be secured. We could not pay the price asked by labour, with the result that farmers turned to machines to take the place of men. It has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that production increased with less manpower until now we find, as far as I can ascertain, that only about 25 per cent of our population are living on the farms.
I should just like to point out in passing that, so long as 75 per cent of our population are satisfied to let 25 per cent produce the food required to maintain life, then that 75 per cent will have to be content to pay at least the cost of production of the food they must have in order to sustain life. The cost of food will be higher than it otherwise would be if more people were on the land producing and helping with the work. That is only reasonable. Moreover, the very reason we are so short of housing is, in part, the fact that we have this Liberal government. The government lured the people off the land in 1941 and 1942, building airports, making munitions and so on, and they have not gone back to it. We have an abundance of housing accommodation in the country, but we will not have anyone in these houses until such time as people are forced by necessity to go back to the land. Many of these people would not have left the farms in the first place had conditions been such that there was any inducement to stay on the farm.
I shall now talk about something else that this government is doing to all the people in Canada; and I am just as sure as I am of the fact that I am standing in this house that it will be one of the things that will lose this government more votes than any other, including the speeches of the Minister of Agriculture. I refer to income tax. No group in our population have paid more into the dominion treasury, because of government policy, than have the farmers with the money they never received. The farmers do not object to paying income tax, but when they [Mr. Cardiff.}
are busy they do object to keeping records when they know they are not in the income tax brackets. If this infantile government had taken time to study ways and means of collecting farmers' income tax, not only would they have obtained more money in the treasury, but the cost of collecting would have been cut in two. I have no intention of telling this government how they should go about collecting farmers' income tax-far be it from me to pull their chestnuts out of the fire-but I will go this far. After the next election, when the party with whom I have the honour to sit are the government, there will be the greatest change in our income tax that this country has ever known. Merchants, labourers, farmers, miners, men of all classes, will go about their work happy and contented, knowing full well that the money they pay into the treasury of Canada will not be spent by control boards and bureaucrats who have no responsibility to the electors of this country. They will know that their money will be taken care of by their elected representatives.
We are fed up with controls and control boards. We are fed up with orders in council. We who have sat in this house through the war years, and realized how important it was to do things quickly because of war and emergency, did not then mind the government legislating by order in council; but now, four years after the war is over, can any reasonable thinking person see any reason why the government should still be passing orders in council, with the house in session? It is in my opinion an easy way for the government to mislead the people without the country knowing what they are doing. I would say to the government: Throw off this mask; give us responsible government, government responsible to those who sent us here.
Just before leaving this income tax field, let me say to this house that the farmer is in a much different position from any other class. His whole income is a gamble. He never knows when he seeds a field how much the return will be or whether he will reap anything. As a matter of fact, he is so dependent on so many different things, his income is never assured. In other words, his income is the result of taking a chance. On the other hand, the labourer has no alternative but to pay income tax if his salary is large enough to demand it. Like many more the labourer feels that farmers have just as much right as any other class to pay income tax, and I agree with him. But the farmer's income cannot be reckoned on an eight-hour day, and the only reason why a farmer would ever get into the income brackets would be by working ten and fifteen

hours per day. And many of them do. My opinion is that people who depend on the weatherman and who are forced by necessity to work long hours, with the uncertainty of markets-in other words, producers of food who are dependent on so many things over which they have no control before they are sure of anything-should not be charged tax on income. If it were not for faith, those who are engaged in the production of food would never have an income at all. At present 75 per cent of our people are dependent on the other 25 per cent to produce the food with which to sustain life. Unless everything is done to encourage those who are our producers, we may very soon have a race of people who cannot even feed themselves. To hold up income tax papers before this class of our people is like holding a red flag before an angry bull. They just see red. They do not object to paying income tax, but they do not want to keep records. At the moment, I have no idea of divulging to this house my plan for collecting income tax from farmers. It will be time enough for that next year when we are sitting in the driver's seat, but I can assure you of this. There is a way in which income tax can be collected from farmers which would not be objectionable and the net return to the treasury would be greater than the returns now received.
At the present time the Canadian dollar buys less than half of what it did before the war. The farmer finds himself in the position where the price of things he has to buy has climbed far beyond reach. Take shirts, for instance. You pay $7 now for a $2 shirt; $2 for a fifty-cent tie; $80 for a $30 suit; $2 for a pair of sixty cent socks. I could go on all down the list. You hear a great holler about seventy cent butter. As a matter of fact, the price of farm products has been kept below world prices since the beginning of the war, and agriculture has been left holding the bag because of government control anu government policy.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is now asking us to pass a bill to give him more power. That is just ridiculous, because the minister has not made very good use of the power he did have. Do we dare trust him further?
It has taken many long years and long hours each day to place the dairy farmer in his present position in the dairy industry. If his modest standard of living is lowered by the policies of this government at this time, I would say "shame on them". The dairy industry deserves better treatment. The dairy industry takes years to develop and requires a great deal of financing before it can pay its way. I operated a dairy for years before
The Address-Mr. Cardiff coming into this house and know from experience how much money has been made and lost, very often lost.
I am now going to deal with something which has bothered the people of Huron and the town of Goderich for a long time. We have in Goderich a harbour that produces more revenue than any other of the lower lake harbours in western Ontario. We have huge storage space and we handle more western grain than any of the other lake port harbours. The reason for that is that the county of Huron has good farmers, and good farmers mean good feeders and good feeders mean you have to have something to feed. The result is that we buy more western grain perhaps than any other county in western Ontario.
Our harbour needs repairs. It is under repair right now, but we have a small island inside the harbour and this should be removed and could be removed very readily. The entrance to the harbour is very narrow and, if this island were removed, the entrance could be widened and deepened in order to allow ships to enter without fear of damage. Boats often lie at anchor, sometimes for days, depending on the wind, before they dare enter the harbour. The result is that large boats often by-pass Goderich rather than wait to unload when the wind is in certain directions. With a fair wind, the large boats can enter cautiously, but the entrance is very narrow and unless caution is used it is very dangerous.
For some years we have urged the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) to spend f-ome money on Goderich harbour. Through die war years we were told all such work was suspended. We realized that, but now that we are in the fourth year of peace we feel that now is the time to make these expenditures. Every dollar that is spent in Goderich harbour will be returned to the treasury in revenue. We do not ask for something for nothing. We are only asking the government to do what we cannot do ourselves. I am going to make a request of the government. Spend a few thousands of dollars in Goderich harbour. It will be money well spent and will pay back to the treasury of Canada dollar for dollar.
Perhaps I could direct a request to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) or to his department. The town of Goderich would like, and have made a request for, permission to cross the Canadian National Railways track in order to build a new road down to the beach on the north side of the harbour. At present there is no road and it is impossible to get down to the beach. The beach on the south side of the harbour is short and much

The Address-Mr. Cardiff congested during the holiday season. A new road on the north side of the harbour would give an additional mile of perfect beach and would relieve the crowding. Goderich is a thriving, alert town and attracts many tourists in the summer months. I would ask the Minister of Transport to use his best influence to have this request granted.
There are a few other things that I should like to mention. I am sorry that the committee on veterans affairs has not been set up this year. From time to time hon. members in all sections of the house receive requests from men who feel that they are not getting a fair deal. This committee was set up for the purpose of considering these matters, and it did a good job. From time to time I get requests from men who cannot present their own cases. Some of them had little knowledge as to how to secure action, and now that they are out of the army they just put up with their condition unless somebody intercedes for them. The committee should have been set up this session, and I think it would have been an advantage to the minister, because a lot of things could be ironed out there instead of having to take them direct to the minister. Our veterans, who are our first citizens, should have had that much consideration from this government.
I should also like to say a word about our aged folk. In our community we have quite a few old people who deserve more attention than they are getting. Over the years, properties were given over to the sons and later the old folks became entitled to the old age pension. I know that no law was ever formulated which could apply across the board. In a great number of cases our old folks just have not got enough on which to live. Some of them are taken care of by their own immediate families, and others are taken care of by friends, but quite a number of them have to go to the county home. Because of the high cost of living, the amount of money that they get now is too low. Consideration should have been given to increasing the rate of pension.
There is another class of people to which I should like to refer. The other day I had a letter from a boy in my county whom I never saw. He is a cripple. He is now twenty years of age, and he is wondering what is going to happen to him when his father and mother are gone. At the moment he is being taken care of by his parents, but he wonders what hope there is for him when his father and mother are gone. I know that there are quite a few people in every riding in the same position. It is lamentable to think that people in that position, who through no fault [Mr. Cardiff.)
of their own are unable to earn a living, are not given some allowance which they could call their own, without having to depend on charity.
I should like now to speak about the nuisance taxes on soft drinks and chocolate bars. If I were the government and were bragging about having a surplus of $1,300 million in the last two years, I think I would feel pretty small if I could not let the youngsters have a chocolate bar without taxing it.
Then there is the tax on jewelry. I think that is a ridiculous tax. I have had correspondence from most of the jewelers in my part of the country complaining about this tax. They did not complain about it during war years, but the war has been over for four years, and they think it is unjust for them to have to collect money for the government. After having read the news release of today, I would think that the government would feel rather embarrassed about this tax. I do not intend to deal with it at any length, but I would think that the government would not feel too happy about what occurred today. I often think it is a good thing that politicians and members of this house have hides that are just a little thicker than those of ordinary people. Otherwise there might be a lot of tragedies.
I should like to say a word about freight assistance on feed grains. When I mention this I believe I am speaking for my friends to my left as well as for everyone. This is a good thing for the westerner and for the easterner. If this is not left on, we in the east will not be able to buy grain to feed at a profit and the result will be that when the westerner cannot sell his grain he will not grow it. I hope that this subsidy is continued, because it is good for all concerned.
Before I close I should like to refer to the compensation paid for tubercular-test reactors. Before the war Huron county put in a request to have a T.B.-tested area in our county and were informed that we were in fourth place. The other night I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) about this and he told me that he thought they were working there. If they are, I have not heard a word about it. I hope that something will be done before long to increase the price-paid for reactors. Considering the present price of cattle and the price that was set at the time these regulations were put into force, the allowance is unfairly low. A grade beef is set at $60 with a registered beef at $100, and that is nothing compared with what they would bring on the market right now. I hope something will be done by the Minister of Agriculture and his worthy deputy minister, because I believe they are both as inter-

ested as I am in having something done along these lines.
To sum up: What we need at once is a new government. This government has outlived its usefulness and it should be replaced. I shall never forget until the day I die the time when Winston Churchill spoke to this house, in 1942. He was the one man who saved democracy. What we need in Canada is a Churchill, and we have that in the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). As a matter of fact, I think they need Churchill again in England. If we had a Churchill in England and a Churchill in Canada our overseas markets would be assured and we would all be much better off.
(Translation) :


Mr. Wilfrid Gariepy (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, like hon. members before me I extend the usual congratulations to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), and the seconder, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Demers). My congratulations are very sincere and they are well deserved. If ever public distinction was well deserved, it was in the case of the new leader which our party has chosen at a public convention. Since his appointment to office the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has set to work relentlessly with a very promising enthusiasm and with a patriotism which has already classed him among the best statesmen who ever led this country.
In this regard we only have to study the evolution of international problems. Canada must protect herself. Russian supremacy is much more dangerous than German supremacy. The way things stand each part of the world is faced with this danger but, in considering the Atlantic pact, to which we look for salvation, our wise leaders are considering its possibilities for peace rather than for war. In the same line of thought, the appointment of a Canadian representative at the Vatican would be welcome news to my constituents.
Three Rivers, whose spokesman I have the honour to be in this house, is a city of
50,000	people, with an unsurpassed harbour, and industries which make it the chief centre in the world as far as newsprint is concerned. It lies at the mouth of a river which constitutes the most abundant source of electric power in Canada. It is close to other important towns such as Cap de la Madeleine, Louiseville, Nicolet, Shawinigan Falls, Grand-Mere, and La Tuque. In the district which surrounds it agriculture, tourism and small industry are prominent.
However, present world conditions have caused the cost of living to reach a level
The Address-Mr. Gariepy which I consider almost excessive. I may add that in Three Rivers salaries have been maintained at average figures which compare favourably with those paid elsewhere and even place our workers among the most privileged. In spite of that, it is imperative that the next budget should bring necessary relief, by raising the exemption for people in the middle income bracket, for instance to $3,000 for married people and $1,500 for single persons, as well as by increasing the allowance for each child and granting more advantages to young people desirous of taking up studies.
The income tax was a product of the first world war and it was first levied by the Borden government. It was maintained by another Conservative government, headed by Mr. Bennett. In the way of social protection the people only obtained direct relief from Mr. Bennett.
The truth is that from 1921 to 1930 and from 1935 to date, the Liberal party has endeavoured, in view of the needs of an unprecedented period, to seek funds not so much from small wage earners as from taxpayers and corporations able to share their profits with the government, without serious inconvenience. In return, what a social program was provided by our party, in addition to its war financing. It included generous treatment for veterans, provisions for their training, their rehabilitation and unemployment insurance! Our party also gave old age pensions, pensions for the blind, family allowances, various forms of aid for public health.
There would be no end to the figures I could mention, to the amounts distributed by the Liberal government for these various purposes in my constituency alone or again in the province of Quebec alone where- thank God!-we respect the family institution, we love culture and practise charity. Thus the Minister of National Health and Welfare has contributed a cheque for $120,000 for a sanatorium at Three Rivers. Thus a considerable proportion of the costs of a technical school now under construction in Three Rivers is borne by the federal government. Thus thousands of veterans in Three Rivers have obtained, through the provincial administration, subsidies enabling them and their families to live and have received at the same time technical training under the form of courses lasting many years with, at graduation time, a position and an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves in normal life. And all this out of the federal treasury. I repeat that the government in Ottawa, the King-
1236	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gariepy St. Laurent government, with the assent and co-operation of the government of the province of Quebec, financed these services. I want it to be clearly understood that this humanitarian work was made possible only through the financial assistance of Ottawa. Taxes have not been levied in vain. There has been a compensation, fairly and capably distributed, to the point where it has been said and written that no other country was better able to solve the post-war problems as well as Canada. No more than anybody else did I wish for this war or did I want Canada to take part in the battles which have caused so much distress and sacrifices.
We must admit the facts, the evidence of truth. In 1914, the nationalist leader, Henri Bourassa, accepted the solution by plebiscite. Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself agreed to that solution, in 1917, but his amendment to that effect, seconded by the Hon. Mr. Oliver, was rejected in this house.
During the last war, a plebiscite revealed what Canadian democracy required.
Confederation was deemed timely and even necessary in 1867. Now, there is no alternative but to accept confederation with its advantages and disadvantages, its obligations and requirements.
The great expansion of the railroads, of banking, of industry and trade was immensely beneficial to the province of Quebec from the economic standpoint. Montreal, Canada's metropolis, could surely not favour secession as it would be against its mission, its importance and supremacy. Each year, western Canada produces hundreds of millions of dollars of new wealth in wheat alone. That prosperity reaches Toronto, Montreal and even Three Rivers, because we live on commercial exchanges, the east supplying the west, which in turn feeds eastern Canada. Our commercial relations are based on friendship; from the Atlantic to the Pacific boundaries have disappeared, just as in the time when the kings of France and Spain were great friends and to all practical purposes the Pyrenees had disappeared.
Air travel completes the picture. How can we explain the behaviour and statements of a certain group that wishes to divide in order to rule, that thrives on utopias, and would like to revert to the past and revive a bygone era.
The republic on the shores of the St. Lawrence, envisioned in J. P. Tardivel's book "Pour la Patrie," can no longer come true. However, the struggle in the open for recognition of all our rights can carry on. Appeals to prejudice will not help in the attainment of this objective; it is better to fight fanati-


cism rather than stir it up, to imitate our constructive forefathers rather than practise wholesale destruction. England gave us our constitutional system which is still the best in existence as far as public administration is concerned. I believe there is room within the framework of the two old parties to command respect for our cherished yearnings in a manner consistent with our tastes, our principles and our mentality. It should also be possible for us to press forward our claims, wield power and secure what is best in every field for those who have put their trust in us. Our English-speaking colleagues sometimes wonder at our vigorous and tireless representations, but we are a minority group, and a passive minority cannot long endure. However, we wish to live and survive; our survival is in Canada's interest since we are partners in this great national undertaking. We may have been mistaken in not making ourselves better known or more highly appreciated. The fundamental idea is that the strength of confederation rests, not upon assimilation, but upon unity and understanding. The greater the development of each contracting party-or rather each racial group -according to its ideals, the greater the collective wealth and strength. That is the reason why I appreciate the friendly gesture of certain members of Anglo-Saxon origin who sometimes, in this house and outside, express themselves in my native tongue. Similarly, I believe that every member of this house is pleased that a fairly rapid improvement is being effected in the civil service by the appointment to responsible positions of a greater number of bilingual persons. The fact that there was not a single French-Canadian deputy minister created what amounted to an intolerable anomaly and I pay tribute to the present administration for correcting this provoking and unjust discrimination which belied the oft repeated professions of unity and tolerance. I know several of my fellow-countrymen who, though well disposed towards their English-speaking compatriots, were losing their every faith and hope. Optimism cannot survive the inimical attitude of a Dr. Shields who unceasingly protests that the share given us is too large and who would have us relegated among the undesirable, the incompetent, the helots. It is not flattering, it is demoralizing, especially when it is recalled that since confederation, in spite of our qualities, in spite of our desire for co-operation, we have often had to suffer on account of our origin, our

language and our faith. One needs only to think of the New Brunswick schools question, of the Manitoba schools, of the Keewatin schools, of the Ontario schools. I need only to recall the no doubt meritorious work of Sir Clifford Sifton and the Hon. Frank Oliver who were both, successively, Minister of the Interior and who both refused to give my own people an even chance in western immigration, giving preference instead to Central European immigrants. I need only to recall the Ku Klux Klan agitation in Saskatchewan and the school regulations enforced there by the Anderson administration, with which the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is no doubt quite familiar. Whatever the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) may do, French Canadians will never forgive his statements or his policies. While he was prime minister of Ontario he used planes to bring British immigrants in order to compensate for the Quebec birth rate. That was a strange method indeed to counteract the "revenge of the cradles".
The hon. leader of the opposition has been rather hard on Quebec. He belittled our war effort, proclaimed that we belong to a vanquished race, and that our so-called rights were only those which the dominant race were pleased to grant us, that the family allowance,-the baby bonus as he called it- had to go and that it was an attempt to bribe Quebec.
Rev. Shields never said anything else; he is a second Dalton McCarthy. It is such contempt, such arrogance, that breeds disagreements, misunderstandings and quarrels. Yet Sir John A. Macdonald declared that there was neither a vanquished race nor a victorious race. But the Progressive Conservative party has repudiated its old leader; the great party of Macdonald and Cartier has decayed and fallen to pieces first under Meighen, then under Bennett and now under the member for Carleton. "L'ceil etait dans la tombe et regardait Cain." It is the twinges of conscience mentioned by the immortal poet. With us, it is the twinges of humiliation, of infamy. We have felt in our flesh, in our whole being, the enmity, the reprobation, and we remember. We shall always remember. Nothing can wash out the stain. As the poet said: "La mer y passerait sans laver la souillure."
I want to tell the opposition that the incident and accident of Nicolet-Yamaska settles nothing in their favour. If only Drew and Sabourin had shown up during that campaign! But they made sure they did not for the people would have realized then what
The Address-Mr. Gariepy it was all about, for the contest was fought not between parties but on the personal reputation of the candidates.
Why this enmity towards French Canadians? Why is our element feared? Our large families are a blessing from heaven and they are the best contribution to the welfare and greatness of our nation. Our language is the most beautiful in the world. It is pre-eminently the language of culture and an open door to the greatest productions of the human mind. We are loyal and proved it at the country's call for soldiers, workmen, money, goods and munitions.
Our religion! Would you want us to be communists? It is the city of Toronto, the Ontario legislature which has communist members. The courageous stand of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the proceedings he took against this infamous horde have deeply relieved us. We believe in God, we practise our religion, we are the most efficient barrier against communism, the greatest evil of our time. Communists themselves know that if they are held in check it is because of our religious feeling and our Christian conscience. This is proved by what has just happened in Hungary, to the shame of humanity, liberty and civilization.
One of the plagues of society is divorce. But who are the ones who refuse to recognize divorce? We of the mother province, descendants of Champlain, Frontenac, Lavio-lette and Maisonneuve. Thus, true to our principles, we find our use in recalling and revealing a timeless truth, that family, society and authority are a trinity which thrives under Christianity, and are as it were a corollary, an outcome of Christianity.
That is the education given in our midst, from the pulpit of our admirable gothic cathedral of Three Rivers, in our seminary, one of the most interesting in the province, in our academies run by brothers who are disciples of St. Jean Baptiste de la Salle, in our free schools, which Lacordaire and Montalembert would not have disavowed; it is an education which pervades us as much as the air we breathe, and the food we absorb. We receive that training everywhere, beginning in the homes and I would not think of a Scotsman as being a poor citizen because he is religious-minded. It was the member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) who taught me to say grace in the language of Robert Burns. I would not think of an Irishman as someone to be despised because he is deeply religious. In the lobbies of the British parliament Daniel O'Connell would recite his rosary while waiting for votes or the end of discussions.

The Address-Mr. Gariepy
We are religious unlike the Russians who are atheistic, unlike the French who are unbelievers, unlike the Americans, 60 per cent of whom are indifferent and in whose country one marriage out of four ends in divorce or annulment.
I therefore ask you to be friendly toward my province and my town and I urge the cabinet to give due consideration to the development of my district, and its increased prosperity, thereby placing Three Rivers on an equal footing with Montreal and Quebec, and giving the whole province more cohesion, better balance and fairer wealth distribution.
Thus my constituents have to forward their income tax report to Montreal, where they have to apply for all corrections, adjustments and complaints. Why not establish in Three Rivers a collection office for all the surrounding district? There is one at Quebec and another one in Sherbrooke with about a hundred employees. I find nothing wrong with that. It is good policy. Sherbrooke is a thriving city, with a progressive surrounding area. Sherbrooke is the queen of the eastern townships but Three Rivers is the queen of St. Maurice valley and this valley represents considerable income tax revenue, which entails many complexities and which compares favourably with that of other districts. To a lesser degree but with the same fairness and the same arguments, I must deplore that, the war being over, the government does not return to the old system which gave full and complete satisfaction. My city is made to depend on Montreal, where there is a district branch of the Department of Public Works. This subjection is contrary to efficiency and even to economy. Public services are established for the taxpayer and he must have easy access to officials, at the least possible cost. In this regard, we have the Three Rivers harbour falling under the absolute control, very absolute indeed, of the national harbours board, the organization of which was in line with the Bennett policy, embodied in the Gibbs report. This report recommends the establishment of a local board in every harbour to act in an advisory capacity. Nearly fifteen years have gone by and there is yet no local harbour board. Three Rivers, through its boards of trade, junior and senior, through its municipal council, considers that this situation is detrimental to its development, that it handicaps its progress. Three Rivers also feels that all harbours, or at least those of some importance, should come under the jurisdiction of the national harbours board. I admire the town of Sorel, I like to visit it and get inspiration. I admire the eloquence and the competence of its representative in [Mr. GariepyJ
the house. But the harbour of Sorel is competing with that of Three Rivers and my constituents vainly try to figure out why there should be discrimination between Three Rivers, which is subject to the rigid control of the national harbours board while Sorel is not, being thus autonomous and better able to reach the heart of the Minister of Public Works and enjoy his munificence. Everyone should be treated equally and without favour; I am confident that the principle will be applied now that the war is over and that we are again resuming normal operations. The new offices which I would like to have established could well be located in the addition to the post office at Three Rivers. Last year money was voted for that building which is urgently required and work wiU be proceeded with in the spring.
In conclusion, 1 have special thanks for the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. MacKinnon) regarding his project for a trans-Canada highway. Now that automobiles are in constant use, the highway will be the counterpart of the railway running from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as was promised at the time of confederation. Many sceptics laughed at Joseph Howe when he advocated in this house, in 1867, the tunnelling of the Rockies, in order to connect Vancouver and Winnipeg and expressed the satisfaction of the promoters. The train whistling through the pass in those famous peaks is surely a proof of their faith in modern progress.
A trans-Canada highway wholly on Canadian soil would benefit both the tourist industry and our independence. The cost is estimated at $266 million. The provinces would pay about half of that amount and would set the layout within their own boundaries. On the question of hospitals and health, the federal and provincial governments have agreed. There has also been perfect agreement on the matters concerning the Departments of Labour and Agriculture.
I hope the federal and provincial governments will again agree on this highway which will enable people to travel from Halifax to Vancouver, through Ottawa, Montreal and Three Rivers. Indeed I hope that the section of this highway situated in the province of Quebec will extend from Montreal to Three Rivers and from Ste. Angele de Laval to Levis, thus justifying the carrying out of the project of a highway bridge opposite Three Rivers on the St. Lawrence river.
It follows that this bridge will be of national usefulness. It will serve the population on

both sides of the river. The city of Three Rivers, which operates the ferry at this point, recently acquired a third boat, at the cost of $400,000. Because of the narrow docks, it seems impossible to put there more than three boats, but this, barring exceptions, is not sufficient for regular traffic and hundreds of automobiles have to wait for hours before they can cross the river.
Both the north and the south shore are always overcrowded. A bridge is the only solution to this state of things which is inconsistent with the public interest. A glance at the map of the area which spreads from the United States boundary to the La Tuque and Lake St. John districts, passing through Three Rivers, will convince anyone that the bridge must be built.
It is at once obvious that in the intervening area, there is room for tremendous development in agriculture and colonization as well as in trade and industry if markets become more easily available and if communications are improved by faster and cheaper means of transportation. All that would complement the tourist trade, because a large number of people wish to travel in comfort for pleasure, for their health or on pilgrimages. Cap de la Madeleine, adjacent to Three Rivers, is a national sanctuary where a hundred thousand pilgrims flock each year to worship and pray under the guidance of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate.
In conclusion, I believe I am serving the best interests of my electors, in keeping with the spirit of the mandate entrusted to me, when I enthusiastically ekpress my determination to support the policy of the St. Laurent government and to vote against the amendments and in favour of the motion for an address to His Excellency.
(Text):


Mr. Matihew MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: Before I proceed with my remarks on the speech from the throne I, too, wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Brown) and the seconder (Mr. Demers) of the address. I wish also to extend my congratulations to the Prime Minister on his attainment of his present high and honourable position of Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal party. I congratulate also the new cabinet ministers who have been taken into the government since the last session. I wish to congratulate the Progressive Conservative party on obtaining a new leader, after many trials, and I have no doubt, from what we have already experienced in the house this session, the valley of dry bones is coming to life again. They have won two by-elections and because a ray of light has shone through the dark
The Address-Mr. MacLean cloud that has overshadowed them for many years-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Shed a ray of light across Canada.


Matthew MacLean: -they have become very jubilant and see in any small gains the hope of once more obtaining the reins of government. The Tory party always seems to have had the idea of an inherent right to govern. They think that the right to rule was given them by divine authority.
Before I touch upon the matters in the speech from the throne, I wish to call to your attention an article which appeared in the Friday afternoon edition of the Ottawa Journal. It states:	"Liberals blamed by
Drew for scene interrupting Chevrier." I shall not read the whole article, but shall quote a part of it:
He had been astonished by the disturbance in the government benches during the address of Transport Minister Chevrier. "Anybody who thinks the first interruptions came from the Progressive Conservative side of the house must not have been in the house at the time," said Mr. Drew.
Does the hon. leader of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, think that all the members in the house are blind and deaf, as they would have to be to give any credence to such a statement? There were over eighty interruptions during the minister's speech, started by the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), who, along with another member on the same side of the house, continually interrupted. Never have I observed more disgraceful behaviour by opposition members towards a minister who has always been most courteous.


An hon. Member:: What about the interruptions of the Prime Minister?


Matthew MacLean: I will come to that. The minister did not speak more than thirty minutes and was not allowed the time taken up by the many interruptions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


Matthew MacLean: If the hon. member wishes to interrupt, I will meet him out in the corridor afterwards. I wish to say here that there was a time when I entertained high hopes for a former house leader of the party opposite, but I am afraid that, by his many silly interruptions, he is becoming a political dwarf. There are a few members on this side of the house of whose actions I disapprove, as most of them are neither constructive nor becoming to a member of this house.
A few nights ago the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) spoke for about an hour and was allowed that privilege by the members on this side, notwithstanding the fact

The Address-Mr. MacLean that it was the same old swan song to which we have listened from that source for many years. If he continues this type of speech much longer, I am afraid he will wear out the alphabet.
In the speech from the throne we are told that the first concern of government in world affairs is to ensure the peace and security of the country. With this aim in view, Canada continues to support the principles of the United Nations charter. In the hope that we may be able to show this determination to those nations who have adopted the communistic form of government, we are to sign the north Atlantic pact. We must be strong so that those who would endeavour to compel us to accept their obnoxious system will awake to a realization that in our hearts the love of freedom is stronger than the enslavement that would necessarily follow the acceptance of their repugnant form of government. There are some in this country who do not believe in the signing of this pact. I cannot understand them, as they appear to me to have warped minds.
What are we doing in this country towards the maintenance of peace? It is true we are passing legislation to protect ourselves and to aid those who are in need. But do we measure up to the standards set by one who spoke with authority? Our country has the name of being a Christian country, but is it? We live day by day as though there were no God. We spend the one day set aside particularly for worship by carrying on our own pleasures. Many absent themselves entirely from divine worship, and I am afraid many members of this house are guilty of this sin. I could go on and preach a sermon to you, but I am not a theologian. In this house there are several members who formerly occupied pulpits, and who are now engaged in trying to solve life's problems by methods other than those they formerly proclaimed. If the views they now advance as a solution or a panacea for all our ills were placed second on the list of possible solutions, I could not quarrel with them. I am firmly convinced, however, that they have drifted very far from the truth. If we wish to prosper we must do as Joshua was advised to do long ago, to turn neither to the right nor to the left, but to observe all the law. If this were done, then he and those over whom he ruled would be prosperous.
Much has been said about farming, and particularly about wheat. I have often wondered whether the western wheat grower sows wheat year after year on the same land.
I have been told that many do and that certain acreages have been planted year after year with the same crop. This results in 
crop failures and soil erosion. I am no authority on farming, but I lived in western Canada for a time and noted how farming operations were conducted. When there is a high world price for wheat, the western farmers wish to handle the sales themselves. When difficult times come, these farmers seek government assistance and lay the blame on the government if they do not receive a higher price than existing conditions make possible.
The western members are continually complaining about the high cost of living, and it is too high. I should like to ask them whether they think the prices of meat, flour, butter, oats, barley and the various vegetables that go to make up our daily diet are too high? I suppose that depends upon the particular products each one produces. I know that in Cape Breton the prices of beef and pork are very high. If one wishes to purchase a steak it costs about ninety cents a pound and I cannot see why the price is so high.
In common with many other members, I have received many letters protesting the tax on soft drinks and jewelry. The letters about soft drinks have been from people in all walks of life, but those concerning jewelry were from jewelers only. Since the member for Parkdale (Mr. Timmins) has spoken at some length on this matter, I shall not take further time in discussing it.
Another matter mentioned in the speech from the throne was the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. This subject brought forth a long and vigorous protest from the leader of the opposition, not about the entry of Newfoundland, but about the unconstitutional method adopted. His argument took up a very considerable amount of time, I think wasted time, as there was nothing to it but words. These words were well delivered, but they were only words, as there was really no constitutional question involved. There was a time when I was very fond of studying constitutional questions. I well remember reading the many cases from Ontario when the late Sir Oliver Mowat fought hard with Sir John A. Macdonald on questions concerning provincial rights. I may say that Sir Oliver was generally right; at least, such were the decisions.
The entry of Newfoundland into confederation will mean much to North Sydney in my constituency, owing to the fact that a great amount of passenger and freight traffic to and from Newfoundland passes through that town. At this point I must state there is a great need of modern docking facilities in that town. For years we have tried to have the Department of Public Works construct a

modern wharf for the convenience of the large number of ships entering that port. The number of ships entering the port far exceeds the number of ships entering the port of Halifax, although the tonnage is not nearly so great, because the large liners entering Halifax are of much greater capacity than those entering North Sydney.
Some nights ago the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) raised the question of the port of Halifax being discriminated against by reason of the fact that goods shipped by way of North Sydney to Port aux Basques were regarded as being shipped by an all-rail route. In view *of the fact that goods going to Newfoundland via Halifax have a 200-mile advantage in rail haul over the North Sydney route and that goods going via Port aux Basques to St. John's have a further rail haul of several hundred miles, I think it can be easily proven that the Halifax route has nothing to fear, as the water shipment to St. John's from Halifax has the further advantage of cheaper water rates.
It is my hope that in the not too distant future either a bridge or a causeway will be constructed over the strait of Canso to facilitate the conveyance of freight and passengers to and from Cape Breton to the mainland, and I trust that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) will soon give us the report of the engineers on this project.
During the recess last year I had many visits from committees of old age pensioners and others who had not attained the pensionable age but were laid off work when they had reached the age of sixty-five years, with but a small pension from the coal company to maintain themselves and some members of their families. Many of these persons own their own homes and have to pay taxes and insurance; and in many cases they are likely to lose their homes unless something is done to remedy this unhappy situation.
If the pensionable age were reduced to sixty-five for men and to sixty years for women, and if the amount of the pension were raised and the means test were abolished, it would go a long way in bringing much-needed aid to these people. The means test works to the disadvantage of all those owning their own homes, as in such cases the amount of the pension is reduced. Apparently the fact that a pensioner owning his own home has to pay taxes, insurance and repairs, has not been taken into consideration.
The pensioners have for some time been discussing a three-way pension whereby men and women would pay a sum each month as soon as they started to work, and when they
The Address-Mr. MacLean retired a much larger pension could be paid to them. Under this scheme the employers and the government would also contribute, but the government would be responsible for all those who did not have the opportunity of paying into such a fund.
One hon. member mentioned the referendum taken in the state of Oregon, where it was decided to give the pension to women at sixty years of age and to men at sixty-five, to pay a pension of $50 a month, and also to reduce the income tax. By the way, two or three years ago I read that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made a statement at Fort William, I think it was, advocating this same thing. I do not know whether or not he was correctly reported, but he mentioned that soon there would be no taxes at all. I had intended to keep that clipping for further reference, but it became lost among some papers on my desk. However, I wish to compliment the hon. member for his advocacy for many years of the very things to which I am now referring.
As I was saying, it was decided in Oregon to give a pension on the terms I have mentioned. The next day they discovered that the revenue required to carry out this scheme would cost the state one hundred million dollars, whereas the revenue of the state was about thirty-nine million.
I understand the matter of a contributory pension has been brought to the attention of the local government in Nova Scotia. I trust that this government will take the matter under consideration so that such a scheme may be considered jointly by the various local governments and the federal government so as to devise ways and means to bring about this desirable plan. If our peopl* were paying into a pension fund in this man ner, the pension would not be looked upon as a matter of charity.
There is a great cry over all the country and in this house about heavy taxes; and it is true that taxes are a heavy burden on all of us. But, on the other hand, there is a demand for certain social legislation which, if granted, will mean a continuing heavy tax. Take the question of free medical care and hospitalization. This will call for a heavy additional expenditure, and I think there is a limit to which we can go. I believe there are many in this country who are unable to pay for proper treatment, and these should be looked after by the state; but the vast majority are well able to meet such obligations and should not be included in any such scheme.
The government is constantly reminded that it took from the Canadian people $600

The Address-Mr. MacLean
million more than was required tor the different services. This is not true, if we wish to pay our debts. Suppose I earn $3,000, that I owe $2,000, and am able to save $1,000 from my income. If I am an honest man, I shall pay that $1,000 to reduce my debt. If the government has a surplus above the requirements of meeting its many obligations, then it can reduce the debt by using the surplus; and this will save the Canadian people large sums annually spent in paying interest.
The matter of housing is continually before us. While we are under an obligation to do everything possible for our returned men, I cannot agree with those who state it is a matter for the government to provide houses for all our people. Our forefathers or, shall I say, our parents did not seek government aid when building their homes; and if we continue this paternalism we shall eventually kill all initiative on the part of the individual.
It is noted in the speech that never have so many been employed in this country as at present, and no doubt this is true of many places in this country and in the over-all picture. But in my constituency and in other parts of Nova Scotia there are thousands of unemployed. I shall refer particularly to my home town of Sydney Mines and the adjoining towns of North Sydney and Florence, with a total population of about 17,000. There are several hundred unemployed. Many of the young men in these towns have never had permanent employment, as no new mines are being opened, no new industries have been undertaken, and the only work these young men had was in the armed services. They enlisted after leaving school; and not having a position before enlisting, no company was obliged to hire them. Many had to leave their homes and seek employment in Quebec and Ontario; and after paying for their board and lodging where they are employed, there is little left to help those at home.
The question of opening more coal mines to absorb the unemployed is no solution to the problem, as many of the mines are idle now owing to lack of orders. I have brought this matter to the attention of the department directly concerned, and at the present time some of the coal operators are in the city seeking some solution to the problem. There would be a speedy solution to it if we had in our province a number of industries using coal, as we could produce electric power much cheaper by using our coal than we can in the more expensive way of building large dams at an enormous cost. It is, of course, impossible to build any dams in Nova Scotia.
I have written many letters to firms outside Canada in an endeavour to have some industrial works established, as we are nearer to the South African, South American and
fMr. MacLean.]
European markets than is any other part of Canada. Firms engaged in manufacturing for these foreign markets would have the advantage of all-water rates.
In the matter of shipbuilding, I think that such an industry should have been established on Sydney harbour, as we have the steel industry there, and the plates for ships would not have to be carried thousands of miles by rail. At this point I should like to ask the minister whether the Canadian ships now under Panamanian registry have been purchased outright by a foreign country, or whether it is merely a ruse to escape paying the Canadian rate of wages.
I wish now to refer to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) some days ago. In his reference to world government he stated, as reported at page 1022 of Hansard:
It appears to me that some of us are a bit lax in our thinking . . . World government means . . . world enslavement.
And may I say that, in spite of what the hon. member states, there is to be a world government some day, when all the problems that today perplex and baffle the wisest among us will be solved; the time spoken of by Tennyson, in his "In Memoriam', when there will be:
One God, one law, one element,
And one far-off divine event.
To which the whole creation moves.
But the solution will not come about by the introduction and adoption of the peculiar and illogical ideas expressed by the member for Macleod and those associated with him.
If money to carry on the government can be raised in any way besides taxing the people, then people need not work; and when we have reached that stage, all must starve. The social credit money will be of no use, as there will be no goods to purchase. You all, no doubt, have read the stories in the book of Daniel of the ancient kings of Babylon, when Daniel was called in to interpret the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the handwriting on the wall at the feast given by his son Belshazzar, which Daniel interpreted correctly.
1 think that the fiscal policies enunciated by the Social Credit party would be even to Daniel an insoluble problem.
I might also mention that when Solomon was crowned king he was asked what he most desired and he asked for wisdom. His desire was granted and he was advised that no wiser man theretofore had been born, neither should there be hereafter any one to attain such wisdom. On hearing the hon. member and some of his associates, I wondered whether the writer was in error when he did not know that in the twentieth century there

would appear on the world's stage such prophets as the hon. member for Macleod and his associates, whose wisdom apparently far surpasses the wisdom of Solomon and the judgment of Daniel.
In closing, I wish merely to mention the St. Lawrence waterways project, and I may say that in my humble opinion it may be a great thing for Ontario and Quebec but of little or no value to the maritime provinces. Yet if it is for the good of any of our people, I am willing to support it, if like support is given to the maritimes in providing suitable transportation facilities for us-and I particularly refer to the strait of Canso crossing.
The Address-Mr. MacLean
Another matter that is causing great concern is the freight rates. Now in connection with this I am inclined to think that we are not fair to the railways. How do we expect them to carry on at present rates when the cost of everything they use has increased in many cases 100 per cent or more, since the rates were last revised?
On motion of Mr. Casselman the debate was adjourned.


Alphonse Fournier: I move that the house do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, March 8, 1949