1949-02-21

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: With the unanimous consent of the house I should like to move the resolution of which notice is given on today's order paper, as follows:
That consideration of the speech of His Excellency the Governor General to both houses of parliament have precedence over all business except introduction of bills, government notices of motions, questions and notices of motions for the production of papers, on and after Monday, February 21, 1949, until disposed of.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to suggest an amendment to the Prime Minister's motion. I may say that I have had a word with the Prime Minister about it, and I understand he is willing that my amendment be put to a vote of the house.
The amendment relates to the evening hours of sitting of this house. As hon. members are aware, there has been discussion from time to time about this matter, and it has been suggested that we change the evening hours to permit adjournment a little earlier than eleven o'clock. Last year the committee on procedure which sat, Mr. Speaker, under your chairmanship, made a unanimous recommendation that we change the hours so that, instead of sitting from eight to eleven, we sit from seven to ten. I understand that although there is considerable support for this proposal, there is some objection to it. There was also the objection that a standing order should not be changed without considerable thought.
My suggestion now is not that we change any standing order but rather that we make an experiment merely for the time during which the debate on the address is before the house. The house, having experimented for two or three weeks with a different set of evening hours, would then be in a position to decide whether it wished to continue on that basis.
I should like to add this further word, Mr. Speaker, before I read my proposed amendment. In Your Honour's committee last year I personally supported the proposal that the
evening hours be from seven to ten. There are some, however, who feel that by its adoption the dinner recess would be too much shortened; therefore as an experiment I suggest that for the next two or three weeks we try sitting in the evenings from 7.30 until 10.30. This would mean no change in the total number of hours we sit each day, but would enable all of us in this chamber, including those who must be here because we are-page boys, Hansard reporters, members of the press gallery, and so on-to get home a half hour earlier.
Had I felt that there was strong objection to an amendment being proposed to the Prime Minister's motion, I would have merely have put it forward as a suggestion. But the Prime Minister tells me he is prepared to let the house make its free decision in the matter. In that spirit, therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson):
That the last three words of the motion be deleted and the following substituted therefor immediately after "1949":
"Provided 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, until consideration of the said speech is disposed of."
I think the amendment speaks for itself. If it carries, the experiment will be made only while the address is being debated, and the house can then decide what it wishes to do.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member
showed me the amendment he wished to move, I consulted my colleagues and we came to the conclusion that we would not attempt to influence in any way the decision that hon. members might wish to make upon this proposed experiment of having the house sit from 7.30 to 10.30 p.m. Unless something else is ordered in the meantime, this would be only for the duration of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The words "except on Wednesdays" are clear, because on Wednesdays, as provided by the standing orders, the house would continue to rise at six o'clock.
The position of the government is that this is a matter which should be disposed of in the manner which best suits the convenience of the greatest number in the house. If the

Business of the House
majority of hon. members feel that we should try these new hours of sitting while the debate on the address is in progress, the government offers no objection.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Is it possible to move an amendment to the amendment? If so, notwithstanding the great incQnvenience to hon. members from Ontario and Quebec I should like to move that we sit on Wednesday evenings and Saturdays. We cannot go home on Thursday nights and come back on Tuesdays. I cannot see the value of the hon. member's amendment.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Not having had the advantage that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his colleagues have had of considering this proposal prior to its being made in the house today, we are confronted now with a suggestion, which may have considerable merit, as to the hours of sitting. But it seems to me that rather than submitting a motion of this kind to a snap decision of the house it would be better to defer it until tomorrow, and in the meantime let all the parties consult their members in the matter. I do believe there is a general feeling that some changes in the hours of sitting might well be made. But if that is to be done, let us seek common agreement, without being called upon to make a snap decision now which may or may not be in accord with the general feeling of hon. members. I suggest, therefore, that the amendment stand until tomorrow. I imagine that all hon. members would agree to have the matter brought up without advance notice, and in the meantime it will be possible to ascertain the general feeling of hon. members in this regard.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask the leader of the opposition one question? I should like to know if he meant that we should consult the provinces.


George Alexander Drew: I admit that we have heard a
great deal about that in the past few days, but if I did use that expression, I meant hon. members of this house. I must admit that there has been an attempt in some instances for hon. members to identify themselves with their provinces, and it would be a natural error to fall into. I am not aware that I did make it, but if I did, that might be a reasonable explanation. I repeat my suggestion that in order that we may reach a satisfactory solution of this matter, which has been under discussion before, an opportunity be given to all parties to consider it.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, the two hon. members from this group who propose this change in the hours

of sittings of the house did so, I presume, for themselves. So far as I am concerned, I do not think the difference would amount to much. Half an hour would be juggled in between. I think the house should convene at nine o'clock in the morning and go through until six in the evening. Let the house do a full day's work, and then hon. members may dispose of their time afterwards as they see fit.


Mr. Mitchell:: May I ask my hon. friend, who is an old trade unionist, a question? Would it be time and a half for the other three hours?


Mr. Ferguson:: May I suggest that if the government would run the country in a more businesslike way we would all be able to stop work at six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind hon. members that there is a motion before the house, and an amendment. Hon. members know that the rules prevent their speaking on a motion as often as they wish.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, sir, perhaps you will permit me to answer what I regard as a reasonable request on the part of the leader of the opposition. If the house will give its undertaking that we shall consider the matter tomorrow as a substantive motion, I am willing to withdraw the amendment. We can hardly let both the motion and the amendment stand over, because that would prevent the house from going on with the address today. If the house will give that assurance, I shall be glad to let this matter stand for consideration and decision by the house on a free vote at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre shall have leave to withdraw his amendment?
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) withdrawn.
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed to.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 28 (from the Senate) to incorporate the Canadian Home Assurance Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 30 (from the Senate) respecting the corporation of the city

of Ottawa, Ottawa Transportation Commission and the Ottawa Electric Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 29 (from the Senate) to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BULGARIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question which relates to one which was asked earlier. In view of the reports that fifteen Protestant ministers in Bulgaria are to be tried next Monday, may I ask the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by the government in the matter? Perhaps at the same time he might indicate, in view of the fact that the question has already been raised, the position of the government in connection with the trial of Cardinal Mind-szenty, and what steps have been taken in that regard.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, before I left the city on Friday, some notes had been prepared for a statement I expected to make today. The notes were extended during my absence, and I received them only a short time ago. Upon reading them I find they are not quite in the form in which I should like to have them. I should prefer, therefore, to make the statement tomorrow afternoon.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Mines and Resources. Is the minister prepared at this time to make a statement about Count Jacques de Bernonville?


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North to ask a question reached me through my secretary; however, the question of which I received notice was somewhat different from the one which has been placed before me today.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I am not going to make a statement at the present time in connection with this case, except to say that Count Jacques de Bernonville, a citizen of France, did apply in Montreal for permanent admission to Canada. His application was rejected because he did not come within the admissibility clauses, and further, because he was certified as being a prohibited person, on medical grounds.
Count Jacques de Bernonville appealed against that decision, and I dismissed the appeal. He then took habeas corpus proceedings, and the press has informed me that the appeal was granted this morning. I have not seen the judgment, but I have instructed my officials to have the immigration board reconstituted and the case proceeded with, on the assumption that what I am informed by the press is correct.


Mr. Siewari (Winnipeg Norih):: I apologize to the minister for the rewording of my question.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. I am sorry I did not give him notice, but perhaps he will make a statement tomorrow. When will the income tax appeal board begin its sittings, and what procedure would be required of applicants? Will the minister also indicate the method by which the board will inform the public where and when they will be in various localities?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The income tax appeal board comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of National Revenue. Perhaps he will answer the question.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The income tax appeal board is already set up, and is functioning to the extent that regulations are being drawn up under which the board will act. The office of the board will be on Mackenzie avenue, in the offices formerly occupied by the wartime prices and trade board. If the regulations were not in last Saturday's Canada Gazette, they will be in the Canada Gazette of this week.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. What arrangements have been made to have the new income tax appeal board sit in the provinces in the west? Is it to sit only in Ottawa?


James Joseph McCann: It is the intention of the income

Inquiries of the Ministry tax appeal board to hold sittings from time to time in different parts of the country, but an itinerary has not yet been arranged.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Ont.) I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Is it true that a new artillery range will be established in Halibur-ton county? If so, where; and will the one at Petawawa be abandoned?
Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: There is no intention whatsoever of abandoning the range at Petawawa.


Mr. Hodgson:: The minister answered only my second question.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry; I did not hear the first question.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Is it true that an artillery range will be established in Haliburton county?


Brooke Claxton: I will have to look into that matter, but I would doubt it very much. The two major ranges we have in Canada are at Petawawa and Shilo. Certainly I have not had submitted to me for my approval any suggestion respecting a further artillery range. However, one may be under consideration; I shall make inquiries and answer the hon. member as soon as those inquiries are made.
With regard to Petawawa, a considerable extension of buildings and equipment has been going on. The range is being developed rather than curtailed.


Mr. Fulion:: With the big guns of the Liberal party,



TELEPHONES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, how many cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants have recording devices attached to their telephones? What is the purpose of such devices, and who installed them?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I received notice of the question only about an hour ago, and was able to get in touch with the cabinet ministers who are present today. I can say that not one of them has the recording device referred to in this question. One of my colleagues-pos-

sibly two-I have not been able to reach, and I have not had time to reach the parliamentary assistants. I shall communicate with each of them, and then I shall bring down a return in the form which would be considered proper if the hon. member's question had been placed on the order paper and an order for return made in respect thereto.



AGREEMENT WITH BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question might be directed to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It has to do with an article in the Financial Post of last Saturday to the effect that Canada stands in great danger of losing economic co-operation administration support for her wheat agreement with Great Britain. The article continues: "Whether the fund will then be withdrawn from us, or whether an alternative solution can be found"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -"is not clear." My question is this: While in Washington did the Prime Minister deal with this matter? It is of great importance to Canada. Is there any danger at the present time of the United States withdrawing ECA support in relation to the purchase of British wheat in Canada under the United Kingdom agreement?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member's question is similar to one from the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), of which I received notice when I came into the house. His question is expressed as follows: "Would the Prime Minister state whether during his recent visit in Washington he received any American assurance that Canadian wheat will continue to be purchased under the Marshall plan, despite the present United States surplus?"
The conversations I had with the President of the United States covered a fairly wide range of subjects, and were of course private and confidential. I cannot give any specific information at this time as to the views or conclusions which may have been reached in regard to the matters discussed. I can say, ' however, that the president indicated a friendly understanding of the Canadian position in regard to wheat exports. I do not think I should go beyond that, without asking special leave from the president to be more specific.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES DESTRUCTION BY FIRE OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AT VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver South):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Apparently the administration building and control tower of the Vancouver airport were destroyed by fire over the weekend. Are any steps being taken to make sure that the airport can be kept in full use, despite this loss?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The district controller of air services advised officials of the Department of Transport that the administration building at the airport had been destroyed on Sunday, but that the other services, such as radio, meteorological and lighting services, had not been affected and were in full operation. However the service had to close down on that day.
Today departmental officials have been informed that the air traffic centre is again operating normally. The building is owned by the city, but we are interested to the extent of several thousand dollars. All arrangements are being made to house the officers of the Department of Transport in radio and meteorological buildings.


George Alexander Cruickshank: should like to ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) in regard to the unfortunate airport fire. Will the minister give consideration to transferring the terminal of the T.C.A. to the only fog-free airport in British Columbia, located at Abbotsford in Fraser Valley?



RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Last Friday the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) asked the following question:
In view of the increasing use of fast-moving diesel trains on our railroads, will the minister consider the advisability of providing that such trains be painted in some bright colour, such as yellow, to help highway travellers to see such diesel trains sooner and thus avoid fatal accidents?
I asked the officials of the board of transport commissioners to give consideration to the suggestion of my hon. friend, and I am informed that the question of using distinctive colours for diesel operated trains has been under consideration for some time by
Inquiries of the Ministry the board and the railway companies. In fact some discussions are going on at the present time, but no decision has been reached.



WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. Beniley (Swiff Current):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, notice of which I sent him. Is the minister prepared to give a ruling as to the need for provincial legislation to make effective the amendments to the wheat board act passed at the last session of parliament?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The minister has not been asked for a ruling as to the need for provincial legislation to make effective the amendments to the wheat board act passed at the last session of parliament. The whole matter to which this ruling would refer is now under discussion with the premiers or their representatives, and with representatives of the farm organizations of the prairie provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Didn't you get your own letter?



GRASSHOPPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. McKay (Weyburn):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question, notice of which I have sent him. In what way is the federal government assisting in order to minimize damage likely to be caused in Saskatchewan by the heavy grasshopper infestation in that province?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: There has been a well-arranged understanding between the provinces and the federal government with regard to grasshopper infestation. We are carrying on this year in exactly the same manner as we have in other years in the matter of assistance.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 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.
?24
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Dreiu
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, at the time this debate
was adjourned I was speaking on the amendment to the amendment, and dealing with certain questions which had been raised having to do with dominion-provincial relations and with certain of the points which had been discussed.
In the course of the earlier discussions I was amazed to hear the suggestion that there was occasion for surprise at my having discussed subjects which were not clearly set out in the speech from the throne. If there is one principle which should apply in the debate on the speech from the throne it is that those who are not supporting the government on the motion should be able to point to things which have been omitted from the speech from the throne. To carry the argument to the ultimate absurdity that has been put forward would mean that it would only be necessary to present a speech from the throne which said nothing, and then there would be no debate at all. Obviously the less the speech from the throne says, the wider the field of discussion must be outside of the actual wording of the speech itself.
The speech from the throne is simply a statement by the government as to what it proposes to put before the parliament of Canada. They are not the words of the king's representative; they are the words of the government. Under our constitutional procedure the king's representative reads the statement of the government to the parliament of Canada. It is then the duty of hon. members speaking in the debate to examine that statement of the government, and to point out what they think should have been included, as well as any defects they see in the statement itself.
Having regard to the importance attached by many members of the opposition to dominion-provincial relations, as indicated in their speeches to this house, it is indeed surprising that there was no reference to that in the speech from the throne. It was because it is so vitally important that I discussed it.
I should like to point to something in the speech from the throne which, though it was brushed over lightly and without much comment, is of immense importance to hon. members of the house and to the people of Canada. In the first paragraph of the speech, reference is made to certain dangers in the existing situation, and it is stated that "one of these is the communist menace." A little later the speech refers to "international communism"-those are the words; nothing more. At another point it uses the words, "in 
striking contrast with communist countries", speaking of the situation here in Canada. Later on in the same paragraph the words "influence of subversive doctrines" are used. That is the only reference, direct or indirect, in the speech from the throne to the subject of communism and its effect on domestic conditions or external relations of Canada. I am convinced that among all the things with which we are called upon to deal, there is no single subject of greater importance than the threat of communism in the world, and the threat of communism right here in Canada.
In this house we have heard statements by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in answer to questions in regard to what would be done by this government in respect to the trial of Cardinal Mindszenty. Questions have been asked as to what this government proposes to do about the trial of fifteen Protestant evangelical clergymen who have been arrested in Bulgaria and whose trials are to commence nex Monday. We also know that in recent months the Lutheran bishop of Hungary was arrested and is in custody. The same pattern is being established all over Europe on the other side of the iron curtain. In Paris only a few days ago Mr. Selden Chapin, United States minister to Hungary, now on his way home to Washington from Budapest, said:
As far as conditions are concerned in the country I left yesterday I would like to say this much: that no one today, except the blind and the twisted, can fail to see that the Hungarian people are under the complete total domination of a group of Moscow-trained communists whose sole allegiance is to the Kremlin.
Those words, Mr. Speaker, describe the situation in every one of the countries of Europe where the communists have seized power. Today as never before we see the pattern of communist suppression taking its clear form and being displayed before the whole world through the press reports that come from those countries. As has not happened in centuries, all religion, and particularly Christianity, is being suppressed, is being persecuted, is being fought by the communists in accordance with the stated purpose of that vile doctrine, and in exact accordance with the promise of Lenin that they would fight religion in every way they could.
But this has been true at all times. The only difference now is that it is clearly before the eyes of every one of us to read, to see, and to understand. I am sure that there is not a thoughtful person in the world today who believes that the trial of Cardinal Mindszenty was anything but a cruel sham

from beginning to end, and that every device employed by the vilest form of tyranny the world has ever known was used to produce precisely the pattern which is emerging already in Bulgaria. With the trial there a week away, the reports of reliable press agencies carry the story that two of the ministers who are to be tried have already made confessions of their guilt of supposed crimes that are parallel to those attributed to other religious leaders who have been persecuted in the same way on earlier occasions.
Surely no one can be so lacking in a sense of reality as to imagine that these religious leaders of different denominations and in different countries could, under any conceivable circumstances, all have been guilty of precisely the same technical offences in each country, although separated by hundreds of miles. Read the charges that are to be preferred in Sofia next Monday. They read almost word for word with those that were preferred against Cardinal Mindszenty, that were preferred against the Lutheran bishop of Hungary, that were placed before the clergymen who were tried earlier in Rou-mania. It is the same pattern that has been followed through the whole of Europe on the other side of the iron curtain.
The whole picture of cruel and vile suppression of religious freedom, which is now unfolding before the eyes of the free world, follows right through from the murder of the metropolitan of Russia immediately after the revolution of October 1917. Through the years it has been the same; through the years communists have sought to destroy the firm rock of Christianity throughout the world because they know that it is the strongest defence against the evil doctrines that they preach. We have gone through a period when it was difficult for people to realize that this suppression of religious freedom was a reality. In fact misguided religious figures have come to this country, and to other countries, and said that there is in fact religious freedom in Russia today, and that there has been religious freedom throughout the years. It is difficult to use temperate words in describing the effect of such a misinterpretation of what has been going on in Russia. In this regard I am not depending upon secondhand information. I have seen the anti-religious museums in Russia. I saw the anti-religious museum on Gorki street in Moscow, where any visitor to Moscow before the war could have seen it and should have seen it, because it was operated by the state; and it was recorded in their literature describing the things that should be visited in Moscow. It was used for the purpose of
The Address-Mr. Drew holding up to ridicule everything that people who believe, in Christianity hold dear.
That anti-religious museum is not there today. In the intervening years the leaders of communist organization in Russia decided that it would be easier to gain the support of the western world if they removed this evidence of their real purpose. Therefore the large anti-religious museum on Gorki street has been torn down, as have other antireligious museums which I saw there before the war. These were only the visible and clear expressions of a determined effort by the state to suppress religious observance in every way, and to try to instil in the minds of the children growing up in Russia a lack of faith in the religion of their fathers and their mothers. It has not succeeded; the core of religion is still strong there, but only because of the inner faith in the hearts and minds of the Russian people themselves.
What we are seeing now is part of the clear, stated pattern of the communist party in Russia and in every land where it gains power. They are opposed to all religion; but, as it happens, it is the Christian faith that is coming most directly in contact with communism today in all those countries throughout Europe where it has been such a deep and fundamental part of the lives of the people ever since the beginning of the Christian era. Never before in the lifetime of any one of us was there so much reason for unity of purpose on the part of Christians of every denomination, who see their beliefs challenged by this anti-Christian, antireligious force which has spread its power over such a great part of Europe within the past few years.
The Prime Minister has stated that tomorrow he will make some statement in regard to this matter. When that statement is made I hope it will leave no doubt about the indignation of the government of Canada, of this House of Commons and of the people of Canada that freedom of worship should be suppressed and challenged as it is challenged in so many parts of the world today. I hope that from this house will go clear and positive evidence of the indignation we feel, and that on the part of all free nations there will be expressions of indignation more vigorous, more challenging and more effective than anything yet uttered in regard to the indignities which have been visited upon religious leaders in Hungary, Bulgaria, Roumania and other countries of eastern Europe.
But it is not only what we say, Mr. Speaker. The vigour and promptness with which our indignation is expressed will have much to do with the effectiveness of the course that is to be followed. We are only one nation, it

The Address-Mr. Drew is true, among many nations; but the voice of Canada is respected in Europe and throughout the world, and our motives are not challenged. Few voices could be raised which would be heard with greater respect than that of this free nation, which, with its thirteen million people, has come to occupy such a tremendously important position in the family of nations. As a nation we have our own responsibility, which is not dependent upon the course followed by any other nation. Whether or not any other nation is prepared to state its position vigorously, whether or not any other nation is prepared to express its condemnation in terms that can leave no doubt, our duty is clear. We should say what we think of these outrageous breaches of the most precious of all the freedoms that have been assured to the peoples of the world by the charter of the United Nations. That charter, signed by Russia and by many of the nations in which religious and other freedoms are being suppressed, is the instrument under which the meetings of the United Nations take place. It seems to me that if the meetings of the United Nations are to have any sense of reality whatever there is no subject that can be placed on the agenda ahead of the subject I am now discussing, and there is nothing that calls more strongly for immediate action by the members of the United Nations than the barbaric conduct of the communist governments of those countries which take their orders from the Kremlin. At this supremely critical hour in the history of the world, let us as Canadians speak with a strong, determined and united voice, making it clear that no matter what may be said in any other land we are agreed that by every means within the authority of the United Nations, of which we are a member, steps should be taken to restore that freedom which was promised when the nations met at San Francisco and signed this historic charter.
As we examine the events happening abroad, as we look at the evidence of this vile tyranny never exceeded in its cruelty or barbarity in the long history of mankind, we should not only consider what our responsibilities may be to those beyond our borders who suffer under that tyranny today. It seems to me that at such a time we should consider the position right here in Canada, and what we should do with the communists who are seeking to undermine the strength of this great and free state. Many woolly-minded intellectuals still toy with the idea that communism in Canada is just another form of political thinking, and that under no circumstances should we place it in any different category from that of other political points of view which we say should be freely


expressed, no matter how much we may agree or disagree with them. Those who argue that communism is only another form of political thought cannot have carefully examined what the Canadian communists themselves have said to be their purpose. As we have impressed upon us so dramatically what has happened in such beautiful free lands as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Roumania, Poland, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, to say nothing of the Baltic states, with their ancient traditions of freedom going back centuries before our own, it seems to me we should examine just what the communists have told us really is their purpose.
Of the intention of the communists within our borders, we in Canada have a more accurate statement than exists in any other country. That is the result of two extremely important and useful series of trials which took place some fifteen years or more apart. In the first of those trials Tim Buck, the then leader of the communist party here in Canada -and he is still the leader of that party- was convicted along with seven other communists and sentenced to a term in the Kingston penitentiary. Following the discovery of espionage activities here in Ottawa and elsewhere, further trials took place, and we have a clear, unchallenged and unchallengeable statement of what the communists really intend to do. Let me just read their own words, and only a few of them; they leave a clear picture of what they are trying to do.
In no field of human relationships have the communists been more active than in that of labour relations. That is so because of their stated purpose. In the past few days in the press we have read of the vigorous disputes which are taking place within the ranks of organized labour in this country and of how those who are opposed to communism are challenging those who support communist ideas and who today occupy official positions in unions in this country. For that reason it is well for us to see just what Tim Buck himself has said as to the purpose of this activity. These are his own words, and they are in recorded evidence which, fortunately, is preserved and will be preserved. I am quoting from a statement made by Tim Buck to his lords and masters in Moscow as to what they were trying to do here in Canada. These are his words:
The political line of our party is to utilize this tendency of radicalization by adopting a policy of developing demands and initiating movements in different industries . . . On account of the position of the Canadian working class it is necessary to develop demands in advance rather than merely wait for sporadic outbreaks. Spontaneous strikes do not generally assume the proportion or the possibilities that the spontaneous strikes in the United States do, because of the difference in the size of the centres

and the industrial concerns. The political value of these strikes therefore tends to be less, unless we ourselves can prepare them in certain industries. The result is that we have adopted the policy of developing demands in many industries and on this basis sharpening relations and developing strike movements.
That is a clear enough statement of what their purpose is. What then do they seek to achieve if they are able to carry forward that first objective?-which, I might say, is similar to the stated objective put forward in a circular recently sent out to every communist in Great Britain by the head office of the communist party there. Is this line just for the purpose of causing friction and dispute? No; it is not. Again we have Buck's words as to what their intention is:
Once we have mastered the political strike, the general strike is but a step. And the general strike during a political crisis is the gateway to revolution.
That language seems strong enough and clear enough. But the communists tell us, while they are still putting on their mild and false fronts, that they are not talking about a revolution such as the Russian revolution or any of the other bloody revolutions which they have stirred up and brought about in order to gain power. But again we do not need to guess what kind of revolution they mean, because the communists make sure that their party followers know the meaning of the words they use, and they have therefore defined "revolution" in their own statements. This is the definition used in their official statements:
Revolution means an historic event when one part of a population imposes its will upon the other part of a population by bayonets, guns and rifles.
That language is clear enough. No matter how mild or how honeyed may be the expressions of those who put forward the communist doctrine here in Canada, that is what they mean by the words they use. Those are the definitions they have given their own people. Those are the intentions they have put before them. What, according to their own words, is their ultimate objective by that bloody form of revolution? Again we have Buck's own words. Hitler was not the only one who put his purpose into book form. Buck, it is true, has not written quite so thick a volume but he has stated his purpose; and in one of his books "What We Propose", this is what he tells his followers and anyone who wants to read his words:
We shall lead the workers forward through struggles to power and the victorious establishment of our soviet Canada.
Let no member of this house or no Canadian laugh at the suggestion that these people are working deliberately, carefully and with an ultimate hope of success, for a soviet Canada. Let it be remembered that in Czechoslovakia,
The Address-Mr. Drew in Yugoslavia, in Bulgaria, in Hungary, in Roumania, in Poland, in Latvia, in Lithuania, in Esthonia, and in every country now under the communist yoke, there were times when the percentage of communists in the population was smaller than it is right here in Canada today. Let us not ignore the reality of this threat when one of the senior officials of the communist party in Canada can run for the office of controller in the city of Toronto and receive over 40,000 votes in the municipal election, coming within striking distance of being elected. In fact, on an earlier occasion this man was elected.


Humphrey Mitchell: Is that the only place in which it happens?


George Alexander Drew: No, it is not. I took Toronto, of course, because it happens that the total vote was larger there than in any other city; but unfortunately they have elected communist representatives in other municipalities and in other provinces. Because of this, and because of what they are trying to do, it may be well to read a few words more of what Buck has said. These are his words:
Few radicals realize the value, in a struggle such as this, of official positions in local bodies; and yet local officers have, if organized, tremendous power; and the education and training gained by holding such positions makes for local secretaryships, presidencies, vice-presidencies, etc., points of strategic importance, possession of which might easily make the difference between victory and defeat.
These words indicate exactly the course which has been followed in other countries. They obtain official positions of various kinds, and then use these official positions to gain power, and always to gain power with nothing but a very small minority of the population behind them. In this country, as I have said before, we have the evidence of what has happened. We have the evidence which has been produced at trials, and it is evidence given under oath. That is valuable to us and to others.
However, one of the reasons why communist activity has gone as far in Canada as it has, and one of the reasons why communist espionage in Canada had succeeded so well as it had, was that effective steps had not been taken earlier to suppress communism in Canada. I spoke about the first trial when Buck and several others were sent to Kingston penitentiary. They were sent to Kingston penitentiary under section 98 of the Criminal Code.


Mr. Parent:: Who took it out?


George Alexander Drew: That section was repealed by the government which still sits on the opposite side of this house, and they put nothing effective in its place. They left that place
728	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew vacant in the Criminal Code and it is still vacant. Many people, including certain hon. members in this house, appear to have the idea that section 98 of the Criminal Code was an arbitrary provision directed at the suppression of communism. That is not so. Section 98 of the Criminal Code made it an offence to plan or to conspire to overthrow by force this free system of ours. It went further and provided that any organization which has for its purpose the overthrow of our free system by force could be declared by the courts an illegal organization, and that membership in that organization, with knowledge of that fact, was a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.
Section 98 of the Criminal Code could have been improved and reworded, but it dealt with something that there should always be power to deal with. It provided a means of dealing with subversive organizations whose activities fell short of the very limited provisions which make it possible to convict for treason.
In the face of the words which I have read, namely, Buck's own statement that they are working for revolution, with their own definition of a bloody revolution, with their purpose declared as being a soviet Canada, who can doubt the evidence available to place before any court to show under a proper section of the Criminal Code that the communist party is a disloyal and treacherous party which should be denied the right to organize and to carry on its activities in Canada?
There are those who say that we must not endanger freedom. The very time when freedom is threatened is the time for freedom to be protected, and protected against those who do not seem to understand the seriousness of the subject with which we are dealing. It is extremely important that there be a provision which makes it possible to take into the courts those who are receiving their instructions from outside of Canada, and under those instructions from outside of Canada trying to set up a vile dictatorship here on the same pattern as has emerged in the past few years in so many countries in Europe. By all means, let us protect freedom, but freedom does not mean freedom to destroy freedom itself. We should make it possible by clearly defined, well-drawn provisions in the Criminal Code to have this subject dealt with by our courts in the true democratic way.
I am not suggesting for a moment that we should place on the statute books any statute which gives to this government, and this government particularly, power by order in council to deal with the freedom of any individual. I am not suggesting that power should be placed in the hands of this government, 

and particularly this government, to hold inquiries in secret as a basis of subsequent prosecution. Let us have a clearly drawn section of the. Criminal Code which will make it possible for the courts to find that any organization which has as its stated purpose the overthrow of our free system is guilty of a criminal offence and that those who, as members of that organization, take an active part in an attempt to overthrow our system shall also be guilty of a criminal offence and punishable by a long term of imprisonment.
Let us go still further; it has been stated here that communists would not be employed in secret posts of the civil service, where their treacherous activities could so easily become effective on behalf of the sovereign state they serve.
Only a few days ago in Great Britain several highly skilled chemical engineers were dismissed because of their known communist affiliations. If it is a ground for denying the right to serve in the civil service, then surely it should also be a ground for denying the right to those people to sit in the parliament or the legislatures of Canada. If it is dangerous to have these people in places where their known treachery can undermine our system, then why permit them to sit in those legislative bodies where the laws of the country are made and where, even if only by power of suggestion, they can undermine confidence by their constant appeals to prejudice, and to the various slogans and devices they employ?
If anyone wants to know why communists are so often to be found actively associated with supposedly worthy objects, it is necessary for him only to go to Lenin, whom they follow rigidly and so precisely. Lenin put the proposition before them in this way:
Is there a single class of the population in which no individual, groups or circles are to be found who are discontented and therefore inaccessible to our propaganda? Our task is to utilize every manifestation of discontent and to collect and utilize every grain of even rudimentary protest.
That explains the mechanism of their efforts. They seek the ground of discontent; they seek the ground of dissatisfaction; and then by joining in apparently innocent false fronts, they fan the flames of prejudice. They use slogans which have been handed down from the German, Karl Marx-and which, unhappily, are no less effective today than they were a hundred years ago. In fact, with all the power of radio, and other media of propaganda, they are more effective than ever before.
Unfortunately many people repeat those slogans and that type of propaganda, without realizing that these are weapons drawn from the arsenal of Karl Marx. With the threat

abroad, and with the threat here at home, the highest duty of Canadians is to do all within their power to strengthen the fabric of Canadian life. We are told that the best way to resist the advances of communism is to create conditions in which communism cannot exist. Unquestionably, the worse conditions are, the easier it is to fan the flames of prejudice.
But it is not necessary for conditions to be bad in order to have communists carry on their activities, and in order to have others who are not communists repeating communist slogans, often without knowing where those slogans had their origin. The arguments of Karl Marx against our free system, written one hundred and one years ago and repeated over and over, are repeated now by other than communists. They undermine public confidence; they undermine respect for authority; and instead of assisting in improving the conditions of the people they serve only to delay the effective solution of problems by creating uncertainty, discontent and strife, which prevents that measure of cooperation and unity which would make it possible for people to join in bringing about a solution of any of our problems under our free system.
The draftsmanship of legislation is the responsibility of the government-because there are two aspects to every bit of drafting which must be done. One of 4those is the-legislative, and the other the administrative. The best drafted piece of legislation will be ineffective unless it is properly administered, and with an intent on the part of those responsible for administration to carry it into effect.
Therefore under our system actual drafting is the responsibility of the government itself, in respect of those matters of major importance which are incorporated in our great laws, and which they must administer. The Criminal Code is one of those in which administration goes hand in hand with legislation. Because of that blank spot in the Criminal Code where section 98 once was, communists have been running free here in Canada, and have been doing their dangerous and deadly work with very little interference-except when their activities became so extreme that, [DOT] consistently with the safety of the state itself, prosecutions at the very highest level could not be avoided.
But there is all this other activity going on today, activity which is not confined to any one field. Do not let anyone take from what I have said the suggestion that this is in only one field. Right here in Ottawa, through official representatives of governments, behind
The Address-Mr. Drew the iron curtain, communist propaganda moving pictures have been circulated in Canada and shown to Canadian children by various organizations masquerading under cultural names. I have seen those pictures: they are clever; they are dangerous.
These highly trained men, many of them trained in the school of political warfare in Moscow, organize very attractive-sounding social groups, invite the children in and show them pictures of what is happening in the lands behind the iron curtain. I remember one picture taken in Budapest itself, a place about which we have heard so much, and about which at this time we should hear so much. That picture showed the scene of destruction. It showed all the beauty of Budapest destroyed by the cannonade at the close of the war. It was stated that the picture showed the destruction that had been done by the German army which was serving the cause of the capitalist west. But then in came the communist army and with garlands draped about their necks and with love exuding from every pore they marched along the streets, acclaimed by the population which realized that salvation was being brought to them under the hammer and sickle.
They did not tell anybody that those pictures showed the destruction that had occurred through the wanton actions of the Russian artillery, absolutely unnecessary action at a time when resistance in the city had ended. There had been destruction, but all those beautiful spots along the Danube, the Fishermen's walk, St. Stephen's church, the Golden bridge, all those things that have inspired a sense of pride in those who have seen them over long, long years, were destroyed, mainly by the wanton activities of the Russian army itself. But communist propaganda will use any destruction in an event of that kind as grist to their mill.
These things have been going on and I suggest that the time is long overdue for the government of Canada to instruct every official office which represents any country now dominated by a communist government that if it is to remain here it is not to circulate communist propaganda in that way. We even had an example of effrontery in one of these ministries taking it upon themselves to attack me as premier of Ontario. I am not concerned with any personal attack, but I occupied an official office, as do others in this country. A communist ministry issued a paper criticizing a statement I had made about the activities of certain communists behind the iron curtain and the publication of a letter which indicated their efforts to threaten people here in Canada. Just imagine what would happen to anyone in their coun- ' try who had the temerity to circulate for

The Address-Mr. Drew general publication criticism of the all-powerful government within their land. Let us show these people that when they have official representatives here, no matter how wrong their ideas may be and no matter how foul the system which they serve may be, we do not want any of their activities carried on in Canada outside of their own official places.
Therefore I urge, and in urging I hope that this will be dealt with in the spirit of urgency which it demands, that there be drafted a clear and explicit and effective section of the Criminal Code along the lines I have suggested so that by appropriate judicial decision in our courts, consistent with the great traditions of our free laws, those who seek to impose a foul and evil dictatorship here in Canada shall receive the punishment they deserve.
I should like now to refer to something that was stated earlier in the debate. In his reply to my earlier remarks the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) challenged me to give an example of centralization. We have several examples before us in the resolutions that we have been called upon to deal with, one of which has been considered already. They embody, within the powers dealing with the control of industry, the control of agriculture and the control of currency, as wide a measure of centralized power as any country has ever had in years of peace.
I want to refer to another example of centralization which seems to have escaped the government's attention. It is a very old statement that power to govern is the power to tax. It is perfectly clear that if any government is to have full discretion to do those things that it thinks should be done on behalf of the people it serves, whether it be a national, provincial or municipal government, it must also have discretion over the amount of the revenue which it can raise to carry out its responsibilities. If it has not that discretion then its legislative discretion obviously is limited.
We had great centralization in Canada during the war years. As has been said, the provinces of Canada concurred in that centralization as a temporary measure because the waging of a war, of the nature of the war in which we were engaged, called for the centralization of direction of military production, of military supplies and of all other supplies which seemed to justify a corresponding centralization of provincial power. But it will be recalled, and I want to repeat it, that when the government asked the provinces to agree to centralization of that kind they gave their solemn undertaking that at the close of the first full fiscal year after the end of hostilities the taxing powers of

the provinces would be restored undiminished. That undertaking has been honoured only in its breach.
Let us see exactly what has happened in regard to the taxation with which the various levels of government carry on their business. In 1939 the taxes collected from the taxpayers of Canada, who are the same taxpayers no matter which administrative body draws the taxes, amounted to $915 million, which was
divided as follows:
Dominion government	 $468,000,000
Provincial governments	 172,000,000
Municipal governments	 274,000,000
I ask you to realize the implications of those figures. They constitute the following percentages of total taxes collected from the taxpayers of Canada: The dominion government collected 51-2 per cent of all taxes, provincial governments collected 18-8 per cent, and municipal governments collected 30 per cent. May I repeat those figures, because the position has changed so greatly. The dominion government collected 51-2 per cent of all the taxes collected from all the taxpayers of Canada; provincial governments collected 18-8 per cent; and municipal governments collected 30 per cent.
Let us see what has happened in the intervening years. The year 1947 is the last full fiscal year for which figures are available, and the figures used are to the date nearest to December 31 ending a fiscal year. The dominion government was then collecting $2,452 million; the provincial governments collected $398 million; and the municipal governments collected $346 million. But let us see what happened to the percentages. The dominion government is now collecting 76-7 per cent of all taxes collected from all taxpayers. The provincial governments are collecting 12-5 per cent, and the municipal governments 10 -8 per cent. If it were possible to imagine greater centralization than that, I would find it difficult to suggest what it could be.
There are other percentage figures which illustrate even more vividly what has happened-the percentages of the total amounts collected by the different governments in relation to the amounts collected in 1939. In 1939 the dominion government collected $468 million, and in 1947 $2,452 million, an increase of 423 per cent. In 1939 the provincial governments collected $172 million, and in 1947 they collected $398 million, an increase of 131 per cent. In 1939 the municipalities collected $274 million, and in 1947 they collected $346 million, an increase of 26 per cent.
Let us see what this means. Municipal councils, and they are municipal governments,

those local governments that are closest to the people and which do those things which in many ways are of most concern to the people in their daily lives, have had greatly increased responsibilities in the intervening years. Yet because of the centralization of taxation those municipalities are able to increase their revenues by only 26 per cent. When you consider the commodity value of the dollar you find that in the actual working dollar the municipalities are collecting less today than they were in 1939. That is the reason that so many of our municipalities are now pressing at every meeting of municipal bodies in every province of Canada for a general adjustment of the taxation structure of the country, so that they may be able to obtain adequate revenues for their tremendously important responsibilities without stifling the initiative of those who want to buy or build homes in these communities.
One of the reasons that there are some limitations on the possibility of building homes in many communities today, when the bank deposits of our people are at such a high level, lies in the concern about municipal taxes as they are. If many of these municipalities carried out all the things that they really want to do, and legitimately want to do, on behalf of their people, they would have no choice but to increase still further the burden of municipal taxation. The tremendous centralization of taxing power is having its impact upon the ability of municipal governments as it is having its impact upon the discretion and the power of provincial governments to carry out their many duties.
In the course of this debate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) explained that, while I was premier of Ontario, I put before the conference held in Ottawa figures which it is was impossible for the dominion government to consider, and therefore they had no choice but to end the conference and refuse to call it together again. Let us see exactly what has happened in that respect. We put forward proposals at that conference, and Mr. Ilsley said that no government with any sense of responsibility could have considered them. It is very interesting to see what happens when times change, and when a government seeks to gain the favour of the provinces by progressive increases of the contributions they are making. I made proposals on behalf of the province of Ontario-and they were not the only proposals-which the dominion government should have examined. They should have examined them, and they should have come back and met us again after they had.
The Address-Mr. Drew


Mr, Bertrand (Laurier):: May I ask the hon.
member a question?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Mr. Bertrand (Laurier):: For 1939 he gave a figure of $468 million representing the taxes imposed by the federal government, and for 1947 the figure he gave was $2,452 million.


George Alexander Drew: That is right.


Ernest Bertrand: Can the hon. gentleman tell us what amount of the increase was owing to the fact that we were at war, and that we were spending for war while the provincial and municipal governments were not?


An hon. Member:: Not in 1947.


Ernest Bertrand: During all those years.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there is no question about very substantial payments being made on account of the war; no one would suggest otherwise. But anybody would be far from reality if he suggested that the whole or even the major part of the increase was the result of what we expended on the war. It is true this concentration has developed during the war years, but it is also true there has been a great concentration of powers, and the entry by this government into fields that were not their own. I shall follow my own trend of thought and then come back to that point. That will be more simple, because I want to deal with one minor example, but one which illustrates my point. Under the proposals that I put before the Ottawa conference in the spring of 1946, the adjusted payments on those proposals, having regard to increases in population and so on, would be $235,656,000. That is to all the provinces if all provinces had accepted payment from the dominion government under our proposals in a transitional agreement. The figure is $235,656,000. The actual amount that is being paid now on the payments that are being made to seven provinces under the Abbott proposal is $240 million, or $5 million more than the proposals I put forward at that time. Yet we were told by Mr. Ilsley at that time that no government with a sense of responsibility could have accepted them. If that is so I can only suggest that a proper definition be found of the action of this government in raising the ante as it did.
The fact is that at that time six taxes were being collected by the dominion government which previously had been collected by the provincial governments alone. They were the succession duty, the amusement tax, the gasoline tax, the stock transfer tax, the parimutuel betting tax and the tax on electricity;
732	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew and the total of those at that time was $102 million. They said they could not give those up; they could not think of it. The only one they have not given up is the succession duty. The other provinces kept urging for further consideration. They got it, and one by one those other taxes were given up. That is what has happened in the years intervening since the adjournment of that conference.
I was asked a question a moment ago, and I want to point out how a great many of these costs could be checked and where a certain amount of care could well be exercised, and why it would be highly desirable to have an inquiry into government administration similar to the Hoover commission in Washington. In a flattering way hon. members opposite as well as some to my left seem to have been assiduous in reading past speeches of mine, to which I pay much less attention today than they seem to. The interesting thing, however, is that throughout all those speeches I was emphasizing a basic principle which has never changed; that is, that I believe under our federal system there should be a strong central government with clearly defined powers and there should be strong local governments with clearly defined powers, all having taxing powers, clearly defined, adequate to carry out their responsibilities. For years I have criticized overlapping as between the dominion government and the provincial governments. I have criticized increased overlapping on the part of the dominion government, as I have criticized overlapping by the provincial governments. By such an inquiry as was urged by myself and others at the dominion-provincial conferences that overlapping could be effectively eliminated.
Let me give an example of the sort of thing that happens when you do not have an orderly functional relationship between the governments. Reference has been made briefly to this point already, but I think perhaps it will illustrate the way in which savings can be made and overlapping avoided. Under our constitution hospitalization, except military hospitalization, is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. Personal health is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. The responsibility of the federal government is in another field. In the discussions that have taken place it has been proposed that the dominion government should join in a plan under which financial provision would be made for a uniform health and social security plan covering the whole of Canada. Under our constitution, unless it is amended or changed by agreement, the administrative responsibility would rest with the provinces. But I want to give an example of the sort of thing that can creep 

in where you have not this clearly defined functional relationship, which does not exist today for one reason only, and that is the refusal of the dominion government to carry on these conferences. The treatment and care of the Eskimos is under the dominion Department of National Health and Welfare. Unhappily these Eskimos suffer greatly from tuberculosis. Already brief reference has been made to the construction of a hospital at Moose Factory near the mouth of the Moose river where it flows into James bay. Something was said about the fact that the contract for the construction of that hospital was let by order in council, without tenders being called for, and that the usual procedure was not followed.
Let us see exactly what happened. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) decided there should be a hospital in that area to care for the Eskimos; and no one who has seen the conditions that exist around the shores of James bay and Hudson bay would question the necessity for providing effective hospitalization for these unfortunate people, who seem to be strangely sensitive to tuberculosis because of the change from their original native condition to the somewhat more protected life they now lead. But the procedure was rather unusual. On April 6 of last year an order in council was passed approving a project of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the construction of a hospital at Moose Factory, at an estimated cost of $1,500,000, and authorizing the Department of Public Works to proceed with the letting of contracts for this purpose. It was to be a 125-bed hospital, and unquestionably extensive hospitalization is needed. The construction of that hospital was undertaken, however, at a most difficult point. Doubtless many hon. members of this house have been in that area and know the low, flat islands in the estuary just south of James bay. No doubt many have been on the island where Moose Factory is located and know how soft the water-sodden silt is and how difficult it is to build over it, and what skill and great experience in building are required at that particular point. I am not going to enter today into a discussion on the comparative merits of building a hospital of this kind at Moose Factory over on the island or at Moosonee on the mainland. There are strong contentions both ways. Moosonee is served three times a week by regular railway service coming right to the town, and consequently has many advantages. In the summer it is about three miles by rather tricky water from Moosonee to Moose Factory, and everything going to that hospital will have to be transshipped. In the winter,

of course, materials can be carried over the ice, and the route is shorter and less expensive than in summer. Most of the heavy material is in fact carried over the ice, and at the present time they are stockpiling about a thousand tons of coal, carrying it over the ice from Moosonee, to which everything must come by rail from North Bay.
Here is an illustration of why an effective functional relationship between the governments would be so important, and how money could be saved. Over long years the province of Ontario has operated extremely efficient tuberculosis hospitals. Many people who come to visit them regard them as among the best in the world in the treatment they offer. They are scattered across Ontario, and there is a large staff with a wealth of experience in treating tuberculosis.
Not only have they practical experience in hospitalization itself, but they have practical experience in the kind of buildings that are required, the type of room that is most suitable, the kind of clinical facilities that should be installed, and so on. Right from the outskirts of Ottawa through to the western end of the province are these great hospitals for the treatment of tuberculosis, with a wealth of accumulated experience behind them. If we were carrying on our health activities in this country with a due appreciation of businesslike methods, it would seem to me that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) would have gone to the Department of Health in Ontario for which this new hospital for the treatment of tuberculosis was to be put up-and was to be put up only because it happened to be the responsibility of the dominion government to deal with Eskimos-to find out from them something about their experience. He would have worked out, in co-operation with them, plans which would most effectively make use of the money that was to be expended for this purpose. He would have got some advice as to what would be the best kind of hospital.
It would also have seemed desirable that they consult those provincial officials who had the responsibility of building all these hospitals throughout Ontario, and avail themselves of their experience. Actually the province of Ontario has had some experience in building right in the area in question. We had just completed the construction of a modern school at Moosonee, and had acquired a good deal of experience which might have been helpful. What actually happened was this. By order in council a contract was let to the Sterling Construction Company Limited of Windsor, Ontario.
The Address-Mr. Drew


Mr. McGregor:: That is getting close to
home.


George Alexander Drew: It was, of course, a fact that
the Minister of National Health and Welfare knew them. There was no doubt about that. But the fact is that they were not a firm with wide experience in construction of this kind; and there were available construction companies with wide experience.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I rise to a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what the intention of the leader of the opposition is. If he wishes to discuss that contract on the speech from the throne, I am ready, or will be later on, to answer him. When he says that the Sterling Construction Company had no experience in building hospitals-


George Alexander Drew: I did not say that.


Alphonse Fournier: -or buildings of this kind, I think he is wrong. I could show him the record to prove that they have had experience, and are actually constructing buildings of this type for the federal government.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Where is the point of
order?


Alphonse Fournier: I just want to put the facts straight.


James Arthur Ross: The minister will have an opportunity to do that later on.


Alphonse Fournier: If the leader of the opposition wishes to leave some impression that these people do not know their work, I must protest; because they have been doing a good deal of work for this government, and obtained their contracts after tendering for those jobs. In this case we could not get any tenders.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I am quite aware of the fact that this company has had extensive contracts from this government.


Alphonse Fournier: And even from the Ontario government.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, that is true. They have had some road construction contracts; and as the minister knows, of course, they were mainly a road construction company until they reorganized recently. Every one of the contracts they obtained from the Ontario government was by tender, opened in the proper way.


Alphonse Fournier: As I said, we asked people to tender on this building, but could not get tenders.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Reid:: The minister has a right to reply.

The Address-Mr. Drew


George Alexander Drew: I am quite aware of the fact that this company had a contract to do some hospital construction in London for the dominion government; I believe it was one of the military hospitals.


Alphonse Fournier: For the Department of Veterans Affairs.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, for the dominion government. But that is not Moosonee. What I said was that there are construction companies which have knowledge of building in that northern area where building conditions are of a strange and unusual nature. I find it most difficult to accept the proposition that, on a cost-plus basis, any of these experienced companies would not carry out a contract. They were not prepared to carry out a contract on a fixed basis because of the uncertainty connected with building in soft, shifting sand. But that is a totally different thing from building on a cost-plus basis. While the cost was stated to be in the neighbourhood of $1,500,000, the most recent estimate is $2 million; and it is generally accepted that it will be considerably in excess of that, as was pointed out by the officials of the Ontario Northland Railway at Moosonee who knew the conditions and who pointed out some of the problems that were confronting those who undertook this contract.
The point I am seeking to make is this. The matter is one that was raised briefly on a previous occasion but it illustrates the kind of thing that would not happen if there had been an effective businesslike relationship between those departments which have similar activities.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Public Works may say, oh, oh. I grant that this company might not get as many contracts without competition. But the fact remains that here was a case in which all the skill of the Department of Public Works in Ontario could have been made available to this dominion department in construction of that nature, because they had knowledge of this particular type of building. There would have been available also a wealth of information as to the problems to be faced, as to certain details of hospitalization, as to the desirability or otherwise of having a large hospital of this kind, costing $2 million or more, separated from the mainland completely for the best part of a month in the fall and for a month in the spring, during the freeze-up and break-up, when patients cannot even be taken in and out by air. All of these things would have been carefully considered. The situation that I have described spreads right across

the whole piece. I am not arguing as between Moose Factory and Moosonee-


Mr. Bradette:: Yes, you are.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes, you are, and I am going to answer that.


George Alexander Drew: I am not. Please do not go back to that part of the country and suggest that I was, because I will take good care to read to the people the Hansard record of what I actually said. I do not want to say anything unkind to the hon. member who has interrupted, because in his earlier remarks he was most generous; and I feel sure he has no thought of misinterpreting what I said. He may not have been in this chamber when I spoke earlier and pointed out that it was not a case of deciding now which would have been best. That matter cannot be redecided. The construction is under way. What I am pointing out is that this is an example of the considerations that could have been examined jointly before this action was taken. If the argument were in favour of Moose Factory as against Moosonee, there were many considerations that could have been put forward with regard to the facilities that were required, as to alternative facilities on the mainland in certain cases, and so on. I am giving this illustration as an example of what could be repeated right across the board with regard to every department in which similar activities are engaged in by the two governments.


Mr. Hackett:: That is true also in other provinces.


George Alexander Drew: It is indeed. I was speaking of this instance, of course, because it had been raised earlier.
We speak of centralization. I want to refer to the emergency controls, the power over agriculture that we are asked to accept, foreign exchange control, and these other details. Of course in regard to foreign exchange control, it will be possible to deal with it in much more detail on other occasions and doubtless other hon. members will deal with it during this debate; but hon. members, in examining centralization, and in examining the dangers of centralization, and what has happened, could very well read and reread some of these orders which are being put before us now for consideration.
When we were discussing the emergency powers on Friday night the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his speech, which expressed many clear and understandable points of view in regard to the agricultural situation, left no doubt about his thought that there is nothing temporary about these

controls which are before us in the emergency control legislation. In referring to the control on the price of butter he said, as reported at page 712 of Hansard:
But what I want to emphasize is the fact that unless there is some kind of control some place that thing will happen in spite of what-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is not in order to quote in one debate the remarks made in another debate during the same session.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: I hope that the leader of the opposition will leave that matter until that resolution is before the house again and we are dealing with that subject.


George Alexander Drew: I shall paraphrase what was said because it has a very direct bearing on what we are now discussing. The Minister of Agriculture made it clear that he had no thought that this was a temporary measure, but that it would be necessary to carry it on for years.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not the measure, but some understanding.


George Alexander Drew: Some arrangement in regard to it; but let us see just what that means. We are being asked to consider controls over industry, over agriculture and over foreign exchange, in a bill which calls it foreign exchange control but which is really more than that. It is import and export control. We are asked to do this under the continuance of emergency powers. The government have hardly even made the pretence of suggesting that there is an emergency in the real meaning of the word. They have hardly even bothered to put forward any contention that there is an emergency which would justify the extension of these wartime powers.
Remember that these emergency powers are in certain cases orders in council passed during the war. Emergencies are then given statutory effect by an omnibus statute which in turn gives them the effect of statutory law. The only possible ground for continuing these emergency measures is that we are still in an emergency similar to that which justified the passing of these orders in council at the time they were passed. The war ended in 1945, and this is 1949. There must be some time when government by order in council ends and responsible government by the parliament of Canada returns. There is not one of these measures which, if it is justified in the light of events and has constitutional support, could not now be put forward in the form of a proper statute defining the functions of the government, the
The Address-Mr. Drew responsibilities of the government, and the rights of those affected.
There is just a little tendency on the part of Canadians to examine the way that bureaucratic controls are creeping up in other lands, and without examining with sufficient care the extent to which bureaucratic controls are embedded in our legislation right now in Canada. The emergency controls are far-reaching to say the least; and these emergency controls are worded in such a way that they challenge every basic concept that we have of the right of the individual in time of peace to protect himself before a court under the properly stated laws of the land.
Last week we heard arguments that a desirable objective should not be defeated by any constitutional limitations. If these things are so. desirable, state them in statutes; if these things are so desirable, define the powers; if these things are so desirable, give the individual knowledge of what he can do and what he cannot do, and give him some rights to protect himself. It is not enough to say that these people should have no rights anyway. That is the way dictatorship has come in other lands. When any of those who have public responsibility are prepared to support their theories by the argument that the theory is so good that protection should be withdrawn from any members of the community in that particular field, then we are asking to open the doors to authoritarian practices here in Canada. I do think that these orders which were carried forward last year, and which presumably are the same orders which are to be put before us again, should be read and reread by those who believe in the right of parliament to decide what the laws of the land will be and what our people can and cannot do.
Just let me read from one of these orders, and again it has nothing to do with the purpose of the order but with the way it is carried out. This is the provision in the order in council re-establishing the wartime industries control regulations. This section provides that a controller may make orders in regard to-and I am referring to subsection 2 of section 12 of that order-any books or records, and carry these books or records away and they may be held at the discretion of the controller. It goes on in subsection 4 to say that the powers conferred upon a controller to make any order shall include power to provide in such an order, by way of prohibition or otherwise, for any or all matters which the controller deems necessary to the effective operation of such order. Well, now, this is in Canada. It is in free Canada that a controller who has discretion can make any order as to anything that shall be done in

The Address-Mr. Drew order to carry out the purposes of this act, and in most cases without effective right of appeal.
Let us take the order respecting construction materials and priorities. Under section 2 the priorities officer shall have almost any power that any human being could need for almost any purpose without limitation. One of these, just indicating the breadth and scope, is section 2(e) which states:
The priorities officer shall have power to take possession of or otherwise acquire any construction materials wherever found, and to use or to dispose of them.
And so it goes, right through the whole piece. Then, with all these wide powers, let us see something else. Section 5, headed "Delegation of Power", states:
The priorities officer shall have power to delegate from time to time to any person or persons any power vested in the priorities officer under these regulations, including any power involving the exercise of discretion and any order made in the exercise by any such person of a power so delegated shall be final and binding unless and until it has been varied or vacated by the priorities officer.
Oh, we may think that these Canadian priorities officers could not do wrong. But that is a pretty wide measure of confidence to repose in any human being. The fact is that there is hardly a provision in any of the dictatorships which goes wider than that order today. And the only security we have against excesses and abuses is the common sense, discretion and decency of the Canadian people. Of course, they are human beings; they are not all perfect. And there is no one who has had contact with these activities who does not know that there have been many abuses of these very powerful provisions.
Unfortunately, often there is hesitation to take effective steps to bring public attention to them, as should be done. Then, section 6 goes on to state this:
The priorities officer, any deputy priorities officer and any person acting for or on behalf of or under the authority of any of them shall not be or become liable to any person for anything done or omitted in the exercise or purported exercise of any power or authority from time to time vested in the priorities officer.
That means that the priorities officer can go out, pick up any person he likes and delegate authority to him. Then that person, with little or no knowledge of the act, may go out and do anything he sees fit to do; and if he even purports to be doing his duty under this act, there is no liability, no matter how great the damage is that he has done. That is what it means, exactly.
There is an old legal maxim which every lawyer in the chamber will know, and which states delegatus non potest delegare-a delegate cannot delegate. When this parliament

delegates its authority to a controller, a deputy controller or some person he may name, there should be some limitation to the delegation of that authority; there should not be any denial of the right of redress to those individuals who may be affected by the things done by such controllers.
This is only symptomatic of the whole tendency of the government in connection with the exercise of many of its arbitrary powers. I hope members in the house have read the reports of the decision by the income tax branch as to how it was going to make sure that the waiters in this country did not escape payment of income tax on tips received. After all, if any waiter in Canada does not properly declare the tips he receives, there is a provision in the act by which he can be haled before the courts in the usual way. If he has failed to comply with the provisions of the act, he should be brought before the courts in the ordinary fashion, and have the right to the protection of the court as well as being made subject to any possible punishment the court may impose upon him.
But a new device is employed. Officials of the income tax branch are given the power to determine what they estimate to be the tips received, and then to impose income tax on their estimate of what the tips had been to the men or women in question. Surely that illustrates the extent to which these powers are being carried in various fields of government activity. The official of the department, in this and in other cases, becomes the person who makes the order; he becomes the person who enforces it; he becomes the person who carries it into effect. And this is a denial of what we all regard as the basic ideas of the protection of the individual by the free process of our courts.
I do again urge members, and particularly those on the government side, to read carefully these arbitrary powers, these orders in council carried forward by statutory enactment, and which we are asked again now, in 1949, four years after the termination of hostilities, to renew. There you will see the mechanism of dictatorship. There you will see power to exercise almost unlimited authority over agriculture, over industry and over the economy. of our country. Wider powers could hardly be imagined. And those powers are exercised, not under the direct authority of parliament, but under the executive power of the government itself, without any clear definition of their limitations or purpose.
Objection has been taken to the suggestion that this sets up a police state. Well, there are those in this chamber who know how close we came to being a police state. There

are those who can recall something very similar to a police state, and the exercise of police powers-


George Alexander Cruickshank: In Ontario.


George Alexander Drew: -for purposes that had no bearing on the welfare of our people, in fact, the use of the great Royal Canadian Mounted Police for purposes quite inconsistent with the traditions of that force.
But we do not need to emphasize that aspect of it. The police have been used improperly under some of these powers. But if it is not a police state, in the strict interpretation of that term, then it looks strangely like it at the border, in the way they carry out some of these extraordinary powers announced to the people of Canada over the radio, without the authority of parliament. If this is not a police state, at least it can be said without contradiction that these orders are creating a snooper state. We have the unpleasant and humiliating picture of a host of inspectors, of controllers, of priorities officers and of those who have had power delegated to them but who cannot be named in advance because they may be delegated anywhere at any time; all these people are snooping around trying to find grounds for prosecution under these loose, ill-defined and all too powerful orders that have been carried forward from the war.
It is time, and past time, for this free parliament to assert its right to pass laws under which the rights and duties of our people will be determined. If any of these powers should be carried forward, then let us stop pretending that they are wartime orders; let us have legislation dealing with the matter. In his remarks during the debate on the speech from the throne the Prime Minister said that he had offered every province the right and the opportunity to take over rent controls. He said that the replies he had received indicated how difficult it was to get the co-operation of the provinces in regard to some matters.


An hon. Member:: Consent.


George Alexander Drew: No, they are not content.


An hon. Member:: Consent.


George Alexander Drew: I thought the hon. member said "content" and I can assure him that they are not content. Any provincial government attempting to take over rent control, with these loose, undefined powers over supplies still in the hands of the dominion government, would not have the responsibility it should have as a provincial government. That was the reason they did not take them over.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
The Address-Mr. Drew


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Pardon the laughter.


George Alexander Drew: It is most amusing to see the
strange translation that has taken place since the former premier of Manitoba became Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice apparently needs to find some little pleasure to amuse himself and I am glad he got it from that silly remark he made.


An hon. Member:: It was not so silly.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Justice seems
to regard it as amusing that his successor as premier of Manitoba should have recognized the difficulties presented by a problem of this kind. It is one thing to say that they are ordinary rent controls, but the fact is that, because of the manner in which these loose and arbitrary powers over supplies have been exercised, rigid controls are necessary in order to prevent the chaotic conditions which would result from the confusion created by those powers.
If there is any right to extend, at this time, the order in council affecting rent controls, then there is a constitutional right to introduce a separate act dealing with rent controls, dealing with price controls and dealing with these other controls, in the ordinary way. If those acts cannot be passed under the present constitutional position, then there is no power in this parliament to continue those orders under a statute which gives them continuing authority. That kind of legislation would actually return to this parliament the responsibility it should assume.
The other day the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was speaking of one aspect of agricultural powers and of price control. He also is seeking an extension of his powers. It is true that in part those powers relate to the marketing of crops, but they give absolute authority to the minister to go onto any farm and seize any product of that farm. That again is not power that should be conferred on any minister, no matter how much we may think of that minister as an individual.


James Garfield Gardiner: He has never done it.


George Alexander Drew: If the minister does not agree that those powers should not be continued, then a proper act should be brought in clearly defining the responsibility and the manner in which deliveries of products will be made and the way in which contracts will be carried out with the assistance of those who are experts in the various fields of agriculture.
These arbitrary orders are having an effect upon our trade. Not only are these arbitrary orders affecting agriculture and exchange in the domestic field; they are stopping the
738

The Address-Mr. Drew movement of goods between our country and other countries, particularly between our country and the United States. In that respect I want to state our position, as it has already been stated, in order to leave no doubt as to where we stand in regard to unnecessary restrictions on the movement of agricultural and other products of that kind between Canada and the United States, or the other way.
The party to which I and those associated with me belong stated its position in this house some years ago, and it has been the position of this party down through the years. The Conservative government under Mr. Bennett in 1934 put before the government of the United States proposals which were clear and definite and which would have been effective. They were read into Hansard of February 10, 1936, and they can be summed up in the following quotation from page 60:
The government of Canada is prepared to join the government of the United States in a declaration that their common objective is the attainment of the freest possible exchange of natural products between the two countries.
That is a clear statement of purpose that was put forward then and that has been carried forward to a limited extent, and it could well be advanced today. However, it is being restrained by many of these arbitrary controls which have been imposed under the orders to which I have referred.
There is before this house an amendment and an amendment to the amendment, and it is on that amendment to the amendment that I am speaking. In this debate this house has an opportunity to say by its vote that the time for arbitrary powers has gone; that the right of parliament to enact laws on behalf of the people should be restored; that any legislation which should be continued should be continued only in the form of proper statutory terms and that those things which we are asked to deal with should be dealt with only in the form of statutes.
From the attitude of some of the ministers, to say nothing of their supporters, it does not seem that they are very much impressed with the extent to which these arbitrary powers challenge the right of our free people to be protected by clearly stated laws which can be interpreted in the courts. If that is so, then the challenge is to every member on both sides of the house to say whether he believes in government by order in council or by the proper authority of parliament expressing itself in statutory form. They have a right and a duty to say whether they want the continuance of the snooper state,

or whether they want a return to the free, democratic processes that were themselves in issue in the war that ended nearly four years ago.
The amendment to the amendment presents limited objections to the conduct of the government, and what is stated in the speech from the throne. That in itself might be interpreted as a general want of confidence motion, but it also might be interpreted as simply limiting criticism of the government to those points that are set forth in the amendment to the amendment. I for one do not feel that it touches upon some of the most vital points that are before us, and particularly the right of parliament to assert its authority as against the right to govern by order in council. For that reason I think that the amendment to the amendment is inadequate. There is an amendment before the house which is a straight motion of want of confidence in the government. There is before the house an amendment which, unless someone is trying to evade his responsibility to vote against the government, or unless he is unprepared to vote against the government, presents a clear statement of the issue. I hope that some of those members on the government sidp, who have criticized orders in council procedure outside parliament, will take this opportunity to express their views according to their conscience. If they do, and the other bodies in the house express their want of confidence in the government as they have outside, then the government will be defeated by the vote and will go to the country, as it should, so that the people can restore responsible government in Canada.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned two weeks ago last Friday we had listened to the first address of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). If I had followed him that evening I should have liked to have congratulated him on his maiden performance, and to have made some comments on certain advice he gave to the house and to Canada. Although a couple of weeks have passed since then, I think one of his comments may bear some consideration. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, as reported at page 237 of Hansard, said:
In every country the communists have two great allies, social and economic injustice on the one hand, and political reaction on the other. If we can destroy these allies and build up a strong, healthy, and progressive society on a democratic foundation, we can destroy communism. That should be, I suggest, our purpose and our objective.
I submit that that is advice which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) might

heed, because I think it is well established that, in every country where the communists have found allies, social and economic injustices on the one hand and political reaction on the other have made it easier for them to gain support.
Shortly after the Secretary of State for External Affairs finished speaking, the Ottawa Evening Journal carried a story on housing conditions in Hull, just across the river. The heading is: "Paying no rent, 59 Hull tenants of doomed flats refuse to move." There are pictures of disgraceful housing conditions. I believe that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King), saw these homes every time he drove from parliament to his summer home at Kingsmere. The story in the Journal gives the name of one fifty-year-old invalid who lives in a single room with his wife and four children. The newspaper article reads in part:
The fifty-year-old invalid, who lives in a single room with his wife and four children, said residents of the rotting, city-owned, frame structure did not intend to arm themselves and barricade all doors, but added "we all mean business."
He was commenting on the fact that they were not going to move out and live under the skies until alternative housing had been provided. This particular gentleman goes on to say:
X guess I am in a worse spot than the others. My wife and I sleep on a studio couch, while my two boys and two girls have to sleep in a single bed. There is not much room for furniture in our one-room flat. All we have are a table, a few chairs and a wood stove.
Another of the residents is quoted in the article as saying:
That is the best news I have heard since I moved in here three years ago. I am looking forward to the day when we can say good-bye to this firetrap and its vermin, rats, mice and cockroaches.
The article refers to still another occupant who lives in two rooms with her twelve children and elderly mother. With regard to her the story has this to say:
All tenants welcomed the thought of moving "as long as decent accommodation is provided us."
I submit that stories of that type in Canadian newspapers present evidence that we have social and economic injustices in Canada. In the Ottawa Journal of December 6, 1948, I find another story. The heading is: "Sells five new homes for $100,000". It gives the name of a well-known builder and contractor who has just completed the construction and sale of five new homes. The article reads:
These homes are of distinctive and striking designs, sturdy construction, well laid out and particularly well insulated. The price of these homes runs over $100,000.
29087-47!
The Address-Mr. Nicholson
That is for the five of them, an average of over $20,000 per unit.
Some of the said homes have library, built-in breakfast nook, playroom in basement, master bedroom has private bathroom, also extra bedroom and washroom on ground floor. Some have dish and clothes washing machines with drier, exhaust fans and garbage disposal units installed in the kitchens, and many other modern built-in features for easy housekeeping and solid comfort.
I must remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in one edition of the Ottawa Journal we have a story of the disgraceful conditions which exist for these Hull tenants, pictures of which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of February 4, and in another edition we are told of five houses having been purchased recently at a cost of $100,000. I submit that while there are houses being built and sold to one group of our Canadian people at a price of $20,000 each, and you have slum conditions remaining undisturbed year after year, you have a situation which breeds communism. In the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of July 18, 1947, there is an editorial headed: "Action on housing needed".
It seems ironical that nations which can produce atom bombs, develop radar and thousands of other wartime inventions, and send planes circling the globe in a matter of hours-feats which our ancestors of one hundred or two hundred years ago would have thought fantastic-have lost the knack, which those long dead pioneers had, of putting up homes without draining the family's financial resources dry.
A great many young men and women who fought for Canada, who fought to save their homes and to get homes, find it very difficult in 1949 to understand why the nation that could do all these marvellous things from 1939 to 1945 now seems so helpless when it comes to dealing with our housing problem. Last year the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) mentioned that the cost of defence was going up, and that one of the commitments he had authorized was a $600,000 gun. I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) state that defence now is very costly, that every time we take three hundred men into the armed forces we increase our national expenditure by $1 million per year. I think the time has come when those who are responsible for appropriating funds in this parliament must find money with which to tackle our slum clearing -and housing problems in the same way we tackled our defence expenditures in time of war.
When I have discussed the question of housing in previous years I have made the mistake of leaving the important matter of rural housing until the end. Unlike the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) I have not unlimited time at my disposal, so today I plan

The Address-Mr. Nicholson to make my reference to rural housing before reaching the end of my time. In 1944 Professor Arthur, who was a member of the committee appointed by the government to prepare the well known Curtis report, gave an interesting lecture on housing for Canada. In the section devoted to farm housing he drew attention to the fact that Canada needed at least one hundred thousand new houses for our farm folk to replace obsolescent homes and at least another twenty-five thousand to provide separate units for farm families. In his comment he said:
We are inclined to assume too readily that the farmer and his family are happy with their outhouse, their oil lamps, lack of refrigeration and lack of bathing facilities except where provided by a galvanized basin. Of the total farm buildings in Canada (730,000), 677,100 or 92-7 per cent were without bathing facilities and 92 per cent lacked flush toilets.
I want to suggest to the new minister of reconstruction (Mr. Winters), who soon will be confronted with the problem of providing employment for Canadians, that the installation of bathing facilities and flush toilets in 92-7 per cent of the farm homes of Canada should provide an outlet for a great deal of material as well as employment for a great many artisans. Professor Arthur referred to the tables showing the condition of farm houses all across the country, and it is a picture of which we cannot be very proud. I am sure many of our young people have left the farms and gone to the cities because it has been so difficult to get running water, electricity and modern conveniences in the farm homes of Canada.
Of course I realize that this is partly an economic problem. If the farmers could have a fair share of the national income over a period of years I am sure many of them would modernize their homes. But unfortunately the farmers have not been receiving a fair share of the national income, and consequently	a	fair	share	of	the	material	and
labour used in the construction of homes has not gone into farm homes. In one of the green books prepared for the dominion-provincial conference in 1945, entitled "Public Investment and Capital Formation" some very interesting information may be found relating to the percentages of the gross investment, according to types, over a number of years. The percentage of building materials used on farms was shown as follows:
1926		 5 1
1927		 4-8
1928		 4-5
1929		 3-6
1930		 2-8
Since	1930	it	seems	that	the	farmers,	who
comprise between twenty-five and thirty

per cent of the population, have had to get by with about three per cent of the total volume of construction.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: At six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to public investment and capital formation in Canada, and I had mentioned that not since 1926 had the farmers of this country more than 4 per cent of the total amount spent on building materials used on farms; and I concluded that, since from 25 per cent to 30 per cent of Canadians reside on farms, that fact would indicate that we have not been able to get a large enough share of the material or manpower to deal with farm building programs.
In the Curtis report at page 207 there is an analysis of the information compiled in 1941, following the taking of the last census. We are told that the average value of all farm buildings in Canada was $1,481. This was down from $1,843 in 1931 and $1,943 in 1921. The average value of the farm houses in 1941 apparently, in the opinion of the farmers, amounted to only $1,095. I possibly should observe that 1940 was a fairly difficult year for farmers in all parts of Canada. Many farmers, if they had been offering their farm holdings for sale, would have been unable to get for farm and buildings a price that would pay for the original cost of the buildings. So when the farmers were asked to place a value on their farm buildings, it is not surprising that they suggested an amount much less than the replacement value. I might also mention that these figures were arrived at after taking a sample of every tenth farm in Canada.
In his report Curtis comments on the fact that even those figures indicate low standards, poor structures or facilities, or deterioration, or something of all of them. More than 40 per cent of the farm buildings in Canada were in need of external repairs in 1941. All across Canada, in every province, the census reports indicated that farm buildings were in a bad state of repair. My own constituency had an extremely undesirable record at that time. I am happy to say that, because of improved farm prices since the war, I am sure there has been a great improvement. In Mackenzie there were 44,000 people living on farms, and there were 13,000 non-farm people. We found that our people had 3-4 rooms per dwelling and that there were 4-6 persons per dwelling. The average value of these houses was $656 on the farms, and $813, non-farm. Of the houses on farms, 2'4

per cent had furnaces whereas the percentage for non-farm houses was 9-6. If you take into consideration these modern conveniences, which are taken for granted in most of our cities-radio, automobile, telephone, and vacuum cleaner-one farmer out of 1,000 and 6-6 out of 100 of the non-farm people had them.
I submit that these statistics give some indication of the potential market that is available in Canada if the dominion government, the provincial governments, and the municipal governments will face up to the solving of Canada's rural housing problems. I admit that the federal government is able to produce statistics which would indicate that more houses were built in 1948 and in 1947 than in any other years in our history. But later on I hope to say something about the fact that 90 per cent of the houses that have been built were going to the 10 per cent of people who needed shelter least, and that not more than 10 per cent of the houses built were being made available to 50 per cent of the people who were urgently in need of better housing. In concluding my references to rural housing, I should like to urge that the National Housing Act be made more extensively available in the rural areas in Canada.
The 1948 report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not been supplied to hon. members, but when the report was tabled a year ago we read that no applications were received in 1947 for farm loans. I have on the order paper a question which has not been answered yet, asking how many were received in 1948 and how many were completed. Last year no formal applications were received from co-operatives. I submit that the federal government should take the initiative in encouraging farmers and cooperatives to make use of national housing legislation.
In the Curtis report there is an interesting sectioh dealing with housing for farm labourers. Information is supplied here indicating the insecurity which confronts farm labourers in most parts of the country. In every province we have a great deal of difficulty in finding farm labour at busy seasons of the year. If Canada were prepared to make some advance in granting assistance to farmers or to communities to plan and build living quarters for farm labourers, I am sure that some progress would be made in solving this problem.
One further suggestion that I believe has a good deal of merit has been to the effect that direct subsidies on specialized goods should be provided for rural housing, such as furnaces, plumbing equipment, electrical supplies and refrigeration. Let me remind the
The Address-Mr. Nicholson house that we have approved a subsidy of nearly half a million dollars to Crane Limited, but this parliament took no interest in finding out what happened with regard to this subsidy. We have no way of knowing whether the materials produced as a result of this subsidy went into extra bathrooms in these $20,000 houses about which, just before the dinner recess, I read from the Ottawa Journal. I think it would be much more desirable to have the subsidies used so that we would have an improvement in our rural housing situation.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend talks about these $20,000 houses. Has he any knowledge that this money went into the extra bathrooms?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Before the dinner recess-


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right for the boys back home, but not here.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: As I was saying, before the dinner recess I read from the Ottawa Journal a statement to the effect that five houses were sold in December in Ottawa for over $100,000, or over $20,000 per unit. The story also mentioned the fact that some of these houses had extra bathrooms. That was one of the features. Rather than supplying subsidies to Crane Limited so that they could put extra bathrooms in $20,000 houses, I think it would be much better to provide subsidies so that farmers, fishermen or people in the slum areas in our cities could have the direct benefit of them.


Humphrey Mitchell: That was not the point. The hon. member is just skating around it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I cannot hear the mumbling of the Minister of Labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not mumbling. I want to say that I do not think it is fair-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my time is expiring.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: What my hon. friend is saying is all right for consumption back home; these speeches are printed for consumption back home.


Mr. Maclnnis:: The people back home hear the minister, and they do not like what they hear. They will let him know that shortly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister will then have to find a home.


Donald MacInnis: He will have to try to find a home.

The Address-Mr. Nicholson Mr. Nicholson: My time is passing quickly, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to say something about an urgent problem that confronts so many Canadian people. During the dinner recess I was glad to read that the Prime Minister has changed his attitude. I think he made an unfortunate statement about a year ago to the effect that no government of which he was a member would take any part in a low-rental, subsidized-housing scheme. But in Toronto, over the week-end, he indicated that he at least has an open mind. In the Toronto Telegram of today I read the following:
Although the federal government has no intention of becoming a landlord to civilians, Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent hinted today that the dominion may provide additional financial assistance for low rental housing projects initiated provincially or municipally.
Mr. St. Laurent did not indicate in detail what form the extra housing assistance might take but, in a general way, it was evident that he will propose an extension of slum clearance grants from the federal treasury.
His statement was significant in view of the fact that about an hour earlier, he and Mayor Hiram McCallum had visited the Regent park housing project.
At this stage I should like to thank again the Toronto board of trade for the very interesting tour they arranged last year when members of parliament were in Toronto. On some occasions of that sort people who are your hosts take you only to the best residential areas in the city, but our hosts in Toronto took us to the Regent park area, and I am looking forward with a great deal of pleasure to going back to see what has taken place in that slum area since we were there a year ago. I continue with the quotation. The Prime Minister said:
"I believe I am correct in saying that it is the first time in Canada a municipality has undertaken a large scale project to look after the housing needs of low income families.
The Regent park project demonstrates that, when the local authorities really mean business, they can secure the effective co-operation of the provincial and federal governments."
The Prime Minister plainly made a courtly and pleasant bid for Toronto's favour. At another point in his address he declared that: "The city of Toronto has given an outstanding example of the practical way in which governments can work together in the public interest."
"Perhaps," he added, "you will excuse me for saying that there was so much goodwill between the city and the federal government that it overflowed and brought in the provincial government as well."
I am delighted to find that the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition are on such friendly terms that they go to the city of Toronto and together take some credit for the fact that they were even able to work out for the Toronto municipal authorities the program which has been carried on there and which is going to result in about 1,000 low-

rental houses being made available to these people who are living in the Regent park area. I understand that the area where the houses are to be demolished contains forty-one acres. They have undertaken to house everyone living in that area and about 200 additional families. In addition to having grounds for flowers and vegetables around the units, they are going to have about ten acres in park land in that project. While funds have been used from the federal treasury, and while Toronto is one of the wealthiest cities in Canada, yet as a member representing a rural constituency I am glad that Canada has made a start and that Toronto is going to show the rest of Canada what can be done when municipal, provincial and federal authorities bury their prejudices and work out a program to serve the best interests of the greatest number.
I have a few newspaper clippings from across the country to indicate how general the interest is in facing up to the housing problem which confronts so many of our people. The Financial Post carried an interesting story on July 19, following the representations made by the mayors association in trying to get the federal government to meet with representatives from the provinces and the municipalities to work out the details. The Evening Times of Saint John of June 23, 1948, carries a story which reads as follows:
Low-rentals housing plan still problem. The Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities today was faced with four choices in its efforts for a low rent program in Canada.
"If our analysis of the situation is correct," he said, "then we can conclude that the outlook for minimum standard low-rental housing for low wage families, as part of the national over-all house construction program, is a doubtful prospect until the federal and provincial governments have come together and resolved a program of action."
The Ottawa Evening Journal of June 24 carries a story from Halifax where the mayors had their annual meeting. From the Winnipeg Citizen of September 27, 1948, we get the following story written by Beland Honderich, financial editor of the Toronto Star:
The federal government's advisory committee on post-war reconstruction recognized this point in its housing study. In its report to the government in 1944-four years ago-the housing subcommittee bluntly stated that the provision of adequate low-rental housing was essential to the solution of the shortage. It said:
"The proportions of the post-war (housing) program which will be supplied through publicly assisted building for ownership and publicly assisted low-rental housing will depend on a number of factors . . . But that a very large and long range program of low-rental housing must be contemplated is an inescapable conclusion from the available facts."
With such a detailed and authoritative report to guide them, the inactivity of the various levels of government is a bit difficult to understand. Equally disturbing is the attitude of acting Prime Minister

St. Laurent. For In face of this report, he said in a speech last November:	. . no government of
which I am a part will ever pass legislation for subsidized housing."
If Mr. St. Laurent's statement means what it says, then the solution to the housing shortage is a long way off. In fact, it is hopeless. For the provincial and municipal governments alone cannot be expected to carry the financial burden of low-cost housing. The cost is too great.
I have also a story from the Halifax Mail of March 28. I have several more that I will not have time to discuss.
I should like to refer for a moment to a section of the Curtis report dealing with the position in which many of our low-income families find themselves. In 1941, in connection with the taking of the census, a special study was made in twelve metropolitan cities in Canada. These cities contain 60 per cent of the urban population of the whole dominion. They went to 834,000 dwellings and found that 530,000, or two-thirds of them, were rented. They found that one-third of this very large number living in rented accommodation received an annual income of $703. The .second third had an average income of $1,389. The one-third who were getting $1,800 or thereabouts were able to look after their own accommodation but for at least two-thirds of these 530,000 families in the twelve metropolitan cities we find that their income was quite inadequate to provide food, clothing and shelter. It is a well established principle in all countries that not more than 20 per cent of one's income should go for rental, or if one is buying one should not pay more than two years' total salary for a house. On this basis we find 88 per cent of the people in the lowest income brackets in these rented houses were paying a disproportionate amount for their living quarters. For example, those who were getting an average of $703 a year were paying $7.28 per month more than they should have paid for living quarters. About 50 per cent of those who were getting an average of $1,389 were also paying more than they should have paid for rent. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the fact that in Canada we have a large number of people on salaries and wages fixed so low that they are unable to buy or rent living accommodation presents a very urgent problem to all of us.
In 1919 a special commission was set up to look into the unrest which existed all across Canada. In reporting, the late Mr. Justice Mathers said:
Another cause of unrest which we met with at practically every place we visited was the scarcity of houses and the poor quality of some of those which did exist.
A number of years passed without anything being done. In 1935 parliament set up a special committee to study the housing
The Address-Mr. Nicholson problem. The hon. member for Broadview is the only member of the present parliament who was on that committee. He has been able to survive three federal elections since that time. Naturally the hon. member was keenly interested in housing problems and said:
As you know, this country cannot solve any problems at all because of its "passing-the-buck" act, the British North America Act; it cannot settle any problems at all, except objectively. If we want to do something in this committee we need to get busy, particularly because spring is coming; and I do not think many of the municipalities are able to go ahead on their own. Men are waiting for jobs and cannot get them.
That was in 1935. Spring is coming again, and very little has been done by way of dealing with the problem, which concerns so many people.
One of the cities discussed upon that occasion was Cleveland. The committee took the trouble to hear evidence from Cleveland, where they had made a study of slum problems, and from that city the committee obtained statistics showing what it had cost to maintain the slum area over a number of years. I am happy to say that in the United States, as a result of the progressive leadership of the late President Roosevelt, they passed legislation in the thirties, when we were paying large sums of money to keep carpenters and plumbers on relief. In the United States they decided that it would be better to clear away their slums, to build new houses than to pay people to do nothing, and Cleveland was one of the places where they took action.
When one stops to consider the wretchedly unsanitary and unsocial conditions formerly existing in these slum areas, which have been eliminated; the ramshackle frame buildings, which have been torn down; and then goes into one of these neat new apartments with steam heat, hot and cold water, sanitary plumbing, with modern laundry facilities, well-lighted and ventilated rooms, good sidewalks with growing trees, green grass and shrubs, assembly halls, club rooms and nursery and kindergarten rooms; playground equipment, tot lots with sand boxes for the youngsters

all away from the noise and danger of street traffic-he begins to realize the fundamental nature of these improvements.
Furthermore, private charity in one year poured into this slum district $490,836 to supplement the city expenditures. Fire protection in this area cost the taxpayers $18.27 per capita previously, while the average in the city was $4.37. It would be difficult to estimate the incalculable losses in physical

The Address-Mr. Nicholson health, social morale and political domination, which always result from slum areas and bad housing.
I am sorry I have not enough time to deal at some length with the municipal housing program in Toronto. Before concluding however I should like to refer to a publication entitled "Rents for Regent Park", a study made by Humphrey Carver and Alison L. Hopwood, which provides a pattern for the Toronto housing association, determining rents which should be paid. They refer to the system followed in Birmingham, where the central government provides a subsidy of $66 a year for each of the families which have been rehoused, and Birmingham provides $22. So that the monthly rental is $15.13 for modern houses. Mr. Carver refers to some of the projects in the United States where they follow a pattern of taking approximately 20 per cent of an individual's income for rent, the balance being paid partly by the central government and partly by the association. In other words, if one were receiving an income of $1,100 he would pay $26 for the smallest type apartment.
In Australia they have a similar plan, where the central government provides three-fifths of the cost, by subsidy, and the state government two-fifths. The municipality of course is charged with the responsibility of managing and servicing the area. Professor Carver worked out an elaborate program which will be in effect in Regent park, I understand. Those who get $80 a month, if they have six children, pay only $19 a month, made up of $11 rent plus $8 for service charges. And if one lived in the same quarters, and had an income of $299 a month, he would pay $62 a month. I believe that is a fair and sound principle, namely, that the individual should pay according to his ability, in connection with these projects in which the federal government, the provincial government and the municipality have an investment.
In concluding I would urge again that the dominion government act on the suggestions made by the association of mayors, the Canadian Legion and many other organizations. A conference of the dominion, provincial and municipal authorities should be convened immediately to discuss around a table just where we go from here. I believe the least the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) can do is to take the initiative in calling the conference.
It must be pretty obvious that these are responsibilities for the federal government. It is the federal government which decides where war industries will locate, which decides that farmers are to get such low 
prices that farm boys must go to the cities and thereby create housing problems in those cities. The federal government must take some responsibility and part in financing and making grants for rent reduction funds and for slum clearance.
The provincial governments also have responsibilities. They must direct the use of the land. They must enact legislation authorizing the establishing of local housing authorities. They must encourage and legislate both for housing and for community planning. They must be prepared to undertake the actual execution and management of housing projects in rural areas and in scattered communities. The municipal authorities, I believe, are the natural ones to establish the local authority charged with the building and operation of the public housing projects. They must take the responsibility for acquiring the land, preparing the designs, the letting of contracts on a competitive basis and maintaining the project in good repair. They must be responsible for the selection of tenants, the collection of rents and the general well-being of the tenants.


Mr. Case:: Does the hon. member intend to include the nationalization of farm lands?


Mr. Coldwell:: Oh, well, don't be silly.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member knows my position very well. I have never advocated the nationalization of farm lands, nor has any member of this group ever advocated it.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like first to join with other hon. members in complimenting the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) who moved the address in reply, and the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Demers) who seconded it, upon the very excellent speeches they delivered in carrying out their important function in this regard.
The hon. member for Essex West has spoken well in the house before. His contribution was well prepared and well delivered, in accordance with the standard his colleagues expected of him. On the other hand, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains had the more exacting task of delivering his maiden speech in the house. I am sure the electors of his constituency have been proud to learn of the exceedingly fine contribution he made; and the ovation with which the conclusion of his remarks was hailed was a tribute not only to a most excellent maiden speech but also to the good judgment of all those who sent him to represent them here.
Most sincere congratulations also are due to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) upon

his selection by his party to assume the heavy responsibilities he has undertaken, also on the magnificent speech which he delivered in this debate, a speech which has been hailed on all sides as a tour de force and which to his followers and well-wishers, both within and without this house, has been and will continue to be a source of inspiration and extreme gratification.
Turning now to the speech from the throne I should like to discuss several matters which I think are of particular interest to my province and to the constituency of Halifax, which I have the honour to represent along with my colleague (Mr. Isnor). Halifax is a city which in the past has been touched by the hand of war. Throughout its 200 years of history it has been closer to the succession of armed conflicts which have marked these two centuries than any other part of the territory which now comprises the Dominion of Canada. Against this background of the awareness of the realities of war there will be throughout the province of Nova Scotia general agreement with the statement of government policy in connection with matters that are in the sphere of international relations.
A large majority of the people of Nova Scotia will have welcomed also the elaboration of government policy in this regard which was provided by the Prime Minister when he set out the measures which this government and the Liberal party consider it is necessary to take in the interests of the peace and security of this nation.
The north Atlantic security pact is accepted, I think, by the people of my province as a necessary and wise precaution to ensure that any potential aggressor will be faced by a united group of free nations before, rather than after, such an aggressor may have become committed to a policy which would make inevitable the outbreak of a third world war. We regard this treaty, and I think the majority of the Canadian people so regard it, as a realistic attempt to prevent the course of our dealings with today's aggressive dictators following the melancholy and fatal course which was followed in the dealings with Hitler and Mussolini. In these days of tension between the east and the west we run the risk of war, but it is a calculated risk which most people agree is one that we must accept and undergo if we are to hope for the future firm establishment of peace.
The house and the country appreciate the excellent maiden speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). His speech was such that I feel somewhat presumptuous in complimenting him upon it, but I do so most sincerely and wholeheartedly.
The Address-Mr. Dickey
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) spoke in this debate on the first occasion for some two hours and twenty minutes. During that speech he found it possible to devote less than one hundred words to the all-important question of external affairs. He spoke for forty minutes two weeks ago Friday night, and today he spoke for two hours and fifteen minutes. It is almost unbelievable that in that time the simple but today expressive words "north Atlantic security pact" are not to be found from the beginning to the end of his remarks.
The leader of the opposition in the meantime explained this omission on the ground that he did not feel free to discuss this pact until the pact itself had been brought before the house. The strictness with which hon. members who sit around him have observed the same reticence in their contributions to this debate marks this as a matter of party policy rather than the personal opinion of their leader. In spite of any virtue which thal explanation may have in point of ingenuity I am satisfied that it will not commend itself to this house or to the country as deserving of belief. It seems to me to lack completely the characteristic of reality which is a condition precedent to credibility. To follow the diplomatic phraseology of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, it does not command respect.
For example, we find it impossible not to ask ourselves how this ingenious explanation can be made to coincide with statements made in other circumstances by hon. members opposite with respect to the supremacy of parliament and the importance of this debate on the address. We heard further statements of that nature this afternoon. It is not difficult to imagine what the reaction of the same hon. gentlemen would be if such a limitation were attempted to be imposed from this side of the house. However, it is not necessary for us to rely upon our powers of imagination. The leader of the opposition, and much more particularly his followers, have discussed, with commendable freedom of choice, the measures and matters forecast in the speech from the throne, with the sole exception I believe of the north Atlantic security pact.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Is the hon. member aware of the stand of the United States on the north Atlantic security pact?


John Horace Dickey: That is a matter of United States government policy that will be announced in due course. There is another point which I do not think will go unnoticed. After the leader of the opposition had spoken on Friday in the manner which I have described -he has spoken twice since then in the

The Address-Mr. Dickey same manner-on the following Tuesday he moved the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance. What was that matter? It had to do with Canada's participation in the north Atlantic security pact. What had occurred in the intervening four days to make this matter, which, although mentioned specifically in the speech from the throne was not on Friday accorded even a passing reference, on Tuesday a definite matter of urgent public importance? The explanation given to the house by the leader of the opposition was that a statement had been made, and reported in the press, some weeks before by an hon. member on this side of the house referring to the fact that the conclusion of the Atlantic pact would be accompanied with some risk of war with Russia.
Does the leader of the opposition wish the people of this country to believe that up until reading that statement in the press it had not occurred to him that the negotiation of a treaty of this importance might carry with it the danger that some country or countries might make it the pretext for hostilities? I venture to suggest that, if that was so, the leader of the opposition is the only person in this country, or for that matter in any country, who has given this matter any thought at all and has come to such an extraordinary conclusion.
I think most hon. members will agree with me that the signing of the north Atlantic security pact is not absolute insurance against war; it is merely our best chance of avoiding
war.	If war does come, it will be a war that
was,	unknown to us, inevitable in any event.
I for one consider extremely significant the pointed and obviously intentional avoidance of any mention of the north Atlantic security pact by the leader of the opposition and other members of his party who have already spoken in this debate. They have not referred, either to support or to condemn, to the clearly stated and courageous policy of the government, which is following what it considers to be the path best designed to secure for this country the peace and security which all the people of this country so passionately desire. The silence on the part of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and those who sit behind him, is something which the people of the part of the country from which I come, the province of Nova Scotia, will not appreciate, but will in fact deeply resent. Perhaps there is no part of the country which takes its politics more seriously than the province of Nova Scotia. When political considerations and tactics in relation to a byelection campaign, or even in relation to a

general election campaign, are carried to the extent of muzzling a whole national party and its entire representation in the House of Commons, preventing them from according a just share of attention to one of the most important questions of policy with which this house is faced, then those people who have the clearest appreciation of real political values will be among the first to register their complete disapproval of those mistaken and ill-advised leaders and their followers who can so easily lose sight of national interests and subordinate them to the most selfish of party motives.
This afternoon the leader of the opposition made a very strongly worded speech on the dangers of international communism, and communism within this country. With everything he said about communism we on this side of the house agree. He should not be too surprised to hear that, because what he said in that regard has been said before by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and others on this side of the house, during this session and in previous sessions.


An hon. Member:: Never.


John Horace Dickey: I should like to make a personal observation to the leader of the opposition. He spoke of the necessity of everybody in Canada doing their utmost to fight communism both within the country and in the international sphere. This is a personal opinion, but I say it with the utmost conviction. The best thing that the leader of the opposition could have done to contribute to the defeat of communism, both inside and outside Canada, would have been to have risen in his place, not today, not two weeks ago, but the first time he rose to join in this debate, to have taken into his hands the speech from the throne, to have read from it the words of government policy with respect to the north Atlantic security pact, and to have said, "I wish to tell the house and the country that I and my party are prepared to support the government in the conclusion of the north Atlantic security pact," and to have gone on to say, "I make this statement notwithstanding any other contrary statements that may have been made by the leader of my party in the province of Quebec." Actions still speak louder than words. As far as actions are concerned, I think that the anti-communist record of this government is pretty good. It is pretty good in an absolute sense and, when compared with the record of any government of which the leader of the opposition has been the leader, it is very good. When the present leader of the opposition became premier of Ontario in 1943 there were two communist members in that legislature. The last I heard, they were still

there. At the same time there was one communist member in this house. I would ask the leader of the opposition where that communist member is today. He is certainly not here. He is in fact undergoing what is cavalierly called durance vile, and it was the action of this government which made it possible to put the member for Cartier in the penitentiary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The former member.


John Horace Dickey: The former member for Cartier. I apologize to the present member for Cartier. The government received very little support from the members who now sit around the leader of the opposition for what it did at that time.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Nonsense.


John Horace Dickey: The leader of the opposition complained that there had been some criticism because he had discussed matters that were not mentioned in the speech from the throne. As I understood the criticism on that point, it was rather a complaint that he spoke so long and spoke so little about matters that were in the speech from the throne. He is at perfect liberty to talk about other things as well. But let us look at the speech from the throne and see what important matters with which he could have dealt, proceeding then to deal with other matters, in addition, as he pleased. There is the matter of fisheries, something that we in the maritimes regard as extremely important. There is the matter of agriculture, which is regarded as extremely important throughout Canada. There is the matter of domestic and external trade, a subject which we would like to hear the leader of the opposition and the members of his party discuss. Then there is the question of the administration of justice, and the question of veterans affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He did not have time.


An hon. Member:: Only six hours.
(Translation) :


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, I now wish to extend to the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Raymond) and to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde) my very special and most sincere congratulations for their splendid contributions to this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Horace Dickey: The hon. members have pointed out a fact of national importance and which the majority of the Canadians have come to realize, namely, that any desire for peace, however genuine, is not sufficient to avoid war.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
The Address-Mr. Dickey


John Horace Dickey: The sad lessons of the past have taught us to recognize the true nature of the views shared by those who are still credulous enough to trust in isolationism, that nefarious policy whose sole remaining followers perhaps are the most active disciples of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in the province of Quebec.
I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Wright for the manner in which he quoted the words of His Holiness Pope Pius XII on the moral aspect of war.
To any Christian, war is a moral problem which must be solved in his own conscience. The moral authority of His Holiness admittedly ranks among the highest in the world. And the policy which he outlined on December 24 last is in my estimation a source of inspiration to whoever is anxious to find a solution to this problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Horace Dickey: Unfortunately, there is today a marked difference between the ordinary life of man and his Christian life. I was therefore very happy to hear the hon. member so conscientiously applying those great principles of moral science to the political problems.
(Text):
In the speech from the throne reference is made to the co-operation which has been received from all the provinces in connection with the national health program announced last session. Nova Scotia is one of the provinces co-operating to the fullest possible extent in bringing to its people the benefits of this magnificent program. In the constituency of Halifax alone already two country hospitals, commenced through the initiative of the people of small but virile communities, have received assistance through the grants in aid of hospital construction. Under this plan contributions by both the dominion and the provincial governments have been made to hospitals at Sheet Harbour and Mus-quodoboit Harbour. The need for these hospitals was so great that, even before the national health program was announced, leaders in these communities had formulated their plans and organized themselves to provide in their localities the best hospital facilities that could be established. The,assistance under the hospital grants program has been of the greatest value to them in bringing their plans to realization in the form of substantial buildings with all modern facilities for the treatment and care of the sick, thus

The Address-Mr. Dickey filling a long-felt need in these communities. Their pride in their own achievements I know is mixed with feelings of sincere appreciation for the assistance provided through the national health program. I only hope other communities and districts in my own constituency and in other constituencies throughout this country will plan to take the utmost advantage of the assistance being made possible through the wholehearted co-operation of the dominion and provincial governments in this all-important matter of public health.
The forecast in the speech from the throne of measures to assist the Canadian shipbuilding industry is extremely welcome in Halifax, and the legislation the government intends to bring forward will be anxiously awaited. Halifax Shipyards Limited and other firms connected with the shipbuilding and ship repairing' trades in Halifax are extremely important elements in the industrial economy not only of our city and county but of the province and country as a whole. Through the efforts of both management and labour the capacity and efficiency of the Halifax shipyards were tremendously extended during the years of war, and it has been a source of great satisfaction to all those interested in the maintenance of prosperous conditions in Halifax that the activities of this great industry have been maintained at a very high level.
In this connection I would remind the house that Canada, particularly the maritime provinces, has a tremendous stake in the sea and the commerce of the sea. The citizens of Halifax realize how closely their prosperity is bound up with the fortunes of Canada as a maritime nation. The remarks in this debate by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) therefore call for some comment. I would remind the hon. member, and call the attention of the house to the fact, that the argument he adopted in reference to the difficulties presently being experienced by the operators of the Canadian merchant marine is regarded by many people who know the facts as nothing but communist propaganda. The hon. member's discussion and interpretation of the Canada Shipping Act and his exchanges in this connection with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) were amusing, but I do not propose to enter into any discussion of the statutory provisions to which they referred. I am speaking rather of what the hon. member had to say with respect to the possibility of the Canadian flag slowly disappearing from the seas.
To indicate to the house the opinion held by many people, not only in Halifax but in other parts of the country, with respect to the kind of argument put forward the other


evening in the hon. member's presentation to the house, I should like to quote from a story which appeared in the Halifax Free Press of January 28, 1949. The story is headed, "Communist propaganda floods Halifax and other ports." The subheading is, "Experienced seamen forced to stay ashore while landlubbers and 'one-trippers' get jobs thanks tc union." The story goes on:
In one of the most blatant propaganda hoaxes in recent Canadian history, the communist-run Canadian seamen's union has been flooding Halifax and other Canadian ports with misleading advertisements and handbills concerning the sale of Canadian ships and hiring of aliens to man ships purchased or chartered by foreign interests.
The story then lists a number of facts with which I need not burden the house, and then goes on to comment:
Ostensibly the CSU has tried to improve working conditions and wages for Canadian seamen, but the end result of CSU policy has been that, while the jobs are better, Canadian ships are being hounded out of business and the jobs go with them.
CSU supporters are spreading propaganda to the effect that wages make up only ten per cent or thereabouts of the operating expenses of Canadian ships, when thirty-three per cent would be nearer the truth. Moreover, union tactics prevent Canadian seamen from doing efficient work in shipshape fashion, thus forcing ships' maintenance cost to record heights.
The story then refers to the handbills mentioned earlier.
On Tuesday of this week landlubber members of the CSU distributed on the streets of Halifax a handbill allegedly printed in Montreal, which was entitled "Canadian seamen become D.P.'s!"
The advertisement stated that:
"This is what idle seamen and idle ships mean to Nova Scotia.
"It means more lay-offs for shipyard workers.
"It means jobless seamen.
"It means empty shipyards.
"It means less work for freight handlers, longshoremen and other waterfront workers.
"Halifax's prosperity depends upon a busy waterfront !
"Save Canada's merchant marine! Maintain employment in the maritimes."
This is all true, Mr. Speaker; there is danger of Canadian ships being driven from the seas. But the real argument is as to who is responsible for this unpleasant possibility and what can be done to remedy the situation. I would ask the hon. member for Cape Breton South and others who adopt his argument to have some consideration for those experienced Canadian seamen who have no sympathy with the radical views and destructive intentions of the leaders of the Canadian seamen's union. Men who have followed the sea for years find themselves unable to secure employment in their calling because of their fundamental disagreement with the union bosses. Their places have been taken by younger and less experienced men whose qualification is simply that they

are more inclined to listen to and agree with the radical views of those union leaders.
I would ask the hon. gentleman also to have some consideration for the men who, with great effort and ability, have built up the Canadian merchant marine. Often in this house the hon. member has pointed out that the profit motive is of importance to business men. I think he would be the first to admit from his experience that as long as the owners of a business find they can profitably keep it in operation, they will make every effort to do so and continue to make their profits. I know he will also have to admit that in the socialist state he advocates activities of a commercial nature will be carried on by the state with a close approximation of this attention to profitable operation. Recent experience in Saskatchewan has indicated that a socialist government will not hesitate to close down commercial operations which under existing circumstances it cannot see its way clear to continue. In view of this, does the hon. member expect this house or the country to believe that Canadian shipowners are intentionally destroying their own business, the Canadian merchant marine, while it is still possible to operate it under existing conditions?
The fact is that under existing conditions, brought about largely by the Canadian seamen's union, the operators of the Canadian merchant marine find that under present high costs they cannot continue to operate in competition with ships of other flags. If the Canadian merchant marine is to be saved- and it is of supreme importance, Mr. Speaker, that it be saved-it will be necessary for the shipowners and seamen to come to agreements which will permit Canadian ships to operate on a competitive basis with those sailing under the flags of other maritime nations.
There is one matter of some considerable national interest and significance to which I should like to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the house. On June 21 of this year the city of Halifax will celebrate the two hundredth anniversary of its founding in the year 1749. Halifax is the oldest English speaking settlement in that great portion of North America which is ndw the Dominion of Canada. An anniversary of this nature is a milestone in the life not only of the city itself but of the province of Nova Scotia and of the country as a whole. Patriotism and proper national pride find their firm and enduring basis in a long and proud history. We in this country have the advantage of enjoying an almost unique mingling of two main currents of history and culture. The city of Halifax and the city of Quebec share the leading roles in
The Address-Mr. Dickey these two histories. Throughout colonial times, these two cities, by reason of their early establishment and strategic situations, were the focal points about which the events of history revolved.
The story of Halifax's two hundred years as an organized community is preceded by a history of the use of its magnificent harbour as a haven for mariners and fishermen which goes back to the days of the earliest Norse voyagers. The whole of this history will be commemorated by the celebrations which will mark the observance of this bicentennial, and which will continue over a period of some two months. Halifax has been preparing energetically for many months to make suitable arrangements for appropriate commemoration of this event. Halifax hopes to welcome many visitors from all over this continent and elsewhere in this her bicentennial year. The best possible provisions are being made for the entertainment and accommodation of everyone who may find it possible to accept our most cordial invitation to attend our birthday party. I hope that many members of this house will do us the honour of paying us a visit.
Mr. Speaker, I have left to the end one extremely pleasant task, and that is to congratulate the three new ministers of the crown who joined the government during the recess. The selection of all three of these gentlemen to the honourable posts to which they have been called has been greeted with the most profound satisfaction. I shall perhaps be forgiven if I single out the new minister from Nova Scotia for a special word of congratulation and good wishes. The Hon. R. H. Winters follows hard on the heels of a minister of the crown of many years' experience, the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, who was a great Nova Scotian and a great Canadian. Looking into the more distant past, he follows a most illustrious line of ministers of the crown from Nova Scotia. In his exacting task I can say to the new minister that his colleagues in this house, and all those who know him, look to him with confidence to maintain the great tradition of those who have gone before him.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did I understand him to say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member wish to put a question to the hon. member for Halifax?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Then he must first have his consent.


John Horace Dickey: What was the question?
750	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Shaw


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Did I understand the hon. member to say that the government dealt with the former member for Cartier and had him sentenced to jail?


John Horace Dickey: To answer the question, I said that the government had taken action that made possible the sending to the penitentiary of the former member for Cartier, and received little support from the opposite side of the house in doing so.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The government had little to do with it. It was the court.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) has taken his seat. The hon. member who asked the question must not carry on a debate with him.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Although only three members have participated in the debate thus far today, Mr. Speaker, discussion has roamed over a wide field. During the time at my disposal tonight it is not my purpose to deal with all those, matters which have been mentioned, but I should like to make a special reference to the observations of the leader of the opposition when, this afternoon, he was discussing the question of communism. Each year during each session the members of the Social Credit group have constantly emphasized the dangerous situation which has developed in Canada as a consequence of serious communist infiltration. Undoubtedly there is a crying need for action to repel such advances. I should like to remind the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), who just finished speaking, that to me it is extremely significant that it has been during the tenure of office of the Liberal government that communism has been able to make such great headway in the Dominion of Canada.


An hon. Member:: You mean that it was
uncovered.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The right hon. member for
Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated as much last summer when addressing the Liberal federation convention here in this city. Naturally he did not state that it occurred during the Liberal administration, but it was an obvious deduction for any of us to make, that it occurred during that period of time. I think the Canadian people should be constantly alert to the dangers which exist as a consequence of the activities of those who, as I say, have infiltrated into our nation and threaten to destroy the very foundation upon which democracy rests.
With respect to the debate on the speech from the throne, it always seems to me that it is an extremely unhappy arrangement to adjourn the debate and then return to it


later on. It inevitably results in repetition. Goodness knows there is repetition enough without the additional repetition which comes as a consequence of the procedure which we have followed in the last few years. It does of necessity prolong the debate on this particular subject.
This year the speech from the throne was particularly significant in one respect, namely, the rather veiled inference that the Canadian people would enjoy reductions in taxation. It has also been indicated, Mr. Speaker, that this was an unusual thing to have occur. Of course, those of us who realize that an election cannot be too far away very quickly determined the reason for its having occurred this year. However, I would say to the Canadian people, knowing what most of us know about the many utterances of the government, that they should not feel too certain that the present expectations of theirs will bear the type of fruit which they would have them bear. Not only did the speech from the throne indicate the possibility of tax reductions, but several other hints have been given out. We know that certain very mysterious messages have come out of Liberal caucuses. I realize that these caucuses are supposed to be secret affairs. On the other hand, even though they are secret, I am sure that when some message designed to please the Canadian people should get out it will get out. For example, I am not so certain that the newspapermen were just guessing when they referred to certain things which had happened in the Liberal caucuses.
Those of us who listen to the radio also hear some very strange things sometimes.


Mr. Low:: Sources close to the minister.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes. I happened to tune in to the Minister of Justice quite by accident the other night and I heard him making certain references to tax cuts which could be expected. However, I am not going to try to repeat what I heard him say over the air, but I am going to quote the Ottawa Citizen of February 18, which referred to what the Minister of Justice had said. It is as follows:
Mr. Garson hinted indirectly at the possibility of tax reductions in the forthcoming budget. Defending the government's use of surpluses to reduce public debt he said this did not mean "we cannot have further reductions in taxes." He added, "because we have reduced debt we are in all the better position to keep down taxes. But the extent of these tax reductions is a matter of policy."


Solon Earl Low: Hope deferred maketh the heart sick.


Mr. Brown:: Amen.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Just about every second day there are in the press articles which are not, I would say, based upon mere flights of

imagination, also indicating that we can expect these tax cuts. To me it has been extremely interesting to observe that earlier in this debate private Liberal members have been popping up here, there and everywhere to assert that this year the government must lift at least part of the burden from the backs of the Canadian taxpayers and reduce taxes. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that is all right from the government's point of view, because it is realized by many that this is occurring in many quarters for the first time. I believe I know why some hon. members are doing that. They are now trying to create the impression in the minds of their constituents that during the past two, three or four years this has been the course of action which they have pursued. I assume that they will probably have these speeches printed and circulate them widely throughout their constituencies in an endeavour to create that impression. I am not saying that that is not good strategy, but I would say to the Liberal members that they should give their constituents a little more credit than they are giving them when they assume that they are not going to examine what happened a year, two years or three years ago to find out what their positions have been since the termination of hostilities.
Hon. members on the government side who are now urging tax reductions were fully aware that last year the tax burden was unnecessarily oppressive. They knew that last year. Surely to goodness the Canadian taxpayers have expressed themselves vigorously enough during the past couple of years. Moreover, I think hon. gentlemen over there were perfectly aware that the exemptions for the single and for the married taxpayers were scandalously low. They knew last year, and they knew the year before, that because of the application of sales taxes which inflate prices artificially, hidden taxes and a great number of nuisance taxes, the cost of living in this country was being kept at a level higher than was necessary.
It always amazes me that the government of this country, and hon. members supporting the government, yell about prices, and yet they have consistently refused to take any action either to make known what part of the prices was made up of taxation or to reduce these taxes and thus strike a blow for lower consumer prices.
Hon. members on the government side of the house have also been aware of the rank discrimination which has existed in these tax impositions. It is not necessary to go beyond just one or two examples. One of the most obvious is the special 25 per cent luxury tax. Go into a jeweler's store and ask him what
The Address-Mr. Shaw commodities are taxed the 25 per cent luxury tax, and he will show you a list of commodities. Come out of his store and go into an adjoining store. While you will not find exactly the same commodities, you will find commodities which by no stretch of the imagination can be put in another category, and yet they do not bear the 25 per cent luxury tax. It is my belief that one of the reasons for the jewelers complaining so vigorously about this 25 per cent tax is the fact that it is discriminatory in its application.
I might also refer to the high percentage increase of certain commodities. Take the soft-drink industry as an example. Take the lowly chocolate bar, which has been frequently mentioned in this house. If you take the total tax imposed upon these commodities, and work out the percentage of tax on the commodity, you will find one of the most outstanding examples of discrimination in the application of taxation.
In 1948 the Liberal members of the House of Commons knew, along with the rest of us, that living costs in Canada had reached an all-time high. They realized that the 1948 budget granted no significant reduction in taxation, and they were also conscious of the fact that it was estimated there would be a surplus of something of the order of $600 million; yet when the budget came down last spring I did not see members on the other side criticizing or condemning it. All of them seemed sufficiently satisfied with the tax proposals to give wholehearted support to government policy. All one has to do is to examine Hansard for May 27 of last year to determine where they stood on this matter of taxation.
I recall vividly last March moving an amendment to the speech from the throne. My amendment at that time was designed to do certain very specific things. I am going to refer to it because, so far as my colleagues and I are concerned, our position has not changed one iota with respect to that amendment. I would move it again tonight, if it were not for two factors, one that we already have two amendments, and the second that last year it was ruled out of order on the ground that it was not sufficiently abstract when dealing with a matter which might involve an expenditure of government money. On this ground 99 per cent of all the amendments moved in the House of Commons might be ruled out. Therefore, even if there were not two amendments already before the house, I would not go through the mockery of moving this one again tonight.
However, I am going to deal with it briefly. I argued last year that my amendment was

The Address-Mr. Shaw designed to contribute toward the stabilization of the Canadian economy. It had a second purpose, namely, to contribute toward meeting the existing crisis in living costs. I called first for exemption from income tax of incomes of married persons of $2,400 and less, and of single persons of $1,500, these to be progressively increased to $3,000 and $2,000 as production increased in relation to demand.
The second point in my amendment called for the elimination of the sales tax, and a substantial reduction in excise, processing and all other hidden and nuisance taxes. I emphasized at that time that the most vicious aspect of the sales tax was its cumulative effect from the time it started as a raw commodity until it reached the ultimate purchaser. I was pleased to hear an hon. member on the government side refer to this very point not very long ago. He gave specific figures and, as a businessman, he was in an admirable position to do so. I commend him for that information; and I shall also watch him to see how he votes if he does not get what he asserted the people should have.
Then we also called in our amendment for substantial increases in family allowances and, I would add, the removal of a number of discriminatory conditions which at present exist in connection with the application of family allowances. We pressed for increases in old age pensions, together with the elimination of the means test and a reduction in the pensionable age.
Before discussing in greater detail the matter of old age pensions, may I point out that in that same amendment we asked for adequate provision for all disabled adults, and selective subsidies, especially on food products and necessities of living.
May I for a moment discuss in greater detail the matter of old age pensions. I was delighted to learn that this year the government is going to reduce the pensionable age for women to sixty years and for men to sixty-five years, and remove the means test. I notice some eyes opening on the other side of the house; perhaps I should hasten to advise hon. members that I have not been let in on any secrets to which they should have been a party. No doubt many of them are aware of that to which I am now going to refer.
I have before me the February issue of the official organ of the old age pension organization in British Columbia. Let me emphasize that this is the February issue. I find from New Westminster this extremely interesting report, which states:
All roads led to New Westminster on Thursday, January 13, when No. 2 branch held open house for their annual banquet in the Eagles hall.


Then, after referring to those who were present, it states:
Mr. Tom Reid, M.P.-
Who, incidentally, is a parliamentary assistant, and would speak with greater authority than if he were just a private member-
-is reported as having said-
I shall read the paragraph just as it appears here, so that there may be no confusion- Mr. Tom Reid, M.P. in a brief address stated he fully expected that the federal government would revise the Old Age Pensions Act and bring in the following improvements: reduce the pensionable age for women to sixty years and for men to sixty-five years; abolish the means test. Mr. Reid-


Thomas Reid: I hope I am not disappointed.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Let me finish.
-Mr. Reid intimated that these improvements in the Old Age Pensions Act would be undertaken in the next session of the federal parliament which convenes on January 23.


Thomas Reid: The article the hon. member has read states what I said at that time, with the exception that I did not say it was going to be carried out. I said I fully expected that it would be.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It does not state here that it
would be carried out this session. It states the hon. member intimated that these improvements in the Old Age Pensions Act would be undertaken at the next session of the federal parliament.


Ernest George Hansell: Did he state whether it would be on a non-contributory basis?


Frederick Davis Shaw: That reference is not here, as to whether it would be contributory or noncontributory. However, knowing the hon. member as I do, I imagine he would fight for a non-contributory pension.
When I read that, I assumed that since the hon. member for New Westminster is a parliamentary assistant he would undoubtedly know more about it than other hon. members who sit about him, and that we might put more stock in this than might otherwise be the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Too bad he is not a minister.


Frederick Davis Shaw: That must have been great encouragement to old age pensioners and others who read this publication. I hope the hon. member for New Westminster will really fight to see that this becomes a reality in the present year. I know he has taken a worthy stand in the matter. May I assure him, and all other members on the government side, that they will have our support 100 per cent in that.
Earlier in the debate reference was made, I believe by the leader of the opposition (Mr. FEBRUARY 21, 1949
Drew), to the fact that in recent times Liberal members have been indulging in some rather questionable practices in the matter of securing votes in by-elections. Had this been only an isolated instance I could have forgotten it; but it looks as though it is becoming the pattern for the next general election.
Before referring to one or two of those matters, however, may I point out that this failure to cut taxes last year, the building up of a tremendous surplus and now the offering of all these plums, was ably dealt with by Mr. W. D. Kearns who, according to a press report, was secretary of the Liberal Association in the constituency of Rosedale, and a Liberal candidate at the 1945 general election. He just quit the Liberals the other day, and upon that occasion said this:
Tax reductions badly needed by the people were withheld for an election year. Now we shall see an attempt by the government to buy the people with their own money. I am against it.
That feeling has become pretty widespread in this country. I received a letter just the other day from Nova Scotia commenting upon the by-election in Digby-Annapolis-Kings. This man says:
There is a general feeling down here that the time has come for a change of government at Ottawa. I want to assure you that I concur in that view even though I am a believer in Liberal principles.
I think possibly our Liberal friends across the way should pay heed to some of these expressions which are emanating from all quarters of the country. A moment ago I mentioned that reference had been made to certain questionable practices in connection with procuring votes and that a while ago mention was made in this house of the Liberal convention which had been held in Alberta. According to the press, all Liberals in Alberta-the whole two hundred of them- attended that convention. A minister went out there, I assume to instil some hope where hope is conspicuous by its absence; to inspire enthusiasm among those Liberals who have no cause to be enthused.
The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) was sent out there, but I think he was the wrong minister to send. He was a new minister and he had been enmeshed in the administrative complications and entanglements which always result from twentieth century Liberal policies. He was embroiled in the confusion of his surroundings, being a Liberal cabinet minister, and when he got out there he said: I cannot even remember the party which Mr. Low represents in the House of Commons. So I say he was a bad choice to send out there. He said: You know, I do not know what Social Credit is; I do not know what it stands for. He made one or two similar observations. Of course,
The Address-Mr. Shaw as I said before, with his own complications and entanglements he could not be expected to take time to learn.
He went out to tell those Liberals in Alberta, those few deluded people, what they should do. He said that practically all the benefits received by the people in that province had come from the federal Liberal government. I can just imagine that as those Liberals sat there they were thinking of the iniquitous freight rate structure which drags so many dollars out of the consumer and drags so many dollars out of the producer. They must have been thinking of the iniquitous tax structure and the great burden of debt which Liberal policies have imposed on Canada, with their staggering annual payments in interest and other carrying charges.


Mr. Sinnoli:: Mr. Speaker-


Frederick Davis Shaw: The hon. member for Springfield interjects, but I say to him that at the present time he is only a political hitchhiker and is not supposed to know what his party stands for. Those people out there must have been thinking of the inadequate old age pensions and how, if it were not for the supplementary bonus of $7, the free hospitalization, the free medical, dental, optical and other services paid for by the province, some of them would actually starve to death with the basic pension which this government is pleased to make available to them.
I can imagine how the businessmen who sat in that meeting were cursing under their breaths because of the Liberal policies which have made pretty nearly every businessman in this country a civil servant without salary. They must also have been thinking of the losses sustained by the farmers of the west from time to time by virtue of Liberal government policy.
Getting back to the questionable methods to which I referred, the minister said that Alberta would get even more benefits than she was getting now if she sent representatives of a national and not a provincial party to the House of Commons. I should like the minister at his early convenience to name those additional benefits that Alberta would get if they elected more Liberals.
The inexperienced Liberal leader in the province, taking his. cue from the federal cabinet minister, went a little bit further in his enthusiasm. He said that the voters should side with the party they think is going to win so they will have a friend at court.


An hon. Member:: Who is the Liberal leader out there?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Harper Prowse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
754	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Shaw


Frederick Davis Shaw: I would say to the hon. gentlemen who are applauding that Mr. Prowse is a gentleman who at the present time is wandering in the political wilderness. There is no question about that. I think it is high time that the people of the country were made aware of some of these things. I have what Mr. Prowse said somewhere, but I will give his second statement without reading it. He said that while in the past Alberta had had only two Liberal members in the House of Commons she had received a fair share of federal government moneys, and more could be expected if more Liberals were sent to the House of Commons at Ottawa.
I know that "fair" means two things. It means not good and not enough. He is not going to admit that. On the other hand, it may be that he thought we were getting as much as we deserved in the light of what other provinces were getting and in the light of the total amount the federal government had to give out. What he was actually saying was: If you in Alberta will elect more Liberals we will give you more than your share of federal moneys. That is exactly what it resolves itself into. In my opinion that becomes nothing less than bribery.
I should like to read what the Calgary Albertan had to say about the statements made at this convention. They refer to the fact that Mr. Prowse must be a politician and can be expected to take the politician's viewpoint:
But still it was a shock to hear him make two particular points in an address to the recent Liberal convention in Calgary. One point was that the voters should side with the party they think is going to win, so they will have a "friend at court." The other was that Alberta, with only two Liberal M.P.'s at Ottawa, got a fair share of federal money, and could be expected to do much better by increasing its Liberal representation.
And then again:
But we would like to think that federal governments would distribute available moneys among the provinces with regard only to need and other such considerations, and without regard to how those provinces voted. We would like to think that voters would vote for what they thought was the best party, not the one with the best chance of winning. We would appreciate the federal Liberal party appealing to the Alberta electorate on its record and on issues and not on "having a friend at court" and getting government grants.
The next paragraph is significant:
Come to think of it, Alberta has been "agin" the federal government for going on to twenty-eight years. In all that time the contingent of Alberta M.P.'s has been in the opposition at Ottawa. Yet Alberta seems to be doing fairly well. Perhaps Mr. Prowse doesn't understand the people of this province.
That goes for my hon. friends opposite too. We have before us an amendment to the amendment to which I wish to refer just
	.

briefly. The first part of the amendment to the amendment calls for the orderly marketing of our natural products, and for their exchange for goods needed in Canada, and for the elimination of speculation in foodstuffs. We have no argument with that. Then they say:
We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for national health insurance.
In connection with that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that our conception of national health insurance is likely to be quite a different one from the conception of national health insurance held by my hon. friends of the C.C.F. In order that there may be no misunderstanding whatsoever I should like to make abundantly clear what kind of insurance we shall be voting for when we vote for the amendment to the amendment.
We have always taken the position that the health of every individual should be looked upon as one of our greatest natural resources. The healthy individual is able to make the greatest contribution to production, and to the arts and sciences. The physical well-being of every individual must, therefore, be recognized as of major concern and responsibility to the nation. During the war that concern and that responsibility were acknowledged by Canada. Our servicemen were provided with nourishing food, suitable environment and effective physical training, as well as with necessary dental, medical, optical and hospital services free of charge.


Solon Earl Low: By the people of Canada.


Frederick Davis Shaw: By the Canadian taxpayers. All the money came out of taxes imposed on the people of Canada. We claim that a national health policy is absolutely necessary, and it should include all health measures, and all citizens should have access to them regardless of means.
Poverty, leading to malnutrition, unsanitary slum conditions, drudgery and mental anxiety, are direct causes of physical and mental degeneration. Economic insecurity of those who live just above the poverty line encourages a false economy. Through fear, such people starve themselves or resort to cheap remedies in place of proper health services.
Because of a rising demand on the part of the people of Canada for health services available to all, suggestions of compulsory and contributory state health insurance schemes have come from various quarters. This involves compulsion, and regimentation of doctors, nurses and patients, and the people, with higher direct taxation upon all. Such a policy is, in our opinion, undemocratic and unsound economically. Social Crediters are

convinced that a national health policy must involve six things. They are:
1.	Steps toward abolition of poverty through the adoption of sound economic policies which assure a basic income to provide economic security in unemployment, sickness, disability or old age, and opportunity for a decent standard of living.
2.	Progress towards non-contributory national health services available to all citizens irrespective of means, without regimentation of patients, doctors or hospital authorities.
3.	Adequate grants-in-aid for the construction and maintenance of hospitals for curative services, and for all measures of sickness prevention, including research.
4.	Encouragement of voluntary mutual schemes of sickness insurance, supplementary to national health services, for occupational groups, communities and others.
5.	The systematic introduction of the principle of payment for keeping people in good health instead of placing the medical profession in the unenviable position of benefiting only in proportion to the ill health of the nation.
6.	Physical culture to be promoted as an essential aspect of the national life.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to reassert what I said earlier. We are ready to support the amendment to the amendment, but laying particular emphasis upon the statement I made that the type of national health insurance for which we shall vote is the type of national health insurance which I have just put on the record.


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne affords private members of the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss a redress of grievances. There are a great many grievances in this country today. I may say that one of them comes from the main tax-paying city of the dominion, Toronto. We have not had a representative in the cabinet since 1935 whereas we used to have four or five at one time from that large centre of industry, finance and education. In my opinion that is a mistake. I have no doubt there will be a change very shortly.
The old parties are just like old soldiers. They never die. They may be recreated, and all that kind of thing. I hope the day is not far distant when the party on this side of the house may be recreated because I am one of those who believe in a national government. I am in favour of a national government for our party in every province of the dominion. In two of the provinces they have what they
The Address-Mr. Church call a union government. One of them is in British Columbia. However, it may be that the coast will face invasion very shortly.
I am going to refer to the battle of the Pacific in a few minutes. I believe we would be far better off if we had a national Conservative government there. Then we could get something done regarding national affairs because, as I see it, in the Pacific coast province the only alternative is to vote for what you might call a quasi-government on the other side of the fence.
When the late Mr. Wendell Willkie was told after the 1940 presidential election that his views were contrary to his campaign speeches he ridiculed the idea and called it an insult because he said his former statements were only campaign oratory. I notice that President Truman is not slow to follow that example. According to what I read in the papers, and in the records of congress, since his election he has followed the example of Mr. Wendell Willkie regarding the Taft-Hartley Act, wage increases, and relations between labour and management generally. His words now are contrary to his campaign speeches. At the present time in all these involved matters he just wants to act the part of an umpire instead of taking sides. Therefore I say to members of the government, and all those on the other side of the house, that they may see the mote in our eye but they do not see the beam in their own eye.
One of the matters on which I wish to say something refers to the reform of the Senate. I should like some of the frontbenchers to listen to what I am going to say. I should like the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), and all the rest of them, to listen. I should like my friends the members for York West and York South to come back here because I am going to have something to say to the Minister of Transport. As I say, I should like to have the attention of the member for York South. I think it would be far better if he would leave the Minister of Transport and come over here, because I am going to refer to the lack of steam suburban service for the Toronto district which affects his riding.


Mr. Cockeram:: I shall be glad to listen.


Thomas Langton Church: I like the members of the
cabinet personally, but I say to this government that they may see the mote in the eye of those over here, but they cannot see the beam in their own eye. Talk about reform of the Senate, which has been referred to by my hon. friends to the left. On many occasions I was told in this house by the former Prime Minister that he would have a conference with the members of the other place to

The Address-Mr. Church see if they could not be given more work. Why, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for even a Victoria Cross holder to occupy a bench over in that other place. Some here spoke of moving the Senate over to Hull. 1 was not here that night. Then they spoke of moving them to the east block; and finally it was suggested in the house that they be moved to the printing bureau, which, it was said, would be a splendid place, since they would be in no danger there, with so many fire escapes on the building.
I believe the time has come when we should have some consideration for the province of Ontario. I am not one of those who try to get rich by being a member of parliament. Far from it. I think if I had stayed home altogether I would have been far better off. One of the things Canada should have learned from recent events is the tremendous popularity of the British royal family in this country. Another thing we must have noticed is the tremendous decline of the House of Commons as a result of surrendering its powers to the executive. Why that should be I do not know, but it is a fact, and unless there is a change in some of the newspapers, the radio and so on, so the people back home in our constituencies may know what is going on, we might just as well be meeting at times in secret, for all the people know of what is going on here.
The Canadian people rejoice in being subjects of His Majesty the King. As Canadians we are citizens of a free association of nations. The events last fall in Britain, including the illness of the king and the birth of a prince, made more apparent than ever the feelings of the Canadian people. And when Their Majesties visited Canada in 1939, nowhere did they get a better reception than in the province of Quebec. On her return to England the queen is reported to have said that the trip across Canada was something like a second coronation; and that was certainly due them for the good work they had performed.
I am more of a sportsman than a politician, and I want to congratulate one great citizen, Sir Donald Bradman, who was knighted by the king for his services to sport in general and to cricket in particular. I believe it was last New Year's day that a well deserved tribute was paid to that great Australian who has done so much for this old sport. Last June, July and August, when some members of this house were in England, they had an opportunity to see the Australian team defeat England. I have known him for a long time; he came to our city a few times, and I had a letter from him. He has become a household 
word, so much so that a prominent member of the British house, a Labour member who admires him, in speaking of the controls in force in that country, said an umpire might just as well try to show Bradman how to hold his bat as for the government to attempt some of the things it has been carrying on.
I was very glad to see that at its last convention my party advocated some measures of relief for the municipalities throughout Canada. One recommendation was that federal crown properties should pay some form of municipal tax for local services, such as fire and police protection and all the other things for which the city of Ottawa is paid half a million dollars. The provinces pay local taxes on their property, and it seems to me this government should do the same. I do not want our party to be called by any fancy prefixes or affixes. I am a Conservative first, last and all the time. I have no objection if the party wishes to add the word "Progressive" but I am too modest to call myself progressive, though I have brought before the house yearly many progressive measures. One of these was the national fuel policy, which I fathered in 1922. Another was parliamentary, constitutional, cabinet and law reform, one of the most important problems yet unsolved. Another was national flood control and irrigation, while another was oil pipe lines and petroleum development. I remember years ago when we had the floods in the Don river. The bridge collapsed and in later years we had to divert the Don. I also called attention to our three main problems of empire trade, defence and migration, and urged a cut of fifty per cent in all civilian estimates.
Today we have hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by outside boards and bodies without the authorization of this House of Commons. We never hear of the millions of dollars these people are spending over our heads, until we find it all charged up to the government. There is an old German proverb which says that saving is a greater art than spending. Saving is the essence of progress. We have an old proverb of our own, look after the pence and the pounds will look after themselves. That is still true; look after the cents and the dollars will look after themselves. Thrift is a great virtue. Who said that? Cicero. We should revive the old sense of personal responsibility in public affairs and see to it that the government does not squander our savings. We must never forget the old principle, that money must not be spent without representation, the disregard of which caused all the trouble in America which culminated in the Boston tea party. I

The Address-Mr. Church
referred to this point in the house last year, in regard to the winding up of the penny bank, which taught school children the importance of thrift.
I was very glad to see the suggestion that there should be an immediate restoration of the empire air training plan, especially in view of the statement made recently by Air Marshal Tedder in regard to Britain's position in the event of trouble. Then I believe there should be a housecleaning in the C.B.C., which has been a most mischievous institution. Nobody should have free time; everybody should pay. There are hundreds and hundreds of these employees, and some of them never had jobs before. Yet we in this House of Commons cannot find out anything about the salaries that are paid. Everyone knows the salaries paid in the House of Commons; everyone knows how much the judges are paid; yet these people are brought to Toronto from all over Canada to work for this corporation. Then think of the cheap and ridiculous nonsense that we hear from the C.B.C. board of governors. If I had my way I would dismiss the whole lot of them, with the exception of the member from Toronto, Fred Crawford, who is a very good man.
Reference has been made also to provincial rights. Look at the Sirois report, one of the most mischievous documents ever compiled. If we are to have unity in Canada we must have unity between Ontario and Quebec, the keystone provinces of confederation. Although before the second war those two provinces paid about 70 per cent of all the cash taxes, they received little or nothing in the way of expenditures. I am for provincial and municipal rights, first, last and all the time. I would apply the old Conservative doctrine, each for all and all for each, as a principle of confederation for the provinces. I believe in bonuses, subventions and subsidies, as a federal remedy to aid in part in solving all provincial wrongs. I am opposed to any more political railway rate structures, and to fastening them on the two central provinces. Ontario was the forgotten province so far as the Canadian National Railways were concerned.
For many years past I have been asking for steam suburban service like that which Montreal and every American city has. I have here in my hand timetables of the Canadian National Railways and of the Canadian Pacific Railway for the city of Montreal. In Toronto we have one train a day out to Lome Park. If we had some support we might get something better. When I was head of the city I raised this matter, but it has not been taken up since. I introduced a bill here. We compelled the old Grand Trunk railway, which was swallowed up by the Canadian National railway, to issue commutation tickets; because it was in Ontario that the old Grand Trunk railway made all its money. I would ask hon. members to look at the service in western Ontario and in the Niagara district. I succeeded in getting commutation tickets for Oakville, Brampton and some other places. Here is a list of trains of the Canadian National Railways in the Montreal district. If some newspaper would publish them, it might do some good. I am surprised that the Toronto press do nothing about this matter. If my suggestion were followed it would relieve the whole housing situation in the Toronto district. That would follow if we had in the Toronto district the same suburban service which Montreal has-trains every fifteen minutes out to Dixie, Lakeside and all those places, as they have to Lachine, Dorval and so on. The national railways should not have had its head offices in Montreal, but in the public-ownership city of Toronto. It was in Ontario that the old Grand Trunk made their money. What did they do? The province of Ontario suffered. It was then made the C.N.R. under Sir Henry Thornton, and they spent money like water. They would have given an air service to the sun, the moon and the stars if they had only been allowed to spend the money. What it simply amounted to was that Ontario got nothing. The result is that on both railways the situation is the same. I am really surprised, because there is nothing which would have increased housing, health and other services uiuic iu a ciiy of our size and done more for the benefit of the rising generation. We do not ask for anything just for fun. We ask that we get similar treatment, and we are not getting it from that railway at the present time.
I complained about the C.N.R. service in the Toronto district, and referred to the Canadian National railways disaster in my constituency at Riverdale and Degrassi street last June. At that time a freight train jumped the track and cattle wandered all over the district. I urged the railways to lessen the speed of trains on the viaduct. A similar accident happened a month or so afterwards at the King street subway. If a streetcar had been going past at the time, the train would have jumped over on the streetcar. Another accident of the same kind happened at the Parkdale station. There should be a new C.N.R. station at Sunnyside and north Parkdale, two of the most used stations in Canada. The accommodation at the two Parkdale stations and at the Union station for women and children and for the comfort of passengers and trainmen is a relic of the

The Address-Mr. Church past and is becoming a nuisance as compared with rest room accommodation in Montreal, Hamilton and London. I may say that I am glad to see them get something, but it was in Ontario that the Canadian National Railways made most of its money.
Since I entered the House of Commons I have had the unanimous support of labour. In the past I have had a great deal to do with labour and have settled many strikes. When the streetcar strike took place on the old Toronto street railway, I met a great man, Mr. Gompers, president of the American federation of labour, Mr. Mahone and Mr. Fitzgerald. Together we sat down and with others settled that strike.
I may say that in conjunction with my late beloved friend, Mr. Woodsworth, when I first came to parliament I introduced a motion in favour of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. I happened to be the president of the union of Canadian municipalities when we were urging this thing in the early 1920's and before. We had hundreds of employees in the various departments in the city of Toronto, with a payroll running into millions of dollars. Some of them went to the first war and afterwards returned to their old positions in the city's service. Then we had the school board, public utilities, the harbour board, and hydro, and later on, the transportation commission, all with a large number of employees and a big payroll.
Before the present government introduced the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1940, some of the municipalities in Ontario went to Queen's Park, Mr. Hepburn then being premier, and we were told that under the Municipal Act we could not legally pay our employees on retirement $12 a week, as we used to on pension for many years. It was little enough, goodness knows, but we were told we had no power to do it and that it was quite wrong. I do not want to impose any undue burden on the employer; far from it. Unemployment insurance has been a splendid thing for the country. There were certain defects in the law and they were cured last session. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) did good work on it, and the municipalities suggested some changes in the act, which he made.
Never has the House of Commons been faced with graver issues than now. At the present time we face the most serious economic disaster and a very direct military threat, as we go on pretending we have security. We also err, as does the United States, in taking Britain's supremacy of the seas for granted. There is only one path to take, and our Ottawa government will not follow it, namely, empire consolidation, which stood us so well in two long wars.


Why is any scheme of internationalism, however absurd, adopted by Ottawa instead of finding real security within our own family members in the dominions and crown colonies? The United Nations is heading us into a third war, and the west as yet is now no match for the east. Canada will soon learn the sham of depending on Washington's aid alone, without the aid of Britain and the empire, which protected us for four centuries.
Stalin's Russia is as dangerous to the peace of the world as was Hitler's Germany; and Russia, by waging a weaponless war, has already conquered huge areas of Europe and Asia. I find an analogy between the failure of the United States and Britain to occupy Berlin, and the failure of Hannibal to enter ancient Rome when only fifteen miles away. The next year Carthage was destroyed.
I note that 38,000 tons of rubber are being exported monthly from Malaya to Russia, while Canada and the empire get little or none. If the government is sincere, it should have sought defence and security, as we did safely and well in two long wars, jointly within our own family along with the dominions and crown colonies, when together with the mother country we had to go it alone for two and a half years. During the time that Russia was an ally of Germany the United States did not come in, in a military way, for over two years until the time of Pearl Harbor. I here and now ask the government in this debate-and I think I have a right to demand it of the government and its servants-that proper means be taken to see that our armed forces are prepared with effective plans for our defence, including home defence services, and that they be put on a war footing in case of an emergency. I refer to the home guard and all that kind of thing.
Now we should provide for our own defence. Without the aid of the dominions and the empire we have no defence. All our defences are based on the fact that in two long wars Britain had the supremacy of the seas. That was the real Monroe doctrine. That saved America and the world in two long wars. Now we shall have to see to our own defence, since Britain cannot do it, and it is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
What is the issue in Berlin? As I told the house last June, the issue in Berlin is the command of the seas. The government claim that they never had an invitation. The United States did not need an invitation. Britain does not need an invitation and Australia does not need an invitation. The chief Air Marshal of Britain said that we are in great danger today. Britain is in grave danger today of an air raid in case of war.

Russia would be over Britain in a few minutes. Here we are asleep. The government are asleep. They do not realize the issue. The real issue in Berlin today is the command of the seas. If Britain is driven out, if America is driven out of there, then we are going to lose command of the seas. To whom? To Russia. I fail to see why Canada is not ready after all the urgings we have had. It looks to me now as if we are back to the days of Ethelred who was called Ethelred the Unready many long years ago. That is what Canada's defences are, unready. We have lost Britain; now, to defend ourselves, we have to make a deal with whom? With Washington. I remember when some of our friends in the house said in the first war and in the second war, "Why do we need to go to London for defence, when we can get all the defence we need in Washington"? Yet what happened? Two and a half years passed before they came in, in both wars. It was not until after Pearl Harbor that they came in in the last war. If that is all the defence we have, I fear we are going to be invaded. There is all this talk about nationalism and defence forces. A million men from the dominions went over in the first war under their own status, sovereignty and autonomy. One hundred and thirty-five thousand of these men fell in battle. They went over voluntarily. They did not go to fight for Britain. They went over to fight by her side, and what they did changed the whole history of the world. In the second war they went over in numbers ten times larger, with their own status, autonomy and sovereignty, and of their volition.
Today we talk about regional pacts. Well, there were regional pacts a hundred years ago. You know, regional pacts are just scraps of paper. In four centuries Britain had command of the seas and saved America's shores against Philip of Spain, Louis XIV and Napoleon, and twice in our generation the mother country has saved the world from slavery. Yet today there are those who ridicule her. We would have had the awful horrors of war on our own soil but for her. Last year I saw the cove where the enemy came. They came up the St. Laurence river as far as Riviere du Loup. We had to call a private meeting of the House of Commons to talk about the navy. I can say to my hon. friends from Quebec that they would have experienced the horrors of war on their own soil if the enemy had ever landed there, and hundreds of thousands of our people would have been killed or carted away. The tramping of feet would have been heard not only in the maritimes but in Ontario and Quebec and tens of thousands of people would
The Address-Mr. Church have been carted away to work in the mines of Germany and Europe. We should not forget those who saved our soil in two long wars. I believe that the day is not far distant when something will have to be done about it.
I may say that for the first time in forty years Britain faces every possible threat of a war without a military ally of any consequence or strength and the whole continent of Europe will soon be dominated by Russia. In the first world war she had a very great friend who was then one of the most formidable of military powers, France. In the second world war France again was our friend and ally, although weaker, and after nine months she withered away. France is not what she used to be but she is friendly. In a military way she is somewhat powerless. Her economic affairs have improved somewhat. The net result is that Canada takes no part in the real issue.
The western union powers so far are more imaginary than real, and the Atlantic pact is somewhat up in the clouds and fog, although I hope it will be a success. Britain cannot join any customs union in Europe. If the western union means, co-operation with European countries that have not our way of life, and are alien to Anglo-American ideas of liberty and civilization, it is time for us to clear away the Atlantic pact fog of the present time.
I notice the criticism in the Economist and other papers that the Atlantic pact will be useless without any military forces to back it up. The United States could have entered Prague, instead of halting their forces at Pilsen. That created the present Berlin situation, and possibly also this Carthaginian peace. It is time that something should be done about it.
Amidst all this, it is too bad that British leadership is not more agressive. I venture to say that if Mr. Churchill and Mr. Eden were leading the government over in that country they would long ago have met Stalin and candidly discussed with him the whole world situation and would have told him that the west meant business from the start. They would have persuaded him to change his tactics because he needs capital goods from all these western places. We already know the weaknesses of the military strength of the Brussels powers, backed by the United States and the British empire. We should avoid placing arms in the hands of the German people, who might abuse them again. The Russian satellites are torn between fear of Russia and fear of Germany, and the western powers will bring on a third war if they persist in rearming Germany. It will divide the west also. The duty of the west now is

The Address-Mr. Church to oi'ganize its military strength and to make Russia and her satellites believe that the disunity and indecision of the west are over once and for all. The west is as yet no match for the east, but if a start is made it will be better, and there is no use depending on any security from Lake Success, and such appeasement methods, which were a distinct failure in two world wars, instead of depending on our own strength from within the empire.
From the town of Yalta western statesmen have gone out of their way to demonstrate friendliness to Russia. Britain withdrew her armies, and the Americans halted at Pilsen. The result of this awful folly is now seen in the very critical situation in Berlin. Within a very few days of Japan's surrender Russia was actually invited by the Americans to declare war on Japan in order that she might participate in occupation of the Japanese empire conquered by British and American armies, and taking full advantage she at once seized and flooded Manchuria, seized the armament factories at Mukden and handed them over to the Chinese communists who have thereby been assisted in their war against the Chinese government.
The position is so serious that, unless the western allies help, it may be too late. They have provided equipment to Russia, to the point where the Chinese are likely to become communist, and will be dominated by Russia. In view of this, we should put all proper safeguards in the Atlantic pact which we will have before us shortly. Today from the Baltic to the Aegean, from the Danube to the Yellow sea, Moscow has produced a dismal picture. Each time we adopt appeasement and offer a helping hand, each time we offer appeasement to Russia, we do it at the expense of our friends, and it is interpreted by Stalin as a sign of weakness. As a consequence seven countries in Europe, together with China, have been enslaved. Other countries in Asia and throughout the world are threatened. These are the facts.
But no one is ready to do anything about it, What is the use of pretending that we have security, as we do pretend, when in fact we have not got it?
Then, I should like to refer to the Pacific, because in the Pacific ocean we used to have our protection from the United States. At the time of the first war Japan looked after the Pacific, with the result that the United States and Great Britain were able to devote their energies to the other theatre of war. However, as I pointed out in the house before the beginning of the second world war, at the time of that war the situation was quite different. We had a long coast line stretch-

ing 760 miles from Puget Sound to Queen Charlotte islands. That coast line is absolutely unprotected. What are we going to do about it, so far as Russia is concerned? She has a powerful fleet and air force at the present time. And, I can tell you this, that she may be out there quicker than you think.
The Pacific question should be an empire question. Australia is interested in the Pacific. It was shown during the air debate three or four years ago, and it has been shown in Australia and in Canada, that we have a vast interest in the Pacific. Our position there should be studied; and I hope the government will study it before another session of parliament is called.
But Canada has a regular expeditionary force on all the seven seas. We have our people - thirty ambassadors - travelling all over the world. I think the Auditor General ought to get busy on this matter, and we would have some relief; because each one of them has a first secretary, a second secretary and a third secretary. I am sure I do not know what he does; perhaps he carries a jug of ice water, or something like that.
We do know however that we have all those embassies, a fact which was ridiculed last June by the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot). At that time he was referring to so many of these ambassadors, and pointed out that if he were on Sparks street he would want to take the middle of the road. They all want to be at the head of the band. And we might bear in mind that the undertaker is the first man in the procession, too. These ambassadors are like drum majors who throw their drumsticks in the air and are very impressive.
All this is a mistake, this sending of amateur diplomats who learn from experience. Because that is all they are, every one of them. Some secretaries have to go along with the ministers, of course. They are always followed by their secretaries. I am not criticizing anyone's having a trip; I am always glad to see a person take a trip-but not when he is spending the country's money.
I notice my good friend the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin) is not here this evening. I may say however that last fall I was in his constituency attending the funeral of an archbishop. I never saw such glorious country in my life as one sees in the county of Middlesex. But I can tell you this, that up there I saw no churches blown down, the way they were blown down in the old country. We read that the Right Reverend Bishop Renison had to celebrate communion in the ruins of Coventry cathedral, and hold the ceremony in the open air.

I do not wish to refer to my good friend the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. I would not object to his taking a trip. But the Auditor General should look into this expeditionary force of ours. Why, they would reach four deep from here to Lansdowne park. I notice the ministers of Health and Labour are not in their seats; but I believe they have forty or fifty fellows out on the high seas now, on their way to study hygiene, and all that sort of thing. Is it any wonder that the people are confused?
There should be a 75 per cent reduction in our expenditures. We used to run this country, at the time Sir Wilfrid Laurier came in, and Sir Charles Tupper went out, for about $36 million. But today we are away up around $4 billion. It is away up in the air-up in the clouds. I say when the figures become astronomical like that the money is being blown in such a way that nothing is gained. So I do hope something will be done about it.
At this session of parliament we as a House of Commons must concern ourselves with matters touching the very lives of our people. It is a first duty of a government to look after the peace, welfare, health, happiness and prosperity of its citizens. These are the primary considerations. We meet here surrounded by a cloud of witnesses from the constituencies, the people back home who are suffering today in this battle of life, the people who are struggling to make a living.
We should deal with the lives of the masses of the people, and the matters which concern them. We should deal with food and poor housing. This evening I said that we should have steam suburban transportation. I pointed out that taxation was too high, and that we should have national health insurance. The average elector is in need of some help in these ways.
I was in hopes that we might have some amendment to our Unemployment Insurance Act. Our labouring people could get some help in this way. Then, there should be some food subsidy, along the lines I have suggested. I hope something will be done about that too, for the low bracket wage earners.
At the present time the only sure salvation for peace, and the prevention of war, rests upon the strength of our allies. As Mr. Churchill has said, the only sure foundation for peace and the prevention of actual war rests upon strength. We owe a duty to our empire to stay strong in peace. We can be friendly only with co-operative neighbours.


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


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.
The Address-Mr. Herridge


Thomas Langton Church: The empire parliamentary association has turned itself into a panAmerican association, and has forgotten all about the empire. It used to be the only organization which had no politics in it. Today, however, it is full of politics from top to bottom.
We should not ask the mother country to pay the cost of that trip to the old country of the parliamentary association. That burden should not be placed on the backs of the poor British taxpayers. I should think this suggestion would commend itself to the judgment of the country.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), when speaking in this debate, moved the following amendment:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for the orderly marketing of our natural products, and for their exchange for goods needed in Canada, and for the elimination of speculation in foodstuffs; We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for national health insurance.
I rise to endorse wholeheartedly that amendment to the amendment. I do so because, first, I am a firm believer in national marketing legislation and the necessity for the establishment in this country of a national marketing agency to market our primary products. I support this amendment also because I am aware of the fact that the organized farmers of this country have for some years been pressing this government to pass such legislation. I may say further that the birthplace of this type of legislation was the southern interior of British Columbia. I remember when the first committee sat to make a draft bill for the provincial legislature and I am happy to know that the draft bill presented to the cabinet by the Canadian federation of agriculture was originally drafted by the officials and delegates of the British Columbia fruit growers association. You will realize, therefore, that this legislation is of great interest to the people I have the honour to represent and to the people of Yale constituency.
I could speak at greater length on this subject but I have already spoken briefly on the matter this session. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) dealt very fully and effectively with this matter when speaking in this debate. I know the serious position facing the tree fruit industry in British Columbia and other agricultural producers as a result of this government not listening to the argument put forward by the producers. I am speaking as one who believes that if we are going to retain or recapture the United Kingdom and European markets

The Address-Mr. Herridge we cannot in the future permit the question of dollars to interfere with the exchange of our commodities.
I also support this amendment because I believe the Canadian people are looking forward to the establishment of a national health insurance scheme. I admit that the present grants in aid are a step in the right direction and will bring about some improvement in hospital and other services, but I am sure, and I believe many hon. members of this house are sure, that we will not have a worthwhile health insurance scheme until the national and provincial governments work together in co-operation with the people of Canada.
, I am quite sure that the veterans of this country and their dependents are disappointed that there is no mention of veterans affairs in the speech from the throne. I am sure that those veterans who are at pic^ut living cn the -..*oc-.nt p ,)f war veterans allowances are disappointed. I am sure the veterans organizations in this country are disappointed. I am sure the veterans who only had the opportunity to serve in England in the first war are disappointed. I am certain the imperial veterans who have resided in Canada for a long period of years are disappointed.
In addition, I am quite sure the old age pensioners of this country, who are living under increasingly difficult conditions from month to month, are disappointed, having knowledge of the large financial surplus which this government will quite likely announce, that some further remedy has not been proposed for their most unfortunate condition. I could deal at length with controls, subsidies, housing and other matters, but I am going to be brief on a few matters tonight.
I wish to take the opportunity this evening to deal with a matter of great importance to the people of the southern interior of British Columbia, a matter that they are greatly concerned about. Having criticized the speech briefly, I am pleased to note that the government will introduce an amendment to the Supreme Court Act to make the Supreme Court of Canada the court of last resort. This is something that has been advocated by this group for some years, most effectively to my personal knowledge during recent sessions of parliament by the hon. member for Kinders-ley (Mr. Jaenicke). I think that is a step forward in legislation in this country.
I am glad the government has indicated that it intends to introduce a bill to broaden the scope of family allowances. It sounds as though it will be all to the good and make family allowances available to a larger number of deserving people. I am also pleased 
to see in the address that a measure is to be introduced to provide assistance to the provinces in building a trans-Canada highway system. This announcement will be of great interest to the people of British Columbia, and to the people of the southern interior of British Columbia particularly. This is all I am going to say at this time because I hope to have something more to say on this matter at a later date.
I notice that the government has proposals for the development of navigation and power on the great lakes and in the St. Lawrence basin. I heartily support the proposals for the development of the St. Lawrence basin, but I want to take advantage of this opportunity to bring to the attention of the house the importance of the development of another great river basin in this country, of which some hon. members are unaware and of which the majority of people in Eastern Canada are totally unaware. I refer to the Canadian portion of the Columbia river basin.
The people of the Okanagan and the people of Kootenay are vitally concerned with the possible development of this vast basin. They are concerned with it because it means power for irrigation, it means power for secondary industries, it means power for agriculture, and it means power for the establishment of a large pulp industry in Kootenay West, the district which I represent.
Before proceeding to deal briefly with a review of the resources of the basin, I should like to describe the basin, and I will give the official description, which is as follows:
The Columbia river basin is situated in the cordillera on the Pacific slope of the North American continent where its river system comprises one of the large international drainages shared by Canada and the United States. It includes approximately 259,000 square miles, between north latitudes 41 and 53 degrees and west longitudes 110 and 124 degrees. Of this vast area, some 39,700 square miles form the southeast portion of the province of British Columbia in Canada, while the 219,300 square miles in the United States include almost all of Idaho, the greater part of Oregon and Washington, western Montana and relatively small areas of western Wyoming, northwestern Utah and northeastern Nevada. The greatest width of the basin, from western Wyoming to the Pacific ocean, is 728 miles, and its maximum length, from its most northerly limit in British Columbia, to its southern boundary in northern Nevada, is 818 miles.
This vast area is capable of great development. The Canadian section of this huge triangle, about which I am going to speak briefly this evening, can be best described as starting from the junction of the Alberta and British Columbia boundaries with the international boundary, proceeding northwest along the ridge of the Rocky mountain slope to the watershed of the Canoe river which flows into the big bend of the Columbia. Then it turns southwest and follows the height of

land between the Columbia divide and the Thompson divide for possibly some thirty miles on the west side of the Arrow lakes, and then, roughly speaking, proceeds southwest towards the international boundary at a point south of Princeton.
There are four great tributaries of the Columbia river which are of major concern to Canadians. They are the Okanagan, the Kootenay, the Pend-d'Oreille and the Kettle. The international character of the basin is exemplified by the course of the Columbia, Kootenay and Pend-d'Oreille rivers, and is further demonstrated by the Flat Head, Okanagan, Similkameen and numerous smaller streams which cross the international border once or more on their way to the Columbia and its tributaries.
In order to bring to the attention of the house the great resources of the basin I will review them very briefly. I may say that my figures are based on federal government reports, provincial government reports, and reports issued by various organizations and commissions. They are only approximate, but they are approximately correct. The Canadian portion of the Columbia river basin has a population of approximately 125,000 people. Of that 125,000 people approximately 42,000 are urban dwellers and 83,000 are rural or country dwellers. The power resources of the Columbia river basin in Canada amount to about 450,000 kilowatts installed at the present time. The major portion of this is the result of the developments of the West Kootenay Power and Light Company, and the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company on the lower portion of the Kootenay river where they have an installed capacity at the present time of 258,000 kilowatts. The difference between the 258,000 and 450,000 kilowatts is found in some installations on the Elk river, and on various smaller streams throughout the basin. The estimated total that can be developed on the main stem of the Columbia beyond the big bend at Revelstoke and to the international boundary is 2,900,000 kilowatts. This amount can be developed with control and regulation. The estimated potential development of electrical energy in the whole of the Canadian portion of the Columbia river basin is about 4,000,000 kilowatts. Therefore you can see the great possibilities for the development of power, and the opportunity to apply that power to vast and undeveloped natural resources.
At the present time the agricultural resources of the basin are extensive, although they are capable of immense development. There is a total of 305,400 acres under cultivation. Of that number 75,500 acres are
The Address-Mr. Herridge irrigated. An additional 395,000 acres are in use as open grazing land. The value of the 8,000 farms in the basin, with the land, buildings and improvements, is over $60 million. The present annual production of fruit, dairy products, grain, livestock, poultry, seeds, hay, honey, and other farm produce, is about $35 million. There are still many thousands of acres to be irrigated, many thousands of acres to be cleared, and many thousands of acres to be drained.
Turning to forest resources, 13 per cent of the productive forest land in British Columbia is in the Canadian portion of the Columbia river basin.1 It is estimated there are 22 billion board feet of timber within the basin, of which amount 14 billion board feet are classified as accessible. That amount is being increased from year to year with the development of bigger logging equipment, and cheaper methods of building roads and developing communications. For some years the annual lumber cut has been over 300 million board feet per year. In addition to that there is an enormous quantity of cedar poles, piling, ties, mine timber, mine props, shingle bolts, fuel wood and Christmas trees shipped out of the basin annually.
At this point I have no hesitation in saying that one of the largest stands, and possibly the last large stand, of cedar poles on the north American continent, is to be found in the Canadian portion of the Columbia river basin. Tests by the forest products branch of the Department of Agriculture at Washington have proven that the cedar poles shipped out of the basin have the highest tensile strength of any poles shipped from Canada. That results from the fact that the trees grow in a higher climate with somewhat slower growth, and under mountainous conditions.
With respect to mineral resources, mining within the Columbia river basin portion of British Columbia has been a major industry for the past fifty years until now the average annual production of gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, antimony, bismuth, coal, and by-products of those minerals, is well over $100 million a year. The largest non-ferrous smelter in the British commonwealth is operated at Trail by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, which also operates vast fertilizer and chemical plants.
The fish and wild life resources of the basin are plentiful. Fish are found in the rivers, lakes and streams throughout the whole of the Columbia river basin, and these are replenished by artificial rearing and stocking operations carried on by the British Columbia game commission. Fur-bearing

The Address-Mr. Herridge animals are plentiful in the district with an estimated raw fur value of about $100,000. There are some 500 fur farms at the present time in British Columbia with an annual production of $750,000 a year. A great number of these fur farms are located within this basin.
The basin supplies marvellous recreational resources and opportunities. Outdoor recreational facilities in the Columbia river basin offer the largest range of sports to satisfy the most particular as to climate, scenery, altitude, transportation and accommodations. There is no comparable region in Canada that offers such opportunities for aquatic sports, hunting, fishing, camping, mountain climbing and skiing. With reference to skiing, I want to draw to the attention of the house two particularly fine community developments within that basin. The first and oldest is the ski jump at Revelstoke on Revelstoke mountain which is the result of many years of community effort on the part of the people of Revelstoke who were interested in the sport and interested in the young people of that district. Many of the world's champions have jumped on that hill, and many world records have been made as a result of the development of that hill in Revelstoke. Then we have a later development within the last two or three years on Red mountain at Rossland where they have one of the finest ski lifts in Canada, constructed at a very considerable cost. There are excellent hills, an excellent lodge, and everything that goes to make for excellent skiing facilities, opportunities for international and inter-varsity tournaments, and so on. The ski lift has been developed as a result of the community effort of the people of Rossland and the people of Trail, with excellent co-operation from the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company.
With reference to navigation resources, we have the Columbia river, of which the Arrow lakes are an extension. You can travel from Grand Coulee to Revelstoke, a distance of over 300 miles. Year by year increasing numbers of American sportsmen and American fishermen seek the pleasure of new scenes and come up from Grand Coulee in their launches. Last summer they stopped on our beach and on the beaches of neighbours of mine, and thoroughly enjoyed themselves. Increasing numbers are making the trip as far north as Revelstoke. Then we have the steamer service of the C.P.R. on the Arrow lakes, passenger and freight, and the same on the Kootenay lakes. We have barge service on
the Okanagan by the C.N.R. and C.P.R., and service also on the Slocan lakes.
Then I want to bring to the attention of this house what the constituency I represent has meant to Canada through the years. Mr. J. A. Mara, member for Yale, which at that time included East and West Kootenay, speaking in this house on April 1, 1896, had this to say:
The Kootenay district contributes more per head to the general revenue than any other part of Canada ...
I challenge anyone, taking into consideration the population of the district and the total production, to show that this condition does not prevail today.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And that was under free enterprise.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And also under the greatest co-operative development in the whole of Canada. I mention this to indicate the importance of the district, because in proceeding with my argument I want to show how Liberal and Conservative governments have overlooked the value of this district in the Canadian economy, and have neglected to defend the rights of the people of this district under certain treaties and obligations. We know this great basin extending into Canada from the United States can be developed to its fullest extent only through co-operation between these two countries. Before adjourning the debate for this evening I want to conclude my remarks at this point by quoting from a report of a committee of congress on the Columbia river and its tributaries, appointed in 1943 and 1944, to study the possibility of developing the American portion of the Columbia river basin. This is what the report had to say, in part:
From the standpoint of resources the Columbia is is the mightiest stream on the North American continent; its potential almost beyond comprehension, for nature in one of her philanthropic moods fashioned the land with such perfection as is nowhere else known.
I now move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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

Tuesday, February 22, 1949