1949-09-21

Hon. Colin Gibson (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity of presenting a statement to the house defining the policy of the government in regard to the continuance of the aid which has been given to the gold mining industry of Canada since January 1, 1948, under the terms of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
As hon. members are aware, the steps recently taken to alter the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the United States dollar have a direct benefit to the gold mining industry. In the light of these benefits it has been necessary for the government to reexamine the terms of its policy. The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was presented to parliament and passed in order to aid an industry that had experienced a great increase in its cost of production during a period in which its product was sold at a fixed price. It was the desire of the government and of parliament not only to assist the industry but, even more, to protect the communities dependent upon that industry.
The effect of the application of the policy embodied in the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was to increase the price per ounce received by the gold mines of Canada on an average of $3.20 during the designated year 1948. It should be noted, however, that this is an average figure, and whereas some mines received as little as 50 cents an ounce other mines with higher costs received the maximum allowed, namely $16 an ounce. The effect of the adjustment in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar has been to raise by $3.50 per ounce the price that will be paid for gold produced and sold to the Canadian government. Under the circumstances it might be argued that the government would be justified in discontinuing the payments under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act because of the assistance which the mines will receive from the adjustment in the dollar exchange value.
The government has decided against such a policy. This decision has been taken for
the following reasons: (1) When the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was passed, it was proposed that it would remain in effect for three years. Some of the mines have undoubtedly been basing their operations specifically on this fact. It would therefore be unfair to these mines to alter the period during which the act will remain in effect. (2) Discontinuance of the benefits under the act would not fall equally on all the mines. The effects of the payments to the various mines are directly related to the needs of those mines and their dependent communities. Cancellation of this policy would mean that some would be affected only in a minor way and that others would suffer serious hardship.
Having decided against the policy of cancellation, the government was then faced with the necessity of deciding whether the act should be left to operate without any modification, or whether some change less drastic than cancellation should be adopted, in fairness not only to the mining communities but to the taxpayers and general public of Canada.
After careful consideration the government has come to the conclusion that the fairest policy that can be adopted in the circumstances can be brought into effect by taking the following steps:
1.	The present assistance payments will be continued until the end of the calendar year 1949. During this time the mining industry will have the full advantage of such payments and of the adjustment in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar.
2.	Before the end of this year the government will introduce legislation to amend the act to provide that during the last year of its operation-that is, the calendar year 1950- the total amount of assistance payments made to any mine will be reduced by an amount equal to $3.50 an ounce for each ounce of gold to which the rate of assistance under the present act applies. This in effect means that any mine which during 1950 would have been entitled to assistance payments of $3.50 or less will receive nothing. Those mines entitled to receive more than $3.50 an ounce will receive the difference between $3.50 and the amount to which they would have been entitled.
The adoption of this policy will mean that during 1950 the mining industry will receive

Gold Mining Industry
full benefits accruing from the adjustment in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar, but that the payments from the public funds will be reduced, in the case of mines that are eligible for assistance under the act, by the sum of $3.50 or any lesser amount to which they would be entitled on each ounce that would otherwise have been subject to the assistance payments. The effect of the modification in the terms of the act will, it is estimated, mean a reduction in payments during the course of the year 1950 of approximately $4,500,000. This compares with a total payment during 1948 of $9 million and a probable payment during 1949 of $10 million.
At the same time it will be noted that the probable additional payments to the gold mines coming under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act as a result of the adjustment in the exchange value of the dollar will amount in 1949 to about $3 million, and in 1950 to approximately a further $12 million.
It should be made quite clear that it is the intention of the government to terminate the assistance given under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act on the date stated in the act, namely December 31, 1950.
It was announced in the last session of the twentieth parliament that the government proposed to introduce legislation to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for the purpose of aiding certain mines which, through no fault of their own, had been ineligible under the original terms of the act. In the speech from the throne at the opening of the present session the government's intention in this regard was reiterated. I wish now to make it quite clear that the government's policy in this connection has not been altered, and that it is proposed to proceed during the present session with the amendments which have been designed to effect this purpose.



HOUSING


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members might be interested in learning of the government's intention with respect to housing.
It is now over four years since the war ended. Some problems which were emphasized and aggravated by wartime conditions have continued into the post-war period. Housing is one of them, and it gives promise of being a long-term peacetime problem. Therefore any approach to the problem of

housing should be based on peacetime conditions. Although constitutionally housing is primarily a matter for the provinces and municipalities, the federal government believes that any effective solution must involve the fullest co-operation among all levels of government, as well as industry.
Accordingly, on March 2, 1949, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) wrote all provincial premiers, stating that any suggestions or proposals they might care to submit for improving the housing of Canadian citizens would be considered by the federal government. At that time almost all provincial governments were involved with their legislative programs and were not able to give to the problem detailed attention, although most of them expressed concern and keen interest.
To facilitate consideration of the problem we recently undertook to view housing conditions, as well as building activity in each province, and have had conversations with each provincial government about housing. From our discussions it was clear that the provinces recognized their constitutional and practical responsibilities in this field, but the majority indicated that financial assistance would be required from the federal government.
This year's housing production will be higher than ever before. It is likely to reach a record high of approximately 100,000 units in 1949. This large number of units has been spread over all the provinces, but provincial governments nevertheless agree with us that having regard to the high level of economic activity, increase in population, rapid growth of family formations, immigration, obsolescence of existing housing units, and other factors, there will be a continuing need for a large annual supply of residential units. New housing, even at the present record rate of production, is barely keeping up with current needs and making no important inroads into the backlog.
The joint efforts of industry and the three levels of government-municipal, provincial and federal-in their respective fields will be required to produce a large supply of new units. I believe all provinces agreed with us that it is the desire of the average Canadian to own his own home and that the primary and most economical source of new housing had been and would be from private endeavour. Therefore any arrangements between the two senior governments should be directed toward the encouragement of more home ownership and also of rental housing by individual effort.
The increasing difficulty for the prospective home owner of low or moderate income to finance down-payment requirements in build-

ing a house was emphasized by all provincial governments. The down payment is the difference between the purchase price and the mortgage financing. The provincial authorities felt that the number of potential home owners could be increased if sound financing facilities were provided to reduce the downpayment requirements. It was recognized that larger mortgage loans might well tend to increase sale prices, and there was general agreement that if additional financing for this purpose is arranged, steps should be taken to guard against inflationary effects.
The shortage of serviced land is a very real obstacle in the way of an increased volume of housing building. The abnormally rapid urban growth of recent years has been placing important financial burdens upon municipalities. Many are experiencing difficulty in producing funds to finance roads, sewers, water, sidewalks, etc., for the current house building program. The provinces and the dominion feel that this is a field in which the municipalities may need assistance from the senior governments.
During the conversations several of the provinces expressed the view that assistance to co-operative building projects was an important way in which housing might be increased. It was felt that in the medium and smaller communities, particularly in those provinces where co-operative building is customary, it would be possible to further the development of local interest, particularly among people who are anxious to use owner-labour as their equity in their homes.
It was felt that although heavy reliance should be placed upon private endeavour to produce large quantities of housing over the years to come, it was desirable to take steps which would enable the provinces, joining with the dominion, to develop projects either for home ownership or for rental. The housing deficit is so great in certain municipalities and the obstacles facing the municipalities so severe that early steps to remedy the situation may well require that projects be sponsored by the dominion and the province. It is recognized by all concerned that care must be exercised to ensure that such projects do not reduce the flow of new housing by private endeavour.
As a result of these discussions, it is proposed to seek amendments to the National Housing Act this session to provide financing facilities to assist home owners in downpayment requirements. It is considered that such financing facilities would widen the band of potential home owners. It is proposed that the present level of loans to house builders would be little changed. However, it is proposed to seek amendment to the act extending authority to Central Mortgage and Housing
Housing
Corporation to make a loan to the home owner purchasing the house from the builder in an amount of one sixth of the loan which has been made to the builder, provided that the sale price to the home owner is fair and reasonable. This would have the effect of providing financing for the home owner to the extent of approximately half of his present down-payment requirements. Because of the danger in such an arrangement that the increased loan to the home owner would have the effect of increasing the sale price of the house, the provision of such extra financing for the home owner would be limited to houses which have been sold at a fair and reasonable price. There would be no restrictions upon the builder as to the price at which he may sell the house. However, the extra loan would only be made to the home owner if at the time of application for such extra loan, we were satisfied that the sale price was fair and reasonable. Although this larger National Housing Act loan would take the form of two advances, the first to the builder and the second to the home owner, the original mortgage deed under which advances would be made to the builder would be written at an amount sufficient to avoid additional registration and legal costs if a further loan was made to the home owner.
The same principles would be applicable to individuals who are making arrangements to construct their own homes and are not buying them from builders. Larger loans would be available to such individuals, provided that the cost to the home owner of building his house was fair and reasonable.
A number of technical matters remain to be determined. I shall be able to give a fuller statement concerning these arrangements at the time the resolution is being considered by this house. We are not asking the provinces to participate financially in these measures to encourage home ownership by reduction of down payments.
It is proposed also to seek changes to the section of the National Housing Act dealing with co-operatives. In the light of present conditions this section is not effective. Investigation is now going on in three provinces where co-operative housing is general, and I am hopeful that at the time other amendments are introduced we will be ready to proceed with amendments to the co-operative section of the National Housing Act.
We also propose to introduce legislation to enable the dominion to enter into agreements with the provinces for publicly sponsored housing projects. These projects may take the form of the assembly of land and services to enable an increased volume of housing by private builders. They may take the form of the dominion and province proceeding with

Housing
moderate priced houses for sale to home owners. They also may take the form of rental projects, in which event the dominion and the province would seek local management for the completed project.
During our conversations the provinces favoured the first two forms of project. They appreciated that there is a demand for redevelopment and slum clearance. However, with the present high cost of acquisition of land for redevelopment, the high cost of construction for centrally located fireproof residential development, as well as the difficulty in rehousing families now occupying land suitable for redevelopment, there is reason for the conclusion that, whereas rental housing of this kind may be desirable, now is not the time to proceed on a large scale. I would point out, however, that the terms of the enabling legislation will be broad and flexible enough to enable arrangements with the provinces which would include rental projects either on an economic or a subsidized basis. Subject to the very real difficulties which I have just mentioned, the dominion is prepared to proceed with rental housing projects in co-operation with the provinces.
With safeguards that the residential units to be built are of a modest type, the legislation contemplates agreements between the dominion and the provinces to enter into projects in municipalities where need exists, and where suitable arrangements can be made with the help and co-operation of the municipality. Under the agreement both the dominion and the province would have to be satisfied with the nature of the project, whether it takes the form of land assembly, houses for sale, or rental units. All costs of any project developed under this joint arrangement would be a charge against the project. In developing a project each of the two senior governments would be responsible for those operations which they are best able to handle. The province would see to the acquisition of the land and make arrangements for services. The province would receive requests from municipalities and other bodies for public assistance in housing. This meets the wishes of the provinces, and it is appropriate that they should deal directly with their own municipalities.
The dominion as its share of the joint undertaking would see to the planning, design and construction of the projects. It is recognized that a number of operations within the spheres of the dominion and the province will overlap. For that reason it is contemplated that there would be joint management of the development of each project by the dominion and the province. Generally each partner would contribute managerial assistance within its own sphere.

Funds for the financing of each project would come 75 per cent from the dominion and 25 per cent from the province. The project would be charged with a rate of interest slightly higher than long-term dominion rates in respect to the dominion's share of the investment. In respect to the province's share, its long-term interest rate, with a like differential, would be a charge against the project. Amortization of the original investment by the province and the dominion over appropriate periods would be a charge against the project. In the case of land being assembled for sale to private builders, and in the case of houses for sale, it is likely that the investment by both governments would be relatively short-term. Where the project takes the form of rental units, appropriate amortization periods ranging from thirty to fifty years would be established.
The annual profit or loss resulting from each project, whether land assembly, home ownership or rental units, would be shared 75 per cent by the dominion and 25 per cent by the province.
It is proposed that the municipalities would receive as a payment in lieu of taxes an amount equivalent to taxes received by them on the basis of normal assessments and normal tax rates for comparable property. The level of these payments in lieu of taxes would be determined upon the advice of the department of municipal affairs and the municipal board of the province concerned. If a province felt that municipal financial participation in the project were necessary or desirable, arrangements could be made by them for the municipality to assume a portion of the province's share of 25 per cent. In any event, the arrangement between the dominion and the provinces would be unchanged.
There are a number of details still to be worked out, but I have outlined the general proposal. We feel that it would be a desirable partnership between the two senior governments. The proposal is flexible and would enable the senior governments to provide assistance where necessary. We feel that the provinces are better able to deal with land, services and municipalities than is the dominion. As a result, the operations should be considerably more efficient than if the dominion were operating in the field alone. Care would be exercised to see that the operations of the senior governments in this field supplement rather than replace the activity of private endeavour upon which we place the greatest reliance for large volume of house building.
The legislation to enable the dominion to enter into these arrangements with the provinces is being brought forward at this session

so that the provinces which need legislative authority to join with the dominion may bring the matter before their legislatures as soon as possible. I cannot forecast whether all provinces will find the dominion proposals acceptable. But I can say that without exception provincial premiers and ministers have discussed these proposals, as well as other alternatives, in a most friendly way with a determination to improve housing conditions. There is indication that they consider these proposals to be reasonable, and it is my hope that most of the provinces will see fit to join with the dominion in its effort to meet the shortage of housing in Canada.
These proposals are directed towards establishing a long-term arrangement between the dominion and the provinces whereby the nation's housing needs for its citizens can be met. It is hoped that the present form of veterans' rental housing program can be merged into the new arrangement with the provinces. It is to be remembered that a greater supply of housing of all kinds will in itself relieve the housing needs of veterans. We appreciate that the housing needs of veterans of world war II is a continuing problem. Therefore, within the framework of these proposals, by veterans' preference where appropriate, we hope that housing for veterans will continue to be provided.
It will be remembered that under the 1949 veterans rental housing program the dominion built houses when municipalities participated by supplying land and services. Our 1949 veterans rental housing program shows clearly an increasing unwillingness and inability of the municipalities to participate in the present arrangements. Therefore, revised arrangements appear to be necessary to maintain a satisfactory flow of housing of this type. Under these proposals if the municipality and the province feel that a veterans' problem exists, houses may be produced for veterans' use. In particular, the dominion would be quite agreeable to proceeding with joint dominion-provincial projects with a veterans' preference. In my conversations with the provinces it was quite evident that the provinces are as aware of the need for houses for veterans as is the dominion.
No one can estimate the amount of additional housing which these proposals will create. The capacity of the construction industry, continuing effective demand by home owners, as well as the level of income of individuals, all have an effect upon the number of completions of residential units. No single method or approach in itself is a complete solution. The measures proposed today should be helpful. They may have the effect of increasing the total number of completions. If for any reason the volume of
Housing
new residential starts should tend to turn downward, these measures may well have the effect of maintaining a reasonable level of residential construction. They are an important step to minimize the wide swings in residential construction which have been the experience of the past. However, I would emphasize that these proposals are not our whole housing program. We will continue to press other measures which have proved successful in recent years, such as National Housing Act loans of other kinds, rental insurance, the expediting of building materials, the program of married quarters for the Department of National Defence, as well as research work directed towards improved methods of construction and economies in home building.
I hope the proposals outlined today will commend themselves to the house. Some success has attended our efforts in increasing the capacity of the house-building industry. There is no desire by the dominion to enter the direct construction field. The policy as enunciated by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply in 1946 is the keystone of our present policy; that is, the creation of conditions favourable to a large housing program by private individuals and companies. Only to the extent that housing needs are not being met is it proposed that the dominion and the provinces will enter the field. It seems to me that only by the co-operative efforts of all levels of government and the house-building industry can we maintain our high volume of new residential construction and increase it beyond its present level.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the minister one or two questions arising out of the interesting announcement he has just made? In the first place, is any specific assistance contemplated in connection with slum clearance? In the second place, is any limit being placed by the dominion government upon the amount of financial assistance it proposes to offer to the * province under this policy?


Robert Henry Winters: These are of course matters of detail. The sections now in the act with respect to slum clearance are quite clear. I do not believe the statement I have just made is debatable at the moment, but there will be a resolution before the house relatively soon, upon which occasion I should be glad to discuss all these matters.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Purely as a matter of clarification I should like to ask a brief question. The minister spoke of various things being charges against the project. I assume he meant charges against the individual unit, so that some day a man may own his own house, and know what his debts are.


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.

Inquiries of the Ministry FOREIGN EXCHANGE



EXPORTS FROM MARITIMES


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield) asked the following question:
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the exporters of surplus potatoes, fish, lumber, and other commodities of the maritime provinces be allowed to accept sterling in payment for exports to the British West Indies and South American countries, thereby retaining those markets which they have built up over the years?
My reply is that the recent adjustment in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar as such will not affect in any way the position of exporters to the British West Indies or other parts of the sterling area. Exporters to those countries of products such as were referred to may still export and receive sterling in payment. That sterling will be converted, of course, into dollars at the new rate of $3.07|.
So far as the South American countries are concerned, the situation is also unchanged. In those countries exporters have been in the past and will continue to be obliged to accept payment in United States dollars.


Mr. Hatfield:: Do I understand the Minister of Finance to say that we can now accept sterling for shipments to the West Indies?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have always accepted it. It has always been convertible; if the British West Indies were allowed to import, they were allowed to pay in sterling and the sterling was made readily convertible.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The British West Indies have not been able to pay us in sterling.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They have always been able to. If the hon. member means sterling that is blocked, of course they cannot. If he means sterling which cannot be used for the purchase of merchandise, he is right; but exports to the British West Indies which are allowed in can be paid for in sterling, and that sterling is made convertible by the Bank of England at the official rate. Exporters have to have an export permit to take the merchandise in. They have to secure it from the British, not from us.


Heber Harold Hatfield: We are still shut out.



WASHINGTON MONETARY TALKS-QUESTION AS TO RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES

Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: I had
intended to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but as he is not in his seat I will direct it to the Minister of Finance.

I hope he will not mind answering it. Will the Minister of Finance state whether the recent financial conference between Great Britain, the United States and Canada will result in any early change in the import restrictions on United States goods coming into Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, Mr. Speaker. Of course that is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course.



PUBLIC WORKS


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked the following question:
I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether construction will be undertaken soon of the new federal post office in Winnipeg.
The answer is that in 1948 we filed notice of expropriation against this property, bounded by Graham avenue, Smith street, St. Mary avenue and Garry street. Sixteen properties were involved, and we have already settled and have the deeds for fourteen. The remaining two properties have been turned over to the exchequer court, and the hearings are in the hands of that court.
Plans are being prepared and developed by the Post Office Department to cover their requirements, after which it will be necessary to prepare the detailed plans. For this purpose the firm of Messrs. Blankstein and Russell, architects, of Winnipeg, have been retained. As this is a major sized building, it will require the best part of a year to prepare the detailed plans.
On the same day the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked the following question:
When the minister is looking that up will he also find out and tell me when he is going to start the one in Peterborough?
In 1939 we acquired a site located on the southeast corner of Charlotte and Louis streets in Peterborough. During the war no attempt was made to erect the building, on account of conditions at the time. Immediately following the war it was decided to refrain as far as possible from work on any public buildings, in the interests of making the short supply of labour and materials available to private interests.
Together with the Post Office Department we are preparing plans covering the requirements of a building to meet the demands of the former. After the requirements have been determined it will be necessary to pre-

Criminal Code CRIMINAL CODE
pare the detailed plans. The firm of W. R. & L. Blackwell, of Peterborough, have been appointed to prepare these plans, and it is expected they will take a period of six months to complete.



QUESTIONS ASKED ON THE ORDERS OF THE DAY


Mr. Speaker:: At this time I should like to remind hon. members that it is customary, on the orders of the day, to ask of the ministry only those questions which are urgent and which may be answered briefly. I think the questions answered today by the ministry might more properly have been placed on the order paper. I suggest to hon. members that any questions asked before the orders of the day are called should be urgent, and such as can be answered briefly.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order having to do with your remarks with regard to the urgency of questions asked of the ministry on the orders of the day. Those remarks were quite in order, and I am sure most hon. members will agree with me in that.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is out of order.


Gordon Graydon: Wait until the Speaker tells me that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: He did.


Gordon Graydon: Since we are in the early stages of the session it might be well to have some of these matters clarified. I think everyone will admit that at all times the ministry should be permitted to make statements to the house on matters of urgency, and I offer no objection to the making of the two important announcements which have been made today, and which in my opinion were in order. But in the past, statements have been made by the government in an ex parte way which were not subject to debate and which in our opinion were not urgent. It leaves hon. members in the position of the government being able to make an ex parte statement without the opportunity for comment or question by private members. If the government is to be allowed this latitude, then perhaps you, sir, in your very excellent judgment, will allow similar latitude to those of us in this part of the house who from time to time may desire to have such statements clarified.


AMENDMENTS RESPECTING PISTOLS, AIR GUNS, MOTOR VEHICLES, LEVEL CROSSINGS AND PAYMENT OF FINES
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Criminal Code (pistols, air guns, motor vehicles, level crossings and the payment of fines).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, this is a constructive bill, containing suggestions for consideration by the government. The bill this year is similar to the one I have introduced for the past four years, although not exactly the same. It deals with the following subjects: (a) the awful loss of life on the highways of Canada through motor car accidents -almost every highway, urban, suburban and rural, is coloured red as a result of death and injury; (b) hit-and-run drivers; (c) fires in homes and dwellings, and (d) level crossings. The bill sets out some amendments which I suggest would remedy matters.
While I am not attempting on first reading to deal more than in a cursory fashion with the bill, by leave of the house I should like to call attention to some of the suggestions.
One is the adoption by Canada of the law of England, commonly known there as the Summary Offenders Act, giving poor people now committed to jail time to pay fines which are levied. According to returns I have received from England, this provision has closed half the prisons over there.
We are going through very difficult times, and the loss of life from these causes, in an economic sense and in every other way, is nothing less than scandalous.
These suggestions are somewhat educational. On former occasions, especially in 1935 and 1937, although not since the second world war, the house spent some time discussing this matter. Hit-and-run drivers are guilty of one of the worst forms of murder of men, women and children. It is the most cowardly form of murder we could have.
In this bill I am suggesting an amendment which is in use in some of the states across the border; it would require motor car drivers to stop, listen, and open the front door of the car, as buses are required to do under the provincial highways act, before entering a level crossing. A fine of up to $50 could be imposed for failing to do this. I know that in the Toronto district such a law would have saved many lives during the past summer.
I would like to call the attention of the house to the clauses in the bill dealing with

Inquiries of the Ministry youth. There is no reason that I know of why parents should not be notified when teen-age youths are in trouble, although some of them are the worst offenders; and they should be represented by counsel at any trial. I suggest that the house devote some time to a discussion of these important matters. The bill contains many suggestions that should be considered, especially in these days of the mad rush for speed, which, according to the records, have followed every great war.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


ONTARIO PEACHES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by my fellow members from British Columbia, and I think other hon. members will feel the same way, to say a word about Ontario peaches, which I have had occasion to mention in the past. I want to say that we all appreciate the splendid specimens of peaches which were presented to us today by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Cavers). I have never had the privilege of visiting Lincoln, but judging by the quality of the peaches which were delivered to our offices today, I think that Lincoln could well be annexed to British Columbia.


Gordon Graydon: May I say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley that those peaches were so good that I thought they came from Peel.


PARLIAMENT HILL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. L. Langlois (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Since arriving here for the first session of the twenty-first parliament I have found it most difficult to find around this building a vacant parking space for my car. Apparently the space reserved to hon. members for this purpose is insufficient. When I arrived for the eight o'clock sitting last evening I was unable to find a vacant parking space, although I drove around the building twice. I then went to the R.C.M.P. constable on duty and asked him to direct me to a space where I could park my car. He then directed me to the general parking section west of the section reserved to ministers of the crown, although parking in that section is limited to an hour and a half only.

This morning I again went around the building without finding a parking space available. Seeing no constable on duty, I parked my car in the general section in which I had been directed to park last night. But when I went back to my car at twelve-thirty I found this notice on the windshield:
T.V.S. No. 773 Date 21/9/49 Time 11.45 A.M.
Hoyal Canadian Mounted Police Room 27, Justice Building
Licence No.: L8585	Place: Parliament Hill
The driver of this vehicle has committed a breach of the regulations governing traffic on dominion property as indicated below:
Parking-Overtime: West of Commons, 9.45 to 11.45
There is no mention in the notice of where I should report, and there is no indication whether this is only a warning or not. Therefore I am apprehensively awaiting prosecution for the crime I have allegedly committed.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You will get six months.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I consider it my duty to bring this case to your attention. In making these remarks I have no intention whatsoever of casting unpleasant reflections on the constables in charge of order and traffic around these premises. My sole aim in speaking is to inform you, sir, of this most unsatisfactory situation, which, if not corrected, may seriously prejudice some hon. members of this house, who certainly are entitled to some prerogatives and privileges.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say to the hon. member for Gaspe, and to the other hon. members of the house on whose behalf I think he has spoken, that I have had little experience in passing judgment on those who have committed breaches of parking bylaws. My experience has been more on the side of the defence. I cannot say what penalty, if any, can be imposed, but I do assure the hon. member that the question he has raised will be brought to the attention of the proper officials of the house.


FLAXSEED
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I had hoped to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question of which I sent him notice, but he is not in his seat. Perhaps his parliamentary assistant can give me the answer. May I say that I can comply with the requirement of urgency referred to by Mr. Speaker, because an industrial plant in my city is being closed today.
My question is this: Will the wheat board, the board of grain commissioners, or any

other government agency take steps to ensure the availability of a sufficient and continuous supply of flaxseed for crushing purposes at the Saskatoon vegetable oil mill and other similar industrial plants in Saskatchewan during the coming year?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are you going to make oleomargarine?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I can only say to the hon. member that I will bring his question to the attention of the proper officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and as soon as an answer can be obtained from them it will be made available.


OLEOMARGARINE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it true that at the present time a plant is being built in the Fraser valley for the manufacture of oleomargarine?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I take it from the remarks made last night by the member for that constituency that one is being built. We have no control over that.


DISPOSITION OF STOCKS HELD IN STORAGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that at the present time the government is holding stocks amounting to 48 million pounds of butter, which seems to be a very large quantity, what action is contemplated as to the marketing or disposition of those stocks?


James Garfield Gardiner: In view of the ruling which you gave a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for me to answer that question and be in order, because the answer is a page long. The question is not urgent, because a press release on August 11, 1949, made an announcement of government policy, and it is known to the public right across Canada. If the hon. member wishes to put such a question on the order paper, so that the answer may be published in Hansard, we can see that that is done.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The same as you did with potatoes.
Inquiries of the Ministry CATTLE


COMPENSATION FOR TUBERCULOSIS REACTORS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture when the promise of compensation to farmers for the loss of cattle in tuberculosis tests will be implemented, and whether the compensation will be retroactive?


James Garfield Gardiner: Legislation was prepared, and I think it was announced at the last session that it would be brought down. The nature of the legislation was indicated. I presume that the same legislation will be brought down this session. Payments cannot be made until it is passed.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, September 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maurice Boisvert for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
(Translation):
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted at the outset to congratulate you most sincerely on your elevation to the speakership of this house, a high post which you occupy with so much tact and efficiency. You can rest assured that we opposition members are delighted that the conduct of the all-important debates of this parliamentary forum are in the hands of such an eminent jurist.
Speaking for myself and on behalf of all Conservatives in the province of Quebec, I am also pleased to pay a tribute to the leader of the government. I do it all the more sincerely as I have been a pupil of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at Laval university; needless to say he taught me law and not politics.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent in this august assembly the constituency of Three Rivers, which has a population of 50,000. It comprises the progressive and industrial city of the same name, as well as seven fine rural parishes.
Three Rivers, the second oldest city in Canada, enjoys the rare distinction of being also the most French of all American cities. Indeed, in my native town, the proportion of French Canadians is 96 per cent.
Located on the great St. Lawrence river, halfway between Quebec and Montreal, Three Rivers is the centre of the beautiful province of Quebec, the very heart of that race of pioneers who, together with the gallant sons
126	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Balcer of the British isles, have made of our beloved Canada that great country which is playing today a leading part in the world.
Because of that remarkable historical fact, French-Canadian traditions prevail there in their purest form. My fellow citizens are the prototypes of the French-Canadian minority in this country. As such, they are jealous of their rights and they are anxious to maintain the prerogatives guaranteed to them by the British North America Act.
Moreover, as citizens of the great Canadian democracy, they believe in decentralization of legislative powers.
I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Three Rivers rejoiced when they saw a reference in the speech from the throne to the government's intention of promoting our nationhood to the full extent of constitutional powers.
It is gratifying to know that the government intends to sever the last colonial ties with the British parliament. It is hardly reasonable that a strong and mighty country such as ours should be compelled to appeal to a foreign supreme court, and be unable to amend its own constitution without recourse to the parliament of another country, friendly though it may be.
I wish, however, to point out the fact that the public has been surprised to learn of the government's intention to proceed with these constitutional changes, of such historical implications, during a special session or rather the end of a session. There is then good reason to hope that the government will not rush matters. Canadian history and the jurisprudence of the privy council on our constitutional law indicate that this court has always been a protection for the rights of minorities. It has always played the part of an arbitrator in settling the constitutional differences between federal and provincial governments. I doubt that the supreme court, in its present status, is in a position to act likewise.
The government also intends to request from the parliament of the United Kingdom the right to amend our constitution in regard to matters which do not come within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. The government then proposes to negotiate with the provinces an agreement relating to the procedure to be followed in bringing about in the country itself any further constitutional amendments that may be deemed necessary from time to time.
The people of our great country recognize the importance of solving, through consultation between the parliament of the dominion and the provincial legislatures, our important constitutional problem in order to give our

parliament and various legislatures legal and practical means of amending the constitution.
The basis of the controversy lies in the delimitation of powers between the dominion and the provincial governments. If previous attempts to solve this problem have failed, it is precisely because the parties concerned could not agree on the delimitation of powers.
By following the procedure outlined in the speech from the throne, the government intends to decide in advance what matters come within its jurisdiction and what others come within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and then place before the latter a fait accompli.
As contracting parties of the British North America Act, the provinces which entered into confederation, thus allowing Canada to grow and become a great nation, must surely be consulted; but they should be consulted before and not after the matter has been settled. The governments of the provinces are entitled to their opinions and it is their duty to protect the rights and privileges which were the very conditions of their joining the confederation of 1867.
We fail to understand why the government intends to proceed in this way, inasmuch as the constitution of a country is the basis of its national unity.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to remind the house that these sentiments in favour of provincial autonomy and decentralization of legislative powers, which are so dear to the people of my riding and to the people of the province of Quebec, do not in any sense indicate isolationism on the part of my fellow Canadians in Quebec. We feel that it is a question of the utmost importance and that confederation is the best safeguard for the minorities in any province. We feel that democracy at its best resides in decentralization of legislative powers and in government that is closer to the public.
For these reasons I am thankful to have as the leader of my party a great Canadian and a great statesman. His past record as premier of that great province of Ontario, as well as the stand he has taken as leader of the opposition on this vital question of provincial rights, qualify him to deal with this constitutional crisis in the best interests of Canada as a whole.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I might say, on the other hand, that when it proposes to consult the provinces in order to extend the scope of the National Housing Act, the government is taking a step which will meet with the approval of the people of my constituency. Three Rivers, which is an important industrial town, suffers badly from lack of housing. Like those of

the rest of Canada, the workingmen of my constituency have to be helped to meet the continuous rise In the cost of living and this appalling housing shortage.
The workingmen of Three Rivers, ably directed by competent employers, have turned our fine city into the greatest paper production centre in the world. They have a right to expect that the present government will leave no stone unturned and will seek the most efficient means of enabling them to house their families in decent, adequate and healthy surroundings.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence.
(Text):


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, in a moment I should like to say something about the statement which the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) made this afternoon about housing. I am sure that every member in the house found his statement interesting, but I am sure most people in Canada found it rather disappointing.
First of all, I should like to join with other hon. members who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Boisvert) and the seconder (Mr. Laing) of the motion which we are discussing. Despite the fact that I did not agree with some of the material they presented, I did think that they performed in an able manner the task assigned to them.
Several days ago I was sitting in one of the parliamentary offices talking to several Liberal members, among whom was the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair). He was rather plated over the election results. I could not blame him very much. I took a good deal of ribbing about the results in so far as the C.C.F. was concerned. During the conversation the member for Coast-Capilano made one statement which I thought was significant. He said, "1 do not see how any member-that is any opposition member-after that election can say anything about the speech from the throne". I cannot agree with that point of view. While it is true the Liberal members should be very pleased with themselves, I do not think that they should become complacent. The opposition still has a duty to perform and that is to criticize, scrutinize and examine the legislation which comes before this house.
While it may seem ludicrous, I should like, therefore, to offer one word of admonition to the government early in this session. I believe that, in the huge majority the government has, there are certain dangers which it will be necessary for them to avoid in the ensuing four years if they are a wise government. They should avoid any temptation to try to steam-roller legislation through this House of
The Address-Mr. Thatcher Commons. They should avoid any temptation to neglect the implementation of the election promises they have made. They should also try to avoid the danger of overspending and overexpanding, which is a natural one in these times of buoyant revenues.
As I said, I do not blame the government members for feeling satisfied, but I was a little surprised when I read the speech from the throne. I thought there was a shade of complacency in it. I draw to the attention of hon. members some of the phrases that were used:
At home we continue to enjoy prosperity. Investment and employment have remained at high levels. There has been deep satisfaction in all parts of the country.
Relations between employers and employees have, with few exceptions, been satisfactory.
I know I am biased, but it appears to me that speech contains too many platitudes and far too few tangible proposals to meet the needs of the country. In other words, I feel that this speech from the throne is a document of self-satisfaction, not a plan of action.
I refer specifically to the matter of housing, particularly in view of the fact that the minister made a statement this afternoon. I listened to him with interest, because ever since 1945 housing has been one of the most critical problems facing this country. The minister admitted in his speech that housing was extremely critical. A few weeks ago I was surprised to read an item in one of the newspapers about a brief which Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation presented to the Royal Commission on Arts and Sciences. According to the newspaper report, this is what the brief said:
The housing needs of the Canadian people have never been more critical than they are today.
I suggest that is a significant statement, Mr. Speaker, because the admission was made by the officials of a government agency. This problem of housing is anything but new. Back in 1945 a government advisory committee, I believe the one that presented the so-called Curtis report, stated that about 750,000 new homes were needed in this country. If my memory serves me correctly, it was also stated that an additional 60,000 homes should be built to keep up with the current demand.
What has been accomplished since the end of the war? During the election I heard Liberal speakers and read Liberal advertisements that took great satisfaction from the fact that approximately 275,000 homes have been built since the end of the war. This is a large number of homes. But during that time, many thousands of homes have become obsolete. In that period veterans have been coming home, many of them with war brides. At least 300,000 immigrants have arrived in

The Address-Mr. Thatcher this country. Many young Canadian couples got married. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) said today that he hoped 100,000 homes would be built this year. More than that number of couples in Canada were married during the past year.
I say therefore, Mr. Speaker, that far from catching up with the backlog of housing, we are going behind. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that, so far as housing is concerned, we are in a worse position today than we were in 1945, and yet the minister comes in with a proposal such as the one he made today. Whether we like to admit it or not, in many of our urban centres, slums, overcrowding, evictions and frustrated lives are ever more prevalent. I think that is true even in some parts of Ottawa. I ask any hon. member of this house whether it is reasonable that in a country where there is so much lumber and so much brick and mortar, so many hundreds of thousands should be without homes. What has the government promised in this respect?
I remember hearing speakers from the Liberal party say, back in 1945, that every veteran was entitled to a good home. I heard them say that under the National Housing Act houses would be available to Canadians for as low as $9.58 per month. In this recent election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself made a radio speech on March 19 in which he said:
We are not going to be satisfied until decent housing is provided for every family.
Then the minister of reconstruction (Mr. Winters) brings in a scheme like the one he brought in today!
The speech from the throne contained only casual reference to housing. It stated that the scope of the National Housing Act will be broadened. A few weeks ago the minister of reconstruction made a trip across Canada, as he put it, to study the housing problem. He talked with the various provincial authorities and I congratulate him on the initiative he showed in taking that trip. But what were his conclusions? What was his solution? Are we to take it that what he offered us today is his solution to the housing problem? I do not think the minister himself would be so naive. Here is a report of what he said in Regina, the capital of my province. I quote from the Regina Leader-Post of August 23:
As yet there has been no definite solution to the housing problem but the iederal government was not looking for any such solution immediately, he maintained.
Mr. Speaker, was there ever made by any cabinet minister a franker admission of government inaction in the face of a pressing problem? Then the minister of reconstruc-

tion is quoted in this manner in the same interview:
The housing picture in Canada has not deteriorated during the past year . . . The housing situation held its own in Canada during the first half of 1949 and will probably continue to do so in the last half.
Is that not imagination? Is that not boldness? How gratifying to the people of Canada who have been living in one or two rooms maybe since 1945, how gratifying to the veterans who have come back from the war to live perhaps in some kind of hovel, to know that the housing problem is no worse this year than it was last year? What kind of solution is that, Mr. Speaker?
Then the minister of reconstruction went on and said, "After all, this matter of housing is constitutionally a provincial problem; it is really not our concern." I do not think there is one syllable in the constitution which would prevent the federal government from giving large-scale financial aid to the provinces or to the municipalities in order to finance subsidized low-rental housing, in the same manner as they have done with unemployment insurance and with old age pensions. This afternoon again I heard the minister say something about the constitution and the problem being the provinces' responsibility. But I say that the time has come in Canada when the government can no longer shirk its responsibilities on housing by mumbling legal incantations, by talking about the constitutional difficulties involved under the British North America Act, and by chattering about what some other government should do. Of course there is only one answer to the housing problem, and that is not the answej which, unfortunately, the minister gave us this afternoon.
The minister's statement is no solution at all to the housing problem, and I think every hon. member in this house realizes that. I think it is going to cause bitter disappointment in the country. The minister stated that the problem was acute. He told why it was acute. He admitted that there is a great shortage of housing. Then he went on to state that now is not the time to proceed with a large-scale housing project. Why is it not the time? When is it going to be the time? The main proposal made by the minister, if I understood him correctly, was that there would be a reduction in the down payment made on houses in certain housing projects. That means a lower initial payment. I think that is all right, but that is no solution, because it will simply mean a higher annual carrying charge and it is no relief for the average worker, who is too poor to make even that lower initial payment.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister

is in fact continuing a do-nothing policy. By further trifling with small-scale experiments and handouts, such as he has announced today he has, knowingly or otherwise, betrayed the desperate hopes of many Canadian families. I suggest that he is today once again trying to pass the buck to the provinces and to the municipalities instead of coming to grips with the problem of housing. I cannot understand the objection of the minister to a public housing project. Surely after four years he should realize that private enterprise cannot by itself adequately cope with this problem. I cannot see why he or the government should hesitate to supplement private enterprise, on a large scale, with state spending if it is necessary.
There is one other quotation which I should like to place on record before I leave this subject. It is the quotation of a statement made in Montreal on August 31 by a national mayors' association, which is as follows:
A national mayors' association Tuesday charged the federal government with failing to live up to its pre-election housing promises and said the minister chiefly responsible was maintaining a "do-nothing" policy.
The powerful federation of mayors and municipalities, composed of mayors and reeves in most towns or cities, said in a prepared statement that the government should "face facts."
This is not a C.C.F. mayor that is talking, I may say. To continue:
It said Reconstruction Minister Robert Winters, responsible for federal-provincial housing co-ordination and recently returned to Ottawa from a national tour, had established a "do-nothing policy."
Canadians, it said, would be "greatly disappointed if the only result of the recently-concluded trans-Canada 'housing' tour is to be some sort of federal-provincial arrangement to reduce the required down payment for home purchasers."
I say that all the people of Canada will be disappointed at the inadequacy of the solution which the government today offers for this acute housing problem.
There is only one other matter that I should like to mention in this throne speech debate. It has to do with the problem of irrigation in the province of Saskatchewan. I think the fact that the throne speech did not contain one word about that irrigation project should cause concern not only to the west but also to those in the east who have to sell a good deal of their products in the west. As we heard in the debate last night, and as hon. members will now know, in the province of Saskatchewan drought conditions are prevalent in the southwest corner. Once again we are seeing grasshopper plagues and dust-bowl conditions, and I think it is fairly well conceded that the irrigation project which has been proposed would alleviate those conditions. During 45781-9
The Address-Mr. Thatcher the last election campaign the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) once again trotted out his perennial but somewhat moldy promises on irrigation which he has made so often in the past. We heard him speak in many places of the millions of dollars which were going to be spent on irrigation. For instance, speaking at his own nominating convention, according to the Leader-Post of April 21 he is reported as follows:
He said Prime Minister St. Laurent is convinced the only way to "bring the west into its own" is to start irrigation projects.
Then the Prime Minister himself came out and, speaking in Saskatoon, said, according to the Leader-Post:
Mr. St. Laurent said the drouth of the thirties taught us the absolute necessity of conserving water and restoring and maintaining moisture on the prairies.
He also said that three major conservation projects, including the south Saskatchewan project, were under active study.
One of the chief lieutenants in Saskatchewan of the Minister of Agriculture, who I believe is with the P.F.R.A., just before election time made a statement which was quite significant. I quote from the Leader-Post of April 21:
"An intensive survey of engineering and economic aspects of the South Saskatchewan irrigation and power project will begin immediately, L. B. Thomson announced in Regina Wednesday . . . This is an action program."
Where is the action? Why is it not in the speech from the throne? Then the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) made a statement regarding irrigation. I should like to welcome the hon. member to this house. I think he will be a real asset to the chamber. Naturally, in a political way, I would have preferred his predecessor. Since that is not possible, I know that the hon. member for Regina City will make a valuable contribution to this house. According to the Regina Leader-Post, the hon. member had this to say:
As your elected Liberal member for Regina in a Liberal government at Ottawa, I would use every resource at my command to get immediate action on a new water supply.
I hope to see him get that action pretty soon; I hope the pressure is a little more effective than some of ours has apparently been. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that in the last election speaker after speaker brought in plans for this proposed irrigation, and to dam the south Saskatchewan river. This is not the first time, because in every election in the past twenty-five years the Liberal party has used as one of its main election planks this irrigation project. For instance, here was their 1945 election pledge, carried in a page advertisement in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald of June 9:	.
130	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Thatcher
The South Saskatchewan irrigation project will be commenced immediately men and material are available-it has been approved.
Surely that promise was specific enough; surely that was concise enough. There were no qualifications in that. Four years have gone by and still no action. I remember in the last by-election when the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Boucher) came into the house. The leader of the provincial Liberal party was lavish in some of the promises which he made and I quote a Canadian Press dispatch of a speech which Mr. Walter Tucker made at Hanley, Saskatchewan:
Walter Tucker, Saskatchewan Liberal leader, said last night the fact that two federal cabinet ministers have expressed a favourable attitude toward the South Saskatchewan river irrigation and power project in the Rosthern, Saskatchewan, by-election campaign has contributed to make this one of the main campaign issues.
It is "now up to the people of Rosthern to give their endorsement by electing William A. Boucher, Liberal candidate, if they want the project proceeded with."
The people of Rosthern, in their wisdom or otherwise, have done that. Therefore I ask, what is the government waiting for? How long is it going to take to get started? I might point out that this irrigation project is self-liquidating. It would pay for itself over a number of years. It is necessary; it is something that is urgently needed today in the province of Saskatchewan. It is quite true that according to the minister's figures it would cost about $100 million. That is a lot of money, but surely that sum fades into insignificance when you compare it with the amounts which were spent on relief in the depression days in that area. Surely that sum fades into insignificance when you compare it with the dollars which were spent in a few days during the war for destructive purposes. I suggest that the sum fades into insignificance when you compare it with the advantages which would accrue to the province and to this nation if construction was completed. Therefore I think that the people of Saskatchewan will deprecate the fact that in the speech from the throne no mention has been made of this south Saskatchewan irrigation project. I admit that I am biased, but I think it is a national tragedy and a national disgrace. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want to take too much of the time of the house. In my opinion there are many other shortcomings in the speech from the throne. I was sorry to note that there was no mention of an over-all health program, no mention of any lowering of tariffs, and no mention of more action on control of prices in view of the recent devaluation of the dollar. No mention was made of any reform of the other house. It was rather funny the other day to notice that when they wanted a Conservative senator for the opening cerefMr. Thatcher.]

monies they could not find one. I suggest to the Prime Minister that I would much prefer to see the other house abolished; but, failing that, perhaps it might be a gesture on his part, which would be appreciated by the country, if he would appoint some senators from parties other than his own. I for one would like to see the former leader of the opposition, Mr. Bracken, appointed, and if the Prime Minister wants any other nominees I shall be glad to suggest some other individuals.
There is one other matter which I think should have been mentioned in the speech from the throne. No plan was made of specific "on the shelf" work projects to take care of unemployment in the event of a depression. We heard quite a good deal about that in the last session. Thus I had hoped that something tangible would be done during this session.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I say, as I said earlier, that the speech from the throne is a document of self-satisfaction and not a plan for action. I do not think it is one which will inspire confidence in the people of Canqda that the government has found a method, or has plans, to alleviate economic recessions when they come.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: I feel it a great honour to represent again a constituency which is as progressive, as liberal, and as intelligent as the city of Fort William. Before I forget it, I would first congratulate the chief of the protective staff of this house. The other evening an important lady lost a parcel that meant a lot to her. I had the pleasure of reporting the matter to the chief and along came the parcel in a short time, and the chief would not even take a treat for his staff. That shows the efficiency of your staff, Mr. Speaker.
Because I am a reformer there are certain things I think should be changed in this house. First, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is a very important personage. I think it was beneath the dignity of this house that when he came to Ottawa he had to go house hunting. We have a home for our governor general; we have a home for our lieutenant governor; but our Prime Minister has to hunt a place of comfort for himself. It is not in keeping with the dignity of this house that the Prime Minister should have to bother his head as to where he is to live; a place should be made ready for him. You will hear more about that later on, Mr. Speaker.
Another thing I thought I should like to see is a group of loudspeakers to aid those who are not like me, fortunate enough to hear everything comfortably. Away over yonder it is almost impossible to hear; therefore loudspeakers should be installed as soon as

possible, and according to rumour there is something moving. We invite the public to come here. Why should they not hear? Why should the press gallery not hear? They should be allowed to hear everything that goes on, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is little said in this house that is not worth hearing.
There is another thing I should like to suggest, and I did not see it when I came here today. When our Speaker stands up and leads this house in prayer that prayer is confined to the members. We do not let the press gallery or the public hear it, and that is not in keeping with the teachings of Him Who said, "whosoever will may come". And dear knows, if we need it the general public would be very much helped if we opened the doors at the opening of the house each day. The house will hear more about that later on.
There are two things which concern us greatly at the head of the lakes. First I would pay my tribute to the young Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) who gave today his report on housing. I have admired him for a long time, not only as a baseball player but as a tennis expert and an all-round athlete. And I see that in his activities as minister he is putting just the same punch into his work that he put into a game-and the other fellow found it out. Therefore I pay my tribute to him for his splendid report on housing.
This is one of the problems which has troubled us at the lakehead. The other day I tried to get a house for a young father and mother with two children, and I was told there were seven hundred applications ahead of them. Just think-seven hundred of them! The report the minister made today shows that now it will be possible for a man who saves a little and gets a down payment to own his own house-and that is something every young man and woman should do. They should own their own homes, and have a stake in the country.	.
I was greatly interested in what is being done by an Ottawa firm of bakers. The Morrison-Lamothe bakery has a scheme, which might be practised with great profit throughout Canada, under which they are helping their workers to own their own homes.
I sincerely trust that the minister will not lift rent controls. Recently I got an earful from a citizen with an office in a commercial block. He said to me, "You lifted control on these blocks, did you not?" I said that I did not do a great deal about it, but that I supposed I voted like the rest, and thought it was necessary. "Well," he said, "our rent has just gone up by 172 per cent." If rent con-45781-9J
The Address-Mr. Mclvor trols are lifted in respect to private homes, then we may pity those who cannot get a house, particularly if it is in a winter season. Therefore I hope that rent controls will not be lifted.
Another thing which is interesting us at the head of the lakes is the building of a pipe line. In Alberta there are tremendous quantities of oil and gas. Last session we enacted a law giving permission for the building of a pipe line. We believe we should own and control all our resources, and the people at the lakehead are much concerned about the pipe line. Perhaps they do not thoroughly understand the details, but they would like to have them. In this connection I should like to read from page 29 of Hansard, where a question was asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) and a reply given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). The hon. member for Moose Jaw asked why the line was to be built to Superior rather than to Port Arthur. The minister's reply was this:
I have received representations from Fort William and Port Arthur, as well as from a number of surrounding municipalities. I should like to point out, however, that by virtue of the pipe lines bill which was passed by the House of Commons at the last session, all jurisdiction over the routing and location of pipe lines was placed in the hands of the board of transport commissioners.
Therefore the Minister of Trade and Commerce had practically no say as to where it would be. He continued:
The board held hearings at which representations were received from the lakehead, and a decision of the board has been rendered approving the route as filed by Imperial Oil Limited.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Has the minister issued a licence
to this particular company to export oil?


Mr. Howe:: Yes. The Department of Trade and
Commerce, as a matter of ordinary routine, has issued a licence under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, which permits the company to export oil for re-import into its refinery at Sarnia.
There is a refinery at Regina, and it is understood that business would not justify another refinery at Winnipeg or Fort William. If the pipe line were to run from Winnipeg to Fort William it would delay the project for two years. There is no sign yet of the building of a refinery at Duluth, but just as soon as Sarnia has more oil than it can use, I am sure Canadians would like Americans to buy our oil.
The matter of social security has been bothering us somewhat at the lakehead. I commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who is not here, for the splendid work he did at the last session in bringing aid in the matter of hospitalization, through the help of provincial governments across Canada. It has enabled us to go ahead with much needed building projects.
137,

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
I was amused on Monday when the leader of the C.C.F., the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), introduced an amendment condemning the government for not at this time having passed a bill supporting old age pensions. How could we have passed a bill before the speech from the throne was passed? Give us a little time, Mr. C.C.F., and we will show you.


Mr. Knowles:: But you voted for the means test.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I have said often in the house that I am just as much interested in old age and other pensions as anyone else, and I will not stop until every last one who cannot earn a living may have a home, bread and butter to eat, and clothes to wear. But I do not think I would be justified in supporting increased old age pensions until those who are suffering from arthritis and other incurable diseases receive pensions equal to those received by the aged. I have said before that if the Liberal party holds office long enough in the House of Commons the restrictions will be lifted, and there will be pensions of $50 a month for our aged citizens.
There is another side to this matter. I know a prominent member of the House of Commons who paid into a pension scheme for thirty-five years, but his pension will not be more than the old age pension. Therefore I say that the sooner the Minister of National Health and Welfare can bring in a national contributory pension scheme for all Canada, the better it will be for everybody. The man who is earning his living may get a little more than he needs to spend, and he can buy a little less gingerale so that he may be able to put those savings into a pension fund or scheme which will give him a decent pension in his old age. In my view that is absolutely necessary.
I was pleased to hear the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Gibson) make the statement he did today with respect to gold. I have not forgotten the last depression. Had it not been for the mines north of Port Arthur and Fort William there would have been many more people out of work than there were at that time. The mines created a lot of work, and our boys were glad to leave home to get it, because they needed the employment. We hope that the action taken will stimulate gold mining.
In gold mining, however, the forgotten man is the prospector. I have on the order paper a resolution recommending that when a prospector makes a find, a geologist be sent in. If it is found to contain gold or some other valuable mineral, then it should be investi-

gated and developed, and when the mine is in operation the costs will be taken out of the returns from that operation.
There was something else before us for a day or two, and that is the suggestion, in connection with the royal commission investigating radio, among other things, that radio licence fees would be increased from $2.50 to $4 or $5. I shall have to have much more information than I now have before I will vote for an increase in the radio licence fee. For farmers all over the country with battery sets such extra cost would be a hardship. Members of the House of Commons with their large salaries can afford to pay a fee of $5 instead of $2.50, but it would be a hardship on a man who is making just enough to live and who has very little to spend. I would be willing to pay $5 if only for the enjoyment of hearing the hockey announcements and the good that is derived from the Sunday services that are broadcast, but I am not prepared to support any increase in the fee until I have more information.
As I indicated last year, we at the lakehead are trying to take care of our youth. I think Fort William is setting an example in the way it is looking after the boys and girls, both summer and winter. We have supervised playgrounds all over the city for boys and girls and we provide swimming pools for everyone, including the little tots who can just wade in the corner. There are paid supervisors on duty all the time. When winter comes, and we are glad to see it come, there are about 28 supervised hockey rinks where the boys and girls can play hockey, and alongside those rinks are other rinks for skating only. We believe that we must take care of our boys and girls if they are to have common sense pounded into their brains. When a boy or girl is taught to go to his or her own church or place of religious instruction then he or she will play a better game throughout life.
We did not have a swimming pool in ward four of Fort William, although there was one downtown. The people in that western section felt that there should be another swimming pool available, but the city did not have the money and apparently the dominion or provincial governments were not ready to spend any locally. The young men of that district took the matter in hand and through efficient organization and some aid from the city they built one of the finest outdoor swimming pools in Canada. If any hon. member wants to have a real swim I would be ready to take him to that swimming pool, in the summertime of course. It is an example of what a group of unselfish, willing workers can do, and I pay my tribute to them.

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne
There are certain local matters that we are asking the government to consider. There is a river that needs to be lowered at its mouth, and a breakwater is needed in front of island No. 2. But these matters will be brought up later. At this time I want to congratulate all hon. members who were fortunate enough to be elected. I should like also to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) and the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Low) on the splendid speeches they made at the commencement of this debate. They have shown the rest of us that long speeches are useless. When they were finished they sat down, which I think is in keeping with good parliamentary procedure. I thank you for your courtesy.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time that representatives of Newfoundland have taken seats in this honourable house, and as we have been welcomed in the speech from the throne, I do not think it is inappropriate that one of us should address the house upon the general issues now under discussion. Everyone has seemed so genuinely glad to have us here; and, as we have been treated with such universal kindness and courtesy, I would deem it ungracious if some one of us did not make suitable acknowledgment of that treatment. I am deeply conscious of the unique honour that has been bestowed upon me and, if I may say so, it is somewhat ironical that I, who fought confederation as long as I could, should be the one to whom this honour and privilege have been given.
I hold no brief for the other hon. members from Newfoundland who sit in this house, but I believe that I speak what must be in their minds when I say that we are all impressed with the elaborate arrangements that have been made by the people of Canada for their legislators. This beautiful Gothic structure, so medieval in its architectural style and so modern in its appointments, must be one of the glories of Canada, where legislation should be brought forward and fully discussed and passed in excellent style. It should be regarded as the highest honour that can come to any man to be selected to come here and help pass the laws of his country. It should be his proudest ambition and his fondest hope that by the excellence of her laws Canada should become ever more worthy of the respect and admiration of the other nations of the world.
During the past few days we new members have witnessed the zeal and the interest and the fervour displayed by the older members of the house. While it arouses in our timid hearts a feeling of envy, yet I think it also
stirs up in us a spirit of emulation of their behaviour. I should like to congratulate you, Sir, upon your elevation to the high office that you hold. A couple of days ago we were presented with great volumes of rules and standing orders that could not help but strike terror into our hearts. So much so that we would have been too timid to address you if it were not for the fact that we have been greeted with such charitable encouragement by the members of all parties. For this we are truly grateful.
In accordance with the long-established practice, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) on the fine speeches they made when carrying out a most difficult task. As I listened to the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska I found that what he had to say was most interesting. I trust that other hon. members found his remarks stimulating because in my opinion he put forward the true opinion which every hon. member ought to have of the importance of agriculture to this country.
Agriculture is the most important industry in Canada. The ideal which he expressed, and which found an echo in the statement of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), that people should follow agriculture, not as a profitable and large industry, as it is becoming in so many places, but as a way of living, is, it seems to me, the proper one, one which has received the highest praise from no less an authority than His Holiness the Pope.
Since, unfortunately, agriculture has been neglected in Newfoundland, and as I have advocated the fostering of agriculture for so many years and written many articles about it in our local magazines, I trust it will be one of the first tasks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to see to it that as soon as possible some of these fine experimental stations that are operating in the other provinces of Canada will be set up in Newfoundland, in order that our people may have demonstrated clearly to their eyes how in agriculture they can find a way to a happy and comfortable form of living.
As I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) speak of his beautiful province I dreamed of a land where it was always afternoon, but when I heard the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) speak of the fogs and the heat waves that repelled him when he visited there, and yesterday when I heard of the vicious pests and the curious diseases that afflicted the fruits of that province, I felt that after all Newfoundland was not such a bad place.
134	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne
Our island, Mr. Speaker, has its places of beauty that stir our hearts and make us love her. We have our historic landmarks where in days gone by the two great pioneer races, the French and the English, fought for the mastery of this continent. In my district there is St. John's, and despite what the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) may say, St. John's is the place where Cabot discovered the new world in 1497, where in 1583 Sir Humphrey Gilbert laid the cornerstone of the British empire. In my district there is also the little settlement of Ferry-land. Those who followed the election contest in St. John's West may have heard of it. Ferryland is a very historic settlement because it was there that Lord Baltimore first made his attempt at colonizing the new world. It was there that Sir David Kirke, the conqueror of Quebec and the captor of Champlain and the saintly Breboeuf, set up a grog shop when he had fallen upon evil days.
In the same district we have the beautiful settlement of Placentia, which was once the French capital and came under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Quebec and the saintly Bishop Laval. The people of that place are still proud to call it the ancient capital. Nearly one hundred years ago the sisters of the Order of Presentation came from Ireland and set up their schools there. Personages prominent in the social, political and ecclesiastical life of our country were born there. The present Archbishop of St. John's, who has presided over his See for thirty-four years now, was born there, and his coadjutor archbishop, whose early death a few days ago was lamented by so many, was also born there.
St. John's West has other features of interest besides its beauty and its historic monuments. I believe many members of the house have visited St. John's and know what an important naval base it was during the war. They know the strategic value of Newfoundland. It has always been of great strategic value, and it was the possession of Newfoundland that gave Great Britain a real chance to conquer the western world. A few miles from Placentia there is the great naval base of Argentia where President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill met during the war and signed the Atlantic charter.
I am proud to be the representative not only of the industrious fisherfolk of the districts of Ferryland, Placentia and St. Mary's, but also of the people of St. John's.
If I may revert to the proceedings of last Thursday afternoon, some hon. members from Newfoundland must have felt a certain nostalgia when they witnessed the scenes of a few days ago, because if it had not been for confederation perhaps we might have been wit-


nessing them as the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay (Mr. Ashbourne), the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Bradley), and I witnessed them together twenty-five years ago when we sat in the same house.
I know that hon. members heard a great deal about Newfoundland in this house in the early part of this year and also last year, but I trust that they will forgive me. I do not intend to tell a prolonged story, but very briefly I wish to review the important facts and incidents that led up to our presence here today. The people of Canada, especially those who live in the western provinces, know the effects of the 1929 stock market crash. We did not feel them until 1931 when the government of the day was suddenly surprised to find that they could not borrow any more money. Then there was a wonderful to-do. Everybody tried to economize, to cut down salaries, and all kinds of expedients were adopted to save the country's economy. In 1932 the storm broke with a vengeance. There were riots; people stormed the House of Assembly where the members were in session. The government was -forced to hold an election.
In the avalanche that overtook the government a new government was elected of which I had the honour to be a member, and although we strove manfully to restore the shaken fabric of our country, it was impossible. A royal commission, on which there were two Canadian representatives and one Englishman, decided, after having considered every kind of solution, even confederation- the government of Canada was not prepared to accept Newfoundland into confederation- that a form of government which had been tried once before in Cromwell's time, namely a commission of government, should be introduced into Newfoundland with three Newfoundlanders and three Englishmen, and presided over by His Excellency the Governor.
We had great hopes that when politics were set aside our people would be united in a great effort, and we would quickly restore our country's prosperity. Unfortunately that did not happen, and although on the whole we got fairly good government, it was not until 1941, with the arrival of the United States troops, that things began to change. The construction of those great bases at Fort Pepperell in St. John's and at Argentia in Placentia bay put hundreds of millions of United States dollars into Newfoundland and quickly restored prosperity so that from that time, as hon. members know, Newfoundland was prosperous, had millions of dollars to her credit, and was able to lend Great Britain the sum of $14 million.
It was a condition of the appointment of the commission of government that respons-

ible government should be restored when the prosperity of the country was on a sound basis. This was not done. It is easy to understand our people becoming apathetic and lethargic. They were living well, nothing was troubling them, and they did not bother about politics any more. Nobody took the initiative strongly enough to put forward representations for the return of responsible government. At last the initiative was taken by the British government, which decided that it would hold a national convention. Forty-five members from forty-one districts in Newfoundland and Labrador sat in the convention in St.-John's. They met on September 11, 1946, and for sixteen months they discussed all the various features concerning Newfoundland's economy and her political future.
Hon. members, I am sure, are aware that the delegation which was sent to England from the convention returned discomfited. A delegation was then sent to Ottawa and returned. In October, 1947, a letter was received by the Governor of Newfoundland from Mr. Mackenzie King laying down the terms upon which Newfoundland would enter confederation. Beyond those, he could not go. A firm of chartered accountants in Montreal found that the new province would have a deficit of over $4,000,000 per year if those terms were accepted.
Later on, after the convention had turned down confederation, and the elections were held, another delegation came and the terms were changed. But let me tell you what happened in the convention, because I believe it should be known. By a vote of 29 to 16 the convention decided it wanted responsible government restored. The chairman said we could not have that alone on the ballot. Two things had to be put on the ballot, so it was decided to put on "commission of government" which no one in the convention wanted.
When the convention was closed the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in England said that the question of confederation had occupied so much of the time of the government members in Ottawa and had been so fully discussed in Newfoundland that the people should be in a position to vote on it. He believed, therefore, that they ought to have the right to vote on it, and that was done. The first referendum was carried out and there was a majority of five or six thousand in favour of responsible government. Commission of government was removed from the ballot, a second referendum held, and confederation won by a majority of approximately six thousand.
After that, we had more elections. I do not wish to go into the question too fully, but elections were held. Now, sir, it is only reasonable to believe that if an event of such
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne tremendous importance to the people as their future government is to be considered, then elected representatives should be the ones to consider the problem. Who was considering the fortunes of Newfoundland last year? A commission of government not elected by the people-in fact, some of them had been rejected by the people.
If there were to be negotiations with this great country of Canada, at what a disadvantage were our people when they had to pick men off the street and send them up here without the necessary prestige which the members who represented the government of Canada possessed? Contrast that situation with what occurred in 1895 when the delegation consisted of Mr. Bond, Mr. Morris, Mr. Emerson and Mr. Horwood. Mr. Bond afterwards became the Right Hon. Sir Robert Bond; Mr. Morris became Lord Morris, and Mr. Horwood was later knighted and made chief justice of the country. These were the finest men we had in the country who were sent up here at that time. Does it not stand to reason that, if a country is to be properly represented, this is the type of man we should send? Inexperienced men were sent this time and the right hon. the Prime Minister and his government must have seen they had a tremendous advantage in debating power over our so-called representatives.
Now, sir, I have stated to my constituents that if I was elected to this house I would ask someone on the government side to explain to me and to the people of Newfound'-land-because it has not been explained as yet -what the principle was upon which the financial terms were decided in 1947 and in 1948. For some little time, sir, I have studied the question of confederation between the various provinces of Canada. As hon. members know, the principle adopted at that time was that the per capita debt of Canada and the per capita debt of the provinces were the bases upon which the financial terms were settled. That was the principle which was adopted in 1895, and that was the principle upon which the discussions had taken place at an earlier date.
I have before me the sessional papers of Canada for 1895. I will read from the memorandum the terms proposed by Mr. Mackenzie Bowell, the Prime Minister of Canada:
Canada will assume of present debt of Newfoundland, $8,350,000.
Canada will assume an excess of debt over the $8,350,000 amounting to $2,000,000, a total of $10,350,000.
The deduction is very simple. This is equal to $50 per head of Newfoundland's population of 207,000. On the excess of $2,000,000, Canada was to pay interest at five per cent per annum. In 1895, the position was that
136	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne the per capita debt of Canada was $50 per head. Newfoundland's debt was $15,000,000, or $75 per head. The government of Mackenzie Bowell refused pointblank to accept any further responsibility because of the fear of repercussions in the other provinces of Canada.
On April 16, 1895, he wrote to the Earl of Aberdeen as follows:
Referring to our conversation of yesterday afternoon, I enclose herewith a memorandum showing the financial aspect of our negotiations with the Newfoundland delegates, from which Your Excellency will learn the difficulties that lie in the way of our acceding to the full request of the representatives of that colony. If these figures and explanations are not sufficiently clear and elaborate, kindly let me know, and I will furnish any other that Your Excellency may require.
His idea was that Great Britain should assume the debt of $5,000,000. It was because of this that negotiations fell through.
After the referendum had been taken in 1948 and the people had by a majority endorsed the policy of confederation, a delegation was sent to Canada. This delegation was in a position, because those who opposed confederation in Newfoundland had shown it beyond any shadow of doubt, to say that the terms proposed by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King were insufficient. The terms were then improved, but have we been given a permanent grant to make allowance for the difference in the per capita debt of the two countries? What is the per capita debt of Canada today? Is anyone in this house in a position to tell me? Is it $1,000 or $1,400? The per capita debt of Newfoundland last year was $200. The per capita debt of Canada was seven times as great. Does that not mean that the people of Newfoundland have now taken upon their shoulders this tremendous burden of Canadian debt? The per capita debt of Newfoundland is not now $200 but $1,400.
I doubt very much whether, under those terms, the people will be able to continue. They have been given an increased transitional allowance. I made a calculation of the amount of revenue which was left to Newfoundland after income taxes were taken away, after customs duties and excise taxes were removed. According to the figures supplied by the black book published by the dominion government, about $1,000,000 remains to Newfoundland. Of course, we were given a grant of $6,000,000 instead of the income tax, but that only brings Newfoundland's revenue up to $7,000,000.
The cost of operating public works alone over the last ten years has been about $10 million a year, public health between $6 million and $7 million a year, and education in the neighbourhood of $5 million a year. What


we shall find now is that the poor deluded people of Newfoundland will be told that they must find other sources of revenue. In the various districts, in Placentia and St. Mary's, and in the districts that my hon. friends from Newfoundland represent, the people will be told, "You cannot get this money to spend on education now. We have not got it to give you. You will have to find it yourself. You must do what is done in the other provinces of Canada where fifty per cent of the money for education, health and welfare, and public works comes from the people directly through direct taxation." We have not been accustomed to that form of direct taxation. It is only those people whose salaries are in the higher brackets, men who pay income tax, who have been accustomed to direct taxation. The majority of our people on small incomes have been accustomed to contribute to the revenue in an indirect manner.
I told my constituents that I would ask some spokesman from the government side to explain the principle upon which the financial terms of the agreement were settled. We come here now-at any rate, I do-to seek justice and an amelioration of these terms. If our leader had been elected at the head of a party in the majority, I believe we would have had a good chance, if we could put forward a just case, for the amelioration of these terms. It may be asked what our attitude will be. I am sure hon. members must be curious to know what will be the attitude of those of us who fought hard against confederation, who were opposed to confederation in principle, or who were opposed to the means by which it was brought about, or who were opposed to the terms which were inadequate. Having given careful thought to this important matter, I should like to say that we accept the fact of confederation and that, in the interests of peace, harmony and unity, we shall work for the welfare and benefit of the country as a whole. But, Mr. Speaker, we shall always look for and expect just treatment on the part of the government.
I now wish to refer especially to two matters mentioned in the speech from the throne. The first is the trans-Canada highway. As you know, Mr. Speaker, for various reasons our country is sparsely populated and our people are interested mainly in the fisheries which surround that island, with its thousands of miles of inlets and bays. The interior of the country is hardly developed. Nevertheless, we have built over twenty-five hundred miles of roads. It is true that not all of them are first-class roads. Most of them are far from second-class. But we have the beginning of a trans-insular highway. Less than two hundred miles of roads remain to be built to link up the east and the west. If

;he road is built from Port aux Basques ;ven to Corner Brook it will open up perhaps ;he richest part of our country and the most ittractive part from the tourists' point of /iew. All the beautiful salmon rivers to .vhich so many United States tourists come ;very year will then be open to them to drive along. Further than that, I believe that it will open up good land. Land will be accessible and people will be able to get aasily to the markets and to the railway, [f this road is built in our country, and t trust that it will be, and if the Minister af Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) takes the .nterest that I hope he will take in our country, I believe the country will make some progress.
But there is another feature about the system of highways in Newfoundland to which I should like to direct attention. This devaluation of the pound will have serious repercussions on our principal exports; and we are a Large exporting country in proportion to our total trade. We send to Europe fish for which we have been paid in sterling, now blocked on the other side. We send iron ore to England. Before the war we sent a great deal of ore to Germany. We send paper to England. I saw in the newspapers only today statements by the managers of the two paper companies at Grand Falls and Corner Brook expressing serious concern at the situation that has now arisen. The manager at Bell Island says that it is going to create new difficulties in the exportation of their ore. That is another reason for the difficulties. But the first reason, which I did not mention, was that already there has been a sort of depression in Newfoundland. I will not blame it on confederation. I think I would rather blame it on the Liberal victory. The rosy promises that were held out about the boom that was going to take place and the prosperity that was going to be everywhere have not been fulfilled. Family allowances are a good thing. I think I was the first one in Newfoundland to advocate them. If our own responsible government had been restored to us when it should have been restored I believe we would have had family allowances before you did in Canada, Mr. Speaker. But these things are not sufficient to make up for the people over sixteen and under seventy who are out of work. We need employment; we need development in agriculture; and we need prosperous fisheries. This year in many places the fisheries have been far from prosperous. Already there has been curtailment in work in the woods. Lumbermen have been sent home earlier than usual. There is to be curtailment in the manufacture of sulphite pulp in Corner Brook. It will be seen what all these things add up to, namely, that 45781-10
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne the government of the province of Newfoundland from its inception is faced with extremely serious financial and economic difficulties.
There is one other thing in the speech from the throne to which I should like to make reference and it has been extensively referred to here today. I refer to the housing situation. I intend to mention some examples of housing in various places, and first of all I shall mention housing in Ottawa. It is regrettable that so distinguished a person as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should find it difficult to get a place to live. I think it is really pathetic, and it is not worthy of this country that he should be placed in a difficulty of that kind. But anyone who picks up the Ottawa papers and reads the advertisements of "apartments wanted" will find a situation that I think is un-Christian. We find such examples as these: "Quiet young couple with no children", "Married couple with no children seek apartment", and so on. Several advertisements point out the fact that the seekers for accommodation have no children. Last summer in Trepassey, a little settlement in my district, I met a lady who was married in Toronto. I said, "I thought you were living in Toronto." She said, "No, I had to come home. For four months I walked the streets of Toronto looking for a place for our family, and everywhere I went I was asked, 'Have you any children?' I said 'yes.' I was then told, 'Sorry, we do not take families with children'." She said to them, "What am I supposed to do with my children? Shoot them?" I hope in a moment to make reference to this matter again. But it is not surprising that the government is criticized for its failure with regard to the housing problem when I saw an advertisement like this in the paper a couple of days ago under "apartments wanted":
Two permanent government girls, or small bachelor suitable for one girl.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Joseph Browne: I did not
read all the advertisement. The end of the advertisement reads "reliable".
In contrast, sir, to the treatment which was accorded to the lady to whom I referred as walking the streets looking for a place for her two children, I should like to draw attention to a gentleman who was written up in the Globe and Mail of Toronto yesterday morning. The item refers to Mr. R. L. Parratt of Kingston:
Ross M. Richardson of the firm of Mitchell and Wilson, general contractors of Gananoque, also a war veteran, has a financial interest with Mr. Parratt in the building of apartmentswhere married people with children can live. I believe, sir, that man deserves the acclama-
138	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne tion of this house for the work that he has done. I should also like to refer to a statement which I saw in the press yesterday about a gentleman in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, who was building low-rental houses for the accommodation of people who were seeking housing accommodation in that city.
I should like to refer to the housing problem in the city of St. John's, Newfoundland. There, sir, I believe the housing corporation, which was created a few years ago, made a tragic mistake in erecting high-class houses instead of erecting houses for those who were not able to pay high rental. The chief problem is with the poor and the middle class. The rich person is able to look after himself.
I promised those of my constituents who live in dreadful hovels in the city of St. John's that I would urge the necessity of the government giving attention to the housing situation of those people down there. I trust that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters), when he was in St. John's, took the opportunity of visiting these dreadful places, and that he will take early steps to have something better substituted.
There is one other matter on the housing question to which I should like to refer, and it is an important one. Hon. members from Nova Scotia are familiar with the co-operative movement which has been created down there. They must know that in connection with the co-operative movement Dr. Tompkins developed a housing plan which has been copied, I believe, in other parts of this country. It has been copied in our own. Dr. Tompkins bought seventy-five acres of land, and he gave each man an acre. He brought down two ladies from Maine who studied with groups of ten people how to build a house. They designed their houses outside and in. They reckoned every penny that was necessary for the construction, for fittings and for furnishing these houses, and they came out right to the $2 piece. The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll) knows how successful that plan was. He knows that these houses were built and that they cost only $9 a month and were paid for in the comparatively short time of from twelve to fifteen years. I have not been able to see that plan continued since 1946, but in 1946 it was a pleasure to me to witness groups of ten ex-service men working together to build their houses co-operatively. At the time I was there they had a concrete mixer. They were all working, stripped to the waist, helping one another to build houses in which they could live with their families. That is the cheapest form of housing.
Today I understood the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to say that the people were going to get credit for the labour that


they were putting into their houses. Many years ago we had a scheme for civil servants in St. John's, based on Dr. Tompkins' scheme. It fell through because the government of the day would not give the people credit for the labour they put in on their houses. If that had been done we would have had a solution to the housing problem, which we have not yet.
Finally, sir, what has the future in store for Newfoundland? What are to be the relations between Newfoundland and the rest of Canada? It depends largely upon the question whether the government intends to be just and fair. I must confess, sir, that since I came here I have found much evidence of good will, for which I am truly grateful. I hope that this good will will continue, because if it does I feel quite confident that our people, despite the handicaps under which they suffer, will do all in their power to promote the happiness and the prosperity of a great united nation.


Mr. Sinclair:: Will the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) permit a question for the purpose of clarification?


Mr. Green:: It is his maiden speech.


John Ewen Sinclair: I know it is his maiden speech. I think he made a slip in regard to Mr. Mackenzie King. He said that Mr. Mackenzie King was Prime Minister in 1933 and opposed the confederation of Newfoundland with Canada.


William Joseph Browne: I did not
hear the first part of the remark.


John Ewen Sinclair: When describing the royal commission of 1933 the hon. member said that they had investigated every possibility, including confederation with Canada, and that that was opposed by Mr. Mackenzie King at that time. The hon. member will recall that it was not Mr. Mackenzie King but Mr. R. B. Bennett who was Prime Minister in 1933.


Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy this afternoon to have the opportunity of following in this debate a compatriot from Newfoundland. I want to congratulate the seven members in this house who sit for various constituencies in that island. I am happy to find that at long last Great Britain's oldest colony has taken in Canada, and that at long last the dreams of the fathers of confederation have been fulfilled. I want to congratulate some of the members from Newfoundland on the marvellous majorities which they received in their election. With all due respect to what has just been said by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), there is every indication that by and large the people

of Newfoundland favoured confederation; otherwise I find it difficult to understand how members who had supported confederation come into this house with majorities of five thousand, six thousand, seven thousand and as high as more than ten thousand. Coming from constituencies of older Canada many of us would look upon these majorities as pretty safe ones.
I noticed that the hon. member for St. John's West referred to the fact that members here from Newfoundland felt a little timid in this house. As a Newfoundlander myself I want to say to him that no Newfoundlander ever needs to feel timid anywhere with anyone. Let me tell these newly elected members, what they must already know, that Newfoundlanders have made good in this country in the professional field, in industry and in commerce. And I am sure that, now that Newfoundland is a partner in Canada, Newfoundlanders will make equally good in the political field.
It was my pleasure in 1943 to be, I believe, one of the first, if indeed not the first member in the House of Commons to raise the question of confederation of Newfoundland with Canada. Reference to my speech, which appears in volume V of Hansard for 1943, at page 4657, indicates that in that speech I argued the case for confederation on the basis of the advantages that would accrue to Canada, and not on those which would accrue to Newfoundland.
Having lived just about half my life in Canada, and considering myself a Canadian, I felt that the strategic position and the potential and undiscovered wealth of Newfoundland, and the adjacent territory of Labrador, would be of great advantage to this country. I have no doubt that confederation has already brought some benefits to Newfoundland. I can well imagine that those family allowance cheques, coming just before the election into the outports of Newfoundland, must have looked like manna from heaven. I am not going to say that those cheques had anything to do with the size of the majorities some members received. Newfoundland stands to profit by many of the measures of social legislation we have enjoyed in Canada for many years, but which Newfoundland was unable economically to provide her people. Let me say to the newly elected members from that island, however, that Newfoundland now becomes the fourth maritime province of Canada. If those hon. members have followed Canadian history they will have learned that the marriage of the maritime provinces with Upper Canada at the time of confederation has not been an entirely happy one. Indeed there have been times when the relationship has been strained.
45781-10i
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
Especially in view of the fact that we now have a fourth maritime province, I was disappointed when reading the speech from the throne to find that there was no mention of any special consideration to be given to that part of Canada. It is a well-known fact that the maritimes have suffered. I call the attention of the new members from Newfoundland to this point in order that particularly those sitting on the government side of the house may not sit back complacently and think that, because they have now confederation and now have a Liberal government, all will be well. There will be ample opportunity for those members to fight every inch of the way to secure for Newfoundland, along with the other maritime provinces, what may be considered a square deal.
Let me call the attention of the house to some features which are of great importance to the new province. According to figures published by the dominion bureau of statistics the average earnings in 1948 in the then three maritime provinces were much below the average earnings for the whole of Canada. In that year the average male earning for all Canada was $993; in Nova Scotia the average dropped to $865, in New Brunswick to $765, in Prince Edward Island to $594, with a corresponding drop as compared with the over-all average in respect of the earnings by females.	.
If one looks at the income of farmers of the maritime provinces one will find that while 10-5 per cent of the farms of Canada are in the three maritime provinces, the income of maritime farmers in 1946 was not the 10-5 per cent to which their population would entitle them. It amounted to only 4-5 per cent of the agricultural income of Canada.
Judged by the number of automobiles owned, the number of telephones in homes, the number of houses with radios and with electric lights and inside water, each of the three older maritime provinces falls far below the average for the whole of Canada. These are just a few of the facts to illustrate the statement I have made that special consideration must be given, particularly in view of the new province having been added. If the Liberal party as such has no policy for the maritime provinces I would suggest that it look up the policy adopted by the C.C.F. party at its Winnipeg convention in 1948.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about the Regina convention?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Never mind about that; I will come to it later. I do not believe the Liberal party should have any hesitancy in adopting a few planks offered by the C.C.F. party. It has adopted many of them over the

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy years, and has no reason to be ashamed of having done so. As a matter of fact, if we are to accept the statements made by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) during his election campaign, the Liberal party were not very far from the C.C.F. They had become almost as socialistic as the C.C.F. What I think is most interesting is that every time the leader of the official opposition made that statement on the hustings he made votes for the Liberal party, not for himself. I am confident that the unparalleled success of the Liberal party at the last election was due in large measure to the fact that to some extent they had adopted and enforced measures which the C.C.F. had been advocating since its inauguration in 1933, and which the groups which came together then to form the C.C.F. had been advocating before that time.
I am going to check the record for a few moments because I like this business of checking the record. The Liberal campaign committee for the province of Ontario ran a series of advertisements in the Ontario press during June entitled, "Check the record." They took great credit, and they are entitled to it, for the institution of family allowances. But I want to tell them that if they will look np the C.C.F. program they will find that family allowances were adopted as part of our party program at the convention of 1942. No action was taken by the Liberals in connection with family allowances until 1944. Therefore I think we can claim some credit for having created in the public mind a demand for that particular piece of social legislation.
In that same advertisement the Liberals took credit for having introduced unemployment insurance. I should like to remind hon. gentlemen opposite that if they will go back to the 1933 Regina manifesto, to which an hon. gentleman referred a moment ago, they will find that unemployment insurance was adopted in that year as part of the C.C.F. program. It was not until 1940 when industrial labour was so essential to our war effort that the Liberal party got around to doing anything about unemployment insurance.
I am at a loss to understand the next item in the advertisement by which the Liberal party takes credit for a national health plan.
I fail to understand what they mean by a national health plan. In the Liberal platform of 1919 there was a promise of health insurance, but I do not know of anything approximating health insurance that has been introduced by the Liberal party in the thirty years that have elapsed since 1919. The latest statement I can find on the matter is that the Liberal party does not want to introduce health insurance until enough hospitals have been built to provide the necessary
UMr. Noseworthy.]
accommodation. At the rate at which we are building hospitals at the present time, even with government help, it will be at least fifty years before we have sufficient hospitals so that health insurance can be introduced on that basis. The grants in aid that the federal government is making today to the provincial governments for health purposes represent just about ten per cent of what would be required to institute an over-all national health plan.
What is rather striking is that the Liberals take full credit in that advertisement for any collective bargaining agreements that are in existence. There again I would say that any achievements that have been made in the field of collective bargaining have been due to the fight put up by organized labour over the past fifty years, with little or no assistance from the governments of this country. If hon. members want to make a comparison I suggest that they go back again to the 1933 Regina manifesto where they will find that collective bargaining was made a part of our program. Little or nothing was done and no help was given by the Liberal government to bring about collective bargaining until 1944, when the first act was passed.
There are a number of other credits taken by the Liberals in that advertisement. They took full credit for old age pensions. Need I remind this house that old age pensions were first introduced when both the Conservative and Liberal leaders in this house needed the support of a small group led by the late J. S. Woodsworth, and the basis of that support was a promise from the former Prime Minister of this country.


An hon. Member:: In writing.


Joseph William Noseworthy: That promise was made in writing and it hangs on the walls of our national office. It was to the effect that if we would give support during the following session he would introduce old age pensions. Incidentally, Mr. Woodsworth asked also at that time for unemployment insurance and was promised that it would be given consideration.
The Liberal party also took credit for the veterans charter. I want to congratulate the government on the veterans charter and the extent to which they have assisted the veterans of world war II, certainly as compared with the treatment meted out to the veterans of world war I. It is one of the bright spots in our civilization; it is one of the bright spots that indicate that we as a Canadian people are making progress. I am particularly pleased with the assistance that has been given to the young veterans who have come back desirous of completing their education. While in the house from 1942 to 1945 it was

my privilege to sit on a committee of the house that considered the courses of education that should be made available to veterans returning from world war II. I want to repeat a little story that I heard in my own riding. The Conservative candidate had a loud speaker in the riding and the man who was operating it was saying:	"What did the
Liberal government ever do for you?" After hearing that, a very staunch Conservative came into my committee room and said: "That started me thinking. When I went into world war I my education was half finished; I was about half through high school. I never had an opportunity to complete that education. My boy was in world war II. He too had not quite finished high school when he enlisted. He has since returned and has graduated from the university of Toronto, thanks to the assistance of D.V.A."
I am confident that many of the votes which the Liberal party received in the past election were received from families whose young people had been assisted in completing their education by virtue of the provisions of D.V.A. after their return from the services. I should like to call the attention of the minister to one or two improvements which might be made in the regulations. Here is what I discovered only a few days ago. A student finished his course of study within his credit year. He wrote about half his examinations within his credit year. Two or three of his examinations were written after his credit year had
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy expired. Because of that fact I find that D.V.A. will not take into account his standing in that year although he made second-class honours. They will not grant him another year but insist on going back to the previous year on the ground that, because that boy wrote two examinations after his credit year had been completed, the regulations would not permit them to consider that year.
I am sure the men who framed the regulations never intended that they should operate so drastically as to exclude a deserving young veteran from another year of university training on a mere technicality. I took the trouble to find out how many other veterans at the university of Toronto were affected by that ruling. I found there were about ten or twelve in that university alone. I suggest to the minister that some steps be taken to override that technicality, on behalf of these young men who are entitled, by reason of their academic standing in their last year, to full credit for that academic standing, even though their credit year may have expired before they finished their examinations.
On motion of Mr. Noseworthy the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 22, 1949