1949-01-31

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in common with all the other members of this house you were shocked to learn this morning of the death of Mr. Norman -Jaques, member for the electoral district of Wetaskiwin. We knew that some years ago Mr. Jaques had suffered from a serious coronary attack, but he seemed to have made a complete recovery. From his appearance in the house last week, one would have judged he was enjoying his usual good health. I understand he had a slight coronary disturbance on Thursday evening, but afterwards had been resting rather comfortably. But a further attack developed in the early hours of this morning, and it proved to be fatal.
Mr. Jaques was first elected to this house at the general election of 1935, and was re-elected at both general elections in 1940 and 1945. Those of us who were here during those years know that he was constant in his attendance in the house and took an active interest in its proceedings and in the proceedings of many of its important committees. On many matters he held strong views which most of us did not share, but no one could doubt his sincerity or his earnest desire to be of service to his fellow Canadians in the advocacy of those views. In his relations with other members of the house he was always most courteous. I am sure he will be remembered as an earnest, painstaking and courtly gentleman who served his constituents and his fellow citizens with zeal and devotion.
I wish to express to the members of the Social Credit group our deep sympathy. I am sure I shall also be expressing the wish of members in all parts of this house when I ask you, sir, to convey to Mrs. Jaques and to her two daughters, the assurance of our sincere condolence in their bereavement.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the words of sympathy uttered by the Prime Minister in regard to the untimely death of Mr. Jaques. I did not have the opportunity of knowing Mr. Jaques, but I join with the Prime Minister in extending
deep sympathy to Mr. Jaques' family and to those who were so closely associated with him in this house. I concur in the suggestion that a message be conveyed to Mrs. Jaques and her daughters in the terms expressed by the Prime Minister.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May
we join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in expressing our sympathy to Mrs. Jaques and her two daughters in their sudden bereavement. We often disagreed fundamentally, and sometimes violently, with the late member for Wetaskiwin. None the less we do know that the views he expressed in this house were held sincerely and arose from deep conviction, and for this we respected him, as we respect any member who speaks from sincerity and conviction. We therefore join in expressing to the Social Credit group, as well as to the widow and family, our sympathy in the sudden loss they have all sustained.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, there can be no more striking evidence of the integrity of the members of this house than the sincere and earnest tributes that are paid to an hon. member who has passed away, in spite of the fact that those expressing them may have held strongly divergent views. I wish to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and with the leaders of the other two parties in expressing our sincere regret at the passing of our friend and colleague, Mr. Jaques.
We were shocked to learn of his passing at an early hour this morning. Mr. Jaques arrived in the city last week to attend the present session of parliament, apparently in very good health. He was in this chamber on Thursday, and no one at that time had the remotest thought that that would be his last day in this house.
On Thursday evening, as the Prime Minister has already stated, Mr. Jaques suffered a slight coronary seizure, which at that time was not considered to be unduly serious. There seemed to be good reason to expect an early recovery, but a more serious and intense seizure, which occurred at two o'clock this morning, within a period of ten or fifteen minutes proved fatal.
Mr. Jaques was born in England. He came to Canada when he was twenty-one years old

Tribute to Mr. Norman Jaques and took up farming in central Alberta, where he lived for the remainder of his life. He was always a reformer. For that reason, when Major C. H. Douglas of Scotland first issued his economic analysis Mr. Jaques was attracted to the new philosophy and at once became a keen student, not only of economics but of world affairs. He pioneered in the organization of the Social Credit movement of the world.
As has already been attested by those who have spoken, my colleague was a man of deep convictions. His determination was unshakable. These qualities, together with a high degree of personal courage, often drove him into vigorous debate as well as into strong denunciation of what he firmly believed to be social injustices or real threats to the peace and happiness of the people of the world. In spite of the fact that much personal criticism was directed to him, often amounting almost to character assassination, he stuck to his convictions, and to the very end continued in what he thought was his duty to humanity.
I found Mr. Jaques honest, sincere, humble, and ready to learn, in spite of his rock-like stubbornness when he thought he was right There was in him in rare measure, I also found, a deep love for his fellow men and a respect for their individual rights. In my duties as leader of the Social Credit movement, I found Mr. Jaques loyal and always ready to carry the battle forward.
Almost six years ago in his home in Alberta he suffered a coronary occlusion which resulted in his being confined to bed for several months. He knew that his health was seriously impaired as a result of that seizure. But in spite of that knowledge, his conviction and his concern about the steady deterioration of world affairs drove him like a goad, with the result that he remained active all through these years. No doubt the strain of that activity contributed to his death.
We, his colleagues in the Social Credit movement, mourn his passing. We have lost in him a devoted advocate and a warm personal friend. Our deep sympathy goes out to Mrs. Jaques and her two daughters, in the loss of husband and father, and to all bereaved friends and relatives. I am sure Mrs. Jaques would want me to thank all those who have so generously tendered their condolences and expressions of sympathy. This I do.


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: As a member of the party to which I have the honour to belong, and coming from the province in which Norman Jaques so long made his home, I am anxious to join in the tributes paid to him on the occasion of his sudden death. We
who were best acquainted with him always knew that he was serious, even when in advocating a principle he stood alone. Then, more than ever, we admired his courage in that advocacy.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, two remarks that were made to me rather casually within the last hour or so I thought might express fairly well the general opinion of those who knew Mr. Jaques. One member of the opposition, although not a member of the Social Credit group, said to me "Too bad about Mr. Jaques. He was the very soul of integrity". A few minutes later one of the messengers who knew Mr. Jaques met me in one of the corridors and said, "I am sorry about Mr. Jaques; he was such a nice, quiet man."
Mr. Jaques was always a diligent, industrious worker and student. He wrote great numbers of letters; wherever there was a hint of an opening he sent one to a newspaper, a periodical or an individual. He read widely and voraciously. He spoke at a public meeting whenever an invitation came from anywhere on the American continent. He therefore became well informed and full of understanding. He was an able speaker and writer.
He was honest in the extreme.
He was a man of resolute courage. With his heart attack, which has already been referred to, I need not deal at all. For a good many years I have feared that we might lose Mr. Jaques as we now finally have lost him.
After his illness Mr. Jaques put himself under severe self-discipline in order to do the work he felt he should do in this house. He strove in every way he knew to recover his health; but he kept fighting on. Many a time I have sat by his side in this house while he spoke, holding his chair that he might support himself against its arm, and fearful that at any moment he might collapse in the chamber. In debate he was greatly handicapped. His voice did not carry well. His fine English, gentlemanly habits rendered it foreign to his impulses that he should engage in wordy battles. Despite those handicaps he persevered and drove home his message, frequently at the risk of his life.
He was loyal to his leader. Throughout the ten trying years during which I was charged with the responsibility of leading the Social Credit group in this house, Mr. Jaques stood steadily behind me. He often wrestled with me long and sternly over points of political strategy, or concerning certain forms of the practical application of the fundamental principles of social credit; but when the need was greatest, he was with me. Since the hon.
TMr. Low.]

member for Peace River (Mr. Low) assumed the leadership, Mr. Jaques has been just as loyal to him.
Mr. Jaques was loyal to principle. He regarded the founder of social credit, Major C. H. Douglas, as a sort of inspired prophet heralding across the world the vital doctrines of a new gospel of freedom and security from want and fear; a prophet calling the peoples, particularly the Anglo-Saxon peoples, to repentance from their unpardonable sins of selfishness, ignorance and blindness: calling them to awaken, to realize how rich are the material gifts with which their God has endowed them; how greatly, through the Anglo-Saxons, all families of the earth could be temporally blessed, and how fearful will be the responsibility upon the Anglo-Saxons if they fail.
Mr. Jaques always gave me the impression that he looked upon himself as being called as a sort of apostle of the new economics of abundance and equitable distribution. If he did so, then he magnified that calling ably and well.
In the midst of the battle he has fallen. The torch he so bravely held aloft must still be borne forward. Never in human history has the need been more urgent for enlightenment concerning the principles of social credit for which he stood. Social credit's quarrel with the foe must be carried deeper and deeper into the ranks of the opposition. Mr. Jaques has gone to his rest. But others must carry on.
His wife and children will be able to endure their bereavement the better knowing that throughout his life the husband and father did his full share so well.



MINES AND RESOURCES


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minisler of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the annual report of the Department of Mines and Resources for the year 1947 was not received until after the close of the last session. I am therefore tabling it now.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaveniure) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Civil Service Act (examinations).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Bona Arsenault: This bill provides an amendment to section 29 of the Civil Service Act by adding the following subsection:
(3) In preparing the list mentioned in subsections one and two of this section, the commission
Proposed, Legislation
shall, for appointments to positions in the province of Quebec, give preference to the competitors who have, by the examination, been shown to be capable of speaking and writing correctly the French language and who have been shown at the same time to have a working knowledge of the English language, and shall for appointments to positions in the other provinces give preference to the competitors who have, by the examination, been shown to be capable of speaking and writing correctly the English language and who have been shown at the same time to have a working knowledge of the French language.
The reason for this amendment is to promote the learning of both official languages of our country, by Canadians of both English and French extraction, especially among those who seek positions in the civil service. Therefore this bill, if enacted into law, would be a contribution to better understanding between French and English speaking Canadians, and a means of promoting national unity.


Mr. Church:: That is contrary to the British North America Act, is it not?
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA ACT


Bona Arsenault: for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend an act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Bona Arsenault: This bill provides an amendment to subsection 1 of section 5 of the act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada, adopted at the last session of parliament. The change proposed consists in the addition thereto of the following words:
. . . and whenever in the said statutes or acts, or amendments thereto, the expression "Dominion of Canada" is used, there shall be substituted therefor the expression "Canada" and whenever the word "Dominion" is used, there shall be substituted therefor the word "Canada" or "Canadian" or "federal", respectively, or such other adequate word as the context requires.
The reason for this amendment is obvious. In view of the actual constitutional position, Canada, like the other countries of the commonwealth of nations, has ceased to be a dominion and is now a sovereign state. Therefore, since Canada has become an autonomous and sovereign state, the word "dominion" as applied to Canada has lost its original meaning.
Moreover, the use of the word "dominion" as applied to Canada gives a false impression as to the present constitutional position of our country, because it denies recognition of the
72	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry autonomous status of Canada and implies the idea of subordination of Canada to another country.
Therefore the word "dominion" should be eliminated from our statutes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Timmins (Parkdale):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Why is the tariff board not fully constituted at this time so that it may function as a board? When may we expect the necessary additional appointments to be made to the board so that it can function?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Perhaps I had better answer the question, since the tariff board is under my jurisdiction. I hope it will be possible to reconstitute the full board in the near future. The matter is being given active consideration.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Probe (Regina City):: Will the
Minister of Justice be kind enough to inform the house what steps have been taken by him to follow up the charges contained in the Goldenberg report on the bread baking industry of western Canada, that there appears to be a price-fixing combine in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: On its publication the report of the special commissioner appointed under the Combines Investigation Act was referred immediately by us to the attorneys general of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, to see if they would be prepared to, or wished to, exercise their provincial rights and prosecute. They indicated that inasmuch as several provinces were involved they would prefer to have the dominion government assume the responsibility for the prosecution. Therefore counsel was immediately appointed with instructions to review the report and the evidence and to advise me on the course of action he considered justified. I am now awaiting the advice of counsel.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Who is he?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. C. S. Blanchard, K.C., of Alberta.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: I should like to direct two questions to the Minister of Finance. Has any decision been reached with reference to the recent submission made on behalf of prevailing rates employees about sick leave, holidays and overtime pay? Will the government give the part-time and fulltime House of Commons temporaries and prevailing rates employees and public works employees an increase in pay similar to that allowed the temporaries and permanent civil servants?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In reply to the first question, the matter is still under consideration. As to the second question, of which I received notice just before coming into the house, I have not yet had time to verify this, but I believe the matter is under the jurisdiction of the internal economy commission. I shall look into the matter and make sure that that is so.



SUPERANNUATED CIVIL SERVANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the reported promise made by the minister, in Victoria, to take up with his colleagues in the government the plight of superannuated civil servants, can the minister say what progress he has made in securing reconsideration of their request for a cost of living bonus or other supplement?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: I would refer the hon. member to page 42 of Hansard for the present session, where the Minister of Finance answered this question the other day. I am greatly concerned, as are all hon. members, about people whose fixed standard of income places them on a substandard level.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Substandard is the right word, all right. May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance? Is the minister aware of the fact that some private corporations-and at least one provincial government, namely, Saskatchewan-are paying a cost of living bonus to their superannuated employees?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not aware of the fact, Mr. Speaker. It may well be true.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not see any urgency in the question. It is of the kind which should be placed on the order paper.


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



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Toward the end of the last session the then minister of justice said that a committee or commission would be set up for the purpose of revising the criminal code. Has that committee or commission been set up? Who are the members that have been appointed to it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer is, Mr. Speaker, that the commission has been set up. The commissioners are Chief Justice Martin, of Saskatchewan; Mr. Justice Fauteux, of Quebec, and Mr. F. P. Varcoe, K.C., deputy minister of justice. The legal committee assisting the commissioners are Mr. J. J. Robinette, K.C., Toronto; Mr. Fernand Choquette, K.C., Quebec; Mr. H. J. Wilson, K.C., deputy attorney general for Alberta; Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, K.C., of Toronto; Mr. Robert Forsyth, K.C., one of the officials of the Department of Justice, and possibly a member to be appointed from the maritime provinces. In addition the commission will have available the services of Mr. Arthur G. Slaght, K.C. as consulting counsel.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the urgent need of financial assistance for education generally and teacher training in particular, is the government considering federal grants in aid to the provinces for education?
Hon, Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of
Labour): The hon. member probably knows as well as I do that, constitutionally, education comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. It is true that we have agreements with various provinces providing for assistance in vocational education. The government is not considering entering the field of teacher training or general education in any of the provinces. In the light of what we have heard so far this session I think my hon. friend will understand the implication of what I have just said.
Inquiries of the Ministry FLAX



FLOOR PRICE FOR CROP YEARS 1949 AND 1950

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does the government intend to maintain a floor price on flax for the crop years 1949 and 1950? If so, when will the policy be announced? Farmers are now making arrangements for the purchase of their seed requirements.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that hon. members be very careful to observe the rules of the house. They know perfectly well that a question of the kind which should not be asked on the orders of the day should be placed on the order paper.


Major James William Coldwell: May I respectfully suggest that the farmers are now buying their flax for seeding purposes in the spring, or are making arrangements for it? There is urgency in the question.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I have no objection to answering the question. The matter of a floor price for flax is under consideration. But I may say that any farmer who is in doubt about purchasing seed for the next crop should bear in mind that flax is in surplus supply in every producing country of the world, and the prospects for flax today are not favourable.



FOX FARMING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received from the Canadian National Silver Fox Breeders Association a submission asking for the abolition of the sales and excise tax on silver fox furs?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I have received such a submission.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Was the province of Ontario represented in the freight rates inquiry last year, and is it represented in the present appeal?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minisler of Transport):: My recollection is that they were not last year, and that they are not this year.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not think they would help British Columbia and the west.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: I should like to ask a question of the minister of reconstruction. What steps are being taken to see to it that houses which are being constructed by the Bow River Construction Company of Calgary, under the authority of the National Housing Act, are completed immediately?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I shall have to take the hon. member's question as notice. In the first place, I did not hear the question, and in the second place, I shall answer when I see it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should be only too pleased to repeat it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodney Young (Vancouver Centre):: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister under consideration any measure to effect an increase in the basic training grant to single student veterans in training under the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Put it on the order
paper.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The house will recall that last
spring an increase was authorized in the amount designed to assist student veterans to maintain their dependents. Since that time I have kept under study the whole matter of university training for single and married veterans, and as a result I do not propose to recommend an increase in the basic rate at this time.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: I should like
to ask a question of the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that there is widespread confusion as to the practical application of regulations governing the air transport of first-class mail. Will the minister at an early day make some clarification of the existing regulations, and at the same time indicate the status of letters sent post-free to members of parliament, and letters dispatched by members of parliament bearing the House of Commons frank?


Hon. Ernest Bertrand (Postmaster General):: I shall take the hon. member's question as notice, because it is a lengthy one. A full answer will be given within a few days.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, January 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. D. F. Brown for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned on Friday evening I had just made the assertion that while the federal government had expressed its willingness to ask for legislation allowing it to withdraw from the field of rental control in any province where the government and legislature chose to assume legislation in that respect, whether it proposed to continue controls or not, I think it is only fair that I should refer to the correspondence in that respect, and that after doing so I should table such correspondence so that it may be available in complete form to members of the House of Commons who might wish to refer to it.
On October 23 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) wrote to the premiers of the nine provinces. Eight of these letters were written in English, and one in French to the premier of Quebec. The letter in English to the eight provinces is as follows:
In a press statement yesterday with regard to rent control, I announced that the federal government intended to ask parliament for power to extend rental control for a further twelve months beyond March 31, 1949.
I went on to say-
[Mr. Cruickshank.)

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
Then the minister quotes the statement he had made the day before. His letter continues:
At the same time the federal government is prepared to vacate the field at any time after March 31, 1949, to any province which may decide to undertake rent control. Normally, rent control would come under provincial jurisdiction and is peculiarly suitable for provincial or local administration because of the immovable nature of real property. The federal government is anxious not to stand in the way of any province which believes that rent control can be better undertaken and administered locally.
The constitutionality of continuing federal rent control has already been questioned and is now before the courts. The federal government does not wish to do anything to prevent any province from making provisions to deal with the situation that would arise should continuing federal rent control be held invalid and is prepared not only to make available to any province the records, information and experience of the federal rental administration with all available staff, but also, subject to parliamentary approval, to pay the cost of any provincial rental administration for one year.
This announcement of policy is being made at this time so that any provincial government which wishes to do so will have sufficient time to prepare legislation for presentation to its legislature before March 31, 1949.
I am writing to you at this time to say that if your government should decide to introduce provincial legislation relating to rent control, the federal government will be prepared to vacate the field at any time after March 31, 1949, to put at your disposal the records, information and experience of the federal rent administration with all available staff and, if parliament approves, to pay the costs of your provincial rent administration for one year.
May I add that the rentals administrator of the wartime prices and trade board has been instructed to make himself available to you for consultation in connection with provincial legislation relating to rent control.
On November 6 the premier of British Columbia acknowledged receipt of that letter and wrote in the following terms:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 23 with reference to rental control.
I may say that the province has not considered as yet the advisability of entering the rental control field.
I would like to take this opportunity of thanking you for advising me of the federal government's stand in this regard as well as for their co-operation should British Columbia decide to introduce rental control measures.
With kindest personal regards . . .
On January 13 the Minister of Finance wrote the premier of British Columbia a letter which I shall read and which I shall refer to as having been written in similar terms to the other premiers. This reads:
On November 6 last you acknowledged my letter of October 23 regarding the extension of rent control, and said that the province of British Columbia has not considered as yet the advisability of entering the rental control field.
The federal government is now making plans for the forthcoming session of parliament, during the early stages of which action must be taken to extend federal rent control if it is not to lapse after March 31, 1949. As soon as possible, therefore, I would like
to know if your government has decided to request that federal rent control be discontinued in your province after that date.
May I repeat my assurances that the federal government is anxious not to stand in the way of any province which believes that rent control can be better undertaken and administered locally.
To that letter the premier of British Columbia replied on January 18 as follows:
I have for acknowledgment your letter of January 13 and note what you have to say regarding rent control.
First, I may state that it is not the intention of the province of British Columbia to enter this field, as it is felt that it is one which rightfully belongs to the federal government. X feel that perhaps your officials are better able to advise you as to the need for rent control, since they have been dealing with this matter for so long. Consequently it is not the intention of the government at this time either to introduce rent control legislation or to make any representations in regard to this project.
Yours faithfully,
Byron I. Johnson,
Premier.
A similar letter to that of the letter of October 23 was written to the premier of Alberta. He replied on November 3 that a further study would be given to it, but, no reply having been received, a letter similar to the one I have just read was dispatched to him on January 13. On January 18 he replied as follows:
Dear Mr. Abbott:
I have for reply your letter of January 13 in further reference to the offer of your government to the provinces to assume control of rentals.
Since my letter of November 3, this matter has been considered in detail and I now am in a position to notify you that the government of Alberta does not propose to enter into the control of rentals.
Yours very truly,
Ernest Manning,
Premier.
Similar letters were addressed to the premier of Saskatchewan. The first one was acknowledged by the premier's secretary in his absence, and the second one of January 13 has not yet been answered. Similar letters were addressed to the premier of Manitoba, but they have not yet been answered. *
Similar letters were addressed to the premier of Nova Scotia, and so far they have remained unanswered.
The premier of Prince Edward Island acknowledged the first letter on October 29, and on January 17 he replied to the letter of January 13 in the following terms:
Dear Mr. Abbott:
Thank you for your letter of January 13 regarding continuance of rent controls.
The government of Prince Edward Island does not believe that rent control can be better undertaken and administered locally, and consequently will not request that federal rent control be discontinued in this province after that date.
Yours very truly,
J. Walter Jones.
Premier.
76

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent Premier McNair of New Brunswick acknowledged receipt of the first letter on November 1, stating he would advise in due course what decision was arrived at. He did so on January 11, which was before the date on which these other letters were dispatched to the other premiers. His letter was in the following form:
Dear Mr. Abbott:
With further reference to your letter of October 23 regarding rental control, I wish to advise that I have now had an opportunity to discuss the matter to some extent with my colleagues.
It was drawn to their attention that, as set out in your letter, the federal government intends to ask parliament for power to extend this control for a further period of twelve months from March 31 next.
It is our feeling that this extension may adequately meet the situation in this province. At any rate there is no present disposition on our part to enter this field. Should there be any change of attitude in this regard I shall advise you accordingly.
Yours sincerely,
John B. McNair.
The correspondence with the premier of Quebec was quite lengthy. It was carried on in French, and it will be tabled and made available for all those who care to see it in that language. There was an acknowledgment of the letter of October 23 on October 29, and then on November 3 Premier Duplessis wrote to the Minister of Finance as follows:


Mr.   Minister@: Pursuant to the reply which I sent you on October 29. I communicated today to my colleagues, at a meeting of the executive council of the province, your letter of October 23 regarding rent control. It would seem necessary for us to obtain more precise details and explanations.
The federal government, you say, proposes "asking parliament for power to continue the rental control for a further period of twelve months after March 31. 1949."
Evidently, the definite terms of this legislation will not be known until after it has been adopted by parliament and sanctioned by His Excellency the Governor General, but do you not think it would be reasonable under the circumstances that we should know the federal government's plans in this connection? Incontestably it is impossible to make a decision on legislation when we do not even know the previous legislative plans.
You declare in your letter that "the constitutionality of continuing federal rent control has already been questioned and is now before the courts." Tradition and a recognized practice make it impossible to discuss cases which are before the courts, and it would not be suitable or advisable at the present time to express our opinion in the matter of the constitutionality of federal rent control. However, it is evident that the final verdict of the courts on this matter could change completely the present picture.
You write that "the federal government is prepared to vacate this field at any time after March 31, 1949, for any province which may decide to undertake rent control," and you add subsequently:
"I am writing now to inform you that if your government decides to introduce provincial legislative measures, the federal government will be ready to vacate this field any time after March 31, 1949."

Does this mean that after March 31, 1949, you will definitely recognize the right and power of the province to establish, or not establish, as the provincial authorities judge best, a provincial control on rentals? In other words, after March 31, 1949, will the federal government give the province exclusive power in these matters?
It is always a pleasure for us to co-operate with the federal authorities for the well-being and prosperity of the people, in conformity with the Canadian constitution.
Kind regards.
M. Duplessis.
The Minister of Finance sent him quite a full and reassuring letter reading as follows:
I wish to thank you for your letter of November 3, and particularly for your offer of co-operation. You suggest that it would be helpful for you to know the federal government's plan for extension of rental control beyond March 31, 1949. The present intention is to ask parliament to extend the existing powers for another year, although you will understand, I am sure, that before the legislation is introduced it may be necessary to make changes which cannot be foreseen at this time. I should perhaps explain that under existing powers the government is authorized to make regulations from time to time as to the level of maxi mum rentals, eviction control, and so forth.
As I said in my announcement and in my letter to you, the government does intend, however, to ask parliament for authority to withdraw rental control in any province which decides to introduce its own legislation in this field.
In your letter you ask: "Does this mean that after March 31, 1949, you will definitely recognize the right and power of the province to establish, or not establish, as provincial authorities judge best, a provincial control on rentals? In other words, after March 31, 1949, will the federal government give the province exclusive power in these matters?"
The government's policy, as announced, is that if after March 31, 1949, under the proposed extension of rent control, any provincial government formally requests that federal rental control be withdrawn in that province, the federal government will announce that it has received such a request and proceed to withdraw its controls at a date to be fixed by the provincial government in the light of the legislative plans of the province. The responsibility for rental control in that province will then rest with the provincial government and legislature.
A letter, substantially along the lines of the one I read, was dispatched on January 13 to the other premiers, because there had been no response to this one. 1 will not attempt to summarize the answer of Mr. Duplessis of the 21st January but will proceed to give hon. members its text.
Your letter of January 13 was communicated to me today. The attitude of the present government of Quebec towards federal control of rentals is well known. If you will re-read my letter to you of November 3 last and your reply of November 12 last, you will find that the necessary explanation and particulars were not supplied.
As the federal government intends laying before the Ottawa parliament a new bill on the subject, I would ask you kindly to send me a copy of this new federal bill. You will undoubtedly admit that this problem involves a state of affairs, a situation and facts which must necessarily be taken into account.

Up to the present time we have not construed that as an offer to take over responsibility for rent control in the province of Quebec.
A similar letter was dispatched to the premier of Ontario, the hon. gentleman who succeeded my hon. friend not very long ago. Even before I saw this correspondence, I expected that the answer would be clear-cut in view of the clear, direct and businesslike statement the leader of the opposition and I had the pleasure of listening to from the premier of Ontario on Wednesday last. The letter from the premier of Ontario reads:
The government of the province of Ontario feels that rental control should be carried on by your government at present, and when the year 1950 comes we can decide if we have to do anything further.
That letter was marked "confidential". On the 13th of January the Minister of Finance wrote as follows:
On October 23 you acknowledged my letter of October 23 relating to the continuance of rent control, and on December 2 informed me that your government feels that rental control should be carried on by the federal government at present. When parliament assembles at the end of this month it may be necessary to table the correspondence with the provinces in connection with rent control, and I assume there will be no objection on your part to tabling your letter to me of December 2, even though it is marked "confidential."
Mr. Kennedy answered on the 19th of January:
Further to your letter of January 13 relating to the continuation of rental control, it will be quite in order to table my letter of December 2.
I do not think anyone can have any doubt about the position and desires of the present government of Ontario in respect of this terrible invasion we have been practising on the jurisdiction of the provinces.
I might mention, in passing, another example of the apparent reluctance of provincial administrations to tackle problems that appear to be a bit embarrassing to some, the fact that there has not been much done about oleomargarine since the supreme court rendered its judgment saying that was a matter of provincial jurisdiction. These are two concrete cases. It is all very well to make broad statements about the centralizing tendencies of the federal government, but I said on Friday, and I repeat, that I invite any hon. member to point to a single case where there has been an invasion of provincial jurisdiction since the cessation of hostilities. Since that time we have been using our best endeavours to withdraw from those fields we had to enter for the security of the state during the period of the war.
The correspondence about rent control is merely one concrete example of what we have attempted to do. Hon. members will have noticed that in the correspondence we even
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent go so far as to say that, if the provinces wish to take on the administration of rent control, subject to the approval of parliament we will pay their expenses for doing so during the whole year. Therefore the only reason we are continuing is their recognition that it is not yet time to put an end to this measure which became necessary during the war, and that it will serve the national interest better to have the administration continue as it has proceeded in the past.
Some might say that our so-called austerity program of the month of November, 1947, impinged upon the ordinary rights of Canadians to trade. Of course it did, but it did not impinge upon provincial jurisdiction. That is a matter of external trade; that is a matter of the balance of external payments, which is at all times within the exclusive jurisdiction of this parliament and of this government.
In his address the leader of the opposition, dealing with the paragraph of the speech from the throne which announced the setting up of a royal commission to examine into certain activities of our national life which have to do with the other side of life than the strictly material one, indicated that he thought there-might be some suggestion of impinging oru provincial jurisdiction. The leader of the opposition referred to some of the language of this paragraph, saying that there were no restrictions, that it covered very broad fields. If the hon. member had read the paragraph carefully, he would see that all the subsequent language is governed by the first part.
It Is the view of my ministers that there should be an examination of the activities of agencies of the federal government relating to-
It is proposed to have an examination made of the activities of agencies of the federal government relating to radio, films, television, and so forth. It is restricted to the activities of federal agencies-activities which are of concern to the Canadian nation. The reason for wishing to have a study of that kind made is one which, I think, should appeal to-almost every Canadian.
We have here the finest country in the-world. There is no country in the world which has a better population than the Canadian population. We are not sufficiently conscious, ourselves, of the great privilege of being citizens of this Canadian nation and having as our land this great territory of Canada. In the economic, materialistic field, we have been doing fairly well; but man liveth not by bread alone. There is another side to human life that is quite as important as the dollars and cents resulting from trade. Upon that side of the normal activities of civilized, Christian human beings, sufficient
78	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent attention has not been focused nationwide.
I think it will be an advantage to have an examination made of all the agencies which are spending some of the money of the Canadian public in these efforts, to determine whether they are doing it in the right way and whether enough of it is being done.
In this land of ours we have a standard of living higher than anywhere else in the world, save perhaps in the United States. We have not only a high standard of living, but we have all these other advantages. I shall never forget a speech to which I listened in Quebec on a late summer afternoon in 1929, delivered at a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association by Sir Robert Borden. I cannot hope to bring into this chamber the booming tones that sounded through the hall of the Chateau Frontenac when that speech was delivered, but I would call it to the attention of hon. members. They will find it in the proceedings of the Canadian Bar Association, 1929, volume 14, at page 177.
At the risk of not being able to reproduce the tense interest that prevailed, I shall read two or three paragraphs.
It Is unfortunate that in other provinces there is not a fuller and more general acquaintance with the early history of Quebec which is significant, not only in its importance to our country, but in its dramatic interest.
Recall the year 1635. The first governor of Quebec lies on his deathbed in this city which he had founded twenty-seven years before. During his long and arduous career Champlain had seen his little colony almost annihilated by the winter of 1609. and possessed by the English from 1629 to 1632. Perhaps in the closing hours he thinks of his effort and of his career as a failure and little realizes the strength of the foundation which he has laid or the stately structure that is to arise thereon. For the design and achievement of Champlain had unexpected significance. The foundation of Quebec led to the occupation of the St. Lawrence valley which with Acadia would otherwise have been colonized from New England and New York and swept into revolution or separation. Champlain began to hold it for the Canada of today. In this sense Canadians owe to him their heritage although, in the infinite complexity of future forces and tendencies, then altogether undiscernible, his paramount purpose of creating for France a western empire was wholly overborne in the final event.
Across the ocean in the same year, 1635, a great Englishman speaks to his fellow parishioners in the church of Kimble Magna near Oxford. He bids them consider whether they shall obey the King's decree for the payment of "ship money." A facsimile of the record of that meeting hangs on a pillar in the parish church. It records unanimous denial of the King's right and refusal to obey the King's decree; even the officials, the constables and assessors, join in the refusal inspired by John Hampden's courage and patriotism. The question then raised was finally settled when the supremacy of the people through their representatives in parliament was for ever affirmed. Upon that determination rest our liberties. Shall not Canadians look back with thankful memory to John Hampden, pioneer of our freedom, and with grateful recog-


nition to Samuel Champlain, pioneer and founder of our heritage?
Our history is probably not sufficiently well-known to all of us in this great country of ours. We must not only be concerned with the past, great as that story might be, in creating and developing national unity. The Gazette is not always of the opinion that the future can mean so much. I was rather amused to notice that in its editorial of the 14th of January, the Gazette had this to say-


Major James William Coldwell: The Montreal Gazette?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: The Montreal Gazette.
In offering French Canadians, as other Canadians, a progressive conservatism, the party under Mr. George Drew is not offering something new.
I suppose the Gazette ought to know, but we on this side of the house feel that, as time goes on, it is necessary to offer something new and progressive to the people of Canada. We think the time has come when it is advisable to ask the people of Canada to look around and see for themselves what their privileges are; to conceive in their own hearts and minds a greater pride in the privileges which are accorded to them as citizens of this country.
Radio is the first matter mentioned about which there is to be this examination of the activities of the federal government. Canadian radio has proven to be a valuable agency for the furthering and developing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Graydon:: It has been in the past.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If these gentlemen still wish to think of the past, that is all right; but I want to talk a little bit about the present and the future. Canadian radio has been an important instrument in furthering among us knowledge of our own advantages.


Gordon Graydon: Oh, oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Does the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) feel that it is so ridiculous to find that we have advantages in living in this country of Canada? I am sure there are people in his own constituency who do not consider that it is ridiculous.


Gordon Graydon: There are other advantages.


Mr. Fraser:: Advantages to the Liberal party.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: A week ago Saturday I had the privilege of seeing two or three of the films-I am getting a little bit ahead of myself, I find. I always do that when I enter into a discussion with the hon. member for Peel.
It may be that radio has not done enough. It may be that the way in which radio is organized is not the best possible way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: To those who say "hear, hear", may I point out that publicly-owned radio system was organized and carried on under a bill which was presented in this house by a government led by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. In a moment I shall have occasion to refer to some of the language he used when he introduced that last bill. But because it comes from the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett it does not mean that it is perfect; not by any means. It is susceptible of being improved. I think it is advisable at this time to have the situation looked into, and to get expert opinion and advice as to whether or not it should be improved and how it should be done.
Complaints have been made about the fact that those administering the publicly-owned system have at the same time control over those who are operating privately-owned systems. That may or may not be a valid criticism. We do not have the directors of the Canadian National Railways performing the functions of the board of transport commissioners, nor do we have the directors of Trans-Canada Air Lines performing the functions of the air transport board. It may be that the governors of the C.B.C. should not, at the same time, be the ones to operate the publicly-owned system and to make regulations for the others.


An hon. Member:: You are right.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is a matter which can be given serious consideration.


Major James William Coldwell: There is a difference. The air is a public utility.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes; there is that difference. Here there are monopolistic features resulting from the allocation to the various broadcasting stations of frequencies or wave lengths which, once they have been allocated, cannot be used by anybody else.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: But there is ground for serious examination of the contention that there should be two authorities, one to carry out the actual broadcasting work of the publicly-owned system and another to regulate all broadcasting. I have no set views of my own upon the subject, but I think it is a matter that is worthy of being considered.
Then we have our national film board. A week ago Saturday I saw one short film with which I was greatly impressed. There are more ways than one in which to enlighten and influence public opinion in a country. I saw a film which had to do with the enterprises of the Koerner sawmills firm in British Columbia. These are gentlemen who were engaged in the lumber industry in
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent Czechoslovakia and Poland before Hitler conquered Czechoslovakia. In March, 1939, they acquired a lumber mill in New Westminster. Leon J. Koerner brought out to Canada his brothers and five employees who had experience in European methods of handling lumber. In July, 1939, he had forty-five men on his payroll. At the present time there are over three thousand on the payroll of that firm. The firm handles chiefly hemlock which, prior to their advent, was regarded as an inferior species of lumber. Through methods brought with them and introduced here, what is known as Alaska pine has become one of the species of lumber widely used in the trade all over the world.
When I was out in British Columbia some months ago I visited their mill and, by seeing it, was made to realize how great a contribution these new immigrants had made to the economy of British Columbia and to the Canadian nation. Although I had seen the yard and the magnificent arrangements made for taking care of the comfort and well-being of their employees, I had not seen it as I saw it at the national film board in ten minutes. The picture shows the start from the stumps of these huge hemlock trees in the forest, and follows the process as they were brought down to the mill and treated. There are in Canada people who have from time to time expressed divergent views as to the propriety or impropriety of bringing in immigrants. If we had a few more of these films, which would allow our people to see what some of these immigrants bring with them, and the contribution they make to the development of our natural resources, I think the film board would be performing for the Canadian nation a most valuable service.
In his interesting speech on Friday night the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), as reported at page 48 of Hansard, said that private interests were being arbitrarily prevented from providing television in this country without any cost to the public exchequer. Television is a matter which must necessarily develop into a monopolistic enterprise. The frequencies which can be used for broadcasting these pictures are not numerous, and those allocated to Canada are restricted in number. The installation of facilities for broadcasting pictures is extremely costly; and if private interests venture the capital required to broadcast in certain localities they will require to have these frequencies allocated to them and their investment will have created for them a vested interest therein. Is that situation desirable for this Canadian nation?


Major James William Coldwell: No.

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: When the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett introduced his bill on radio broadcasting, as reported at page 3035 of Hansard of 1932, he said this:
First of all, this country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources, free from foreign interference or influence. Without such control radio broadcasting can never become a great agency for the communication of matters of national concern and for the diffusion of national thought and ideals, and without such control it can never be the agency by which national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened. Other and alternative systems may meet the requirements of other countries, and in any case it is not my purpose to comment unfavourably upon those systems, but it seems to me clear that in Canada the system we can most profitably employ is one which, in operation and control, responds most directly to the popular will and the national need.
What was true with respect to radio seems to me, with the slight knowledge I have of the subject, to be equally applicable to television, and it would be a mistake for us to embark upon any plan which would take from the public these frequencies which are allocated to Canada for the public.
It may be that the installation of television is costly; it may be that its range is not very wide, that it will be difficult to provide it for the outlying districts of Canada. But I do not think that these frequencies, allocated to the Canadian public, should be lightly turned over to private ownership and exploitation unless we come to the conclusion that there is no better way in which the Canadian public can be provided with this new form of entertainment and education.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said, but you are asking this commission to do so much that it is going to take a long time, and there may be in this house men young enough to see the results of its investigation and to hear its recommendations. I do not think it is going to take so long. We are setting up this commission and we intend it to be a commission of achievement, and not a mere Hope commission. In the meantime it does not mean that nothing can be done in these fields that are to be examined. I can assure the leader of the opposition that at the present time active consideration is being given by the government to a proposal to set up television immediately in some places, under such conditions as will not determine what the permanent and long-range policy will necessarily have to be.


George Alexander Drew: Is the Prime Minister referring now to the United States broadcasts that can be received by Canadians who are close enough to receive them?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I am not referring now to the United States broadcasts that can be received by Canadians who are close enough
[Mr. Coldwell.l
to receive them. I know that that is so, and I know from my own experience that there are United States broadcasts which are received. However, that does not prevent the operation of a publicly-owned broadcasting system in Canada. I do not think we shall ever have to come to the point where we shall have a curtain through which information from outside cannot penetrate. I do not think that is a situation that is desired by any of us here. Many of us welcome the waves that come from the United States radio broadcasters, but at times we prefer to listen to what is being broadcast from our own publicly-owned system. The same should be true of television.
This paragraph in the speech from the throne also proposes to have examined the activities of the federal government in the encouragement of arts and sciences. I think that is something with which most of the Canadian public are in sympathy. But how far should it go? There are certain forms of encouragement, certain forms of art, and certain scientific developments, which are of interest to the whole nation and which are of national importance. There are others which are not of national importance. It is worth while to have that matter examined, and the recommendations made which will be of guidance to us over the next few years, and which my hon. friend, if he ever comes over on this side, may find of value in dealing with the applications for encouragement which he will be receiving, as we have received them from time to time.
The next matter dealt with is research. Research cannot be a matter of local and private concern within the provinces. How many times have we had interesting debates in this house upon cancer research. Cancer research cannot even be provincial; it cannot even be national; it is world-wide, and the encouragement of research of that kind is something that is of interest to every nation. Who would deny that our own agricultural economy has profited immensely from the research conducted under the establishments within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)? Who will deny that our national research council has provided means of separating, or of extracting, metals from base ores that have made of immense value some of the resources of our country, and which for a great many years, and before these processes were devised, were making no contribution to our economy?


Mr. Green:: Will the Prime Minister permit a question? Do these activities include the activities of the atomic energy control board?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The terms of reference have not yet been drafted. I would imagine that the activities of the atomic energy con-

trol board are such that it would not be possible, for security reasons, to make them the object of an investigation of a royal commission which normally operates in public.
The paragraph goes on to speak of the activities which enrich the national life. Every session parliament is called upon to vote a certain number of grants for a certain number of enterprises, and the requests continue to be made. I read with some amusement a short while ago that an application would be made for a very substantial grant to encourage athletics in Canada. We already have expended some public money for the encouragement of athletics. The Royal Canadian Air Force hockey team attended the last Olympic games, and by their performance abroad did increase the knowledge of Canada and of Canadians. Two or three times this House of Commons unanimously applauded the great success which had crowned the efforts of Barbara Ann Scott at the Olympic games. Requests are coming in now for a contribution to enable a team of Canadian athletes to attend the British commonwealth games which are to be held in New Zealand next year. Are these activities of national interest, and should they be fostered? That is a matter about which there may be some divergence of views; but there is no doubt that these achievements of Canadians, in whatever field they be, those of Barbara Ann Scott, those of the Royal Canadian Air Force hockey team, those of the Winnipeg ballet, the "Tin Flute" of Gabrielle Roy, which is to be made into a motion picture, or the hundredth performance of Fridolin's "Tit Coq" in Montreal on Saturday night, all enhance our consciousness of our own place, not only on the material side of life, but in the other things which contribute so much and which are so necessary for a proper, human, civilized method of living.
Then we shall have examined also the manner in which information about Canada is spread abroad. Of course no one will gainsay that the method which spread the most information about Canada, and which placed Canada on the highest possible pinnacle, is to be found in the services of our armed forces during the last two world wars. There is, I am sure, nothing that has contributed so much to making the rest of the world conscious of the rise of this new nation in the north as the performance of our armed services during those wars. But I hope there will never be any other occasion when that form of making Canadians known abroad will have to be resorted to.
Another large contribution to the high level of Canada abroad is what has been done by our Department of External Affairs, and by the character and performance of our delegates to these international meetings.
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
But there are other forms as well. Hon. members applauded the interesting passage about tourist activities, in the speech delivered by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The film made here on the opening day of parliament in this very year will be shown in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of theatres across Canada, and in tens of thousands of theatres throughout the United States. And although I have not seen it, and while I participated in the opening ceremonies, I would be surprised if the pictures of those ceremonies did not compare favourably with pictures of like ceremonies in any other country of the world.
I was astounded to find the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) apparently attempting to ridicule the proposal to have a royal commission examine these activities and report to the Canadian government, and through the Canadian government to the Canadian parliament and people, upon ways and means of fostering these undertakings. If the hon. member had been here in previous years, he would have heard many interesting speeches upon the desirability of there being a national library for Canada. He would have heard interesting speeches upon the desirability of giving some encouragement to drama leagues and to the establishment of a national theatre in Canada. I believe he will find that throughout Canada, in all parts of the country, there are many people who are interested in that aspect of human life.
I now come to that part of the speech of the hon. member-


Gordon Graydon: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Certainly.


Gordon Graydon: I am sure a number of hon. members in various sections of the house would like to know whether or not the setting up of this royal commission will prevent parliamentary committees dealing with the question of radios, films and television during this session of the House of Commons.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I would think not. I would think there might very well be a desire, on the part of hon. members to whom proposals were made to make a decision about this or that, to get the information that is going to be made available to them through the royal commission. But I do not think there would be any technical objection to debating any of these matters, or even to proposing any measure which any hon. member might think it proper to propose, provided of course it was within the rules of the house, and otherwise, in a form which would make it acceptable.
82	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent


Gordon Graydon: That was not my question. Does the right hon. gentleman know whether, for instance,-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: Who is leading over there?


Gordon Graydon: -whether or not the broadcasting corporation special committee of the house would be set up this session? Because otherwise there would be concurrent investigations on the same matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to that committee, I have a note here that there was an attempt to set it up, but that the minister in charge found there was no one who wanted it.


Gordon Graydon: This session?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: And it was partly because of that that we felt it would be well to have the matter inquired into by a commission.


Mr. Fulton:: You are speaking of the past?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, I am speaking of the past-but of the very recent past. It was an answer given by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), the minister who speaks in parliament for the broadcasting corporation; and it was to the effect that there had been no desire to have the committee meet. I have a reference to it somewhere among my notes. However, at the moment I will not stop to look it up, but I will get it for the hon. member and complete my answer at a later time.
Proceeding with the notes I have here, I come to that part of his speech where the leader of the opposition was a bit critical of what he called that strange theory of public financing whereby there is part of the national income that is used to pay off debts incurred by this country during a period of war. These are his words as they appear at page 45 of Hansard:
I hope the consideration now being given by ministers to buoyant revenues will lead them to another conclusion, in spite of the repeated arguments made publicly by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that under some theory of cyclical budgeting he should tax the people as heavily as possible while we have buoyant finances. I express the hope that we shall have from him some indication that he has abandoned that strange theory of public financing . . .
Well, I do not know whether it should be called cyclical budgeting, or anything else. But I think it has been the experience everywhere that, when the situation was such that you had money that you did not have to spend, it was a good and prudent thing to use it to pay off your debts-if you had any. I once heard the Right Hon. Mr. Ilsley, who was then minister of finance, refer to this


form of budgeting as being one which had pretty strong Biblical justification because, as he pointed out, that was the system upon which Joseph, when he was Pharaoh's minister of finance, budgeted for the lean years which were to follow-the bad ones.


Solon Earl Low: Not with money, though.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With goods.


Solon Earl Low: With goods, yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Before anyone makes light of the concept of the insignificance of money in human affairs, let me say that we on this side of the house consider that money is a symbol, but a symbol of something that is real. And when at the end of the war there was a total unmatured funded debt of $16,887 million those symbols meant a very considerable burden for the Canadian people to carry in interest and amortization charges.


Solon Earl Low: Not necessarily.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I have here the latest figures available, those of December 31, 1948, which show that the unmatured funded debt on that date was $15,926 million, a drop of something over $950 million since December 31, 1945; and that the United States currency and gold reserves have increased from a low of $461 million to a figure of $998 million on December 31, 1948. I believe most of us in the Cai.adian nation are happy that there has been this improvement in the nation's financial position of something of the order of a billion and a half dollars in that three-year period.
There is no doubt that the whole Canadian economy is very buoyant at the present time and I think there are many who feel that it is prudent during this period of buoyancy to make provision as Joseph did for the time when there may not be the same buoyancy. Some of us do not forget the fable of de La Fontaine in these words:
La cigale, ayant chante tout l'4te,
Se trouva fort depourvue Quand la blse fut venue.
I have a translation of that here as follows: A grasshopper gay Sang the summer away,
And found herself poor With the winter's first roar.
I think the conduct of the ant might be preferable in some ways. There should not be too great a disregard of what prudence has shown to be wise throughout the centuries of experience. Most of the newspapers favourable to my hon. friend have interpreted a paragraph in the speech from the throne as forecasting some reduction in taxation. They are entitled to whatever enjoyment they can get out of that interpretation, but of course they are going to have to keep on guessing

until the budget is brought down, when they will see just what the situation will be. I can assure them that the budget is not going to be delayed. Just as soon as we can get through with the matters which at this session have to be dealt with by a given date, the budget will be ready for submission.


George Alexander Drew: Does that mean that the budget will be presented before the conclusion of the debate on the speech from the throne?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I do not think what I said is open to any construction of that kind. If it was, I apologize to the house for having spoken in such an inane fashion, because I had no intention of conveying that idea.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You are not in the minor league now.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: There was another statement by the leader of the opposition which I am sure occasioned some surprise. He made the assertion that there was nothing to be found in the speech from the throne about a health program or about social security. The announcement was made in the speech from the throne that, with respect to the health program announced last year, there has been most helpful co-operation from all the provinces. The health program announced last year was a five-year program. The results there show that, when we have meetings with the provinces that are not full-dress performances of the premiers, their ministers and associates, we do get effective co-operation and collaboration to the benefit of the general Canadian public. The hon. member will find in the announcement made by my predecessor, who was then Prime Minister, that this health program was intended to cover a period of five years. Of course, should the country be so unfortunate as not to have us here after five years, I do not know what would happen. But we have announced what we would do.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do not worry about that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the hon. member
is probably right and that the public is entitled to expect that it is going to be carried out. The leader of the opposition said that there was no mention of social security, but the speech from the throne contains a paragraph which states:
A bill will be introduced to broaden the scope of the Family Allowances Act, as a further instalment of the policy of the government to provide a national standard of social security and human welfare designed to assure the greatest possible measure of social justice for all Canadians.
Perhaps my hon. friend does not consider that the family allowances project, that act and its administration, is a social security
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent measure. When it was introduced the hon. member was reported in the Globe and Mail of August 3, 1944, to have said:
This bill is an outrageous bribe offered to the people of Quebec immediately before an election on which Mr. King's last chance of political survival depends.
In another speech over the radio on August 9, 1944, from a written text the hon. member
said:
But I assure you that the government of Ontario intends to do everything within its power to make sure that this iniquitous bill does not go into effect.
It did go into effect and everything within the power of the government of Ontario was unable to prevent it. Everything within the power of anybody else was unable to prevent the Canadian public receiving the benefits of this great measure. So much so that, when my hon. friend's partisans gathered here in Ottawa on September 30 and October 1 and 2 to exalt him to the position which he so graciously occupies at the present time, they declared unanimously by a resolution that family allowances will be placed on a uniform basis per child regardless of the number of children in the family.
Whether the hon. gentleman regards that as a measure of social security, all those who chose him to be their leader and for whom he speaks here put that resolution under the heading, "Resolution No. 13-Social Security".
I hope this is really a change of heart and not merely a change of face on the part of the hon. gentleman.
I think I have disposed of a lot of the odds and ends which had been dealt with by my hon. friend.
I come now to that part of his speech which, since he pronounced it, some newspapers have said was an attempt to set the platform for the next general election. I have the newspaper clipping here. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I am going to use the words that are used in the headline:
Drew sets platform for election Provincial rights to be chief issue in coming battle
By devoting two hours of his two and a quarter hour speech on Friday to provincial rights, Progressive Conservative leader, George Drew, left little doubt that this is the issue on which his party will make its election bid. With an eye cocked at Quebec, Drew painted a picture of a federal octopus whose tentacles sought to tug away the powers of the provinces and tear apart the constitution.
I hope the hon. member does not think for a moment that he is the only one who has an eye cocked on Quebec. There are others as well, but those on this side of the house have an eye cocked on the whole country from one ocean to the other. They feel that, if it be true that the hon. gentleman has an eye cocked on Quebec, it is pretty apt to be true there are many in Quebec who have an eye cocked on him. Though my experience has not

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent been very long, it has been long enough to enable me to say to the hon. gentleman that Quebec usually likes to have its facts pretty straight.
That compels me to deal with a matter which the hon. gentleman dealt with in that part of his speech which is reported at page 56 of Hansard. The hon. gentleman had this to say:
The present Prime Minister of Canada asserted the proposition that this parliament has the power, by majority decision, to change our constitution. His own words were: "The central power does not need to go back to the provinces in order to say what Canada shall be in the future.''
The words attributed to me by the hon. leader of the opposition are correctly taken from a speech I made in this house in 1946 on the redistribution bill. They are to be found at page 2618 of Hansard of that year. If the hon. gentleman found these words himself in that debate it must be that he read the debate. If he did, there are many people in Quebec who are going to feel that using them as he did on Friday night amounts to very substantial distortion. If he did not find them himself where they occurred in the debate, but took them from an aide who picked them out for him, there are many in Quebec who are going to feel that before using material from such an aide he should be sure that it does not constitute a very substantial distortion.


George Alexander Drew: I took the Prime Minister to say the words were correct.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not saying the words were not correct. I say that if the hon. gentleman picked them out himself, having read the whole debate, the fact of picking them out and using them as he did amounts to a very substantial distortion. I do not think he or any other member of this house would want to be guilty of such a thing intentionally. If, on the other hand, they were supplied to him with the assurance that they were correct in their context, the one who supplied them to him, having picked them out of their context to be used in the way in which they were used here, should not be trusted to get for my hon. friend facts that he may wish to use in his campaign in Quebec.
There had been a debate in this house on the Canadian constitution, and on the methods that might be taken to amend it. I did not make that constitution. I take it as it is. I was asked questions as to my opinion about its meaning, and I said what I believed to be the effect of the constitution as it is. Whenever I am compelled to give an answer as to what I believe the constitution to be, the answer I give will be a truthful answer, no matter who may wish to misquote it or to 
misrepresent it. What I said in that debate is quite clear. I said that there were certain matters which had been confided to the parliament of Canada, and certain others which had been confided to the provincial legislatures. I said, with respect to the first, that it was not necessary to go back to the members of the legislatures or to the governments of the provinces to determine what could be done about them, but that the people of the provinces spoke on these matters through the representatives they elected to this parliament. I added that, with respect to the matters which were confided by the constitution to the provincial legislatures, it would be quite impossible for this parliament to do anything about them without the consent of those having the responsibility. Although those words of mine were not used at the same sitting of the house, they are to be found a few pages prior to the citation which was used by the leader of the opposition. That citation was taken from page 2618 of Hansard of 1946.
At page 2609 of Hansard of 1946 the late lamented Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Bridges, participating in the debate, cited, in the following words, the stand I had taken:
That brings us to the question as to whether or not the provinces should be consulted before we pass this particular resolution. That question has come up before and no doubt will come up again as long as the present system of amendment exists I am going to repeat what our able Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) -
-I am not responsible for the compliment.
-said on May 28, when moving the resolution since it is a statement with which I am in complete accord.
He quoted the following statement:
The provinces, that is to say, the people of the provinces, are all represented in this parliament and for the purposes of such matters as are confined to the jurisdiction of this parliament it is by those representatives here that the people of the provinces speak. There are other matters given by the act to the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures and the provincial governments; with respect to any of those it is my view that it would not be possible to deal with them without consent of those to whose jurisdiction they have been confided.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Prime Minister, was it not in the same speech that you dealt with the subject of language and the right of this parliament to deprive any group in this country of a particular language, if it was felt that should be done?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not sorry the hon.
gentleman brought that up because I had a note to refer to it. It is a matter upon which many, many of the hon. member's own friends have been guilty of the most serious distortion, both in his province and in my own.
My whole point was that the central government did not derive its existence nor get

its powers from those who had made the agreement which preceded confederation, and did not have to consult those who had made the agreement about the way in which the federal authority should exercise that part of the jurisdiction which had been confined to it. We are not responsible to the provincial governments for the way in which we exercise the powers given to the federal parliament by the constitution. We are responsible directly to the people of the provinces who elect us to represent them in this house.
Now, as to amendments, I had made the clear distinction that, on those matters which were within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament, it did not have to consult the provincial governments nor the members of the provincial legislatures. It had to be responsible to the inhabitants of the provinces who elected representatives to speak for them in this house. With respect to all matters given by the constitution to the provincial governments, nothing this house could do could take anything away from them. We have no jurisdiction over what has been assigned exclusively to the provinces. We cannot ask that what is not within our jurisdiction be changed. We have jurisdiction over the matters assigned to us and we can ask that the manner of dealing with those matters be changed, provided we remember our responsibilities to the men and women who elected us to this house and who did not elect us to this house through Mr. Duplessis or any other provincial premier.
When the question was put to me as to how it might be possible to have the constitution amended in that respect, as provided for in article 133, I answered according to my construction of the constitution. I gave a truthful answer. I said that, in so far as the use of the French language in this house was concerned, it was something which could be dealt with in this house since the provinces were not given exclusive jurisdiction over it. I was speaking of the theoretical power to do a thing.
Provincial legislatures have the power to do anything with respect to property and civil rights. They have the power to take my property and say it belongs to Mr. so and so, but they do not do it. At page 56 of Hansard the hon. leader of the opposition said this:
There is more than a legal decision involved in this; there is the unity of Canada.
What I said was not in exactly the same language, but was to very much the same effect. In effect, I said there should be the power to do it but, in fact, it was quite impossible to conceive that it could ever be done.
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
I wish to quote the language I used, which will be found on page 2621 of Hansard, 1946:
There are persons and nations who reach a high estate in the affairs of men, and the high estate they reach imposes upon them high obligations. There was no obligation on the Tribune Festus to say to King Agrippa that he could not deliver Paul to the Jews when they requested that he be put to death. It occurs to one, however, that they also had reached a high estate, which imposes a corresponding obligation. I copied out of the bible on the table of this house, from the Acts, the quite natural statement of Festus:
"It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him."
Further down I read:
It is not the manner of those who have themselves had, and whose ancestors have had, the formation that comes from that long history which has brought us to this point in the civilization of mankind, to do things which the conscience of humanity at large would regard as dishonourable; and the conscience at large would frown upon an assemblage in this house that attempted to take from me and from those of my race the right to speak the language I learned in my infancy as one of the official languages in which the deliberations of this house may be carried on.
There have been so many attempts to use that statement both in the province of my hon. friend and in my own province, as an indication that I had said the French language could be abolished by any majority of the House of Commons; and those doing so are resorting to method which I hope no one on this side of the house will ever have to resort to.
I said that in Quebec they like to get their facts straight. They know these are the facts. They know what my attachment is to the language of my father and they probably also know my attachment to the language which I learned from my mother. If my hon. friend pays attention to the headlines and articles which are appearing in the newspapers, many of which are inclined to be friendly to my hon. friend at the present time, he will see what regard is being paid to the manner in which I am showing in this house, and in my public conduct, the attachment I have to the two languages which are the official languages of this house.
The hon. gentleman referred to the official report of debates of the house in which he formerly sat, dated April 1, 1947.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: The Prime Minister will need to get a new filing system.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The field covered by the leader of the opposition was so considerable that it would require a filing system in order to have available all the material necessary with which to set straight some of the assertions that were made here and that cannot and will not be allowed to go unchallenged.
86	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
I have here the Ontario Hansard for the date in question and I find therein a preview of the speech that was delivered here on Friday by the hon. gentleman. If anyone is interested, I would invite him to put the two texts side by side. The other one was a speech made on April 1, 1947; the one of which we had the benefit in this house was of January 28, 1949. In one passage of his speech my hon. friend stated that he wanted to make it quite clear that he was not changing; and in fact in the speech of January 28, 1949, there has not been much change from the one of April 1, 1947.
In the 1947 speech I found a great deal with which I agreed. I entirely agree with the tribute the hon. gentleman pays to the splendid work which had been done by those responsible for provincial administrations in the fields which were within their jurisdiction.
I agree with him that this work was a most valuable contribution as the groundwork upon which was built the splendid war effort we were able to put forth during the years from 1939 to 1945. I admit that we used the highways. I remember that many claims came to us from time to time because we were using them to such an extent that it was felt that we should make some contribution to having them maintained and repaired. I also agree with the tributes he pays to the teachers who were in charge of the education of our Canadian citizenry during those years. It is certainly because of the magnificent job they did that the men and women of Canada were able to put forth the magnificent effort- in the armed services, in the industrial plants, in the mines, in the forest and in the field- which made our contribution what it was during the war. But that is not all I found in this Hansard of April 1, 1947. In two or three places I found references to the matter I have in mind, but I will cite this paragraph at page 709:
Let us face the full implication of the position of the dominion government. They assert that we have no binding constitution. They claim the right to change our laws relating to language, to education, and even to civil rights, the control of property and the administration of justice.
I say that statement is one that, in every line, in every word and in every letter of each word, is absolutely false. I challenge any man in this house to bring forth one iota of evidence which can be invoked to support a statement of that kind.
The hon. member's principal complaint is that this government or the one that preceded it has not seen fit to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference. Let me say that I spent a good deal of time at all the meetings of this dominion-provincial conference which met in 1945 and 1946. On one occasion I had to fly back from the united nations meeting


in London in order to be here for those deliberations, and I am convinced by the lack of results that my time was wasted. I am convinced that conferences of that kind, when there are elections in the offing, are stalemated from the start. There is no genuine desire at any of these conferences to deal with the various matters on their merits; and they were not dealt with on their merits. Since then on many occasions we have had meetings with representatives of the provincial governments, meetings with officials, and meetings even on the ministerial level, and have done things that have been for the benefit of the whole community. But when we have these full-dress provincial conferences, such attitudes are taken-and I will not say it is all on one side; there may be just as great fault on our side as on the other -that it is quite impossible to expect anyone who has his eye cocked on elections to do anything about the merits of the matter under discussion.


George Alexander Drew: I might perhaps ask for information. What election was in the offing at that time?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: There was the election
which has since taken place in Ontario.


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: There was the election
which has since taken place in Quebec, and it practically centred on the attitude of the Hon. Mr. Duplessis in this dominion-provincial conference.


George Alexander Drew: Three years afterwards.


An hon. Member:: Politics all the time.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Yes, three years afterwards. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman thinks that elections are prepared merely in the two weeks that precede the date of polling.


George Alexander Drew: I do not think the Prime Minister's are.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: That is not the way in
which we on this side of the house have regarded the problem; and I do not think that hon. gentlemen sitting around my hon. friend have regarded what was done in those last days as being effective. The opinion that has been gradually mellowing in the minds of the electors is the thing that counts, and not the speeches that are made over the radio in the last few days that precede polling.
Today the leader of the Progressive Conservative party wants changes. He says that over the years substantial changes have taken place and that something should be done to give effect to those changes. The position

taken, however, by the premier of Quebec is that he does not want any change, that he will not have any change made, and that he is there to see that no change is made. The change that the hon. gentleman wants at this time is a change to enlarge provincial autonomy and independence and to prevent the usurpation of power by the central authority. The hon. gentleman perhaps gave an indication that his conscience was troubling him a little bit in taking that stand, because he was at pains to say, as reported at page 54 of Hansard:
So that it may not be suggested that I am merely making this statement here in the House of Commons and expressing a different opinion to that which I have held at any other time, may I quote from a statement I made in the Ontario house which is recorded in the Ontario Hansard of April 1, 1947.
That is the one to which I have referred. I do not know whether there is any reason why there should be any anxiety on the part of my hon. friend in that regard. Of course, he is here the leader of the opposition; and we on this side of the house seem to have too much power to suit him. But what was the situation when he was the leader of the opposition in the other house?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not there yet.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: No; when he was the leader of the opposition in the Ontario legislature. On the day on which he found it necessary to differ from his leader there, the gentleman who is now the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), he issued a statement which was reported in the Globe and Mail, and in which he is reported to have said:
We have strayed a long way from the path laid down by the fathers of confederation. The strong central government, which the provinces sought to create, is hamstrung by petty politics. All the constitutional difficulties which now prevent the adoption of effective and urgently necessary social legislation can be overcome without waiting for amendments to the British North America Act, if there is any sincere attempt at co-operation.


Gordon Graydon: That sounds pretty good so far.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Would my hon. friend like to have some more of it? I am quite willing to oblige. He continued:
The provinces created the dominion. The dominion did not create the provinces. If we are to have strong government, capable of meeting suddenly changing conditions, the provinces must take the first step. They united to form the dominion of Canada. It was their intention that there should be one strong government capable of dealing promptly with all problems of a national character. It was their own wish that the provincial governments should deal only with problems of a purely local nature.


George Alexander Drew: That is right.
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: That was September 8, 1937. On January 26, 1939, there is a report from Fort William, a demand that Premier Hepburn go to the country without delay to settle the issue of national unity. The report further quotes a brief prepared by Premier Hepburn and presented to the Rowell commission on dominion-provincial relations on behalf of Ontario. The Conservative leader said Mr. Hepburn had laid down the principlethat "the provinces must remain independent and autonomous."
The quotation continues and attributes the following to the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew):
"That is one of the most remarkable utterances ever made by any premier within the dominion," Colonel Drew declared. "This province must remain independent of what? That sentence in Ontario's considered brief to the Rowell commission does not mean anything unless Premier Hepburn has the idea that Ontario should become a separate nation. The people of Ontario never gave him a mandate to set this province up as a separate nation. He has been usurping his authority ever since he made that submission . . . "My own stand" he stated, "is that in all matters of national import there should be one strong government legislating for the people of Canada in their common interest. As leader of the Conservative party one of my main ambitions is to lead this province back to the plan of confederation and to give the other provinces a lead and an example in that. Mr. Hepburn advocates an independent Ontario. I prefer to stand, as a Canadian, for a united Canada ... I shall go to the country clearly on the stand that Ontario is Canadian, one province in a united Canada within the British empire. I advocate the strengthening of national ties and divesting the province of every conflicting authority not necessary for provincial purposes."
That sounds like pretty strong language, but it compares quite favourably with the language that had been used in a radio broadcast just four days before that, on January 22, 1939, by a gentleman whose name is Mr. George McCullagh, and who has something to do, if I am not mistaken, with a newspaper published in Toronto called the Globe and Mail; and, if my information is not incorrect, it is a newspaper which quite frequently presumes to tell men in public life just how they should carry out their responsibilities. This is a portion of it:
The greatest service the premier of Ontario could do for Canada, and something which would carry his name into history as a public benefactor, would be for him to state publicly what we all know; that our provincial governments are political misfits, that they are unnecessary duplications, luxuries we cannot afford, and endless causes of disunity. If the premier of Ontario would state this, and pledge himself to help end the provincial burden, he would carry us a long way towards solvency and the solution we seek.


George Alexander Drew: That was not the premier of Ontario.
88	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not sure that this did not make some impression even at that time on the leader of the opposition, because the Halifax Herald of April 25, 1941, reports him as having addressed the commercial club of Halifax the day before. The report reads as follows:
Describing Canada's "over government" as the "most colossal and incompetent system in the world" Colonel Drew said, "I defy anyone that has any personal contact with our system of government in Canada to say that it is not impeding us from doing many things that should be done to increase Canada's strength in her war effort." Colonel Drew related what he termed some of the disadvantages of the present system, recounting duplication of services and other features he said were detrimental to efficient national administration.
Then, this is in quotation marks:
"What we need greatly is to look at government from a business viewpoint", he said, paralleling methods that a private business with a head office and nine branches would employ to promote more efficiency.
Preservation of a nation's integrity must come from a strong centralization feeling. Colonel Drew continued.
Canada's main problem was its decentralized governmental system, and the speaker declared, solution of that problem would insure continuance of the national structure.
These are the attitudes that were expressed by the hon. gentleman when the powers or the jurisdictions he was attacking were being exercised by somebody he was opposing. But just as soon as he ceased to be opposed and was being imposed we find him preaching the other doctrine, that what is necessary is that there be nine strong autonomous independent provinces. That change in the picture he sees, according to the point from which he is looking at it, is something which, in Quebec, is going to make people ask him what his attitude really would be toward provincial autonomy if ever the country was so imprudent as to put him in charge of the affairs of a federal government. I had intended to cite more material; but really, Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: For the advantage of those who may have been impressed by the hon. gentleman's statement that the fathers of confederation had attempted to copy or model the Canadian constitution on that of the United States, I would invite their attention to a speech of Sir John A. Macdonald. He was a gentleman who for a time enjoyed quite a high repute in Conservative circles.
At page 33 of the Debates on Confederation of the Provinces of British North America he is reported to have said, about the American constitution:
Ever since the union was formed the difficulty of what is called "state rights" has existed, and this had much to do in bringing on the present


unhappy war in the United States. They commenced, in fact, at the w'rong end. They declared by their constitution that each state was a sovereignty in itself, and that all the powers incident to a sovereignty belonged to each state, except those powers which, by the constitution, were conferred upon the general government and congress. Here we have adopted a different system. We have strengthened the general government. We have given the general legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We have conferred on them, not only specifically and in detail all the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local governments and local legislatures shall be conferred upon the general government and legislature.
That is the original picture; and it is from that picture that the hon. gentleman was quite right in saying we have strayed a long way, from the path laid down by the fathers of confederation.
I think you know that the history of the Liberal party, in its regard for the true rights of the provinces, for the proper construction of jurisdiction assigned to them by the constitution, and for providing them with the means for using the rights they have under the constitution, is such that if my hon. friend were to take the advice given by these newspaper men, that this matter of provincial rights be his platform for the next election, he would, after it was all over, want to get some other advisers.
Anyone who listened to the broadcasts from the Progressive Conservative convention, and anyone who has noticed the party propaganda since that time, could hardly fail to be struck by the fact that the main appeal of the party seems to be directed to the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Most people would agree that it is a good thing for Canada to have our national political parties take into account the feelings of all sections of the country, and to frame their policies so that they will have substantial strength in all sections of the country; but it is a long time since the Conservative party has made any attempt to do that. And I am inclined to think that that may be one reason for its lack of success with its strategies.
Of course there was a strategy which worked once in 1911. But the motto of the province of Quebec is "je me souviens"-I remember. The people of Quebec are apt to remember what occurred in 1911. And if they do they will not be very much impressed by this procedure of making one appeal in one language in one part of the country and a quite different appeal in another language in other parts of the country. It was the Bourbons, was it not, who never learned anything?


George Alexander Drew: You should know.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: And when one sees by the newspapers that former members of the Bloc Populaire are speaking for my hon. friend's candidate in Nicolet-Yamaska, one wonders. One wonders whether-


Gordon Graydon: What about the communists in North Grey?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -it is going to be tried again. I am rather proud of the fact that the Liberal party has never had to resort to that strategy.


Gordon Graydon: Oh yes it did.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We have always-


Gordon Graydon: North Grey they did.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We have always had one party and one appeal-


Gordon Graydon: North Grey.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member wishes to complete my speech, I will give him the floor. But I think, really, that the gentlemen over here would prefer it if I were to complete it.


Gordon Graydon: You are much more good-natured than you let on now.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I am sure my hon. friend and I have never been otherwise than good-natured in any exchanges we have had either on the floor of the house or outside the house.
We have always been able to put forward the same policy and to make the same appeal in both languages. There has never been a Liberal government since confederation which has not recognized at all times in its ranks the principle upon which this nation was really founded, the principle of the partnership of the two races. Our party is the only one which has been able to have leaders from both races; and our party has always practised the precept of unity-which is desired I think by most Canadians.
In the attempt to make provincial rights an issue for the next election, I doubt if my hon. friend will meet with very much success. Because, as I have said, there are many parts of the country where it will be felt that it is this party which has always stood for the real and practical rights of the provinces.
We also stand for national unity, unity based upon the fundamental equality of all Canadians, whatever their race or wherever their province. I believe, and those who sit around me here believe, that the people of Canada wish to see the provincial governments free and able to discharge to the full the responsibilities entrusted to them by the constitution; but that the people of Canada wish also to see the government of the nation recognize and discharge to the full all the
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent responsibilities in its domain. That has always been the Liberal position and it will continue to be the position of this government. I believe that when we convince the people of Canada that it is to be the position of this government the great majority will be satisfied with that position.
Since I referred to the correspondence with the premiers of the provinces in connection with rent control, letters have been received from the premier of Saskatchewan and the premier of Manitoba which I think it would be only fair to have in the same issue of Hansard. The letter from the premier of Saskatchewan is dated January 28 and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Abbott:
Thank you very much for your letter of January 13, in which you ask for the governments' view on the occupation by the federal government of the field of rental control. The government of Saskatchewan is desirous that the dominion government continue to exercise its jurisdiction in this field and to extend the legislation relating to rental control for at least another year. In view of the fact that these matters have national implications, we feel that they can best be dealt with on a federal basis.
Trusting that this information will be of assistance to you in drafting appropriate measures, I remain. Yours sincerely,
T. C. Douglas.
The letter from the premier of Manitoba is also dated January 28, 1949, and is as follows:
My dear Mr. Abbott:
Re: Matter of rent control.
I received your letter herein dated 14th instant.
I have referred to our file. It contains the letter dated October 23, 1948 from yourself to Honourable Mr. Garson, K.C., the then premier of Manitoba.
I note that the speech from the throne read at the opening of your parliament on Wednesday, 26th instant, forecasts the extension of rent control under legislation of the parliament of Canada.
I have conferred with my colleagues and we have carefully gone over the whole situation. We are of the unanimous opinion that, as matters stand at present, the whole subject of rent control should be left for the exclusive consideration, attention, et cetera, of the Dominion of Canada authorities.
I take it that this letter furnishes you with what is desired herein.
Thanking you and with kindest regards.
Yours very truly,
Douglas Campbell.
Those letters had just been received and I did not have them before me when I came into the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, as I believe that many hon. members want to participate in this debate I think every available minute should be used. As the speeches which we have already had were rather long I propose to fill up the time between now and six o'clock and not ask you to call the recess now.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
I had not intended to get into this discussion on dominion-provincial relations. As a matter of fact this party for some years has held the view that the considerations which caused the government to set up a royal commission to look into dominion-provincial relations, and the report which was presented to this parliament subsequently, warranted the utmost thought on the part of the people of Canada through their elected representatives, in regard to general dominion-provincial relations and the rights, prerogatives, and new obligations that should be assumed by the legislatures or by this parliament.
Ever since the conference broke down we have been urging that it should be reconvened and some solution found in order that, in the difficult days which may lie ahead when we are not riding on a wave of great prosperity and full employment, the powers of the various governments shall be so decided that there will be no question as to where responsibility lies.
I have listened with some misgivings, yet with perhaps some pleasure, to the contest between the government and the official opposition, apparently in an attempt to catch the eye of the province of Quebec. This party believes that whatever is done in this country should be done with an eye to all provinces, not just with an eye to any single province. In days gone by the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario, the English-speaking people and the French-speaking people, have been pitted one against the other by political parties. I have lived in western Canada long enough to remember the vicious campaign which was carried on in my province in 1929, 1930 and 1935, largely in the interests of my hon. friends of the Conservative party who sit to my immediate right.
I remember how people were persuaded to go into post offices to ask for bilingual money order applications, envelopes and so on to send down to Ottawa protesting against the printing being in both French and English. I remember those occurrences and I am glad that we are not likely to see that sort of thing again. I would like to believe that today there is a desire on the part of all parties in this house to bring about some national unit.v.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). After he had finished speaking I did a little research work, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) apparently had done. I found many of the statements that the right hon. gentleman placed before the house this afternoon. I suppose that the Lieutenant Colonel George Drew that I read about in the newspapers in the years prior to 1940 is the same gentleman who occupies a seat in this house

as the leader of the opposition; but when I read the statements that were published in those days and heard the speech that was made on Friday I questioned myself as to whether this was the same person. I intend to quote from a period a little earlier than did the Prime Minister. I have in my hand a copy of a report of a speech made by the leader of the opposition. I do not intend to use a phrase or a sentence or a paragraph taken out of its context, which has been done by my hon. friend; I am going to read the whole of an article which appeared in the Toronto Globe of November 10, 1936, the four-star metropolitan edition, page thirteen. So there will be no mistake about it, it appeared on the first page of the second section, columns five and six. The article is headed and reads:
Costly Inefficiency in Government Seen Must be eliminated to avert fascism in Canada warns Colonel Drew
Canada must eliminate the costly inefficiency of ten governments doing, in most cases, the job of one, or else sink in the rising tide of fascism, Lieutenant Colonel George A. Drew predicted at the board of trade club last evening.
"A democratic government must be efficient to survive," he warned.
"There is a growing doubt, especially among our youth, that we can go on supporting this ridiculous overlapping of government.
"Surely something must be 'rotten in Denmark' when twenty cabinet ministers can control 45,000,000 people in Britain and we need over one hundred to direct the affairs of less than a quarter of that population," Colonel Drew declared.
"This tremendous overhead and duplication of government is the fault of no one party. But we must decide now whether we are to have nine nations or one."
With warnings of expanding fascism in Quebec and evidence everywhere of a breakdown of confidence in democratic government, where inefficient, Colonel Drew explained that this same lack of faith had been the root of fascism in Italy and nazism in Germany.
Expressing firm confidence in the principles of democratic government, Colonel Drew thought that Canada could well afford to tear a leaf or two from the fascist book.
I have read the whole report from page 13 of the Globe of that date. The number 13 sometimes is somewhat significant.


Gordon Graydon: It is going to be your lucky
number, too.


Major James William Coldwell: That is all very well, but I want to say this to my hon. friend. All these boasts of what is going to happen do not mean anything to me. All I have been interested in is to see that this party, and indeed this parliament, serve the best interests of our people, and where deception is practised let it be exposed.


Gordon Graydon: Whoop it up, boys.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friends like to shout "Get together with the Liberals," but I want to say that we are not getting together with any other political party.


Gordon Graydon: There are some others wanting to get together with you.


Major James William Coldwell: We have policies, we have principles, and we do not propose to sell our policies or principles down the river in any province in Canada, even to those who stand for the overthrow of the institutions of the country in which we live, whether they wish to overthrow them by violent means or whether they wish to undermine component parts of this great nation in order to obtain a temporary victory in any political fight. I wanted to make these comments, Mr. Speaker, on a matter to which, when I prepared my notes, I did not intend to refer at all.
There is one other thing I want to do before I sit down. I listened this afternoon with considerable misgiving to what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said about radio. I hope the royal commission which is to be set up will have an absolutely free hand to inquire into all matters pertaining to radio, including, I would hope, both public and private radio. I would hope that the words of the Prime Minister this afternoon about the authority vested in the present broadcasting corporation will in no way be taken by the royal commission as either an opinion of the government or a direction. The Prime Minister shakes his head, indicating that he did not intend it that way. I am glad to know that.
I am glad that the Prime Minister referred this afternoon to the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, and his part in the setting up of the radio commission, the broadcasting corporation, and the national radio system we now have in Canada. I suggest to my hon. friends on the right that they read the speeches of the leader of the Conservative party at that time, and see what he had to say. There was unanimity on all sides of the house that this great utility, the air, which belongs to the people of Canada, should not be alienated for private profit, private gain and private monopoly, because, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, every air wave that is alienated to a private radio station gives that radio station a monopoly of that air wave. It is granting a monopoly, and I say we should safeguard the rights of the Canadian people.
May I say that I regret exceedingly that in the last few years we have seen the broadcasting corporation recede step by step from its original position. We have seen radio stations owned by private interests getting more and more power until today there are private broadcasting stations having as much as 50,000 watts, something that was never
The Address-Mr. Coldwell intended when the radio bill was placed before the house. In order to sum up what I have to say I want to remind the house that on May 11, 1933, when there had been some criticism of the radio bill from the Liberal side of the house, Mr. Bennett said, at page 4891 of Hansard of May 11, 1933:
I confess that I felt somewhat distressed this afternoon to find all the opposition coming from my hon. friends across the gangway. I cannot think that that is in the interests of this great national undertaking.
The Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, then sitting opposite Mr. Bennett, interrupted and said, "hear, hear." The Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe and the leaders of the Liberal party in those days were as keenly in favour of preserving for the people of Canada the air waves, this great public utility, as was the Prime Minister of that day who led the gentlemen who are now following a new leader, and apparently a new policy in this regard. After the interruption by Mr. Lapointe, Mr. Bennett said:
No words that I can use would exaggerate what I conceive to be the importance of this matter in relation to the body politic. I look upon it as one of the foremost means of education that the world has ever known, and I believe we must not permit it to be destroyed either by political differences or by the insidious efforts of private interests to destroy public ownership of this utility.
I say to you there has been not only an insidious campaign but also a public and flagrant campaign to undermine and destroy this great public utility.
In the minute that remains to me I should like to pay a tribute to the broadcasting corporation of this country. I know of no other broadcasting organization in the world, with resources so little, doing the kind of job that our radio corporation and its employees are doing today in Canada. As a habitual listener to the radio, when I have the opportunity, I say that if you place Stage 49 with its drama, the Wednesday evening programs of the C.B.C., apart altogether from the numerous forums, talks on educational and other topics, the splendid school broadcasts, the kindergarten of the air, and all the rest, side by side with what is done by private broadcasting companies with far greater facilities, and great masses of wealth behind them, you will find nothing better anywhere in radio that I know of than what has been done by the corporation in Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, before the
house rose this evening, in the course of my remarks I had intended to congratulate the

The Address-Mr. Coldwell mover and seconder of the motion we are now discussing, but I overlooked it. On behalf of my colleagues as well as myself, I am now extending congratulations to the mover and seconder for the manner in which they performed that important duty.
I wish to look for a few minutes at the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker. I think the speech from the throne is, in many respects, very disappointing. It is disappointing to those of us who had hoped that steps would be taken at this session to protect the economy of our country and the health of our people, and to relieve the burden of high prices as well as the lack of housing with which the country is afflicted.
May I say, at once, we agree that the first care of any government at this time should be to ensure peace and security. Many years ago a great British statesman said, if you would understand the foreign policy of a country, you must first of all give some attention to or study of its domestic policies. In the main, that is what I propose to do this evening, although my time being limited, I shall be able to deal with only two of the main items in the speech from the throne.
We agree that we must base our external policy upon the united nations. We must do everything in our power to co-operate with other countries in the preservation of peace throughout the world. We realize that advantage must be taken of the united nations organs which have been set up to deal with economic, cultural, and humanitarian problems and to make provision for regional security pacts, whenever it is in our country's interest so to do. I believe it is very important that the people of Canada know where the various political parties stand in relation to these important matters. The government has stated its policy. The Progressive Conservatives are apparently divided because of the statements that have been made in the province of Quebec by the president of the Progressive Conservative organization in that province.
Tonight, I wish to place before the house the statement on international policy and the proposed North Atlantic agreement which was adopted this week end by our national council representing people elected by our national convention and the various provincial organizations from every province in Canada. It reads as follows:
The national convention of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation last August expressed its full support of the European recovery program, and welcomed the western union among the United Kingdom, France and the low countries which had been cemented by the Treaty of Brussels. The C.C.F. is glad to note that the economic recovery of Europe is proceeding encouragingly in spite of communist led opposition and sabotage.

The C.C.F. is convinced that mere military alliances cannot guarantee peace. Economic recovery must continue to be the primary objective. This is why the C.C.F. welcomed the Brussels Treaty. In addition to providing for mutual assistance against aggression in Europe and for joint defence arrangements. the treaty gives priority to economic considerations. It binds the parties to fortify and preserve personal freedom and political liberties, to strengthen their economic and cultural ties and to create in western Europe a firm basis for economic recovery. It sets up the machinery for these purposes. Provisions are also made for the admission of other nations with similar ideals. The treaty has been registered with the united nations, and is in no way contrary to the charter which specifically provides for regional co-operation and defence.
The failure to achieve disarmament and world security through the united nations, and events in Czechoslovakia, Berlin and elsewhere, have increased tension throughout the world. The military staffs committee and the commissions on armaments and on atomic energy of the united nations have all found it impossible to reach agreement on basic objectives. There is thus no existing guarantee of protection against aggressive war, and the very economic recovery of western Europe is threatened by fear and insecurity. The proposal has therefore been made that western union be strengthened by a north atlantic pact which would include at least the United States and Canada.
The C.C.F. believes that Canada should support and join such a north atlantic security pact. Efforts must be continued to build the world security system called for in the united nations charter. But until such security is achieved, a regional pact, in line with the provisions of the charter, will increase the degree of mutual aid and assistance among the western democracies. Through a broader co-operation of defence policies, it will reduce the strain upon the European economies which all military programs involve. It will thus tend to ensure the eventual success of the present efforts to restore to western Europe a full measure of economic independence.
The C.C.F.. however, insists that such a pact should be based upon the broad principles so clearly stated in the Brussels treaty. It must provide for the fullest possible economic co-operation, aim at a high standard of living and increasing democracy in all participating countries, and thus give the western world the dynamic democratic leadership which is the only real answer to communism.
Like the Brussels treaty, any such atlantic pact must be registered with the united nations and remain open to other members of the united nations on the same terms, so that it may grow as far as possible into a general security pact. All plans and commitments under it must be supplementary to the primary objective of economic reconstruction. The consultative machinery under the pact should provide Canada and every other signatory with a full and equal voice in the determination of policy.
The probable cost of the military and other commitments to this pact make more urgent than ever the immediate introduction of the C.C.F. policy to place the burden of taxation on those best able to bear it. It also emphasizes the need for measures of control over industry and production, which would allow for the effective planning and use of our resources to meet all our obligations and at the same time to develop a higher standard of living and social security for all our people. The C.C.F. affirms again that the best defence against communism and all forms of totalitarianism rests not on military might but on social justice.
I wish to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this is a statement very similar to the one which

I proposed to make myself had I spoken last Friday and had this meeting not been held this week end. It is a statement approved by the national council of our nation-wide organization.
I wish now to turn to another problem, because I believe it is of paramount importance to our country at the present time. The problem with which I wish to deal is the difficulty we are finding in marketing so many of our products; that problem is both pressing and real. During the war we were impressed with the growing interdependence of the nations for the general welfare of all the peoples of the world. The economic and social council which was established as a principal organ of the united nations was a recognition of this fundamental fact. There can be no guarantee of peace and prosperity as long as peoples are underfed, underclad and underhoused.
It is in the interests of Canada to do all in her power to support every effort to deal with the distribution of agricultural products and foodstuffs, beyond our borders as well as within the borders of our own country, where that distribution is, at times, far from satisfactory. Canada produces a vast surplus of wheat, fruit and all other food commodities.
Up to now, because of world conditions, there has been a demand for everything that we could produce. The trouble with many of us is, I think, that the European recovery program is obscuring the real danger to our Canadian economy. The plain fact is that the Canadian standards of living at the present time and the prosperity of our people-more particularly perhaps of our agricultural people-are dependent now upon the expenditures approved not by ourselves but by the United States in the form of gifts and loans, amounting up to the present time to over five billion United States dollars.
We have already experienced the effect of some of the stipulations which surround this vast expenditure. Advantageous to us, of course, is the provision that in order to mitigate the effects of shortages in the United States for the American people, some of the ECA funds may be spent outside the borders of our great neighbour. But on the other hand we find that other provisions work in the opposite direction. I believe that some $750 million will be spent in Canada during the current fiscal year. But a provision to which I have already referred, which is having a serious effect already on Canada, is the one that says that if any agricultural product is not fully needed in the United States and is, in the view of the United States government, a surplus commodity, then ECA
The Address-Mr. Coldwell appropriations cannot be used for the purchase of that commodity outside of the United States. Already one of our agricultural products, namely, flax-about which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) this afternoon gave what I thought was a warning to our producers in Canada, of which they should take notice-has been adversely affected by that provision. Should the United States, in the next year and in the years following, reap a substantial wheat harvest, if the plan continues, then ECA dollars could not be used by Great Britain for the purchase of Canadian wheat unless some other arrangement were made.
The speech from the throne disappoints us because it is silent on this important matter of marketing. For many years our organized farmers have been asking for orderly marketing; and it would seem to me that at this session this house should be giving a great deal of consideration to the establishment of a national marketing agency for our primary products, and particularly for our farm products, which will enable us to deal intelligently with the developing situation.
At the moment we find difficulty in the marketing of British Columbia fruits, Nova Scotia apples, and so on. I believe that at the present time the small fruits that were going to Britain - the raspberries arid strawberries of the 1947 crop-are still largely in British Columbia; and what is developing in regard to apples, fruits, salmon and so on, may develop, if we are not careful and prepared, in relation to that great product upon which so large a proportion of the agricultural section of Canada depends, namely wheat. Indeed, apart from all that I have said, if a world wheat agreement cannot be reached, our prairie farmers in the future may face a grave situation.
For a good many years we have believed that our trading relationships should be conducted by import and export boards; and since the war this opinion has been greatly strengthened by what has been going on in other parts of the world, and by the economic difficulties which have arisen between nations in their trading relationships that are more and more determined by the ability to make direct exchanges of commodities; in other words, to barter goods for goods. We may deplore that kind of trading relationship in the world, but it is a fact that that kind of relationship is coming more and more into evidence all across the world.
Before the war Canada was in a happy position. We were able to sell commodities in the British market and elsewhere and to receive payment in funds that we could use in order to purchase goods in the United States or anywhere else. As we all know, the

The Address-Mr. Caldwell liquidation of British overseas investments during the war, and the impoverishment of other one-time customers of our country, have made it impossible for us to continue trading on this basis, because there are no longer overseas investments to provide Great Britain with the necessary dollars, or indeed capital equipment, so largely destroyed during the war, in some of the other countries, in order for them to produce the goods they need to pay for the goods that we could send to them. Hence it is of fundamental importance that we should have the machinery not only to market but to trade effectively with those who are prepared to trade with us.
I do not propose tonight, because the time is not available, to go into all the ramifications of this particular condition. Suffice it to say that the lack, on the part of our customers, of a currency which we can accept and use, together with the industrial poverty of large sections of the world, particularly of Europe itself, is endangering the future of our whole agricultural economy.
Then too, going hand in hand with this situation, is the substantial recovery that has been made in the agricultural areas of Europe, so that today European countries are offering the United Kingdom the opportunity of obtaining some cereals, fruit, eggs, bacon, meat, dairy products and so on where she can pay either in sterling or by a direct exchange of goods for the foodstuffs she requires. As well as the advances in the agricultural output in Europe, we must bear in mind that the United States today, according to the statisticians in that country, is geared to produce 1,300 million bushels of wheat in a normally good year. Of that vast quantity of wheat that can be produced in the United States, not much more than one-half can be consumed in that country.
I am bringing these matters to the attention of the house because of the implications for our own country and the necessity of adopting intelligent marketing plans for all our products, particularly for wheat and other cereals upon which such a large proportion of our agriculturalists rely for their prosperity. Although I am speaking of cereals at the moment, I am not overlooking the other agricultural products. I have used wheat just as an example of what may happen to the other agricultural products in our country. May I say here that, if we are to market intelligently, we must end speculation in the marketing of foods.
The time has surely come, and I hope the government will endeavour to secure the cooperation of the western provinces, to close forever the Winnipeg grain exchange. I am quite sure that when we make this request, as we have done over and over again for

many years, we are voicing the opinion held by a majority of our prairie farmers. So we not only urge that the wheat board be made the sole marketing agency for wheat and flax; we ask that all coarse grains as well be marketed under a board, which at the moment we call the wheat board, or in any event under a single marketing agency.
While there is disappointment at the price of wheat for the next crop year under the British agreement, a disappointment that it was not set at more than $2 a bushel, if when the time comes to make the final adjustment it is impossible for the British, because of their trading relationships, their financial position, or for other monetary considerations, to make up the amount the farmers feel they should receive, as I said when the British wheat agreement was before this house in August of 1946, we believe we should make it up out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. That is what we have asked for: and I remind the house that, speaking on that agreement, I used these words:
If the costs of production and of living continue to rise, a compensatory adjustment should be made out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
I remember that at the time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said some $200 million had been provided for other farm products, and that he saw no reason why the matter of compensation should not be considered in this connection if the necessity arose. Let me add that farm costs have gone up. If we take the index of 100 in September, 1945, as the basis, by September of 1948 the general price index in this country-and I am using the figures of the bureau of statistics -had risen to 133, while wages had risen to 127. Farm living costs-and the costs of production have gone up more, I think, on account of increases in the cost of machinery, oil, distillate and so on-had gone up to 138, so the condition we feared has I think come about.
I also want to say something about the health plan which has been mentioned. Such a plan was incorporated in the Liberal platform of 1919. As long ago as March, 1928, a committee was established to consider the matter. More recently again, in 1943, a committee reported to this house recommending a health insurance plan. Proposals were laid before the dominion-provincial conference. Some financial considerations had to be gone into more thoroughly, but there was a general belief that something of this sort should be done. The plan so much talked of by the government at the moment is not a plan at all. It is simply an appropriation which will run out, and which has to be used during the current year. In my opinion this is insuffi-

cient at the present time. Our people need a plan adopted by this house, with appropriate legislation to ensure that it will be a continuing plan. The government has made a number of grants; for example, a grant for a health survey, and grants for other projects in the provinces. The principal defect in the whole scheme for the year 1948-49 is that the planning and execution must be undertaken at the same time, which in many provinces is an impossibility. It will be interesting to see just how much of this appropriation has been spent by the provinces up to the present time, or what allotment has been made to them, so that we may know precisely what this has amounted to during the current year. As I have said, the outline which was given to the house compels the provinces to discover their requirements and at the same time put their projects or schemes into operation. Therefore the one cancels the other, and it seems to me the plan is self-defeating.
The other great defect, because it is a discriminatory provision, is that a province must maintain its expenditures in any of these fields at their present levels, and use additional federal funds for new projects. This certainly penalizes any provinces which accepted in good faith the proposals of the dominion at the dominion-provincial conference in 1945. That is what happened, at least, in the province with which I am most familiar, Saskatchewan. There the government used its own financial resources to the very limit, in the belief that the dominion grant would meet half the costs. Instead of that, this province must continue these heavy expenditures without further aid in order to qualify for any portion of the proposed grants. In other words, as I have said, it penalizes the provinces which took seriously the 1945 proposals of the dominion government. I think it will be agreed that the Saskatchewan government did a remarkable job in connection with hospitalization, almost doubling the number of hospital beds in the province in the last four years, either by expanding the larger hospitals or by building new rural hospitals, of which there are a number.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis) I move:
That the following words be inserted in the amendment between the word "address" and the word "we":
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for the orderly marketing of our natural products, and for their exchange for goods needed in Canada, and for the elimination of speculation in foodstuffs:
We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for national health insurance;
Therefore . . .
The Address-Mr. Coldwell
Then the amendment moved by my friends of the Progressive Conservative opposition will follow.
Now, if I may conclude with regard to the health plan, the speech from the throne merely expresses satisfaction that the government is receiving co-operation from the provinces. That is not good enough. Our people need a nation-wide health service. If any measure of social security should receive the sympathetic and favourable consideration of the house at this time I think it is a dominionwide health plan. I often wonder how people with very low incomes having serious sickness, particularly if that sickness is prolonged, can possibly give the care that is needed to those whom they love. So I say this session of parliament should not end without the government bringing before the house legislation for a comprehensive national health plan.
There are other measures, of course, which I should have liked to discuss tonight had my time permitted, such as the question of adequate housing, the return of beneficial controls and subsidies in order to maintain a reasonable level of prices and of living. These are essential matters which should be dealt with this session. The problem of housing remains unsatisfactory, as I have said. I believe the government is going to continue rent control for a further period, which from the correspondence read this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) I understand to be another year. That is not enough. We need a subsidized housing plan so that people with small incomes may enjoy decent and adequate housing. Indeed, under the charter of the united nations, though of course in signing it we were not committed in the sense that we sometimes use that word, nevertheless when we signed that charter we were obligated to bring about social security and other needed reforms for which our people have been asking for so many years.
So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to say that this party in parliament will co-operate with the government or the official opposition or the Social Credit party in the house in endeavouring to bring about a better deal for the great masses of the people in this country.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, my opening words should be those of sincere congratulation to the mover and seconder of the address in reply for the splendid contribution they made in initiating this debate. I believe there are many things, particularly in the speech of the mover, with which I could agree.
I am hoping that his recommendation with regard to the St. Lawrence seaway is acted upon fully and at as early a date as possible by the government. It is interesting to me

The Address-Mr. Low
that the first important item dealt with in His Excellency's speech, and also dealt with in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), was that of peace. We are all interested in peace. We are all very much concerned about the world situation, which does not hold out too much hope for peace. I think I can safely say that we all want peace, but some of us spend our time trying to dig out and remove the causes of war and unrest while others spend their energies treating symptoms and not causes.
The Prime Minister dwelt at some length on the efforts which his government and that headed by the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) made to achieve peace. He set out at length in his review what had been done to sponsor a world organization, the united nations, and how this government had remained loyal in support of that organization.
He also mentioned the new Atlantic pact. I wish to say right here that we of the Social Credit organization favour the Atlantic pact, and support it. But we do think that during this session either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), my genial friend who is sitting so close to us, should enlighten the Canadian people about the cost to them of this Atlantic pact. I think the people are entitled to know what it is going to involve, and just how much it is going to cost.
I think, sir, that in the united nations we have had the cart which this government gave us. Now it looks as if they have come to the horse. It is quite clear that they have lost faith in the united nations assembly and in the security council, lost faith in the ability of the united nations to achieve the objective which they were so sure was going to be reached through the united nations, and that was world peace.
I think the suggestion today of the Atlantic pact indicates the government's loss of faith; and we would like to draw the attention of the house to the warning which we gave the house when the charter was before it for ratification back in October of 1945. At that time I thought I made it abundantly clear that while the Social Credit movement was anxious to support any form of international co-operation which promised peace and security to the people of the world, we did feel that such proposals as were put forward should be scrutinized with great care, and that the real authors of the schemes should be known.
I think at that time I said something like this, that the real authors of the San Francisco charter, the men who actually drafted it, were evidently so anxious to obscure any of its dangerous and anti-democratic features

behind a smokescreen of platitudes and humanitarian phraseology that they overreached themselves. At that time I continued in this way, as anyone who reads my speech of October 18, 1945, will see:
I have already shown that the profession of purpose set forth in the preamble of the charter bears no relation to the sinister purpose which one uncovers in the proposed organization itself.
And, if you will recall, I did say at the time that my real criticism of the whole business was that the expression of high humanitarian purpose and lofty ideals contained in the preamble were completely negatived and set at nought by the details of the organization outlined in the body of the charter; and in no way could the details of the proposed organization be sustained in the high principles so ably set forth in the preamble.
The organization

I pointed out at that time-
-embodies features which are flagrant violations of the most precious principles of democracy and of human justice. It is not only unworkable but, I submit, highly dangerous. By no stretch of the imagination could it in its present form possibly serve the cause of peace and human progress.
That was not to say that we had no faith whatever in any attempt to achieve international peace. But we did call in question the authorship and weaknesses of the charter. I wish to make just as clear as I possibly can, and in a very few minutes, why it was we took that position at that time, and why it was we advocated that the government scrutinize most carefully the whole proposal and measure it in relationship to the personalities who drafted the charter.
We were not any too happy about it, because we had been watching the changing international scene, and we saw congregated at Dumbarton Oaks and again at San Francisco a number of the wretches who had rendered unworkable the league of nations; they had their fingers in the pie again. It was they who were taking a prominent part in the drafting of the San Francisco charter. And when this assembly was asked to examine and to ratify that charter there was not a single other member in the House of Commons who rose to call in question that very feature, which I outlined clearly on that occasion.
That was the reason, the main reason, why we felt there was little chance of its succeeding. I should like to refer to something else, just by way of justification of the stand we took, and by way of explanation of what I wish to say tonight. At that time I said this:
Suppose that a nation came into conflict with another on an issue which divided the Big Five members of the security council, or to put it in this way, the five permanent members of the security council, a thing which is quite possible, bent as these

nations seem to be on continuing the old game of power politics; and hell-bent as they are to vie with each other for world industrial, commercial and influential supremacy. For example, suppose that a communist government in Bulgaria threatened to take armed action against a democratic government in, let us say, Greece. Any proposed action by the security council could and probably would be vetoed by Soviet Russia. Would Great Britain and the United States remain passive in such a case? 'If they did, or if they did not, either way, that would be the end of the united nations organization for world peace. That, actually, is but one of hundreds of situations likely to arise that could bring the members of the security council into conflict among themselves, and then we would have another global conflict instead of a localized affair.
I ask hon. members to keep in mind that that was uttered in 1945, not many months after the end of the war, at a time when there were so many idealistic frothings about the wonderful thing for the world the organization was going to do. The very thing that I mentioned as a possible example did happen, and right there was marked the end of the possible effectiveness of the united nations organization in achieving world peace.
I maintain that what we are doing now in the setting up of the Atlantic pact ought to have been done in 1945 or as soon after the war as we possibly could get at it. But the Liberal government put the cart before the horse. During the years that have elapsed since that time the world situation has deteriorated quite considerably. Communism has spread until it encompasses almost half the globe and threatens the other half. I say to you that by some concerted action at that time, such as the Atlantic pact, action based on reality, we possibly could have prevented the serious deterioration that has taken place in the past four years.
I mention this because I want you to draw a lesson from it. The main criticism that I have of this government is that they are always in a tremendous hurry when they are on the wrong road but have rocks tied to their feet when by some chance or other they happen to be on the right road. Unfortunately I find that they are unwilling to take a second look at proposals that are made in good faith and sincerity by people who have been following the course of events and who come forward in an honest manner to make such suggestions. We Social Crediters have tried to do that. We have made suggestions in all good faith. We have tried to show that we would co-operate in anything that they wished to do that would be for the benefit of humanity.
I am afraid that this government is too ready to follow policies such as were illustrated when I was in Scotland this last autumn. I was talking to an old Scotsman out on the moors. He said, "You know, Mr. Low, it is not so many years ago when my father and I were crossing the moors. We saw a 29087-7
The Address-Mr. Low very peculiar animal. We went closer to it and as we walked around and examined it we saw that it looked like a pig. But it was a little different. My father said to me, 'Is that not a peculiar pig?' Just then a voice came from the direction of the pig saying, 'I am not so peculiar.' My father could hardly believe his ears, but it was the pig speaking. The pig said, 'I am the sole survivor of the Gadarene swine. You know the story? We Gadarene swine were peacefully feeding one day, when a peculiar spirit got into us. Somehow or other we got it into our heads that we should run for the sea, and we headed that way just as hard as we could go. As we were all about to jump in, I decided that while that might be a good short-range policy, it had no future. I dug my feet in and I did not go into the sea. The rest of my companions did, and all were drowned. That is what happened. I am the sole survivor.' The Scotsman said, 'I am certainly sorry for you, Mr. Swine.' The swine replied, 'Do not feel sorry for me, at least I am alive.' "
I think that is exactly the position the government is taking on many of these things. They think it is enough to be alive, to have survived, to have stayed in power. I say that it is not enough to survive, it is not enough to be alive. There are things much more important than that. The welfare of the people of Canada is the most important concern of any government.
I would like the government to take a look at the whole present world situation to see, in the light of what I am going to say now, if they cannot find in it the hand of some power that seems to be directing world affairs toward a most uncertain end in line with the policy of the Gadarene swine.
I had the privilege of visiting Germany through the courtesy of the empire parliamentary association. I saw the efforts that were being made to re-establish that country. I had the privilege to visit Berlin and I saw the air lift that is being so magnificently carried on by the R.C.A.F.-


An hon. Member:: R.C.A.F.?


Solon Earl Low: -the R.A.F. and the American air force, not the R.C.A.F.


An hon. Member:: Where were the R.C.A.F.?


Solon Earl Low: They were conspicuous by their absence. A magnificent effort was being made. The combined air forces were bringing in to the people of Berlin four thousand tons of foodstuffs and other materials every day. That is at that time, but I believe they are carrying more today.
After seeing Berlin I said to myself, "Who in his right senses would have arranged the division of this country among world powers in such a way as to set up Berlin as an island

The Address-Mr. Low in the middle of Russian territory with no corridor leading up to the city?" Then I heard somebody answer, "Well, we had to show our confidence and trust in our friend Russia." I say that when that arrangement was made to establish Berlin as an island in the middle of Russian territory with no corridor by land or water the people who made that agreement were well aware of the fact that you could not trust Russia. Russia had already given evidence that she could not be trusted.
Was it stupidity? I do not believe it was stupidity. Let us look a little further. When in Berlin, I saw the terrible destruction that had been visited upon the city. There was hardly a building that had not been more or less destroyed. But deep inside British territory I saw a beautiful building untouched by war, and when I asked the guide what it was he said that it was Goebbels' radioplast. When we went up to it we found it was guarded by a detachment of Russian soldiers. That plant was in the hands of the Russians and they were using Goebbels' high-powered radio transmission machinery to send out their vicious and lying propaganda over the whole of Europe.
I ask you, "How did the plant-situated a mile and a half inside British territory, get into the hands of communists? Was it the result of stupidity, or was it malevolence or perfidy of the highest order?" That is something that ought to be determined. Another thing I saw inside British territory was a huge Russian victory memorial which was guarded day and night by Russian soldiers.
Who allowed that to happen? Then I want to know who is responsible for the dismantling and scrapping debacle in the Ruhr valley. The new minister of external affairs (Mr. Pearson) ought to be informing himself about that business. I visited the Ruhr valley. I found, for example, that the C.C.G. government-that is, the military government in conformity with the Potsdam agreement- had set parties to work dismantling some of the big German steel and manufacturing plants. They were those that were classed as potential war dangers. In dismantling those plants the engineers were very careful to see to it that the parts were labelled so they could be re-erected easily. I discovered that one of these very large steel plants, full of very important and expensive machinery, had been allocated to Yugoslavia, to be sent behind the iron curtain!
The plant I mention constituted a danger while it was in Germany because they said it might be used for war purposes, but of course it would not constitute a danger behind the iron curtain, and so it was being allocated
to Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, that sort of thing does not just happen, not by any means. When I asked about it the answer I got from the young man who was in charge of the dismantling operation was, "Yugoslavia helped win the war, didn't she?"
Down in the Ruhr valley I was told there were 50 million tons of surplus scrap iron left in Germany and to be left there according to the Potsdam and other agreements. No serious effort was then being made to get the scrap out of Germany, who does not need it. Nor was there any effort being made to get a fair portion of it into the hands of Great Britain, who has been starving for scrap iron, and who had made such a magnificent effort and spent almost her all in helping to win this war to save the world for democracy. I say that the agreement by which that scrap iron was to remain in Germany was a stupid agreement. There is nothing under heaven that could stop the Russians from reaching the Rhine and that scrap, if they ever take it into their heads to start moving towards the Ruhr. And they certainly would not hesitate to throw the scrap back at us if they got possession of it. I should like to know who it was who arranged the agreements by which the piles of German scrap become a potential danger to the democracies.
In my inquiries as I went through Germany I was told that all of these strange things came about as a result of the Yalta and the Potsdam agreements. But, you say, the framers of those agreements were no fools! When I began to carry my inquiries a little further I found, for example, that men of questionable character and integrity in high places were at the elbow of those men who, on behalf of the allied nations, made the Yalta and Potsdam agreements. I will tell you about one of them. Just recently in New York a man by the name of Alger Hiss-that may bring memories back to some people-was indicted by a grand jury on a charge arising out of certain vital information which leaked out of the United States to Soviet Russia during the war. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, Alger Hiss is the head of the Carnegie foundation for world peace. He was formerly a member of the state department of the United States. Significantly, as a prominent member in the state department, he helped to organize the Yalta and Dumbarton Oaks conferences, and acted as secretary-general of the united nations conference at San Francisco, which built the charter and established the basis for UNO. But he has been named as a prominent member of the underground communist party of the United States.

All along this man has been right at the elbows of the men who were responsible for making these atrocious agreements such as Yalta and Potsdam. He was probably an adviser to the men who made the agreements with respect to the scrap, with respect to dismantling, with respect to the division of Germany, and with respect to a good many other things. With such men wielding power, is there any wonder UNO is a miserable failure? Who knows how many of such perfidious civil servants there have been in the government of the United States, the government of Canada, and various other governments, lending their support to Russia while posing as patriots? Who knows but that the influence of such men was responsible for keeping Great Britain and the United States out of Berlin and letting the Russians go in six weeks ahead of them? In that six weeks, while the Russians were there in sole possession, they divested the city of everything of value, filched it away into Russia, and then set about the most degrading and bestial treatment of the people of Berlin that one can imagine.
It is that sort of thing which makes me feel that this Liberal government should be calling into question and bringing under careful scrutiny some of the institutions they hold up as examples of international cooperation. Some of these organizations were founded not on the high, humanitarian principles expressed in the preamble of the charter of the united nations, but upon the desires of hidden minds and the works of hidden hands.
I think perhaps the impression that one gets more strongly than any other from reading the speech from the throne is that the Liberal party is utterly bankrupt of sound ideas of how to deal with and solve the fundamental problems that face Canada and the world. One sees in the actions of this government, in the speeches made by its members, and in the speech from the throne, plenty of superficial attempts to treat symptoms; but honest efforts to dig right down to the foundation of things, to find the basic causes, and to remove or remedy them are completely foreign to present Liberal desire or inclination. Let me cite an example, and I suggest there are plenty of such examples.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was recently in Great Britain where he gave an admirable speech before the board of trade in London, if I remember correctly. He criticized, and quite rightly, the currency situation which prevents the hungry people of Great Britain and other sterling countries from buying the abundant food products of Canadian farms, as a result of which, he warned, Canadian farmers will probably have
29037-7J
The Address-Mr. Low great trouble in selling some of their 1949 crops. That means there will be unsaleable surpluses of food materials.
Just a day or two ago Mr. Hannam, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, had this to say at Saskatoon:
I feel keenly that we are coming dangerously close to the point where we move from an era of shortages into an era of surpluses. Canada could be the first nation to be faced with embarrassing surpluses in the face of crying need in other parts of the world.
The people of this country want to know what the Liberal party is doing about that currency problem, which is nothing more or less than a crazy war between those who are determined that the dollar shall dominate the world, and those who are desperately attempting to hold on to the last vestige of poundsterling imperialism. Behind the scenes, the financial racketeers and big shots are having an enjoyable time about it all while they continue to pull the strings which cause blind governments to dance to their tune. I tell you it is not the government that suffers; it is the people, and that is the important thing. It was not long ago that this Liberal government, grossly misled by the international hysteria that has been sweeping the world, and encouraged by other members and parties of this house, with the exception of the Social Crediters, plunged recklessly into the Bretton Woods agreement, and held that up as their proposal for the solution of the world's currency war.
I challenge anyone on the Liberal side to stand up on this floor today and defend Bretton Woods or say that he believes the situation complained of by the Minister of Agriculture can be cured by using the Bretton Woods agreement. What else have the Liberals to offer as a means of getting at the real root of this whole trouble to correct it so that Canadian producers can sell what they produce and enjoy freedom from fear?
Here is another example. I was interested in reading in the press of January 25 a report of a speech which the new Minister of Reconstruction and Supply delivered in the city of Toronto. After speaking of conditions in 1949 the minister had this to say about 1950. I take the liberty of quoting from his speech, and I hope the report is a faithful one:
With respect to 1950, the outlook is much more uncertain but I would not be surprised if private investment activity would, in the years beyond 1949, begin to slide to a lower level. It is in the years after 1949 that, public investment may have to play a more important part.
Part of it is my responsibility and I shall act accordingly, but a lot will depend upon what provincial governments and municipalities can do in their domain as well as the co-operation we receive from industries, both capital and labour.
The minister continued by expressing the hope that the various governments, provin-

The Address-Mr. Low rial and federal, would help him provide a billion-dollar cushion against depression. Evidently, this billion-dollar cushion will be for the purpose of providing full employment and the various governments in Canada will have to be ready to spend this amount of money under what the Liberal party likes to call a "public investment" program. What does all this indicate? I think I should take a minute or two to analyse the minister's suggestion and to illustrate what I mean when I say the Liberals are adept at treating symptoms but are never ready to get down to basic causes.
External markets for Canadian goods have begun to show signs of tapering off during recent months. Britain's agricultural production is improving. Last autumn I visited Germany and was amazed at that country's recovery, both agriculturally and industrially. This year Germany had excellent crops, so the food situation there has greatly improved. It is fully expected that basic steel production in Germany will be back to an adequate peacetime level by 1950. European aid under the Marshall plan will terminate sooner or later, at which time United States money will not be taking up so much of our Canadian agricultural production. The effect of the Marshall plan is to make the countries of Europe self-supporting. Sooner or later, they are bound to come into competition with Canada.
It is patently clear that when substantial gifts of Canadian goods, together with the long-term credit sales of them to other countries, no longer take off the top layer of our production, we will soon face a condition of very large unsaleable surpluses in Canada. Unless something worth while is done about it, that situation will come about. The backlog of pent-up wartime savings of the people is fast disappearing. In fact, thousands of Canadians have already seen those savings disappear as a result of high costs and unreasonable taxes, which have themselves contributed to high prices. The government has itself contributed materially to these high prices. Therefore, we cannot depend on these pent-up wartime savings to keep up effective demand in Canada.
One already hears reports that men of forty-five and fifty are being told they are too old for certain jobs. This situation is bound to intensify as the months pass, for we are constantly making improvements in machinery and processes that reduce the need for manpower even though we maintain high production. Above all, our mechanized industry fails to distribute purchasing power amongst consumers to enable them to buy the entire output of the factories, fields, an'!

mines. Machines produce but they do not eat. This thesis is being admitted as a fact by many prominent thinkers and economists today.
The council of economic advisers to the government of the United States recently presented to the President what has been described as a calm, temperate 140-page study of the economic situation in that country. The council members, all prominent economists, show themselves to be wholly committed to the idea of a balanced economy. According to them, the trick is to give the consumers enough buying power to purchase the goods they produce. They declare that consumer income, though it has increased relatively in the past ten years, is still far from adequate in relation to the other component parts of the economy.
As less and less of our Canadian production is drained off in gifts or for purposes of re-armament for outright war, this economic fact which I have just stated comes into full play. Unsaleable surpluses begin to pile up on the shelves of retailers, in the elevators, and on the farms. Retailers cancel orders to wholesalers whose warehouses bulge with materials they cannot move; hence, they cancel orders from manufacturers. When factories have no orders wheels stop turning, and unemployment begins to appear. With unemployment, salaries and wages decline; confidence dwindles; bread lines appear; business stagnates and depression is on us with all its tragic circumstances.
Faced with those facts, what do the Liberals do? They begin to advocate and develop plans for government spending which they call "public investment". That is the billion-dollar cushion upon which my hon. friend sits. The idea the Liberals put forward is for the federal government to centralize more power; to tax or borrow and spend the income to establish a policy of full employment. This policy carries with it a threat of destitution or starvation as the alternative. The result is a scramble for employment, much of which is devoted to making useless things in one place and trying to sell them in another; to digging holes or cutting down hills with shovels and wheelbarrows while marvellous machines, worth many thousands of dollars and capable of doing the job better and cheaper, stand idly by, rusting away for lack of use. When this stupid policy fails, the Liberal party will doubtless increase the bureaucracy. They will put many more of the unemployed in the armed forces to get ready for the war that will be inevitable if world affairs are allowed to deteriorate any further.
I quite realize that the minister of reconstruction's billion-dollar cushion could yield

some desirable results. Canada is in desperate need of the houses which could be built with a lot of this money, but the point I wish to emphasize is that, like every other so-called remedy for our economic ills put forward by the Liberals, this one will have the ultimate effect of depriving most individuals of more of their freedom. It will consolidate more and more power in the hands of fewer chosen individuals. Let us have the houses, certainly, but let us have them without going further into pawn to the merchants of debt through heavy additions to our present burden of taxation or debt. One cannot be blamed for drawing the conclusion that many of these remedies, as they are called, are not intended to work for very long. When parties and governments continue to treat symptoms in this way, instead of getting at the causes, one can hardly be blamed for concluding that they are merely acting as the dupes of those whose first objective is to centralize power.
This so-called public investment palliative is as old as the hills and has never succeeded in doing what its sponsors claim it can do. It does not solve the fundamental cause of business recession. Lest the hon. Minister of Reconstruction and Supply think I am his enemy, let me hasten to congratulate him on the energetic way in which he has tackled the affairs of his department. I suggest, though, that at an appropriate time he should lead out in this house in a debate on the billion-dollar cushion proposal which he has made in public.
Before I leave this particular item, I should like to challenge the government to tell this house during this debate exactly how it proposes to deal with the problem of surpluses as they begin to appear in the Canadian economy. If my memory serves me right, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) indicated last year his belief that it would require a big program of foreign investment to take care of it. I wonder what he meant. By that, did he mean that Canadian production will join American money in scanning the horizon for something useful to do with itself? I should like him to answer that question when he takes part in this or some other debate.
We of the social credit movement believe that these surpluses of Canadian production should be used to improve the standard of living of the Canadian people and, as far as they will go, to provide them with social security. Moreover, we do not hesitate to explain exactly by what technique those surpluses can be distributed to the Canadian people so that they will not be wasted. I wish to take just one moment to do that, Mr. Speaker-
The Address-Mr. Low


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: With the unanimous consent of the house, the hon. member may continue.


Solon Earl Low: I will not delay the house for any great length of time, but I should just like to say this. I have already said that we are not at all afraid to place before the world exactly by what means we propose to put these unsaleable surpluses of goods into the hands of the Canadian people so that they can use them. Social credit, in its financial aspects, is the use of the national credit for the benefit of all members of society in the nation, not just a few members. The use of that national credit means that debt-free, interest-free money should be made available to the extent that it is required for the effective and proper distribution of all of the goods or things produced in the nation.
To bring this about, the first step required is to set up a national currency and credit commission to prepare and present to parliament an annual balance sheet, and to assess the relation between what the nation grows, makes and imports, on the one hand, and what it uses up and exports, on the other hand. If, in any year or period, the total production in our country, plus our imports, is found to exceed the total consumption so that unsaleable surpluses begin to appear, an appropriate amount of new money will be authorized and spent into circulation in one or both of two forms. The first of these forms is a national dividend to be distributed to every man, woman and child in the nation, which will provide for them some security and at least a modicum of freedom which will make it impossible for others to enslave them; this dividend to be provided through debt-free, interest-free money by the use of the national credit through the national currency and credit commission.
The second way would be a retail price discount on the things people buy, for which the retailer will be compensated with purchasing power provided by the issuance of debt-free, interest-free money through the national currency and credit commission. This constitutes the financial reform proposals for social credit. In its fundamentals it has been tried and found successful. I would point out that the dominion treasury right now creates, and spends into circulation, interest-free, about ten per cent of the new purchasing power that we use, without borrowing or taxing it away from the people. If they can create and spend directly into circulation that proportion of our new purchasing power requirements, then I say there is no logical reason under the

The Address-Mr. Low sun why a currency and credit commission should not, with a similar technique, put enough purchasing power into the hands of consumers to balance consumption with production so that embarrassing surpluses of goods need not appear.
People who champion what is loosely called the democratic way of life continue to protest their adherence to the idea that the teachings of Christ and the love of Almighty God bring democracy to its truest realization. Many of them insist that they believe in the sanctity of the human person and in individual freedom. Those who are associated with the social credit movement insist that human freedom and the highest ideals of democracy cannot be realized as long as people generally, or any section of our population, are the victims of economic pressure that results from man-made policies. We in the social credit movement insist that, in this age of plentiful production, the greatest single factor that can contribute to the release of people from economic pressures resulting from man-made policies is a reform of our monetary system whereby debt-free, interest-free money will be spent, not lent, into circulation by the national currency and credit commission to the extent that it is required, and only to that extent, for the efficient and proper distribution of all of the things Canadians produce.
In dealing with the so-called surpluses I have mentioned, I think it would probably be necessary to supplement the financial technique that I have outlined with regional conversion, processing and storage facilities, by government; and most certainly with international trade on a balanced two-way-street basis. We have already advocated the setting up of a world pool of food and other products to which the various nations of the world can bring their real surpluses; and when they have brought their real surpluses there, they can take back with them goods that they need and do not produce, to an equal value. We say that when that is done, and that when the nations have put their own houses in order, when they have removed social injustice, and have extended to the people, regardless of race, colour or creed, a full measure of social justice with freedom, then and then only shall we be able to achieve world peace.


Mr. Manross:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) this question. Does he know that on the most important debate in the house, when he was speaking, there were present twenty-three Liberal members and four cabinet ministers? That is the real importance they attach to this debate.


Solon Earl Low: I did not know that because I was concentrating on making my speech. But I am sure the people of the country will like to know that fact.


James Arthur Ross: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my word of welcome to those new members who have been elected to this house since last session. I should also like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
On Friday evening and this afternoon I listened most attentively to the laborious efforts of the Prime Minister for some three and three-quarter hours-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Arthur Ross: Is that not right?
I listened to his lengthy address in which he discussed the speech from the throne and many other matters. We had a good deal of ancient history and many quotations. As I have only forty minutes, I wish to deal first of all with what appears to be a controversial subject in the province from which I come, as I think it probably is in some other provinces. I wish to refer to an article appearing in the Winnipeg Tribune of December 4, headed Killarney, and reading in part as follows:
J. C. Davis, past president of the Manitoba Liberal Progressive Association told the meeting it was in the interests of voters of Souris constituency possibly more than any other constituency in the province, to work for the election of a Liberal member.
The sitting member, he said, was a supporter of conservative leader Drew, who was in opposition to the implementation of the dominion-provincial agreement. This placed Col. J. A. Ross (P.C. Souris) in a similar position in direct antithesis to the rights of the prairie provinces.
No one took that very seriously at that time, but on January 12, the Winnipeg Free Press had this headline: "Ross, McDowell, Thor-valdson Denounced in Garson Address". In the Winnipeg Tribune of the same date appeared this heavy black headline: "Garson Attacks Souris M.P. over Tax Deal". In fact there is a good deal of detail in all three daily newspapers of that date. The Tribune goes on to say:
Justice Minister Stuart Garson Tuesday accused Colonel Arthur Ross, Progressive Conservative MP. for Souris, of "stabbing in the back" the tax agreement between the dominion and Manitoba.
Speaking to the Manitoba Liberal-Progressive convention at the Fort Garry hotel, Mr. Garson charged Colonel Ross of "outrageous and impudent falsehood," in saying that the agreement was a "bad deal for the provinces" and in alleging that Mr. King had "scuttled" the dominion-provincial conference.
Mr. Garson attributed these remarks to Colonel Ross at the Progressive Conservative convention in Ottawa last October, when he nominated George Drew for national leader of the party.

Then he goes on to point out that Mr. Drew had blocked a just deal, and said:
"If Colonel Ross . . . proposes to be an enemy of his province, the sooner he stops posing as a friend, the better.
It is a most singular coincidence that all the criticisms of the Manitoba government's position (on the tax agreements) have come from John McDowell and G. S. Thorvaldson, and from Colonel Ross."
Then I skip quite a bit, because the newspaper carried a detailed account of the hon. gentleman's speech, and I believe it was also carried over the C.B.C. that night, or at least the main portions of it. In another column the newspaper report goes on:
"An examination of this sessional paper and the text of Colonel Ross' speech shows that he has made a wholly improper use of these figures," Mr. Garson said, "and even his speech by itself shows that he does not know what he is talking about."


Mr. Sinnott:: What has that to do with the speech from the throne?


James Arthur Ross: Just as much as the speech of the Prime Minister I listened to for two or three hours this afternoon.
Mr. Garson said that in his speech Colonel Ross stated the figures he quoted were for the first four /ears operation of the dominion-provincial tax [DOT]entals agreement ending March 31, 1948.
"This does not make sense," Mr. Garson said, "as the dominion-provincial agreement commenced April 1, 1947, and concludes March 31, 1952, so that by the date named by Colonel Ross the agreement had been in operation not four years but only one year.
Well, this afternoon I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) admit with some heat that words attributed to him were true but that he did not mean what they said because they had been taken out of their context and given the wrong meaning. That being so, I want to say that this is a gross misrepresentation, because I did not use those words and did not discuss any question of four years. I am going to have to quote the complete nomination speech I made, in order to keep the record straight. On January 15 of this year I wrote a reply to this statement by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) which I sent to several weekly newspapers as well as the three daily newspapers in Winnipeg. In it I said:
Dear Editor:
If you will permit me the use of space in your valuable newspaper, I should like to make some reference to a controversial subject.
At a Liberal provincial convention held in Winnipeg, January 11, 1949, as reported in the daily press of January 12, Justice Minister Garson, expremier of Manitoba, delivered a slashing attack, with respect to dominion-provincial agreement, on Mr. McDowell, Mr. Thorvaldson and myself. Stating "that the question which the electors of Souris have a right to ask Colonel Ross, is whether he should support the efforts of the Manitoba government, or whether he should pull chestnuts out of the fire for Colonel Drew."
Mr. Garson charged that Colonel Ross in discussing the taxation agreement, when nominating
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
Colonel Drew as Conservative leader, had been guilty of some grave misstatements of facts. May I say that all the facts and figures used by me at that time were taken from government records, and that at the first opportunity, in the approaching session of parliament, for the benefit of the electors of Souris, and of Manitoba, I will, with the justice minister, Mr. Garson, sitting opposite me, deal with the matter of dominion-provincial conference on tax agreements, and other matters, and quoting from Hansard proceedings, prove as to who has been falsifying the records.
Mr. Thorvaldson informs me that he has never, to date, discussed in public the present dominion-provincial tax agreement.
At the last annual Manitoba municipal convention, I did oppose Mr. Garson's proposal to place an added tax burden on land by way of dividing extra old age pension payments municipally and provincially, a matter which is rightfully a federal obligation, and the convention voted down his proposal approximately 650 to 7.
Keeping in mind a speech delivered by Mr. J. C. Davis, past president of Manitoba Liberal association, in Killarney on December 2, this is apparently all deliberate, cheap and false political propaganda developed by Winnipeg Free Press, Mr. Garson and others. Remember that Mr. Drew was premier of Ontario since August 1943, and Mr. Garson was premier of Manitoba since January 1943, and compare, during those years of increasing national revenue, what each provincial government has done, and is doing, by way of provincial payments for education, hospitalization, old age pensions and human welfare.
Thanking you for printing this and the detailed copy of my nomination speech of last October 1 which I enclose herewith.
Yours faithfully,
J. Arthur Ross.
I now quote the nomination speech, referred to in my letter:
Fellow Canadians-It is my privilege and honour to propose the name of a great Canadian, a man of great physical and mental strength, a person of charm, culture and dignity, one who was himself wounded on the field of battle-a personal friend with whom I have worked in the past on behalf of war veterans and their dependents-a journalist who has written several important articles on military matters.
He was chairman at the conference of defence associations in 1935 which was responsible for the reorganization of Canadian military forces.
In case of international difficulties he has the ability and vision to co-operate with the great nation to the south of us. He is recognized by many people as a North American Churchill.
He has won three provincial elections in succession. In his cabinet he has chosen young men of exceptional ability and vision. He has developed a highly efficient governmental system along business lines-has given the province the most progressive and advanced legislation of any province within Canada.
With respect to education-his government contributes at least 50 per cent of the cost, and in some cases as high as 90 per cent; thus relieving the municipalities of great financial outlays and with great improvement to the entire educational structure. Health services have been trebled. Capital grants to hospitals, depending on the type of hospital, are as high as $2,000 per bed.
Resources have been developed on a scale never before attempted, federally or provincially.
Farmers are permitted to conduct their business with a minimum of government interference as possible. As a result, the present number of rural seats now held by his government is greater than

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross has been held by any government in the history of the province, and those many rural M.L.A.'s were all elected by the common people of the land.
He insisted that the dominion-provincial conference must continue when Prime Minister Mackenzie King scuttled the meeting. He has repeatedly asked Prime Minister King to reconvene the conference but without success.
According to the sessional paper from the Department of Finance, under date of April 26, 1948, for the first full year's operation of the dominion-provincial tax rental agreements ending March 31, 1948-
British Columbia gave to the dominion taxing field $144 million (round figures) and received $20 million-seven to one.
Alberta gave $47 million and received $13 million -three and one-half to one.
Saskatchewan gave $33 million and received $13 million-two and one-half to one.
Manitoba, my own province, gave $64 million and received $12 million-five to one.
New Brunswick gave $23 million and received $7 million-three to one.
Nova Scotia gave $29 million and received $10 million-three to one.
Prince Edward Island gave $2 million and received $1J million.
As a result of the dominion-provincial taxing agreement, British Columbia found it necessary to impose provincial sales tax, while Ontario was showing a surplus of $25 million. On the basis of these figures this has not been a good deal for the provinces.
I followed every minute of the conference proceedings and according to the record of May 3, 1946, when the dominion government was standing rigidly by a take-it-or-leave-it line of its own Mr. Drew said "Ontario's attitude is not one of 'take our offer or leave it'.'' Later on, Mr. Drew said- "Decide how long it will take to revise your position in the light of the clearly stated position of the provinces, then call us together to consider a transitional tax agreement."
At another point in the conference he said-"The concern of each of us is to find the highest possible standard of life for every Canadian." He then went on to say-"Our proposals are made in the belief that they should be equally acceptable in every part of Canada and are in no instance put forward with the thought of giving any special advantage to those who live in the province of Ontario." "Ontario has said, and said very emphatically, that it recognizes certain advantages it possesses and that it is not only willing, it is insistent upon combining with the other provinces of Canada to share any advantages it possesses."
Premier Angus Macdonald of Nova Scotia suggested that the conference adjourn to meet at a later date.
The then Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), moved that it adjourn sine die and Prime Minister King, who was chairman, promptly put the question and declared it carried.
On many occasions since Mr. Drew and Mr. Macdonald have urged that the conference be reconvened. The dominion government has never done so.
This is not a time for sectionalism. We must have a united Canada and the federal state must be preserved.
I believe that the leadership in progressive legislation for Ontario during the past few years can, to a large extent, be duplicated across Canada by the leadership and vision of this man.
He is one of the greatest Conservatives of the day. Conservatism means "loyalty to persons," that is, loyalty to human brotherhood, loyalty to the proposition that the dignity of man and his happiness are more precious things than the power or the dignity of a state.

Canada now requires greater leadership. This man, with a national and international reputation has proven his administrative and leadership ability. Canada must have Drew as leader.
Friends, for your most earnest and serious consideration I place in nomination for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party of Canada, the name of my friend and comrade, George Drew.
I ask the house to compare that detail with the reported speech of the Minister of Justice Mr. Garson) in those three daily papers. I have before me the dominion and provincial submissions and the plenary conference discussions in 1945 and 1946. Let me first of all refer to page 113 of the dominion tax proposals, where it states:
The dominion government proposes that after the war the provincial governments should by agreement forgo the imposition of personal income taxes, corporation taxes and succession duties, leaving the dominion government the full and exclusive access to these revenue sources. The dominion government further proposes that as a condition of such agreement the dominion should substantially expand its present payments to the provincial governments under an arrangement which would ensure stable revenues and provide for their growth in proportion to increases in population and per capita national production.
And then at page 129, the Manitoba government presentation is as follows:


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman and fellow provincial premiers and delegates, like the premier of New Brunswick, I want to say that I am in agreement with the statesmanlike utterances made by the premiers of Ontario and Quebec with regard to the necessity of a non-partisan approach to this problem of the value of discussing in committee the proposals which have been brought out at the plenary sessions of the conference. However, I differ from them in one respect. I have not understood from the course of events during the past eight years that we were to come here merely to consider dominion proposals. We understood, rightly or wrongly that we were being invited to present proposals of our own. The proposals which I intend to make this afternoon are not in any sense counter-proposals. They are proposals that were prepared before we had any idea as to what the dominion proposals were going to be.
And then at page 323, again quoting the premier of Manitoba (Mr. Garson):
There should be one system of national old age pensions.
The dominion proposals regarding old age pensions envisage a dual system of administration. One system would be administered and paid for by the dominion government itself, providing pensions of $30 per month beginning at age 70 without means test. The other would provide payment of old age assistance for ages 65 to 69, subject to a means test and would be administered and paid for by the provinces and municipalities, with the dominion contributing one-half of the cost. The Manitoba government contends that the dominion government, having recognized its responsibility for the payment of old age pensions without means test to persons of 70 years and upwards, should provide old age pensions without means test below 70 as well. We contend that for two old age pension systems to be operating at the same time, one administered wholly by the dominion government without means test, and the other administered by the municipalities and provinces subject to a means

test, would surely create friction and misunderstanding, and would require, at large expense, duplicate administrative machinery in both the federal and provincial fields. In our view it is much preferable to have one system administered and paid for by the federal government, even although this may involve adjustments in other fields.
Then, at page 391 the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is reported to have said:
The main purpose of the dominion-provincial conference (1945) is to place the dominion and the provincial governments in the best possible position to use their combined powers for the most effective advancement of the welfare of the people of Canada and the strength of one national economy.
And further down on the page:
These principles are stated at the outset so that it may be clearly understood that our proposals are made in the belief that they should be equally acceptable in every part of Canada and are in no instance put forward with the thought of giving any special advantage to those who live in Ontario.
And again at page 394 the leader of the opposition said:
I am very glad to see in the statement read by the Prime Minister of Canada this morning that the suggestion is made that the co-ordinating committee should continue to sit at least once every six months. As may be recalled, that was the suggestion of the province of Ontario. I am not boasting of that fact, it is a simple matter of record. It is also a matter of record that the motion to set up the co-ordinating committee was a motion of the province of Ontario. Therefore the combined results of these discussions which are now showing form in these suggestions, which do bring us close together, have come from contributions made by all the representatives of all the governments. I say most emphatically that everyone sitting around this table has contributed some substantial part to the advancement of these proceedings to this point.
And again at page 397, the leader of the opposition:
The Ontario government is still of the opinion that the proposals put forward in its printed brief, and submitted to this conference, do offer a satisfactory basis for a temporary agreement, combining the full legislative, administrative and taxing powers of the dominion and the provincial governments in such a way as to produce the best results for all the people of Canada.
And again at page 425, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) said:
Now, sir, the Manitoba government is fully in favour of concluding an agreement based upon the dominion's proposals, modified in the manner I have suggested, not because they meet the views of the Manitoba government in every particular, but because of the two alternative courses of action to which our choice now is limited. In our judgment the conclusion of such an agreement would be a much better choice both for Canada and for Manitoba.
And then at page 509 the premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Macdonald,-and this is a reference which no one has ever read in the Winnipeg Free Press-
Let me ask you, Mr. Chairman, and the delegates here, whether they represent the dominion govem-
105
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
ment or tne provinces, let me ask anyone who is within sound of my voice, let me ask that greater body to which we as public servants are all accountable, the citizens of our provinces, or of Canada, let me ask any of those people whether they think that it is a fair or honourable or dignified position in which to place the provinces in this dominion. Provincial autonomy will be gone. Provincial independence will vanish. Provincial dignity will disappear. Provincial governments will become mere annuitants of Ottawa. Provincial public life-and I do not think these words are too strong-will be debased and degraded. I cannot think that such a state of affairs is desired by the representatives of the government of Canada here today, my one-time colleagues. I am sure that they have no wish or desire to see such a state of affairs come to pass in this country, nor can I believe that such a state of affairs is desired by the people of this country.
And then Mr. Manning, at page 535-and I have not read this in the Winnipeg Free Press, either:


Mr. Manning:: Mr. Prime Minister and gentlemen, this is an occasion which obviously calls for plain speaking and a frank expression of our reaction to the address delivered this morning by the Minister of Finance. Mr. Ilsley's comprehensive address might well have been reduced to one simple word of two letters: No! For that reason his statement conveyed much more than just an unsatisfactory negative answer to the considered opinions expressed around this conference table by the provincial premiers. It conveyed an attitude of uncompromising rigidity on the part of the dominion government that is indefensible in the light of the circumstances as they are.
Then Mr. Manning is reported again on page 538 as follows:
Now, Mr. Prime Minister, I cite these facts not in a spirit of bitterness, but rather for the sole purpose of emphasizing the attitude of uncompromising rigidity which the dominion government has adopted in this matter.
And again:
I am forced to say this after listening to the reply of the Minister of Finance to the submissions of the provincial premiers that, if this conference fails, and I sincerely hope that even yet it will not fail-but if this conference fails, the responsibility for its failure will rest squarely on the doorstep of the dominion government and will be due to the attitude of uncompromising rigidity expressed on behalf of the government by the Minister of Finance this morning.
Then as to the apparent reason for the real charge made by the Minister of Justice I should like to quote Mr. Ilsley from page 624, the final page, as follows:
As the Prime Minister reminds me, I must proceed at once with the preparation of the budget. It is not possible for me to wait until an agreement is reached, and I will have to prepare the budget in the light of the fact that no agreement has been reached. In the meantime my suggestion is that we should adjourn sine die, and that the government take into consideration the points of view that have been expressed here today, and then arrive at a decision as to the procedure to follow and the position to take.


Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Chairman, I take it that
Mr. Ilsley is not suggesting that there will not be another conference. The premier of Quebec who is not here said he would come back at any time.

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
I would hope that the representatives of the dominion government here stand in the same position, and are prepared to try it.


Mr. Mackenzie King:: Gentlemen, it has been moved that the conference adjourn sine die. All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
Some premiers: Aye.
I was sitting in the gallery and had watched the little whispering campaign between the then Prime Minister and Mr. Ilsley before he rose. I do not think I am wrong when I say that the Prime Minister scuttled the conference and it certainly has not been called since. Let me go on to deal with the charges made by the former premier of Manitoba. I happened to attend a municipal gathering last fall and I listened to a discourse by a very able gentleman, the Hon. William Morton, municipal commissioner. In his address to the delegates attending the forty-fifth annual meeting of the union of Manitoba municipalities Mr. Morton outlined the reasons why their taxes had had to be raised and he reviewed the financial position of the municipalities and referred to the financial assistance which they had received as a result of the dominion-provincial agreement in 1947 amounting to some $2,750,000. He went on to refer to their revenue deficits of nearly $3,000,000 and he stated that the municipalities were some $3,000,000 poorer in realizable assets than they were at the beginning of 1945. At that time he had the figures only up to the fall of 1948 and for 1947. He stated that only 73 municipalities had operated on a cash basis in 1947, the lowest in the past twelve years. Actually there was an operating cash loss of over $600,000.
That speech certainly was not in keeping with the story the premier had left with them. I was rather surprised to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) make the following statement on Friday evening. I intend to quote the whole paragraph so that he cannot accuse me of doing what he has accused others of doing. He said, as reported at page 60 of Hansard:
Before doing that, however, I want to say to the leader of the opposition that there are many of the things he said in his speech concerning dominion-provincial relations, and concerning the constitution of Canada, and its principles, with which I am in entire agreement. And if there was any hope anywhere that an issue could be created upon that, then I am sorry that we shall have to disappoint those who may have entertained such hopes.
I sincerely trust that the new Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the Winnipeg Free Press will give as much publicity to the statement of the Prime Minister as they have given on many other occasions to different phases of the dominion-provincial agreement, some of which were not in keeping with the printed record.
I said also at that municipal convention that the former premier of Manitoba and his government had agreed to a much less advantageous deal than they now have with the province of Manitoba. 1 said that they could thank Premier McNair of New Brunswick, who had bettered the arrangement for his province on the basis of what had been given to British Columbia.
The Minister of Justice took advantage of every opportunity to pose in Manitoba as an expert on dominion-provincial taxation matters, but we certainly owe thanks to Premier McNair of New Brunswick for the present deal we have. I should like the municipal officials of Manitoba to compare the particular submissions made to the conference in 1946 with the old age pension proposals that he made to them during the fall of 1948 when he offered to split an increase up to an additional $10, thus adding another tax burden to real estate and making the municipal officials responsible for administration.
Of course he did not tell them that he was leaving the premiership of Manitoba and going to Ottawa. The old age pensioners throughout this country certainly require more than the allowance they are now getting in order to live. There is no argument anywhere about that. I remember during the last session of parliament the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) placed on the record an editorial from the Vancouver Sun. This will be found on page 4307 of Hansard. The editorial was headed, "Hello Sucker!" and went on to show what British Columbia was getting from the dominion government.
I think everyone knows that the Vancouver Sun is not a friend of the official opposition. If, as this editorial in this Liberal paper in Vancouver says, British Columbia has been sucker No. 1, Manitoba qualifies as sucker No. 2 under the arrangement.
It will be remembered that the Minister of Justice nominated the right hon. Prime Minister for leadership last summer. That was his prerogative. But according to newspaper reports he is very resentful of the fact that I, a humble member from Manitoba, should have nominated the present leader of the opposition as leader of the Progressive Conservative party. I am one, among many, who is quite sure that he will be Prime Minister once the public have an opportunity at the polls. I think this is sufficient for that subject. I think the Hansard record of the conference will show what happened then.
I should like to refer to the first press report of the Minister of Justice's campaign in Marquette. It is rather odd considering that he was only a few days away from his
TMr. Ross (Souris).)

position as head of the coalition government of Manitoba. The article reads:
It was possible, he admitted, to foresee the defeat of the party at the next general election but it was not possible to see any other party being capable of forming a government. The only alternative would be some sort of weak nondescript coalition.
I am sure that his colleagues whom he had left a few days ago in Winnipeg appreciated that statement. Here is another report headed "Garson Outlines Liberal Policies" and reading:
The lifting of the embargo on cattle shipments to the United States had meant, in the few short months since it had occurred, that $65 million worth of cattle and meat products has gone across the border.
"Think what this means in terms of income business for western Canada," Mr. Garson said.
"Can any sensible person believe that another government more than likely composed of a coalition could equal or better this record," he continued.
It is rather odd, you know, that he never reminded his electors that this same Canadian government had imposed controls and embargoes in 1942 and the following years up to date which have cost the agricultural producers of the prairie provinces in the neighbourhood of $2,000 million. He neglected to remind them that it is the same government.
In that respect I want to refer again to the Searle index of December 1, 1948, with reference to the British-Canadian wheat agreement.
Between now and December 31 prices have to be set for the sale of Canadian wheat to Great Britain, all according to a clause contained in the British-Canadian wheat agreement. As we have frequently shown in these columns, the losses for the first two years on the wheat supplied to Britain amounted to $352 million. There was a further loss of $170 million on the wheat farmers supplied for Canadian domestic consumption.
A clause in the agreement says as follows:
"In determining the prices for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in 194647 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years."
This paragraph has been explained by those who support the agreement to mean that in the third and fourth year Britain would add such an additional price to the world price as would recompense our farmers for the losses they may have sustained during the first two years. We were assured our farmers would lose nothing by the agreement.
The price for the third year was set at $2. But far from making up for any losses sustained during the first two years, this price of $2 merely added further to the losses, because for the first three months, namely August, September and October of this third year, the average price for Canadian Class 2 wheat set by the wheat board, and sold on world markets, and which is therefore the world price for Canadian wheat, has been $2.38, making a further loss for these three months on wheat supplied to Britain of $33 million so far, and it will most probably be more by August 1 next, the end of this crop year. The price for the fourth year of the agreement, then, to make up for these gigantic losses, would have to be over $5 a bushel.
29087-8i
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
I recollect that the minister was asked his opinion on that matter also, but as I read his answer even at this late date he is still giving the matter consideration. I have contended at every session that this is altogether too great a contribution to ask one class of people in Canada to make for the consumers of Great Britain and of Canada.
There was some discussion this afternoon about communism in this country. It is rather strange that in all the newspapers of the country in the year 1945 the Labour Progressive people, who were recognized as the communists, were asking their followers to support the Liberals in the pending election. I well remember the advertising, particularly that in the Grey North election. Now they have switched their allegiance and they are asking their followers to support the C.C.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have changed their line
again.


James Arthur Ross: That is my latest information. Then we have the peculiar coincidence that whenever the government seems to be getting into a jam in the House of Commons, the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) brings in his group to support the government, although professing to stand for their own principles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nonsense.


Gordon Graydon: That is not quite nonsense.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to warn
the people of this country that it can happen in this Canada of ours, and that they should not take things for granted. It can very easily happen. To have a real working democracy we must have free enterprise on the one side of the scale balanced by human welfare on the other. Then we will have a real democracy. I will have much more to say on agricultural matters, old age pensions, veterans' allowances, and veterans' problems when the opportunity presents itself.


Mr. L. J. Raymond (Wright):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it has ever been a very comfortable situation for a backbencher to be the first one on this side of the house to rise in his seat after the leaders of the different political groups have spoken. Perhaps I might take advantage of the situation to compliment the distinguished members who have spoken prior to myself, and in some way to pay tribute to their speeches. Limiting myself to the leaders of the political groups in this house, although I think none of them are here at the present time, I wish to say that a good speech is nothing new when the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) or the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has the floor. Although I do not share their opinions, I wish to say that I have

The Address-Mr. L. J. Raymond always listened to them with great interest since I came to this house in 1945.
The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is a newcomer here. I confess he was more or less a curiosity to me. I think it would be unfair not to say that he delivered his speech well, and also that I listened to him with great interest. It is not for me at the present time to appraise the contents of his speech and to comment on it, since that has been done, and quite thoroughly, by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) last Friday and this afternoon in one of the best speeches I have ever heard here or elsewhere.
In a humble way I wish to congratulate the right hon. the Prime Minister on his most excellent speech, a speech which made me proud to serve the good cause under so great a Canadian, just as I was proud to serve such a cause before under the leadership of another great Canadian, the right hon. the member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King), for whom I have always had and still have great respect and admiration. The words uttered by the right hon. the Prime Minister in his speech last Friday have made a deep impression upon the Canadian people, and those he uttered this afternoon will undoubtedly make a great impression on them also, but perhaps none more than those relating to the problem of peace which is dominant today in this country and elsewhere in the world.
I do not think that I have been singled out particularly by certain persons and organizations to be sent communications demanding that, as a member of parliament, I request that this house declare itself neutral with regard to war, and further that I commit myself concerning such neutrality.
As it is quite unlikely, Mr. Speaker, I shall have another opportunity to put myself on record in this regard, I now wish to set out clearly my personal feelings concerning the participation of Canada in any future war.
Before doing so, however, it is a pleasure for me to join with those who have spoken before me in complimenting the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the splendid manner in which they carried out their allotted task. I have worked with the mover of the address for three years in the Indian affairs committee, of which he was the chairman. I have learned to know him as a courteous, hardworking gentleman. The excellence of his speech, therefore, did not surprise me.
In his maiden effort, the seconder of the address gave promise of becoming an acquisition to this house. I congratulate him on his election and wish him well in his future career among us.

I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my regret upon learning of the death of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I wish it clearly understood it is not my intention to move that the parliament of Canada adopt neutrality as a guiding principle in any future war. I believe I am right when I say that all Canadians desire peace, and desire it sincerely. They do not agree among themselves on the best means of securing real peace in the world today.
In sober truth I feel that we should have the utmost hope in the final success of the united nations organization. Until that organization achieves its objective and succeeds in settling international disputes in a peaceful way, we must depend upon and embark upon urgent measures to ensure peace. In Canada, as well as in the rest of the world, the desire for peace seems to have misled some persons. Frightened by the mere thought of war and its horrible consequences to them and others, they have been led to believe that neutrality is the safeguard of the interests of this country.
In the event of the United States having to defend itself against attack by soviet Russia-may God forbid such a thing-those supporters of neutrality for Canada seem to believe that none of their interests will be endangered. They believe that merely an expression of their desire to isolate themselves will enable them to escape from this gigantic conflict. For them, Mr. Speaker, the matter at issue between the United States and soviet Russia seems to be purely one of economic order; nothing else is at stake. The United States and soviet Russia, according to them, are two international gangsters fighting for the economic supremacy of the world. It is their belief that we can let them fight and, even if soviet Russia wins, Canada will not be in any worse position.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, those Canadians are wrong. True, the western democracies on one side, especially the United States, and soviet Russia and her satellites on the other side, are economic rivals. There is nothing very surprising about that, because there is nothing perfect on earth. In the life of nations as well as in that of individuals, good and evil are mixed. Purity of purpose is sometimes absent from the one as it is from the other. Whatever intentions the leaders of those two groups of nations may have, whatever they may think or say, I have no doubt whatever there is something else at stake than mere economic supremacy. I believe there is something more at stake than

the capitalist system of the western democracies with all its defects and imperfections.
Mr. Speaker, what did the Russians say to the Poles, the Roumanians, the Yugoslavs, Hungarians and Czechoslovaks to rally them to their cause? The Russians tried to make these people believe that the defects and imperfections of the capitalist system and of the democratic regime were the only things at stake. According to the Russian story, the aim was to free these people from what the Russians called American imperialism and an out-dated democratic regime. The communists of Poland, Hungary, Roumania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia succeeded in reaching their goal. They had to fight against the so-called American imperialism. They did and they won. These communists had to destroy what they called an obsolete democratic regime. They did and again they succeeded.
The important point, Mr. Speaker, is this: with what have they replaced it? They have established an atheistic and materialistic dictatorship which denies the rights of the human person and of religion. Today, the communists attack the fundamental freedoms of the human person and the church of Christ. In those countries, by all the means at their disposal, they seek to abolish religion; to take over schools and to make the human being a materialistic part of an omnipotent and oppressive state.
The recent arrest of His Eminence Cardinal Mindszenty, primate of Hungary, by the government at Budapest, is a striking demonstration of what I have just said. The cause of this prince of the church is the cause of human rights for millions of persons living behind the iron curtain. Cardinal Mindszenty was arrested because he dared to defend the rights of the human person and the right of religion. The Hungarian communists are making tremendous efforts to make the world believe he is a traitor. This Christian hero had the courage to defend such rights; that was his only guilt.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to put on record my personal protest, the protest of my constituents, and, I trust, the protest of the Canadian people, against the crime of which the government of Hungary is guilty.
What is taking place behind the iron curtain proves that, independently of the official intentions of the governments, there is in the dispute between soviet Russia and the western democracies something else at stake than the so-called American imperialism and the defects of the western democratic system. This something else is the fundamental freedoms of the human person, those of the church, and the rights of God.
The Address-Mr. L. J. Raymond
May I remark here that at the last general election in Italy the Italian people, despite the appeals of the communists, against the so-called American imperialism and the defects of western democracy, would have had the same fate as those in Czechoslovakia and other countries and would today be behind the iron curtain had they not realized that what was really at stake was the fundamental freedoms of man and the rights of the church and of God. Let us not be mistaken, Mr. Speaker; the fate which the countries behind the iron curtain have suffered, one after the other, is a prefiguration, if I may use that word, of what will happen to France if ever the communists succeed in assuming power there. It is also the same fate to which the United States, Canada, Belgium, England, Holland, Scandinavia, Spain and Portugal will have to submit if ever Russia opens war against the United States and if the western democracies lose.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to find that the majority of Canadians understand the true meaning of the conflict between soviet Russia and the western democracies. It is unfortunate however that a small number of Canadians, through misunderstanding of the facts, play into the hands of the communists. They apparently fail to understand that in the present disagreement the common heritage of humanity itself is at stake.
The attitude of this minority is further complicated by the fact that, inspired by false humanitarian ideals, it proclaims the immorality of all wars, because of the complexion of modern warfare. Displaying an inconsistency which I fail to understand, some of these people, although claiming all wars to be immoral in character, stand prepared, or so they claim, to defend their country should it be attacked. If modern warfare is immoral, I do not see how those people can take up arms to defend their country, should it be attacked, because even then the end does not justify the means. If they consider that modern warfare is immoral in character, they cannot do what they believe is immoral, even in the defence of their country.
Another section of the same group is more logical in its errors. From the false premise that modern warfare is immoral, they contend that under no circumstances can we resort to war. They make no distinction between aggressive and purely defensive warfare. According to them, in the last analysis, all modern wars are aggressive in character and, as such, both immoral and unjust.
The results of such an attitude, Mr. Speaker, are obvious:
no

The Address-Mr. L. J. Raymond
Should a nation obviously be the victim of unfair aggression, those who claim that all modern warfare is immoral would not even lift a finger to defend it.
If their country is drawn into war, a goodly number of them will inevitably become conscientious objectors.
Moreover, should an aggressor launch an unfair attack against their own land, some of them will even refuse to fight for it, just like this individual who told me, only a few days ago, that if the Russians wage war on Canada, one might as well let them set up a government in Ottawa: that is treasonable language.
In this respect, Canadians should read and, might I add, ponder the wonderful address delivered on Christmas Eve by His Holiness Pope Pius XII on Christianity's determination to maintain peace. There is no higher authority in the world than that. This address outlines the right attitude of Christians on the problem of peace.
While on the subject of His Holiness the Pope, may I remind the house that, for three years or more, several members of this house have asked the government to appoint a representative or an ambassador to the Vatican. May I, in this connection, insist upon such an appointment and hope it will materialize one day or another, and as soon as possible.
His Holiness censures those who believe in the ancient Roman saying: si vis pacem, para bellum, but also condemns the advocates of peace at any price or those whose actions will surely lead to war, unbeknownst to them.
The Pope draws a distinction between a war of aggression and a purely defensive war; the former, he rightfully condemns.
Any war of aggression, says he, is a sin, a crime, an outrage against the majesty of God and the Designer of creation.
He recognizes, however, that a purely defensive war may become a necessity and an obligation.
A nation threatened with unjust aggression or which has already fallen victim to such an aggression cannot passively remain indifferent, if it is to think and act as it must.
Further on he adds:
... in order to determine, in the final analysis, whether it is normally permitted or even, in certain real circumstances, binding (as long as there exists a strong probability of success) to repulse an aggressor by force of arms, there is little use in considering only the tragedies and ills resulting from war or in attempting to determine, by close analysis, whether it is advantageous to intervene.
There is however one thing that is certain. The obligation to keep peace is a divine command whose aim is the protection of the goods of mankind, inasmuch as these are gifts of the Creator. Among these some are of such importance to society that it is perfectly legitimate to defend them against unjust aggression.
These words, Mr. Speaker, seem to constitute a condemnation of those in our midst
who hold that any modern war is immoral and of those who pretend that if Russia were to attack Canada, it would be just as well to allow the Russians to set up a government at Ottawa.
Furthermore a nation is not only compelled to defend itself when unjustly attacked, but it has a duty towards another nation unjustly attacked.
. . . and all the more, said the Pope, should the interdependence of the family of nations forbid others to act as mere spectators in neutral apathy. Who could ever estimate the extent of the wrong done in the past by such indifference to a war of aggression, which is entirely foreign to the Christian spirit.
Referring to the possessions which one must defend against unjust aggression, he added further on:
Their defence is even compulsory for the community of nations whose duty it is not to abandon a nation being attacked.
According to His Holiness, such indifference only serves to strengthen and encourage the perpetrators and fomenters of aggression while it compels the numerous nations which are left to themselves to ever increase their armaments. . .
Such a view, under a disguise which is hedonistic and utilitarian, as well as materialistic in its source, continues His Holiness, is erroneous through not being founded on a strict general obligation. It brings about conditions which enhance the disillusion resulting from that sterile compromise; the attempt of everyone to save himself at the expense of others, which in each case is a guarantee of success for the aggressor.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, that is a condemnation of those who, in this country, in advocating neutrality at all costs, thus reject, in practice, the principle and the obligations of international solidarity in the case of a nation unjustly attacked. It is also what 1 deem to be a condemnation of those who, in attempting to save themselves at the expense of others, ensure the success of an aggressor. It is moreover a condemnation of those who, in Canada, believe that their country has towards the international community no duty but that of protecting its own territory in case of invasion.
The Pope also says, with reference to the obligation which the community of nations has not to abandon an unjustly attacked nation:
The certainty that such a duty will be fulfilled will serve to discourage an aggressor, and thus war can be avoided, or should the worse happen, its sufferings will at least be lessened.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we find there what is, to my mind, the condemnation of those who, in our midst, reject the very principle of a collective defence pact against a war of aggression or who wrongly claim that they

will thereby better succeed in avoiding any conflict and in serving the cause of true peace.
My only wish, Mr. Speaker, is that the few foregoing considerations will open the eyes of some Canadians who are led astray by false ideologies. As much as anyone else, I am all for peace, for peace based on right and Christian justice. 1 am in favour of it for myself, for all those who are dear to me, for all Canadians and for the whole world, but in order to obtain it, one must first have a clear notion of the duties of nations and of the nature of the present conflict which divides soviet Russia and the western democracies. This is why, most humbly perhaps but most sincerely, I wanted to set forth these considerations at the very beginning of the present session.
(Text):


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) undertook to compliment the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, so it is not necessary for me to do so.
Sitting here listening to this debate I thought the tone set by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was rather unfortunate, and that it was also unfortunate that most of the time thus far has been spent in discussing this matter of dominion-provincial relations, who broke it down, who was responsible for it, and so on, something which I think has been settled in the public mind for some considerable time. We have been hearing that kind of debate when we should have been discussing the forecast of legislation, or the lack of it, contained in the throne speech.
I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) arguing with the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who only a short time ago led a coalition government in Manitoba. I could not understand why a Conservative in this house should argue with his former premier, who had his arms around the Conservative party in Manitoba for a considerable time. I must have a private conversation with the hon. member to find out just how that came about. It must be a private war; certainly it cannot be a political war, judging by the marriage that has been in effect there for a considerable period.
The Address-Mr. Gillis
It has been suggested by hon. members to my right that the C.C.F. is just another adjunct of the Liberal party. What the Conservatives cannot understand is that the C.C.F. is a free party. If the Tories are right- though they never are-we can vote for them. When we think the Liberals are right, we can vote for them. Now I want to take just about five minutes of the time of this house to prove that, as far as the Conservative and Liberal parties are concerned, fundamentally there is no difference. They both stand for the same thing. They both believe in the system of free enterprise.


Gordon Graydon: So does Tom Bentley.


Clarence Gillis: They quibble about matters such as dominion-provincial relations; but let me remind the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) of just a few points of agreement between those two parties which I have noticed in this house since the termination of the war. During the war, controls were set up, materials were allocated, and the economy was partially planned. Let us see how many points the Conservatives and Liberals have in common. The first break in the planning of the economy was the increase in basic steel, farm machinery and so forth. The C.C.F. alone fought that increase in this house; the Conservatives and Liberals agreed to it. That was the first break in the economy which started off the inflationary spiral. That was free enterprise, and you wanted to get it back. Then you took off the price ceilings and charged what the traffic would bear. Both Conservatives and Liberals agreed that the ceilings should come off prices, that the law of supply and demand should regulate the economy. Then they agreed on the removal of subsidies; free enterprise again. Both Liberals and Conservatives agreed that subsidies should be taken off. The C.C.F. stood here alone-


Gordon Graydon: No; the communists were
with you.


Clarence Gillis: and argued for the maintenance of that planning of our economy, the use of subsidies and the control of prices in order to protect the Canadian people. So you see there is no disagreement between those who believe in the system of free enterprise, because those are the mechanics of free enterprise. Then the offices of the wartime prices and trade board were to be closed. We protested. We pleaded with the minister to maintain those offices across the country, because in them he had very good machinery he could use if prices began to get out of hand. Our friends to my right demanded
112	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gillis that they be closed. They said, "Close these offices. They are staffed with bureaucrats; they are wrecking the country. We want Canada Packers to have the right to wreck it." So these offices were closed; again we had agreement between the government and the Conservative party.
Then there was the matter of the excess profits tax. We figured that tax should be maintained and that the revenue should be used to establish an over-all social security plan for this country; that the money should be plowed back in order to relieve misery, and used to hold down prices by means of subsidies on essential commodities. But our friends over here demanded that the excess profits tax be removed; the government acquiesced, and off it came.
In the matter of freight rates the same thing applied; both parties agreed that freight rates should be increased. I am just showing some of the points on which hon. gentlemen to my right have been absolutely in agreement with the government. Of course that is understandable; it is all free enterprise, so why the sham battle on dominion-provincial relations? In the increased freight rates the Canadian public take it on the chin; but again those are the mechanics of free enterprise, so away she goes. Commercial rents were doubled; no protest from the Conservative party there. Then they said, "Put oats and barley back on the grain exchange." Back they went on the grain exchange

the mechanics of free enterprise again. The two old machines believe in that system; and still they try to kid the people that there is really a fight between them.


Gordon Graydon: Just like you and the communists.


Clarence Gillis: Capital investment is uncontrolled; monopolies are unchecked. There was an 11-cent per pound increase in butter, with Canada Packers holding butter in storage. That was proven to the prices committee-and I did not hear anyone on this side of the house to my right, or anyone on that side, protesting against it. The protest came from the C.C.F.
So if the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) would examine the record tomorrow he would find that fundamentally there is absolutely no disagreement between himself and the Liberal party-absolutely none. He believes in the freest of free enterprise. He took off every control which protected the Canadian people-and I am saying this tonight only because of some of the statements made from that corner of the house to the effect that the C.C.F. is just part of the Liberal party.
[Mr. Gillis.1

All these controls I have mentioned we have sought to maintain, for the protection of the Canadian people; yet both the government and the Progressive Conservative party agreed they should come off.
With that brief digression I shall return to a discussion of the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) presented an amendment to the house, and in that amendment suggested orderly marketing, stating that the government should set up machinery by way of import-export boards to market our commodities not only internally but externally.
While he was offering his amendment and making his argument in support of it, I was thinking particularly about our export trade, and our shipments overseas. I was thinking about the grave mistake we made in scrapping the merchant marine we had built up during the war. Today it is practically scrapped.
Canada exports about one-third of her total production. If there is any nation in the world which should maintain a strong and powerful merchant marine, then surely it is the Dominion of Canada. As we develop we are going to export more.
I have before me some figures which, because they surprise me, I shall put on the record. These figures come from the Canadian shipbuilding and ship repair association. I noticed in the speech from the throne a paragraph stating that the government is going to give assistance to the shipbuilding industry to build more ships. What I cannot understand is why we did not keep the ships we built during the war, and why we allowed crews consisting of thousands of men from the prairies and from the woods who trained themselves during the war as seamen-and very excellent seamen-to drift out of the industry we had built up. As I say, these figures surprised me. Our sea-borne exports in 1947 aggregated 18,001,435 tons. Of this amount Canadian ships carried only 19-9 per cent of the total, while the United Kingdom ships carried 43-5 per cent, United States ships carried 21 per cent and ships of other registry 15-6 per cent.
Canadian sea-borne imports in 1947 aggregated 9,836,283 tons, of which Canadian ships carried only 27 [DOT] 9 per cent, United States ships 45-9 per cent, United Kingdom ships 7-3 per cent and ships of other registry 18-9 per cent.
These figures are somewhat revealing. Just merchant seamen. They asked me to enter a before coming to this session I had a meeting in my section of the country with a group of protest with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier)-which I have already done- against the fact that Canadian shipowners

were selling their ships either to Great Britain or to Greece, that Canadian seamen were being beached, and that these ships were not only taking our overseas trade from us but were also operating from port to port along the Canadian coast, thereby depriving us of our coastal trade.
That group told me that ships belonging to Dosco and another company were being sold, and that at least a thousand seamen living in that part of the country would be beached within the next two months because those boats were being sold, would be flying another flag and taking our coastal trade. Let me say that is something that is not allowed by any other country.
Great Britain has a section in her shipping act which prohibits such a procedure. No foreign ship is allowed to ply from port to port in the United Kingdom. The United States also has in its shipping act a provision which prohibits that kind of thing over there. We should have an amendment to our act which would prevent ships of foreign registry taking the coastal trade from us.


Mr. Hackelt:: Does it not contain that provision?


Clarence Gillis: No, it does not.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Can you name a foreign ship in Canadian waters trading between two Canadian ports?


Clarence Gillis: I can name a dozen.


John Thomas Hackett: Has the hon. member looked up the statute recently?


Clarence Gillis: I was talking with the minister only a couple of days ago. I have in my office a brief provided by the Canadian seamen's union, which does a thorough research job on the shipping act. Their suggestion is that the act should be amended in the respect I have indicated. They say that when these ships are sold our own crews are taken off, that either Greek or British crews are put aboard, and that actually today they are running from port to port on the Canadian coast.


John Thomas Hackett: Do they change registry?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are not allowed to change registry.


Clarence Gillis: They are changing registry; and the reason for it is that the wage rates paid by the Canadian companies are much higher than those paid by the Greek and British companies. Therefore it is to the advantage of the Canadian company taking a commodity from Sydney to Montreal, for instance, to sell the boat, get a lower wage rate, ship in that way and cheapen the ship. That is becoming a serious condition.
The Address-Mr. Gillis


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend is mistaken in his facts. In the first place, the ships were sold under the proviso that they could not be sailed without the Canadian flag; and if they do not carry the Canadian flag or the British flag they are not allowed to operate in the coastwise trade.


Clarence Gillis: I am not disputing what the minister says as to the intention; but that is not what is happening. The Minister of Transport is now checking the matter, because 1 discussed it with him since the session opened.
In addition to that, a bad situation is developing in that industry. I am suggesting that this country should build a merchant marine, and we should endeavour to keep the services of those men who were trained during the war to operate our ships not only along our coasts but on the seas. Because we should be concerned, not only about our coastal trade, but about taking that one-third of production which we export and hauling it in Canadian bottoms. Our imports should be coming back in our own ships.
I have placed these figures on the record; and if the minister thinks that in my presentation of the situation with respect to our coastal trade I am in error, then I would suggest that he talk with the Minister of Transport, and that he read the brief sent in by the Canadian seamen's union.
I have talked with the boys who are actually affected. In one instance they were taking a ship from Sydney to Halifax and passing it over to another crew. Those boys were going on the beach, themselves, and the crew taking over was not a Canadian crew.
Then, in the speech from the throne there is a suggestion of assistance to the steel industry on a fifty-fifty basis, for the purpose of expanding that industry. According to the statement by the minister, the companies have been asked to submit their plans and to take advantage of this offer, but that the only request received has been from the Steel Company of Canada. There is a statement in the press to that effect. I hope Dosco will take advantage of it because in my opinion that basic steel plant could be expanded considerably. I was just wondering if anything has been done about it.
For a few minutes I should like to focus the attention of the minister on this matter of expanding industry. In doing this I think some regard should be had for the whole country instead of attempting to concentrate industry in one particular province. I have here the Financial Post of October 9, 1948, which gives details of the industrial expansion in Ontario from the beginning of the war up to the date of that issue.
The expansion of industry in Ontario has been something terrific. Recently we heard about a power shortage in this province and

The Address-Mr. Gillis everyone was blamed for it. In my opinion the industrial set-up in the province was expanded beyond the ability to supply it with power. There had been wrong planning in the allocation of industry in that province. The province simply did not have the power necessary to take care of the expansion in the industrial set-up.
I am going to give particulars of the step-up in production that has occurred in certain towns. In greater Toronto the population is up 9-3 per cent; production is up 142 per cent and employment is up by 72 per cent.


Mr. MacNicol:: Over what years?


Clarence Gillis: Over 1939. Fort William: population is 32,000, up five per cent; production up 236 per cent; employment up 279 per cent. Windsor: population up 13 per cent; production up 129 per cent; employment up 63 per cent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Give us Halifax.


Clarence Gillis: It is not here. Hamilton: popu-ation up 12 per cent; production up 130 per cent; employment up 60 per cent. They have the particulars here for 70 different cities in the province of Ontario.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The largest increase of all was in Halifax.


Clarence Gillis: I have not those figures here. Ottawa: population up 14 per cent; production up 76 per cent; employment up 33 per cent. I am not going to read all the figures into the record because I imagine hon. members have read them. If you are going to spend more government money or more money belonging to the taxpayers for the purpose of expanding industry in this country, I submit, what I have submitted time and time before, that first a survey should be made of our national resources and the possibilities of marketing our products. All these things should be gone into. If that had been done prior to the step-up indicated in Ontario by the Financial Post, I do not think there would have been a power shortage.
You can concentrate your population and your industrial set-up in one centre of the country just so long as your resources last. The time is coming when the east and west will not continue to supply the centre with raw materials and continue to live as the poorer relations by the sea. For example, the plant at Sydney is a basic steel plant producing about one-third of Canada's basic steel. I understand that under the steel control set-up today Dosco is not allowed to process its steel or to ship overseas. All that it can do under that control is to market its steel in Quebec and Ontario. In my opinion that is planning the wrong way.

I contend that the whole set-up down there was designed for the overseas trade. That is the natural market. As long as there is a steel shortage and we are faced with present conditions you can get away with the kind of thing you are doing, but it certainly is not making for prosperity in the maritimes. There are many resources down there that could be exploited. We should have a cement industry because all the ingredients are there and there is a terrific shortage right across the country. A tin plate industry should be established at Sydney and the steel that is made there should be processed and sold in the overseas market. I do not say that that can be done overnight, but there should be some planning in that direction. If you are going to lend money for shipbuilding you should not forget that there are in Nova Scotia yards that can turn out ships.
I suggest to the minister that this centralization of industry in one province, if continued, will wreck the country in 25 or 30 years. We should try to use the people and resources right across the country. It is wrong to have industrial concentration in central Canada and merely import people from the east and the west to operate that industry when they are needed, and when they are not needed send them back from whence they came.
There is another thought I want to leave with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) although it is not mentioned in the speech from the throne. Last session of the house we passed a national labour code. That is national in name but it is not national in actual fact. We had a very sensible committee working last year on this code and they wrote into it the voluntary revocable check-off provision. Every province in Canada with the exception of Ontario has a provincial labour code containing a checkoff provision. None of the provinces can accept the national labour code as it is without that check-off provision, because it would mean a long step backward. They have not that provision by law in the province of Ontario and none of the other provinces will relinquish that right.
The committee on industrial relations should be set up and should endeavour again to have the check-off provision written into the national labour code. It was done before, but unfortunately, when it came to the house, a private member moved that it be removed and that motion passed. We now have on our hands something that no province except Ontario can use. That province has already accepted it, but the other provinces have no check-off by law.

The Address-Mr. Gillis
There is another matter I was rather surprised to see was not mentioned in the speech from the throne. If there is one thing this country requires, it is a national fuel policy. The extent to which we depend upon the United States for fuel is deplorable. We are not making any attempt to develop our own resources, even in a slow way. As I have pointed out on other occasions, coal is the largest single importation into this country. Something like $147 million was spent for United States coal last year, and that represents a lot of United States dollars.
There is a capable coal board with jurisdiction over the province but it does not appear to be doing very much about developing these resources, either in the east or in the west. The fuel industry in Nova Scotia is shrinking rather than expanding. It is entering a period of retrenchment. You cannot attempt any more mechanization in an industry that is as highly mechanized at the present time as it can be.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They could use the new machines they are using down in the southern United States.


Clarence Gillis: Not in these collieries. You have a completely different operation. In the United States they are not six miles out under the Atlantic ocean. They have not got the roof pressure that there is in the Nova Scotia mines. They do not have to install timbers so closely. They are trying those machines now in Nova Scotia. I was underground a couple of months ago and had a look at them. I wish them luck, but I know that eventually they will have to take that equipment out because it is not suitable for the type of mining you have in Nova Scotia. Nevertheless they are trying to do something.
I say that the government itself, through the national coal board, should sit down with union leaders across the country, with representatives of the industry itself, and attempt for the first time to map out a fuel policy for Canada involving zoning of markets, development of new areas, and freeing of Canada from domination from across the border. It often amazes me to hear people talk about war with the United States. They would not have to go to war with us. All they would have to do would be to cut off our fuel in winter and we would freeze to death. It would close every industry in the country. That is all they would have to do, because we are dependent on them to that extent.
I mention this now because I want to provoke the thoughts of the minister who is responsible for the supervision of that board, so that he may get the board busy and be able to announce to the house before parliament
adjourns some kind of policy for the marketing of our coal, and the development of our own resources. Then at some time in the future we will be as free as it is possible to be from our dependence on the United States at this particular time.
There is another matter I want to leave with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). I see he is not in his seat, but I noticed his deputy in the gallery a few moments ago. During the discussion on the national labour code we suggested to the minister at that time that there were certain industries in Canada that should be designated as national industries. For example, there is the packing-house industry. That organization extends from coast to coast, and is the same organization in every province in Canada. If the packing-house industry were designated a national organization and brought under the national labour code, then in the event of a dispute in that industry the federal government would have some jurisdiction in handling the matter. That was not done last session, with the result that after the adjournment of the house there were difficulties in the packing-house industry, and certain problems presented themselves. Every province in Canada handled the matter separately. No one could get together with them. We had a lot of trouble which could have been avoided. It would be a very simple matter to put that into the national labour code. I think the coal industry, the steel industry and the packing-house industry should be designated as national industries. I believe a council should be set up representative of the industry concerned, of the union, and of the Department of Labour. That council could meet from time to time with departmental officials to iron out the difficulties of the industry and avoid running head-on into the troubles that we have run into from time to time in these basic industries.
I see a time, probably in the not far distant future, when it may be the plan of certain people in this country to sabotage industry, to bring on strikes. With the decentralized machinery we have today for the handling of such matters, the federal government will be powerless to intervene in that kind of dispute. I think we should head off any development of that sort. It is coming; make no mistake about that. The way to head it off is by designating the basic industries as national organizations, and bringing them under the national labour code. Councils should be set up similar to what you have in the building industry, where there is very little difficulty. Those councils, consisting of representatives of industry and labour, should meet with departmental officials to iron out difficulties as they develop from time to time

The Address-Mr. Gillis
instead of allowing them to grow on a national scale when they become very difficult to handle.
I leave that thought with the Minister of Labour, and I suggest that as early as possible he should set up again the industrial relations committee for the purpose of discussing these two questions, firstly the check-off, and secondly the matter of these national industries. Then we will be able to get legislation of a type which will avoid trouble and friction in the future. I am going to say a few words on the matter of employment. As indicated by the Financial Post, there is a
terrific increase in employment in Ontario towns.
On motion of Mr. Gillis the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the business
tomorrow?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: We will continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 1, 1949