1950-02-21

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in my statement to the
house on Friday last, February 17, concerning the reduction in passenger train service on the Canadian National Railways, I made reference to a memorandum which had been given to me by Mr. Donald Gordon, president and chairman of the Canadian National Railways, as well as a letter of explanation given to me by Mr. Vaughan, the former president of the railway. In view of the comment that has appeared in a certain portion of the press I think I should read these documents to the house.
The memorandum prepared by Mr. Gordon reads as follows:
The significant events surrounding the development of a shortage of coal which forced the emergency reductions in passenger train service in the Canadian National Railway system are as follows:
1.	The program for coal stocks approved by the board of directors at its meeting in October 1948 contemplated an objective of 2,365,000 tons as of December 31, 1949, about four and one-half months' supply. In actual fact, the stock position at December 31, 1949, was only 1,043,000 tons, which, taken in conjunction with a serious interruption of supplies arising out of labour disputes in United States mines, meant a condition of emergency with only twenty-four to twenty-six days' stockpile in the heavy traffic region.
2.	If the stockpile objective as approved by the board of directors had been attained, a reduction in train service would not have been necessary unless there had been a complete interruption of supplies covering, say, a three or four months' period.
3.	On June 9, 1949, Mr. R. C. Vaughan, as president, took responsibility for directing the purchasing department that the coal stockpile objective should not exceed approximately three months' supply, in the belief that, under normal conditions, such a supply would be ample.
Mr. Vaughan's judgment in making this amendment in the coal stockpile objective was based upon:
(a)	a desire to reduce the financial cost of maintaining a large inventory, which already stood at $72 million, and to avoid the possibility of having to make further borrowings for working capital purposes;
(b)	a belief that serious labour disputes in the United States mines would be avoided and that coal supplies were likely to be ample with prices likely to soften;
(c)	the desirability of reducing expenditures in United States dollars as requested by government;
(d)	the fact that traffic was showing a declining trend.
4.	In the event, as is well known, there have been a series of work interruptions in U.S. mines as follows:
June 13, 1949: five-day work stoppage.
June 25, 1949: two weeks' vacation period.
July 11, 1949: three-day-a-week work program.
September 19, 1949: strike, fifty-one days.
December 1, 1949: walkout. Modified by resumption of a three-day-a-week program December 5.
January 3,	1950:	wildcat strikes throughout
United States coal1 fields.
As well, unprecedented bad weather conditions resulting in floods and slides in the open pit mines seriously reduced production.
5. While orders for the purchasing of United States coal had been held to a minimum in accordance with government policy for the conservation of United States dollar expenditures, the actual orders placed for Canadian and United States coal jointly would have been sufficient to meet requirements if regular deliveries had been maintained from the United States mines. However, as a consequence of these work interruptions current shipments on orders to meet consumption could not be maintained, and the C.N.R. stockpile, which by December 28, 1949, had fallen to only 1,043,000 tons spread over the entire system, was not sufficient to take the risk of an extended interruption of coal deliveries.
6.	The reduction in passenger train service put into effect totalled 89,000 miles, as follows:
Atlantic region	 13,700
Central region	 45,800
Western region	 26,300
U.S. lines	 3,200
-bringing about an estimated reduction in coal consumption of 1,010 tons per day. The number of train service employees affected by this reduction is estimated at 500.
7.	In summary it seems clear that the work interruptions in the U.S. mines form the basic reason as to why the Canadian National Railways were unable to maintain coal supplies. Canadian coal is used on all Canadian regions, but the supply of usable Canadian coal available to the C.N.R. falls far short of meeting the over-all needs of the system, particularly in the central region. The development of the labour disputes in the U.S. mines and the interruption of coal deliveries found the C.N.R. in an inadequate stockpile position, and action had to be taken to conserve system stockpiles and use them to the best advantage so as to reduce public inconvenience to a minimum. While the stockpile at the end of the year still showed about fifty days' supply over the whole system, it was, of course, not spread evenly, and a critical area of shortage had developed in the heavy traffic central region; consequently, in order to prevent more drastic reduction in passenger service later on, Mr. R. C. Vaughan and the operating and the purchasing officers of the railway deemed it necessary as a precautionary measure to put the temporary twenty-five per cent passenger train reduction into effect, and it was considered only
84	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
fair that all sections of Canada should be treated in the same way so far as that reduction was concerned.
That is the end of the memorandum prepared by Mr. Gordon.


Mr. Isnor:: What was the date of the memorandum?


Lionel Chevrier: February 6. Now I shall read the letter from Mr. Vaughan to myself dated February 13, 1950:
Dear Mr. Chevrier:
On the eve of the opening of parliament I thought I would drop you a line to indicate the basic reasons which brought about the twenty-five per cent curtailment of passenger services on the Canadian National Railways as announced on December 28, 1949, just before the expiry of my term as chairman and president of the Canadian National Railways.
I have no doubt that the coal problem on the Canadiari National has given you considerable concern, and I am only too glad to take this opportunity of bringing to your attention that early in the month of June, 1949, instructions were given by me to the vice-president of purchases and stores to keep the coal stocks of the Canadian National Railways at approximately a three months' supply. That reserve I considered ample to meet any emergency such as work stoppages in the mines in the U.S. Over a period of thirty years three months' stock has been sufficient, and as a large part of the coal we use in Ontario comes from the U.S., we wanted to do our part in assisting to save the expenditure of United States dollars.
There is no need for me to bring to your attention the fact that there were many work stoppages, strikes, and diminishing hours of work in the coal industry in the U.S. during 1949. At no time in the history of this industry has such a situation occurred as prevailed during this last year. I would like to state that the one and only reason for the present coal situation as it affects the Canadian National was the inability to get delivery of the coal it contracted for early in the season of 1949 due to strikes and work stoppages in the mines in the United States in 1949.
It was unfortunate that stories carried the sugges-' tion that the management of the Canadian National was reducing passenger train services in order to bring about financial economies. I have noted the strong denials of Mr. Donald Gordon and yourself in the press on this matter, and I wish to add that this was furthermost from my mind when the management decided to curtail passenger services. All we were interested in was to conserve our fast dwindling coal stocks, and to prevent, if possible, a subsequent greater reduction in train service.
I regret that you were not advised, until after the notice was issued, of the reduction in train service. This was something that had to be dealt with quickly. We operate a substantial mileage in the United States. We knew that the situation there was desperate and that drastic action was to be taken by the interstate commerce commission of the U.S. to reduce train service. We were still getting a substantial tonnage of coal from the U.S., but not in anything like sufficient quantity to replenish our diminishing coalpiles, and we were fearful that if we did not take some action our coal deliveries would be interfered with because the U.S. railways had so much less coal on hand than we had. As you know the reduction in train service put into effect in the U.S. had greatly exceeded the cut made by us in Canada. We, of course, have had to follow the U.S. railroads on 	i

the lines we operate in the U.S., because that was brought about by an order of the interstate commerce commission. We were daily expecting, as were all the U.S. railroads, that the miners in the U.S. would be ordered back to work.
Sincerely yours,
R. C. Vaughan
Those documents speak for themselves, and I have nothing to add.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I might deal with two of the matters which came up at that time. The senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) asked a question as to the proportion of United States and Canadian coal contained in the amount of 2,365,000 tons. The Canadian National Railway inform me that they have not that information, because it cannot be broken down in a satisfactory manner. I believe the information I have here, however, will satisfy my hon. friend, and will answer the question of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon).
The only information which the Canadian National has is as to the receipt of Canadian and United States bituminous coal. I have a break-down of those figures for five years. It is quite lengthy, but perhaps the house will allow me to give it for a year or two and table the remainder. If the house wishes, I can give the whole table.
In 1949 the total amount of the receipts of Canadian and United States bituminous coal was 5,100,000 tons. Of that, 2,000,000 tons was Canadian coal; 2,600,000 tons was United States coal for Canadian lines; and 500,000 tons was United States coal for United States lines. In 1948 the total was 7,500,109 tons. Of that total, 2,123,641 tons was Canadian coal; 4,584,594 tons was from United States mines for Canadian lines, and 791,874 tons was from United States mines for United States lines.
I could continue with the table, but I think that is sufficient.
Mr. Cold well: Will the minister put the rest of the figures on Hansard? The minister said he was going to table them.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; the remainder of the table deals with the years from 1945 to 1947, and if the house will allow I shall put it on Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the house permit the minister to put on Hansard the table to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: The table is as follows:
U.S. for u.s.
Canadian Can. for U.S.
coal lines lines Total 1949 (est.) .. 2,000,000	2,600,000	500,000	5,100,0001948	
2,123,641	4,584,594	791,874	7,500,1091947	
1,733,255	5,197,702	994,532	7,925,4891946	
2,270,548	3,909,514	896,490	7,076,5521945	
2,116,780	4,010,193	891,184	7,018,157


Mr. Graydon:: We are getting more from the United States than from our own mines?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. In the war years a large proportion of the coal for Canadian National Railways use came from the United States mines. It went as far east as Moncton, and as far west as Winnipeg.


Gordon Graydon: Has it never occurred to the government that a Canadian-owned institution such as the Canadian National Railways could surely adopt some policy to utilize coal from Canadian mines, which would give employment to Canadian workers?


Lionel Chevrier: It is and always has been the policy of the government to utilize Canadian coal to the fullest extent.


Gordon Graydon: It has not worked out, though.


Lionel Chevrier: I said during the war years it was impossible to get Canadian coal, and the house knows it; because even in certain parts of the maritime provinces it was necessary to haul United States coal. At the moment, and last year and the year before, the Canadian National Railways are purchasing as much coal as they can get from mines at both extremities of Canada.


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister sure about that?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: That is not my information.


Mr. Carroll:: I wish to ask one question of the Minister of Transport. Is he aware of the fact that in June and July of 1949 the railway attempted to cancel, and did cancel, a contract for 65,000 tons of coal-that is, a contract with them by the coal mining industry of the province of Nova Scotia; and the result was that it was necessary for the coal industry of that province to get the intervention of the Minister of Transport to have the contract renewed and fulfilled?


Gordon Graydon: That is letting the cat out of the bag.


Mr. Fraser:: A fool policy instead of a fuel policy.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (enforcement).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Clarence Gillis: This bill, Mr. Speaker, has for its purpose the amending of the Industrial
Proposed Legislation
Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. It aims at replacing the present sections 43, 44, 45 and 46 of the act by section 43 as indicated in this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (for the Minister of National Defence) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to revise and consolidate in one act the several acts respecting the Department of National Defence and the armed services of Canada, with provision inter alia for the payment of pay and allowances of officers and men of the forces, the salaries and expenses of members of the defence research board, fees and allowances of the members of the court martial appeal board, the compensation for loss or damage due to the exercise of emergency powers, advances to meet expenses and costs of calling out forces in aid of civil power, the acquisition and disposition of property and generally the costs of and incidental to the operation of the act, and all other matters directly concerning defence.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That Louis Rene Beaudoin, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Quebec, be appointed deputy chairman of committees of the whole house, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 56.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That this house resolve itself at its next sitting into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 57.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the leader 'of the opposition (Mr. Drew) I do not desire to repeat the arguments which were so eloquently and forcefully presented by him on the first day of the session; but it must have been impressed upon the minds of hon. members generally that, as was indicated by the

Committee of Supply
leader of the opposition on that occasion, a custom had grown up which should not be allowed to become a precedent in this house, though it is rapidly moving in that direction. What the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is attempting to do in this resolution, of course, is simply to change the order which has been the custom in peacetime sessions of parliament for many decades.
I think you will recall, sir, the words of the leader of the opposition when he pleaded with the Prime Minister not to make this move, and quoted the words of none other than the former prime minister, Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King. While it is not possible for those on this side of the house to endorse everything that the former prime minister said, there is no reason why we should not pick out some of the good things; and we are doing so on this occasion.
I should like to say to the Prime Minister and to the government that the opposition does not feel that it can concur in the suggestion contained in this resolution. We think we are departing from a custom and a practice, and also from the rules. For that reason we must insist upon the debate on the speech from the throne being concluded and the issue brought to a vote before dealing with matters that normally should be dealt with only after the debate has ended. I ask the Prime Minister if in view of the circumstances he will not withdraw his motion.



WAYS AND MEANS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That this house do at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 57.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, the observations I made in connection with the preceding motion would apply to this one.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Gordon Graydon: On division.


Mr. Coldwell:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Hon. Paul Martin (for the Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, to provide for supplementary benefits during the winter season in any year and government financial contribution in consequence thereof, for additional Insurance coverage, for readjustment and simplification of rates of contribution, and for consequential amendments; to provide also for an increase in the membership of the unemployment insurance advisory committee from six to eight members; and to provide further that the members of the national employment committee shall receive the same remuneration as the members of the unemployment insurance advisory committee.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. Has the government reached agreement with any of the provinces for the construction of subsidized housing projects under section '35 of the National Housing Act which was passed at the session of last fall? If not, can the minister say whether negotiations in connection with such projects are under way?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. Several provinces have indicated their intention of bringing in complementary legislation during the sessions this year of their legislatures. In the absence of authority, agreements cannot be entered into with the provinces for projects, but discussions have been and are taking place.



FINAL PAYMENT ON SALES BETWEEN 1945 AND 1949  INTERIM PAYMENT ON OATS AND BARLEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, or his parliamentary assistant, arising out of a number of resolutions passed by farm organizations. In view of the financial needs of farmers generally, particularly those in the drought area of Saskatchewan, has the wheat board given consideration to making a final payment in connection with the sales of wheat made between 1945 and 1949 so that farmers may be provided with the necessary resources for carrying on their spring work.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I had intended to ask a similar question, but I would carry it a bit further. Has the government given consideration to making interim payments on the oats and barley marketed by the board this year?


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: would prefer to treat the two questions as notices and bring forward the answers in a day or two.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of some urgency and of great importance. If the answer cannot be given today I hope that it will be given tomorrow. I refer to a proposed aerodrome which Detroit, Michigan, or the United States government, is planning to build in Canadian territory in the vicinity of Windsor. I should like to ask if this proposal has actually been discussed by the United States and Canadian authorities. Will it mean the granting of extraterritorial rights in Canada to the United States? Who will build the aerodrome, and who will own it if it is built?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: I may say that the proposal has not been discussed, but it is the intention to discuss it at a future date. In reply to the question, whether extraterritorial rights will be granted to the United States, I think my hon. friend well knows that the answer is no.
I have forgotten the third question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who intends to build the aerodrome? Who will own it if it is built, and who will operate it?


Lionel Chevrier: If the project comes to fruition in Canadian territory, the airport will certainly be operated by the Department of Transport. As I say, there have been no discussions but I am informed that it is the intention to have some. Until those discussions have taken place it is impossible to give more definite information.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) I should like to ask his parliamentary assistant if the public hearings that were called by the unemployment insurance commission to discuss the bringing of employees of hospitals and charitable institutions under the Unemployment Insurance Act have been cancelled, and, if so, for what reason. The meeting was called for February 24.


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: This proposed meeting has not been cancelled. I believe that the date has been delayed somewhat in order to meet the convenience of a number of delegates.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the diay:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Have tenders been called for the erection of the dominion public building at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island? If not, when will they be called? Perhaps the minister would prefer to make a statement with reference to this matter, and if so he can take this question as notice.
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public
Works): To the best of my knowledge, tenders


have not been called, but they will be called as soon as the plans and specifications are ready, which I hope will be soon.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Postmaster General if when the bill with respect to the Post Office Act, envisaged in the speech from the throne, is introduced, it will be sent to a committee to consider the problems of the rural mail couriers.


Hon. Edouard Rinfret (Posimasier General):: We have not discussed the matter yet. I shall take it under advisement.


Gordon Graydon: The Postmaster General can take this as notice that we should like to have that done. _



TARIFFS AND TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if it is the intention to bring before parliament at this session any measure arising out of the conferences at Geneva and Annecy?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: No decision has yet been taken as to whether any such measures will be brought before parliament. One factor in arriving at such a decision will be the action which may be taken by the congress of the United States.



RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he say whether in the speech which he is reported to have delivered yesterday in Toronto on railway matters he was enunciating government policy, and is he prepared to table a copy of that speech in full so that hon. members may have it?	.


Lionel Chevrier: The speech which I delivered yesterday in Toronto dealt with a general consideration of railroad matters. It dealt with the position

of the railroads today; it dealt with the arguments of the railroads; it dealt with the argument of the provinces, and it dealt with the argument of the consumers. It was a factual statement of the position as it stands today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not the way it was reported.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. F. H. Larson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, with the galaxy of speakers that we had yesterday I wonder if I am going to be able to follow adequately in their footsteps. Like other speakers I wish first of all to convey my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and compliment them upon the presentations they have made of the problems affecting their particular constituencies as well as of the broader picture of the Canadian position today.
When the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) spoke yesterday he referred to federal aid to education. I agree with what he said because of the burden that education imposes in many cases upon the home and land owner. They are the very best people in the land; they produce the wealth from which all our taxes must come. If this burden can be eased in any degree it will certainly be acceptable to the municipalities.
The hon. member also mentioned the possibility of accepting blocked sterling in payment of agricultural and other products sent abroad. I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that a couple of sessions ago I offered this very suggestion, so possibly we are coming closer to realizing that objective.
I was interested in what was said last evening by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) about his very interesting constituency. The hon. member also offered the suggestion that we of the opposition parties were apostles of gloom. I refute that suggestion, but I do say to the hon. member that we are not among those who are afraid to face the facts; and those facts are not too encouraging at the moment. Denying their existence does not answer the problem at all.
The Address-Mr. H. O. White
Before I go further with these marketing problems I want to deal with a few general questions that have come up since last session.
I feel it is my duty first of all to interpret the opinions, the wishes and the desires of my constituency, which comprises the rural area of Middlesex East and about one-quarter of the city of London. Thus in my constituency there are both rural and urban interests. Many think they conflict, but actually they are closely associated, because if one part of our economy suffers it is not long until all other parts suffer as well. It seems to me that in a very limited way the speech from the throne reveals the condition of the ship of state; and it shows that in two particulars all is not well. I think it shows the state of mind, shall I say, of the temporary crew, which seems to be this: We fooled them in June; we can do it again. Hon. members will recall that years ago the Insull public utilities empire collapsed. When its assets were being liquidated they found a warehouse full of empty cartons. Here we have a warehouse full of empty promises by the government dealing with long-term price stability and what have you. If I were to give a short description of the speech from the throne I would do so in these words: Two bells, all's well; hell's bells, call out the watch.
From 1939 to 1949 we had 143 contracts with Europe. In 1936 we had 23 contracts. In 1950 we have 4, written in invisible ink on tissue paper. I want to point out the effect these disappearing markets are going to have on my people, not only those in the country but those in London and all the cities of Canada. I have figures from the dominion bureau of statistics showing the percentage of the consumer's dollar that trickles back to the producer. From 1913 to 1919, a fairly good, prosperous period, from 45 to 51 per cent of the consumer's dollar went to the primary producer. In 1920 a levelling off period commenced which continued until 1924, and during those years the primary producer received 40 per cent or less of the consumer's dollar. During that period there was a bit of unemployment and some unrest in the country. From 1925 to 1929 the primary producer received from 42 to 43 per cent of the consumer's dollar.
I do not need to recall to hon. members what happened in 1929. In 1930, the year of the great collapse, only 39 per cent of the consumer's dollar went to the producer, and by 1934 this had dropped to 32 per cent. Those were the years of mounting unemployment in our country. From 1935 to 1939, the first year of the war, the primary producer received only 39 per cent of the consumer's dollar.
90	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. H. O. White During the period from 1942 to 1948, however, the percentage varied from 48 to 54 per cent. Those were the years when everyone was employed and the basic primary producer received a good percentage of the consumer's dollar. Now we are getting back to the point where in some particular lines- and I could mention eggs-a very small percentage is being received by the producer.
Those are the facts which must be faced at this time by this government, this parliament and the people as a whole. They are pertinent and significant facts. The picture today is very different from the picture last June. Then we had these promises of high employment, overseas contracts, buoyant revenues, stability of prices and markets. Today we have alarming unemployment figures; and even those figures are not correct, because they indicate only the number who have registered with the national employment service. There are many people who are out of work who have no reason to go to the national employment service office. They cannot find a job there, because all these other people are there looking for work.
It is noticeable also that, at the very time these contracts were being cancelled and the prices the farmers were receiving were dropping, Mr. Mosher and Mr. Bengough called upon the government to declare an emergency. They desired the government to commence a program of public works across the dominion to alleviate the unemployment situation. It would seem, therefore, that Canada's export trade markets are closely linked with the unemployment problem.
Reference was made today to widening the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act. This matter is dealt with in the speech from the throne. On my desk there are resolutions from two of the main hospitals in the city of London, protesting against being brought under the Unemployment Insurance Act. What is actually happening is that many people are being called upon to pay into that insurance fund, without any hope of being able to collect from it during their lifetime, it has been intimated that possibly farmers and farm labourers will come under that act. How many of you know of unemployed farmers? I would urge the government to give serious consideration to the proposal to bring hospital employees under the act.
While I am speaking about unemployment insurance, may I say that an individual case was brought to my attention in London last week. This man had contributed towards unemployment insurance for a year and a half. He was considered old enough to pay into the fund, but when he became unemployed the officials forced him to prove


his age before he could draw upon the fund. If he was old enough to pay into it, I believe he should have been considered old enough to receive payments from the fund.
I must say that London is one of the most favoured spots in Canada so far as unemployment is concerned. There are various reasons for that. Because of the diversity of its industry, because of its position as a financial and educational centre of western Ontario, London is not dependent upon seasonal employment as are some of the other areas in Canada. I noticed that yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) mentioned the fact that this unemployment was seasonal and temporary. 1 hope it is not as temporary as some of the jobs in the civil service, because I know of civil servants who have been temporary for twenty years. If the men who are unemployed today thought the situation would last for twenty years, they would be quite disturbed. Let us find out what temporary means. Does it mean today, tomorrow or five years from now?
What are the causes of this unemployment? Probably the biggest factor is loss of trade. Fear of the future and the destruction of incentive by excessive taxation are two important causes. The excessive taxation is brought about by government waste. I suppose someone will ask me to point out this government waste. I shall just mention one case, and it is in the Department of National Defence. It has been estimated that it costs approximately $30,000 to train an officer. This figure was supplied by reliable authorities in the educational field. Similar figures can be found in a return tabled in my name during the last session. This question of excessive taxation will become more difficult as trade diminishes, and unemployment mounts. Now, before the situation becomes too serious, is the time for the government to make some constructive move towards solving the problem.
The lack of purchasing power by all those engaged in the primary industries in this country is another factor causing unemployment. There is also the fact that we are pricing ourselves out of many markets. I should like to draw to the government's attention the fact that millions of dollars have been spent to build up Europe, while our own country, with all its resources, has been neglected. We could quite well spend all the money we have spent trying to rebuild Europe in building a better Canada.
Trade barriers are another cause of unemployment. Many of you will recall that we were summoned to Ottawa in haste in the autumn of 1947 to ratify the Geneva trade treaty. As yet, those treaties have not been

placed before us for ratification. A year ago, another meeting was held in France, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) mentioned today. It is about time we finished the conference stage, and started producing results.
I have before me the throne speeches for the past three sessions. I would advise the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) to study those three speeches. He seemed to get a good deal of satisfaction from the things that were forecast in the speech from the throne. If he will consider the three speeches I mentioned, he will find that paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 10, 21, 22, and 23 of the January, 1949, speech have never been carried out. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the September, 1949, speech have not been touched. Those paragraphs contain the meat of the speeches from the throne at the last two sessions, so it is obvious that we have left unfinished many of the things we hoped to accomplish. What comfort there is to be gained from the speech from the throne is more than I can understand.
All three speeches from the throne mentioned the problem of exchange and monetary control. We have too much control. Neither trade nor money is allowed to flow freely. As I said before in a speech in this house, if the nations who joined the Atlantic pact can make a gun or a tank that is universal, surely they can find a trading dollar that is universal. This would enable us to trade freely with one another. How are we going to build a strong western defence unless we can trade with one another?
I have noticed that there are proposals in the throne speech concerning amendments to the Agricultural Products Act. The federation of agriculture recommended that producer boards be set up for the marketing of Canadian farm products. That was changed, however, to government boards. But now, as I understand, another proposal is made and we are going to hand it back to the producers. There is only one reason why that is going to be done. It is just like the situation where a bully takes a toy from a child; when the toy is broken he says: Here it is; see what you can do with it. That is what happened with regard to our market; it is a broken toy. So they say: We will hand it back to you; see what you can do with it. There is also provided a place to put the blame if things go wrong.
I just want to read into the record part of an article that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 21, 1949:
They are now discovering that the law of supply and demand has not been repealed and that having foolishly given away the "ups" of the market, the farmers must now bear the "downs".
The Address-Mr. H. O. White
The bitter consequences of foolish leadership are rapidly becoming clear.
I said once before in this house, and I am going to repeat it, that it does not take a great deal of ability to sell scarce goods at a low price but it takes a considerable amount of ability to sell goods in surplus for more than they are worth; and that is what we should like to see being done now but are not likely to see.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin), at a meeting in London, Ontario, suggested that these farmers take back their marketing problem, and that that is where it should be. I just want to say that if that is the right policy the minister has been wrong in all the years he has been here; or if he is wrong now, he was right then. But he cannot be right both times.


Mr. Gardiner:: I might surprise you.


Harry Oliver White: They should never have taken it from the farmers. I agreed with what the parliamentary assistant said in London. They should never have taken it away from the farmers. Now when the situation is tough they say: We will give it back to them. The farmers are worried about this situation, because it is a breach of promise.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the same argument the hon. member's friends put up out in Battleford.


Gordon Graydon: The minister may yet be sued for breach of promise.


Harry Oliver White: The situation is this. During the war years we were told if we took less then, when the war was over and times got tough we would have a stable and long-term market. It is not very stable and it certainly was not a long-term one. In fact, I sometimes think we have two ministers of agriculture, namely the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce came back last May and said he had a $25 million contract for Canadian products. I have never yet been able to find out whether or not we sold that extra $25 million worth; and until it has been proven to me, I am going to say that it was a phony contract. When he comes back this time, he had better bring something more than a suntan with him.
During the war years when we could get a fair price for our products in other markets, embargoes were placed on many primary products so that they could not go to the best markets. When cheese and other things became scarce, they were requisitioned to fill those contracts. We did not have a chance.
d2	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. H. O. White But now the government says: We will hand the problem back to them and see what they can do with it.
This is a serious problem. I do not want you to think that I am dealing with it lightly. The United States is lacing a problem with regard to floor prices; and from articles appearing in the press it appears that the officials of the Department of Agriculture here are going to set a floor price, but the indications are that the price is going to be low. It is going to be a bargain basement price, I am afraid; and that was not what the farmers had in mind in 1945 or again in 1949 when the Agricultural Prices Support Act was dangled before them prior to the election. But now they are told that the situation has changed; the officials point to the United States with their accumulation of potatoes and other products and so they are saying: We cannot set this floor too high or we are going to get into difficulties, so we will put in a bargain basement floor.
As long as I can remember I have heard tariffs talked of. Some have said that a floor price for farmers is a subsidy. If tariffs are not a subsidy, I do not know what they are.
I believe that farmers and others are quite prepared to do away with subsidies if all the rest of our economy is prepared to do the same thing. I think possibly it would be better for all of us if we gave some serious consideration to that matter because it is, no doubt, one of the things that are stagnating trade.
I have here a resolution passed at the last annual meeting of the Middlesex County Federation of Agriculture, and I should just like to read it:
Whereas the future market outlook for farm products is uncertain; and
Whereas farmers in this country produced and sold farm products during the war years below world market prices; and
Whereas promises have been repeatedly made that farmers would be sustained by satisfactory floor prices;
Be it therefore resolved that proper measures be taken to implement the provisions of the Agricultural Prices Support Act whenever the need arises.
This resolution was carried unanimously at that meeting.
For a moment or two I want to deal with the proposal in the speech from the throne to set up a committee to look into the national health plan, along with old age pensions and other things. This is going to take some time, and it looks to me as if it was a delaying action. If we examine these national health proposals, we shall find that they were first put forward as a policy of the Liberal party in 1919, and they have been brought out at the correct time practically ever since. In one of the throne speeches mention was made


of the house committee on prices. We received three copies of it, it is true; but that is all that was ever done. It had the effect of drawing people's attention from the government's shortsighted policy to the troubles they were in; and in this way got the government out of the hole at the time. Nothing was ever done. That is about what is going to happen with this national health program. It has one purpose only, to attract attention and delay action.
Mention was made of the cold war. I just want to refer back again to the fact that if we are to fight an effective cold war we must have a healthy economy not only in Canada but in all the rest of the signatory nations tf>
the Atlantic pact.
People are quite prepared to pay heavy taxes to maintain and strengthen our defences; but they also feel that there is very little to show for the $400 million that was spent on national defence last year.
In the speech from the throne we find the following:
The measure to consolidate existing legislation respecting our defence forces . . . will be re-introduced.
I have made some reference to that, and reference was made to it in the two previous speeches. During the recess I heard more criticism back home of the Department of National Defence than I had heard in any of the past four or five years. I was asked such questions as these: What are you doing with the $400 million? What have you to show for it? We have one aircraft carrier that we are not able to keep in operation all the time. We have very few of the jet aircraft that we were taken to Rockcliffe to see some years ago. We have few of them today. A veil of secrecy has been cast over that $400 million of the people's money. Our people are worried about national defence. I should also like to refer to the fact that all the various branches of the service have a dental corps. One dental corps should be able to take care of the teeth of all the men that we have in the forces.
We need a realistic approach to the world's needs. We hear of people needing food. We know that there is a seridus dislocation of distribution. We need a convertible currency, not a controlled currency, in the western community of nations. We cannot be strong militarily if we are weak economically. I think the whole thing can be summarized in what is taking place at the royal mint. They are making a new silver dollar. On the old silver dollar the good ship Matthew appeared, commemorating the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. On the new dollar they are taking to the canoe.

The Address-Mr. Mclvor


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: I count it a great honour to represent a constituency like Fort William, a constituency that is so progressive and so up to date in everything. When you ride in one of the trolley busses in Fort William and then start out on a trip in a streetcar in Ottawa you hope that Ottawa will soon come in line with Fort William.
I admired the Prime Minister's choice of speakers to move and second the address in reply to the speech from the throne. He combined the progressive intelligence of the west and the steady wisdom of the east. I think hon. members will agree with me that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) and the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) never spoke with more reserve and intelligence. I do not know whether they were afraid or just careful. I also noted that the Prime Minister showed remarkable reserve, but once in a while the Irish in him came bubbling out, which was a great thrill to a man like me.
I was greatly interested to see the prominence given to old age pensions in the speech from the throne. I was criticized last year for not' voting for the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Under the same set of circumstances I would act in the same way because I am not going to vote want of confidence in the government when I can "beef" all I wish to in caucus.
The minister has shown wisdom in bringing in a resolution dealing with old age pensions at the present time. I have always been in favour of abolition of the means test. I think there should be no means test; but wisdom does not die with me. I am not the end of all wisdom and I do not know everything about it. So far as I can see, the means test should be removed, but when we are in committee we shall have an opportunity to give our reasons. On the order paper the following resolution appears in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin):
That a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to examine and study the operation and effects of existing legislation of the parliament of Canada and of the several provincial legislatures with respect to old age security; similar legislation in other countries; possible alternative measures of old age security for Canada, with or without a means test for beneficiaries, including plans based on contributory insurance principles; the probable cost thereof and possible methods of providing therefor; the constitutional and financial adjustments, if any, required for the effective operations of such plans and other related matters:
Then he goes on to show how he wants this done. I think this is wise. If any hon. member has anything that he thinks would help the old age pensioner he should bring it to this committee.
I should like to pay my tribute to the officials in Toronto who administer this act. I do not care to what party they belong, they are giving a splendid service. They have given me some very fine thrills in the form of answers to requests I have made. They are administering the act in an honest way. I shall have more to say on this subject when the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Little) brings in his resolution, because I intend to second it.
When I went home after the last session a good many people called me up and interviewed me. They asked me what had happened to the crime comics bill. One school principal said that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) must be a generous man to take a bill from the opposition and incorporate it in the Criminal Code. I said: "He is not only a generous man, he is intelligent, notwithstanding those who think he was a little bit slow in bringing in the report on the combines act." I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are other men in this house who are also slow. Some of those on the other side of the house were just a little bit slow last year. I am slow sometimes, and a little dull in thinking; but when we keep at it we get there in the end.
I should like to tell the Minister of Justice that we at the lakehead appreciate the service that he has given to those children and to those teachers and other workers who are trying to make good Canadians out of our boys and girls.
We have at the lakehead a number of paper mills. Last year I made the statement that we have the largest paper mill in Canada. Let me prove that now by saying that not only have we the largest paper mill, but it is manned by men who have made it the mill with the greatest production record. In that plant we have another mill, not as large as the first one I mentioned; but, taken together, these two mills have the greatest production of any two paper mills in Canada. I know there are plants with more mills, but I would take off my hat to the men who man these. They work harmoniously and, I am told, are well paid. An hon. member who occupies a front seat in this chamber is president of that company. He has exercised his own wisdom and intelligence in its operations, and is doing a good job.
At the lakehead we-have a growing interest in farming. It is all very well to make a statement, but it is much better to offer proof. We have potato clubs of 500 bushels to the acre; and if anyone would care to look at the picture I now hold in my hand he would see the picture of a bachelor who raised 733 bushels to the acre of Chippewa potatoes. Is there any other man in the house who will
94	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mclvor
stand in his place and tell me of any other farmer in Canada who raises 733 bushels to the acre-and, oh boy, they are clean potatoes; not a spot on them!
A contest among thirteen growers in that area showed an average yield of 350-8 bushels to the acre. Surely that is a clear indication of progress. This is an indication of hard work, particularly in the instance I have outlined, where a man did not have someone at home to cook his meals for him and to cheer him when he returned home, tired.
I am greatly pleased to note the progress being made in connection with the trans-Canada highway. At this moment there are in Toronto delegates who are trying to convince the provincial government on certain points-and we believe that, at least up to this point, the government is open to conviction. Those delegates are backed by myself and by others who know the conditions. We believe we should have a lakeshore route, down through Nipigon, Schreiber and Sault Ste. Marie. In our view this would offer one of the greatest tourist attractions in Canada.
The editor of the Fort William Times Journal says this:
For decades while roads were being constructed from south Ontario into northeastern Ontario, northwestern Ontario has been left to constitute a gap impassable by motor car.
There are many people in the east who think we have only a backwoods city, that we are out in the bush and not worthy of consideration. Just a short time ago there were some at the lakehead who thought we should form another province. They made quite a noise about it, and I think they made some headway, because things are now moving. It is our belief that this road would be one of the finest attractions for tourists from the east. Those who make the trip to Fort William will see the beauty spots around there; and having eaten lake Superior trout they will be convinced that the trip was worth the effort.
If the route goes through as suggested it will mean that Fort William will be only 600 miles from Toronto, and Kenora 850 miles from Toronto. People will take great pleasure from travelling that route, and seeing what it offers. It is our view that it should follow the north shore, because there are the towns which must be opened up, and many attractions are offered.
Let me state briefly why farming is developing at the lakehead. First, we have several graduates from Guelph. Secondly, we have the services of a most efficient man representing the agricultural interests of the province. Then, thirdly, we have an experimental substation in charge of an outstanding farmer

expert who goes throughout the country giving advice to farmers concerning matters of fertilization, grazing and other features of this occupation. The result is that work on the farms in that area is growing.
May I turn now to our needs, and state that there are still some things we require, not only from the provincial but from the dominion government. My first suggestion is that the Canadian National Railways should have at our airfield an administrative building. The office staff of the board of transport commissioners is now housed in accommodation which, from the standpoint of health, is unfit for their purposes.
Secondly, we require a protective building at the Canadian National Railways yards at Neebing and Port Arthur. Anyone living in Port Arthur or Fort William in January who had to go out to repair cars in winter temperatures ranging from 15 to 40 degrees below zero, with a northwest wind blowing, would wonder what is the matter with the C.N.R., when the C.P.R. rolls a car into a building in which the men may work. Thus they are able to do much better work and under healthier conditions, with less danger of frostbite. The need for protective buildings is as great in Fort William as it is in Port Arthur. We know, too, how difficult it is to work in hot weather, without some protection.
Large quantities-hundreds and hundreds of carloads of the finest hematite iron ore- are coming down from Steep Rock, with the result that the cry at the lakehead is for the construction of a smelter. Here, again, wise men from the east say it would not pay. Perhaps it would not pay the men who want to have the plant in the east; but we say it would pay anyone who would undertake to build a smelter at that point. We are told that our ore is of such high quality we can sell it to others producing lower grades of ore, so that it may be used for mixing purposes. Then, after the mixing process has taken place, they would sell their ore back to us, ahd a profit can be made. But in our view that is not good enough, and offers only one more reason for our having a smelter. I am sure when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) gives further thought to the matter, in addition to that he has already given, he will see to it that we have a smelter.
There is an agitation afoot for a public park at Mount McKay. We want a sky fine road. We already have one road, but we need one coming in the other way from the Scott highway so that those who travel it may look back and see all that beautiful country. Reaching Mount McKay, the whole

panorama opens out to one's view, and offers the greatest scenery in Canada; there is nothing to surpass it in this country.
I come now to the Shebandowan district, which is said to have many varieties of ore, including gold, silver and platinum. I shall not attempt to mention them all because of the danger of confusion. The fact remains that the Shebandowan area offers many varieties of ore. Last year I placed a resolution on the order paper asking that the men who had patented their claims should receive some assistance from the then department of mines and resources. I suggested that they be given a drill, that tests be made, and that the costs of such operations be taken from the receipts from production. We have in the Shebandowan district a district which offers outstanding possibilities for the future.
I should like to say a word on unemployment. If there is one thing that we think we should not have in Canada, it is unemployment. It is all a matter of planning. Something will have to be done at the lake-head to plan so that the seasonal workers will have work the year round, although I admit that that will be difficult. I notice the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is proposing an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The act should be extended and this amendment will do considerable good.
The labour unions of Fort William are doing a great job. I take my cue from them when I say that if all trade unions in Canada were like them there would be greater harmony in labour relations. Many of the officers of the labour unions up there attend their churches on Sunday, the churches which their fathers and mothers taught them to worship in.	I venture to say that when labour
realizes that in the Christian church they have an ally that has fought against monopolies which would crush the workingmen, when labour and religion are ready to work side by side, greater security will be achieved.
We have a splendid example in the former prime minister. An English member of parliament once wondered at his good judgment, but I want to say that anyone who begins his daily task by reading a chapter from the old book and taking the Master Workman as his guide will not be afraid of anything. Such a man will be able to stand on his own feet and think for himself.
I should like to speak at greater length but there will be other opportunities. If any hon. members feel like visiting the beauty spots at Fort William they will soon have an opportunity when the trans-Canada highway is completed.
The Address-Mr. Gillis


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the debate so far, and particularly to government members, I begin to wonder whether I live in the same country as they. I get around quite a lot when the house is not in session. I held a lot of meetings and I met a lot of people since we were here last. Many of the statements I have heard so far in this debate certainly do not sound like the things I heard outside. It may be that other members do not get around as much.
My impression of conditions in the country today is reminiscent of 1939. I definitely get the same feeling. Pretty much the same conditions are developing outside and pretty much the same attitude prevails in the house. There seems to be apathy; we are going to do it tomorrow. We have to start to plan, as the last speaker said, but I thought the planning was all done. There are one or two things on which I should like to focus attention and I do this because of their immediate urgency. The time has passed for talk. I think the time has come for action in connection with the matters to which I am going to refer.
First, I am going to deal with the means test. I think the time has passed for talk on this particular matter. We have been talking about it ever since I came into the house. The last speaker said, that he was pleased to see a reference in the speech from the throne to the abolition of the means test in connection with old age pensions. The hon. member must have read a different speech from the one I read because there is no reference to that in the speech. I think what the hon. member is referring to is a resolution that is now on the order paper. The speech from the throne is a forecast of the legislation which the government is going to present to the house and for the benefit of the last speaker I would say that there is no reference in the throne speech to the abolition of the means test, which would indicate that the government is not going to do anything about it.
We should not kid ourselves about the value of a committee in connection with a matter of this kind. Anyone who has been in the house for any length of time realizes that when the government wants to shelve a hot potato it is passed over to a committee of this house to talk about, to write a report on it which is then put in the archives to gather dust. But in the meantime you cannot say much about it because a committee is to handle it.
I am rather surprised that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) should have placed this resolution on the

The Address-Mr. Gillis order paper at this time. I thought he was a better politician. In the near future I expect that that particular thing will boomerang on him pretty badly. Many hon. members remember the issue as to the maintenance of price controls. The same Minister of National Health and Welfare was the chairman of a committee that was handed the job of getting all the facts on that matter and making recommendations to the house. In the meantime price controls went down the drain, the report was written, and I think I am safe in saying that seventy-five per cent of the members of this house never read it. Nevertheless it was a way of getting clear of an obligation which the government should have assumed, and I am afraid the same thing is happening in connection with the abolition of the means test.
Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) referred to this when he said that it was part of the program for the institution of old age pensions on a contributory basis. However, that has been part of the program for a long time. I remember reading it first in 1919 when it emanated from a convention of the Liberal party which was held in that year. There have been two wars since that time, the world has been torn to pieces, conditions have changed drastically, and as far as they have gone with that pension program is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to place a resolution on the order paper to pass it over to a committee to study the matter and make a report to the house.
I have seen this done several times in the past. Questions have been shelved and taken out of the realm of public discussion .and then nothing has been done about them. Something should be done at this time about this matter. The argument will be advanced that it will cost more money, but I do not think anyone should get up in this house and talk that way any more. We can remember when prior to the war that was the stock argument against many questions that were raised- where will we get the money? But it did not take very long to find where to get the money when war broke out. We were able to take the jobless off the streets and put them in uniform; we were able to provide the planes, tanks and all the rest of it. That money is still around. It is a question of the members of this house, regardless of the section they may represent, having the courage to stand up here and say this is a job that should be done. This is not a question of planning and that kind of stuff; it is a matter of honesty, of having the courage of your convictions, of taking your position in this house and saying that the means test in connection with old age pensions is one of the greatest blots on the

history of Canada today, that it should be removed, and as far as we are concerned we are going to see that this is done.
The money is there. Put on the excess profits tax again, perhaps fifty per cent lower than it was during the war. You will get sufficient money to pay the old age pension without the means test. Why all the argument about it? The little bit of money that would accrue to old age pensioners as additional income would merely create additional purchasing power in the hands of Canadian citizens. It would only provide the necessities of life, but it would stimulate your machinery of production and provide additional markets. Right today we are screaming about markets for our products. Here is an internal market that we can create, and all the money will travel back to where it first came from.
It is a lot of nonsense to talk about appointing a committee to study the matter. Surely the members of this house have as much courage as some of our big industrialists. I have on my desk a letter written by the president of Dominion Steel and Coal, one of the greatest employers of labour in Canada. No other corporation in this country employs as many people as does Dominion Steel and Coal, with all its ramifications across the country. The president of that organization, speaking on behalf of the coal company and its subsidiaries, stated definitely just a few weeks ago that as far as his company is concerned it believes the means test should be abolished immediately. They have a non-contributory industrial pension scheme of their own. It does not amount to very much, perhaps $30 a month to a man who has been employed for forty years and who retires at the age of sixty-five, but it is something. But because a man has that little pension, given through the charity of that corporation, it militates against him in obtaining the old age pension that is paid today. So the president of this company thinks it is unfair and unreasonable, and that the means test should be abolished. Surely the members of this house are just as humanitarian as the president of Dosco. That company is a big taxpayer, but the president of the corporation says the means test should be abolished. There is no necessity for taking it over to the railway committee room, calling in experts and so on. We have done that sort of thing year in and year out. The necessity is there; the money is there; the people of Canada are demanding it. I think it is time the members of this house said, "We are going to vote for it and authorize the government to do it," because if this country cannot afford to provide its aged people with the bare means of subsistence we have no right to say that we are a great nation, that we are

able to face the future and work out our own destiny. That is one problem that can be solved and should be solved without further delay.
One of my main reasons for saying this session was reminiscent of 1939 is the unemployment situation. I remember that in 1939 and early 1940 you could go to Toronto and see the missions and church basements packed with unemployed. On the front page of today's Globe and Mail there is a picture of a few hundred of Toronto's unemployed huddled together in a basement mission. It was ten below zero outside when that picture was taken; they had no place to go, so they gathered there; and that situation is general across the country. We have 375,000 unemployed registered with the employment service, and the unemployment problem is serious. I am reasonably sure that another
100,000	could be added to the number of which the national employment offices have a record.
We should not start planning now to deal with this situation. I thought the planning was all done. During 1942 and 1943 a large committee of this house-again a committee -was set up, called the reconstruction committee. The members were serious; they were hard workers, and did a good job. We went all over Canada, taking industry after industry and making a survey of the possibilities of employment in the post-war period. We had before us the heads of the construction industry, and all large employers. They went to a great deal of trouble; they prepared briefs, and we blueprinted the employment possibilities in all our major industries. We had the labour bodies, the chambers of commerce and all the others, and they all submitted briefs. After that the federal government probed the possibilities of public works projects. A report was made to this house containing a blueprint of public works projects right across the country. That report was adopted unanimously. The policy of the government announced at that time and repeated many times later was that they would assist private industry in any section af the country, but that where private industry failed to solve the problem of unemployment and a higher standard of living the government would step in and supplement private enterprise. That planning was done; ;he blueprints were there, but they went to :he archives and now we are facing what we planned against at that time.
There is no use planning unless you put pour plans into operation. Yesterday I .istened to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I was rather disappointed when re said the unemployment was seasonal, that
The Address-Mr. Gillis it was regional and temporary. He went on to say that all the plans that had been made, including the shelf of public works to take up the slack of unemployment, had been practically thrown overboard, and that they could not do all the things they would like to do because they did not want to come into competition with private enterprise. The picture today of the developing unemployment problem shows clearly that private enterprise has fallen down in certain fields. The government program was intended to supplement private enterprise where it was not doing the job, which was to bring about as nearly as possible full employment. That program is gone. The shelf of public works is gone. After listening to the statement of the government's position by the Prime Minister I am afraid the problem is going to continue to grow. The government has nothing in mind to offset this increasing unemployment, and there is concern right across the country.
I am very disappointed that the government is not going to do anything to improve the situation. With regard to both these matters, the means test and the increasing unemployment, thousands of cards, letters and resolutions are being showered upon the members of this house. As far as the government are concerned, however, we have no program to deal with either of these matters in the immediate future. The speech from the throne says the government is going to broaden the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act. That is no solution. They may take in the lumber workers, as they should have done long ago. They may extend it to other groups, but those other groups will have to make 180 contributions under the act before becoming entitled to relief, so that is not much of a solution.
Seventeen per cent of those 375,000 unemployed in this country today are without any income whatever. Seventeen per cent of them are not receiving benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. As the front page picture in the Globe and Mail indicates, they have no place to go, no place to sleep and don't know where breakfast is coming from tomorrow. It is difficult to make that person understand he is considered regional, temporary and seasonal. All he understands is that he has no place to sleep, and no breakfast tomorrow morning. These men are human beings. Every one of them is affected just as we would be. It would be cold comfort to read in the press that the official attitude of the government is that you are only regional, and seasonal. You have no feelings. We have no plans to do anything for you. I believe immediate relief should be made available to the municipalities.

The Address-Mr. Gillis
In my part of the country we have not the highest, but close to the highest, unemployment in Canada. Ten per cent of our total labour force is unemployed. It is not seasonal, it is permanent. This situation will remain until the government has some definite plan for the establishment of a small subsidiary industry in the maritimes, and the restoration of some of the markets, particularly in New Brunswick, that were lost because of the mix-up in international marketing. The situation in the maritimes is not seasonal, it is permanent. The thing to do is to immediately find the spots where the problem is serious, such as Toronto, and then the federal government should make available the Unemployment Relief Act, at substantial rates, until such time as the unemployed find gainful employment.
It is rather frightening when you think that we have just come through a major conflict. The unemployed in Canada were the ones who fought it. A few years after their return, with a threatening international situation and the possibility of another war, whom do you think those fellows are going to shoot at the next time? They have had one experience. They are human, and many of them are the boys who came back from this war. Rather than take the complacent attitude we have taken on this question, the federal government, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), or his assistants, should announce that in sections in which there is a large percentage of unemployed not in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits, relief will be made immediately available. This would provide them with shelter and something to eat until such time as they could find employment. Serious repercussions will be forthcoming from this situation unless something like that is done.
The main point to which I wish to address myself this afternoon is the question of the Canadian National Railways and its purchasing policy in the field of fuel. I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is not in his seat. Theoretically, the Canadian National Railways is the property of the people of Canada. Any time anyone outside this house criticizes the Canadian National, it is always characterized as a government operation. It is a good example of government management. You pay a large deficit each year, and it is attributed to mismanagement, or something of that sort. I am glad this controversy came up because it at least gives us a chance to do one thing.
When the Minister of Transport made his statement to the house on February 17, there were one or two significant paragraphs in it on that particular point of government man-


agement. I am going to read that back into the record. It will be found on page 23 of Hansard for February 17. He said:
Since the reductions were announced, officers of my department and myself have been in constant touch with the management of the Canadian National on this question of coal supply. I have asked the new chairman and president, Mr. Donald Gordon, to give me a memorandum setting out in detail the events-
And so forth. The minister said that prior to the reduction in services of 25 per cent, neither he nor the government had been consulted by the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. Does that sound like government management? Does it sound like a government-operated road? So far as this house is concerned, the balance sheets are brought before us once a year, and the minister asks for the necessary funds to wipe out a large deficit. That statement clearly indicates that the president and board of directors operate the railroad as they see fit, without any consultation with the minister or the government. I believe that is slack business. I am not blaming the Minister of Transport for that, because the government as a whole has to take the responsibility for the actions of any of its ministers.
In view of the minister's position, one would have thought that before such a drastic step was taken by the board of directors they would at least have called in the minister and asked for his advice as to whether or not the reduction should be made. The minister says they did not do that. I am not blaming the Canadian National Railways for that. I am blaming the government, the cabinet as a whole, for not having the necessary foresight to compel the management to consult with the Department of Transport if and when difficulties arise that warrant public attention, and particularly such a difficulty as this which so seriously affects the public from one end of the country to the other.
This afternoon the minister read statements from Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gordon's statement clearly sets out that the blame for the present difficulties of the Canadian National rests with the United States, because of the disruption in coal mining; that is his alibi. In another letter Mr. Vaughan states that the trouble is in the United States. Contracts were made for the delivery of certain American coal, and if that coal had been available for stockpiling purposes no trouble would have been experienced. Again, the blame is laid over in the United States. This situation was well known to the government some time ago, or at least to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I am sorry he is not in his seat this afternoon. According to the press, he is roaming around Rome.

It appears that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is able to see what is coming, but he seems to be powerless to influence anyone in the government to do something before it hits us.


Angus MacInnis: Leaving out the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson).


Clarence Gillis: I am not going into that now. I have a copy of a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on February 13, 1947, during a speech to the Empire Club in Toronto. This article appeared in the Toronto Star. It reads as follows:
"Mr. Howe noted the United Kingdom's plight today as what would result from even a temporary shortage of coal without constant vigilance on the part of those responsible for our continuing coal supplies. Canada may yet be in a similar position. Our coal industry has a responsibility to the nation of no small magnitude," he said.
"The maritime situation," he said, "has presented an increasingly difficult and distressing problem. Unless the problems facing the industry are quickly solved the industry is headed for disaster."
But the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in 1947, looking at the fuel situation in Canada, told the Empire Club what could happen in this country in the event of a shortage of coal. I think every member of this house realizes what could happen if coal supplies from the United States were completely cut off. Industry in this country could be closed off, and the railways could be stopped; we depend to that extent on United States fuel.
The point I want to make is that this situation did not creep up overnight on the Canadian National Railways or the government. They were watching the coal situation in 1947. The Minister of Trade and Commerce knew what could happen, but nothing appears to have been done about it.
Then again, I would ask hon. members to let their memories go back to the last session, to June of 1949, July and on to the end of the year. Hon. members will recall that I rose on several occasions and asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) why some of the coal mines in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were not operating at all at the time, but were shut down completely, and why others were working part-time. Hon. members will recall the answers we received at that time. As indicated this afternoon by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll), when he pointed the matter out to the Minister of Transport, a coal contract in the maritimes between some of the small operators and the Canadian National Railways, for 65,000 tons of coal a year, was discontinued last June v/hen this situation was developing, and these mines were idle.
The Address-Mr. Gillis
The alibi given to us at that time by the Minister of Transport was that the railways were not using as much coal, and that was why they were not taking the coal from the maritimes operations. The reason they were not using as much coal was that it was a mild winter. That was rather nonsensical, was it not? It would take as much coal to run an engine in the summer as it would in the winter. But that was the excuse given at that time.
This afternoon the minister says that if our contracts had been filled and our stockpiles kept up we would not have had to curtail traffic. The answer that Mr. Vaughan has to give to this house, as far as I am concerned, is why they did not get their stockpiles and keep them up from mines in the maritime regions that were close, economic and available to them and why their stockpiles were not built up there when mines were working half-time in that area. He has to answer that question, and he has not answered it yet. There is no excuse for the answers we have received from both Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Gordon on this particular question. They are ducking the issue. The whole thing adds up to a faulty fuel policy on the part of the federal government and no policy at all on the part of the Canadian National Railways, except to market United States coal.
There is no excuse at this time for the curtailment of traffic by twenty-five per cent in the maritime provinces. As to the minister's statement that we had to hit everyone in the country to the same extent, in order to equalize the situation, that is nonsense. Why should you have curtailment of services where coal is available either in the west or in the east? I can understand it in central Canada where the railways depend completely on the United States for their fuel.
Yesterday, in a short answer to me, the minister indicated that coal was not available in the maritimes. We have a dominion coal board, and the function of that board is to provide subventions, allocate markets and all that kind of thing. They have that authority under the act that sets them up. The member on that dominion coal board who represents the maritime provinces, clear of the operators, is D. W. Morrison. Just a few days before this house opened, in commenting on this particular question of the availability of coal in the maritimes, Mr. Morrison as a member of the coal board stated that there was no shortage of coal in the maritimes, but that plenty of coal was available. The head of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, when questioned, made the same statement, namely, that there was in the maritimes plenty of coal available to the Canadian National Railways

The Address-Mr. Gillis if they wanted to accept it. The minister of mines in the provincial government of Nova Scotia-and he would not be a propagandist against the government or the Canadian National Railways; he is a good Liberal minister

made a statement on the question also, and he was much more emphatic about it than either the coal board representative or the head of the coal company. The statement is quite a lengthy one, but I shall quote only briefly from it. It is taken from the PostRecord of Sydney, Nova Scotia, of February 1 and reads in part as follows:
Mr. MacKinnon said it was "hard to understand" the claim of Canadian National Railways that train services had to be curtailed because of coal shortage.
In 1945, he said the C.N.R. used 122,000 tons of Canadian coal in central Canada and in the same year 7,296,000 tons of U.S. coal. The situation today was fairly similar.
The C.N.R. got most of its coal in Ohio.
And so on. He is commenting on our complete dependency on United States fuel and he goes on here to make a strong statement- I do not want to take up the time of the house with it-against our present fuel policy, if we have any. All of this argument of Mr. Vaughan and of Mr. Gordon has been completely knocked into a cocked hat by people who sell coal, who say that coal was available in the maritime region particularly.
There is no excuse for the present situation. Better excuses than those offered by the minister must be found. The matter should be no mystery to this house either, because time and time again I have risen in my place in this house and hammered away at this matter of a national fuel policy and the development of our own resources. We are only starting to get this thing working in the field of fuel, and as time goes on if we do not develop our own resources we are going to have much more serious repercussions than we are having at the present time. John L. Lewis, the disrupting of the industry, and his quarrel with the operators is a problem that belongs to the United! States government; but the problem of keeping trains running in this country and supplying our industries with fuel is that of the Canadian government. If the Prime Minister and the members of this house are going to depend exclusively on private enterprise to do the job, then we are going to have just what we have at the present time; because, as far as I can see, the fuel policy of the Canadian government and the Canadian National Railways has been to market United States coal.
It is hard to understand how a government-operated road would buy the major portion of their coal in the United States, in Ohio and West Virginia, transport it all across the country and stockpile it down in Campbellton, New Brunswick; yet within a few hundred

miles there is plenty of coal available in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to operate that end of the system.
The question of competition comes up. Well, the United States certainly cannot compete with maritime coal in that particular region. They can compete to some extent in Quebec. We cannot compete with them in Ontario. Year in and year out I have emphasized the necessity of the government formulating a fuel policy, whereby the markets for our own coal within Canada could be made available to our own production. This whole question of the problem of the Canadian National Railways certainly places it in focus. We have been losing money. The Canadian National definitely must have been paying more for United States coal in that area than they would pay for maritime coal.
This whole question of the curtailment of traffic by the Canadian National Railways should be gone into because the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and Mr. Vaughan, the former president of the Canadian National Railways, have got into a press controversy on the matter. I saw one statement by Mr. Vaughan in which he took the minister to task for the first statement that he made in the house. The matter of whether the Canadian government has anything to do with the management of the road should be ironed out. If the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways can take the kind of action that they took without reference to the minister or to the government, and affect the whole system, as they have affected it, then I think it is pretty near time that the House of Commons found out something about it. We have a standing committee of this House of Commons known as the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I believe that committee should be set up and called together immediately. The heads of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Vaughan, Mr. Gordon, and others concerned in the question, should be examined before that committee of the House of Commons. That is their job. A policy should be devised under which the kind of thing that has happened would never be permitted to happen again.
I always try to boost that road; I travel on it as much as I can. I assumed that it would belong to us, and as such it should be patronized by us. Every bit of business that we can give to it we should give to it. But I am certainly not satisfied with the kind of management that can run this thing by remote control without any reference to the government or to the minister. I am seriously suggesting to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that

that committee be set up immediately. It should be convened for the purpose of having a thorough investigation into all the factors leading up to the present difficulties on the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. Sinnotl:: I wish to ask the hon. member a question. I have listened attentively to him and I should like an explanation of one remark he made. He referred to the boys who went overseas in the last war, and spoke of those who were unemployed at the present time. He then asked this question: If there was another war, whom would they shoot at? I should just like to know what remark he was casting?


Clarence Gillis: I was not casting any remark; I was making a statement based on some understanding of human nature. My observation was this. You were unemployed previous to the first war. War broke out. Lots of money was found to put you in uniform, and you went over and fought and went through a lot of hardship. A lot of promises were made to you. You come back and you are sleeping in a soup kitchen again. Another war breaks out. It is threatening and could break out. If another war breaks out what do you expect that boy to do who is sleeping in the soup kitchen for the second time in his lifetime? I do not know whom he would shoot.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I suppose the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -knows that there are those who save their money and those who do not. There is a big difference.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have all enjoyed the session up to the present time. I am afraid however we all feel very much as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has expressed himself, namely, that we are just getting ready for another period of inaction similar to that which laid a blight upon the house in 1937, 1938 and 1939. We could talk in those days about anything and everything except something that would do us some good. Today it looks as though we are getting ready for the same sort of thing unless somebody drives us into war and makes us do something.
The Prime Minister's speech is to be commended because it faced facts. I think he was quite honest in his general approach. He was at a disadvantage, because he had to begin to explain why all the glowing promises which were made-across the country by everybody on the Liberal side have begun to fade already. For example, people had the idea
The Address-Mr. Blackviore given to them everywhere during the election that all people had to do was to get this wonderful Liberal party in and there would be floor prices for all agricultural products. The other day, I understand, someone said, "Well, it must be borne in mind that floor prices can be in the basement just as well as up where you would naturally expect them to be." I could spend quite a lot of time discussing this kind of betrayal which the Liberal party has been guilty of ever since 1935, but I do not think there is much use saying more about it at the present time. The Prime Minister had1 to bear the brunt of all that.
Of course someone will say, Why did the people elect them again? Well, one good reason is that the Liberal party has a remarkable capacity for propaganda. It seems to have limitless funds and limitless influence over the pres-s. Then generally speaking, I imagine the people look upon the Conservative party as just a pale-faced Liberal party, a second one, so that there is no use trying to get anything done through Conservatives. People are mortally afraid of the C.C.F. because it seems to mean so many things. They have not yet learned that if they want genuine honest-to-goodness government from a people who will keep their promises they must elect Social Crediters.


Gordon Graydon: Don't be so modest. .


John Horne Blackmore: Well, we have a wonderful example of what a Social Credit administration will do and can do. The example is in Alberta. Those who treat Alberta lightly just do not know Alberta. Judged by every standard the work that has been done by Social Credit in Alberta is a magnificent job, and anyone who does not really acknowledge that-


Mr. Whitman:: Does not know Alberta!


John Horne Blackmore: -either does not know or is not honest, one of the two. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was, as I have said, at a serious disadvantage. In his speech there was little or no hope for any solution of the problem of markets outside Canada, or increased markets inside Canada. There was no hope, worth speaking of, for solving the problem of the cost of living, which is almost crucifying our people from coast to coast, right now. There was no real hope for security of employment.
As I have also said, the Prime Minister faced some facts. But I would hope he would be prepared to face a great many more. He went down the other day into the United States and delivered to the people of that country a speech which, in the light of all facts, was absolutely impudent. He was talking to a people who have grown into a great

The Address-Mr. Blackmore power on this continent, through generations of developing the ability to produce their own supplies of goods. He went down there and advised them to discontinue that policy, so that they could help us out. How far his suggestion will get, I do not know; but I do not imagine it will be very far. I should like to spend some time discussing the matter, but I shall defer it to some future occasion.
Suffice it to say that in a broadcast in October, 1944, Mr. Roosevelt said that he meant to find jobs for 60 million Americans by trebling the exports of that country abroad. Then this Canadian Prime Minister goes to that country and asks President Truman, the successor to President Roosevelt, to decrease exports abroad. It is pretty hard to get much sense out of that.
The Prime Minister at one point in his speech on the address placed great confidence in the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I am glad he did. It seems to me there are those in the house who would appear to endeavour to undermine that great Canadian. They need not undermine him, because he is not to blame for the troubles of this country. He has done a magnificent job wherever he has had the chance to do it, and has been given a free hand. Let us spend our time on someone other than the Right Hon. C. D. Howe when we wish to lay the blame.
The Prime Minister made two statements which pleased me. Speaking about the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. C. D. Howe), and quoting himself, he said this:
He knows the problems are still thorny and there is no easy solution-but I will venture the prediction that if Mr. Howe and those who are working with him don't find a solution, there won't be one to find.
I will say this, to qualify the Prime Minister's general remarks, that if the Right Hon. C. D. Howe and those working with him do not find a solution, it will probably be because there are restrictions placed upon them which prevent their doing the things their native intelligence and understanding would prompt them to do. The Prime Minister later said:
In those statements I said it was a serious problem but I did not believe-and I do not believe- any man in Canada is better qualified to handle it than the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I am not sure about that; I think I could find several men who have the vision and understanding which would enable them to know what to do without having to learn it, as I fear Mr. Howe will have to do. But they would not be able to do it if the present Liberal government were in charge, telling them how far they could go and how much they could do.


There is a solution to the trade problem, beyond question. Whether or not Mr. Howe will find it will depend upon several things. Meanwhile I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question-and I wish he were here, because I think the Canadian people deserve an answer to my question: Would the Prime Minister give the Right Hon. C. D. Howe a free hand if he were to come to the Prime Minister and were to say, "Mr. Prime Minister, after the most careful study of everything pertaining to our trade problem, I have become convinced that the only means whereby that problem can be solved is through the principles of social credit".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh yes, we hear the silly laugh. These people would sit over there, and see us go right down into the depths of a depression 75 per cent worse than the one in the thirties. They would still shrug useless shoulders and wring helpless hands; they would still refuse to listen to anyone who knows what to do, and would continue never to give any suggestion, themselves, what to do. I have watched such people for fifteen years, all Liberals. I know what those men will do. They do not know anything, and they do not want to know anything. All they can think about is promises.


Mr. Hansell:: All they can do is giggle.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. Another question is this:	If the Right Hon. C. D. Howe came to
the Prime Minister and asked for permission to employ social credit principles and the Prime Minister in turn came before a caucus of the Liberal party and asked permission, what would Liberal members do? I wonder how long their confidence in the Right Hon. C. D. Howe would last? I wonder how long it would be before they demanded his resignation?


An hon. Member:: Let us get back on the rails.


John Horne Blackmore: We are just exactly on the rails, and the hon. member will understand that, if he will give it some thought instead of giving quite so much thought to politics. The point is that someone has to find a way out of the difficulty; someone has to suggest a means of solving the American dollar problem and the Canadian dollar problem, so that we can sell a greater quantity of goods to Great Britain.
Up to the present time there has not been any hint of a solution of that problem, or anything looking like a solution from anyone in the Liberal party, or, indeed, anyone from the Progressive Conservative party.


An hon. Member:: What about the Social Credit party?


John Horne Blackmore: Social Credit literature is full of it; and if the hon. member will look into it and prepare himself he will understand it. He cannot if he does not prepare himself, any more than he could understand algebra if he did not give it some thought.
What answer would the leader of the official opposition give if he were asked the same question about using social credit principles by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe? I wonder how long the Minister of Trade and Commerce would last before him? I imagine it would be just a little bit shorter time than he would last before the Liberal party.
It is too bad one has to say this about the Progressive Conservative party, but one hears long speeches, as we did yesterday from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew),-excellent, beautiful, sonorous speeches, delivered with great dignity, and all the rest of it. They make a fine appearance-but there is not one single hint of what to do about our problems, not one single suggestion that they really understand what is wrong. I say we have a right to a little more than that.
If the Prime Minister were so courageous as to give Mr. Howe the green light as regards Social Credit, as I have suggested, I am wondering what the Department of Finance would do? Would they co-operate with Mr. Howe? These questions must all be answered before all the talk about solving our problems can mean anything at all.
Here we are with thirteen and a half million people, one of the richest countries on the face of the earth in resources, human and material. We have a fine accumulation of capital in our railroads, our banks and our industries. We have everything that it takes to manage this country and make it a country in which everybody would be happy to live- everything except just a little bit of common sense.
Anyone must realize that when people are living in a very rich country and are mortally afraid of increasing production beyond a certain point for fear prices will go down and everything come to ruin, then there must be something fundamentally wrong with their thinking-when it is believed that the more production you are capable of, the worse off you will be and the more you will have to worry about. Whenever the Liberals get to feeling that they can make light of what other people say, in such a situation, the time has come for them to tackle the problem themselves in the dark hours of the night until they reach a solution. It just does not make sense to do otherwise.
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
I hope hon. members will tolerate me when I put forward a supposition that is rather far-fetched. I am going to suppose that the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) would come to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as he will have to when he gets all the facts. He comes to the Prime Minister and says, "I have been giving a lot of thought to the problems which confront us, to this shortage of dollars that is everywhere apparent within our own country and out of it, to the fluctuation of prices and the general dangers, and have come to the conclusion that there is only one possible solution, the solution which the Social Credit-ers offer."


An hon. Member:: That is far-fetched.


John Horne Blackmore: I said it would be, but it is correct. It is just as correct as the radio was correct 75 years ago, but hon. members of that time never knew it. He would say, "I find that Social Credit means the use of the full productive capacity of the community working together to produce desired goods." Then the right hon. minister would go on to say: "Full production requires that money shall be the servant of the producers. In other words, when a farmer wants to produce sheep and the nation needs sheep, he could get money to produce sheep. Full production requires that the consumers shall be able to consume our production as well as what we trade our production for."
"This means that money must also be sufficient in the hands of the consumers as well as in the hands of the producers. The key to our problem then must be money."
"How would Social Creditors proceed if they were dealing with the complex problem with which we are now confronted? A Social Credit administration would accept as a definite principle of national policy that the Canadian finance department would create debt-free Canadian dollars sufficient to enable consumers to consume Canadian production." There should not be any serious objection to that, should there? If we create dollar bills to lend for production, why not create them to be put into circulation to consume our production?


An hon. Member:: What about wheat?


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member will remember that I said what we produced or what we exchanged our production for, although he may not have caught that. If we cannot buy all our wheat ourselves we cannot buy the goods for which the wheat is traded when they get here. That is quite obvious and I am sure the hon. member sees it.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
Social Crediters would lay down the fundamental principle that if the government can create a dollar bill to put into a person's hands as a loan for production, it can just as easily create a dollar bill with which to pay a pension to consume goods. If it is possible to create dollars to produce Canadian production, it is possible to create dollars to consume Canadian production.
A Social Credit administration would bring down living costs by what Social Crediters call a compensated discount. In effect such a device amounts to a consumers' subsidy scientifically computed from period to period by the employment of a formula based upon the demand and supply situation currently prevailing within the nation. The money would not be taken out of taxation.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John Horne Blackmore: Before six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the solution of our trade and marketing problems. I had suggested that the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in seeking their solution, had satisfied himself that the only possible method lay in the adoption of social credit principles. I was supposing that he was telling his Prime Minister what a social credit administration would do and how it would do it. I had him saying that a social credit administration would accept as a definite principle of national policy that the Canadian finance department would create enough debt-free Canadian dollars to enable consumers to absorb Canadian production. Second, a social credit administration would bring down living costs by what Social Crediters call a compensated discount. Such a device in effect means a consumers' subsidy scientifically computed from period to period by the employment of a formula based upon the demand and supply situation currently prevailing within the nation.
I now have him proceeding with the third thing a social credit administration would do. That is, by various means resembling dividends, allowances, pensions and so on it would distribute to consumers additional purchasing power sufficient to balance consumption or effective demand with supply.
Then I would think the minister would say something like this: "Now, my dear Prime Minister, bearing in mind that the No. 1 problem of Canadians is to find markets for their products, any informed and thoughtful

man must concede that the general idea and approach of the Social Crediters appear to be realistic."
"Many are averse to critically examining cur money system; but why should we assume that our financial system is perfect? Everything else is changing. What reason can be advanced to suggest that our use of money needs no streamlining?" In the Bank of Canada report of February 10, 1944, Mr. Towers wrote:
A working force of this size, at present rates of efficiency, will be able to produce a vastly greater volume of civilian goods and services than Canada has ever known before. By the same token, a vastly increased volume of consumption and capital development will be necessary if this output is going to be fully absorbed and high employment maintained. The adjustments required will clearly be of unprecedented magnitude, and bold planning on the part of labour, farm and business organizations, as well as governments, is urgently needed.
Why should we not expect to have to make in our financial system at least a few of those adjustments of unprecedented magnitude? Nothing in the report by Mr. Towers indicates that he would rule out adjustments in the Canadian financial system.
Careful consideration has been given to possible appropriate adjustments to be made in the Canadian financial system. In this connection an impressive pronouncement was made by Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, for years chairman of the Midland Bank in England. The statement appears in the London Times of January 30, 1936, in the course of a report to the shareholders of that bank. It reads:
Additional currency, however, can now be furnished by the authorities, if they choose to exercise their powers without reference to the central bank's holding of gold. Thus the nineteenth century, which brought into general use a means of payment hitherto scarcely known outside London, brought also the machinery whereby it could be subjected to intelligent control.
We learned that a shortage of money may be just as vicious in its effects as an excess, though deflation has still a touch of virtue about it in the minds of many people. Nevertheless it is becoming more and more widely recognized that greater productivity calls for an increased supply of money, for otherwise prices will fall, business will stagnate, and the growing productive capacity will be unused.
For money to be truly "sound" there must be enough of it to finance an ordinarily growing volume of trade, yet not so much as to give rise to an inflationary movement of prices.
Those words raise this question: What have we Canadians a right to expect of our financial system? Most orthodox financiers would reply, "Well, we expect our financial system to give Canada a sound money system". Quite true. Very well; what is a sound financial system? What should it provide for a country? And is ours a sound financial system when judged in accordance with those requirements? I wonder if anyone

would disagree when I contend that a sound money system should first enable us to have money for public financing; second, money for all the production our resources render possible and our people need; third, for exchanging our goods; and fourth, for consuming our goods?
Beyond all question our system is failing to supply adequate money for consumption. Otherwise why should so many people be without the means of buying goods, and why should so many people who are producing be without the means of selling? Our system is resulting in a very serious debt burden. It is failing to provide our people with a standard of living commensurate with our productive capacity. To put it in another way, in Canada today the government has no means by which it can render financially possible what is physically possible.
These four deficiencies in our financial system constitute a severe handicap to Canadians. These deficiencies justify an exacting scrutiny of our financial system. It is time for the adjustments which probably were envisaged in Mr. Towers' report. The only proposals that seem capable of remedying these deficiencies in our financial system are those of the Social Credit party. I invite hon. members to examine the statements I have made, bearing in mind that no matter how many people were elected as Liberals on June 27 last the people of Canada have a right to expect that this parliament shall deliver the goods, and that it will find a solution to the vexatious world-wide problems now confronting us.
I am sure that all hon. members, who remember exactly what has been said and done up to this moment, will contend that we have fallen far shorter of the objective we ought to have than makes us feel comfortable. Is there some way out? I maintain there must be a way out because we have learned how to produce more goods than we can use.
If a realistic financial system were adopted, such as I have indicated but not gone into in great detail, it would make a tremendous difference to many problems with which we are confronted in our country.
In the first place, we could solve our international trade problem in this manner. We could create debt-free money in Canada, Canadian dollars which are necessary in paying for the things we desire to export, and which Britain and the other countries need. We could lend these dollars to Britain or other prospective customers to allow them to buy our goods directly. Some will say that does not make sense. If hon. members will read a fine document in the library entitled
The Address-Mr. Blackmore "The United States in the World Economy", they will find that the United States adopted a very similar lending policy in 1920. That policy was continued all through what was known as the roaring twenties, when the United States sold her goods with great success. In the process, of course, other nations incurred to her a debt that would never be repaid. Only when the United States ceased this foreign lending policy did the depression commence.
It can be shown that lending money to neighbouring nations to buy our goods has been practised time and again with great success, particularly by Great Britain. If this method were adopted, I shall not discuss the matter of repayment, but that could be arranged or the debt could be cancelled. The important thing is to sell these goods. Before anyone has too much to say, I should remind him that if he wants to ask any questions, that is all right. Do not say something that is going to reveal a lack of judgment. Before men have too much to say, just let them look into these matters. Read the book entitled, "The United States in the World Economy", and you will be greatly enlightened. You will realize that we are facing a problem similar to that which faced the United States in 1920.
If the advice which social credit has given were applied to our internal problems, it would result in increased consumer purchasing power. It would put the purchasing power in the hands of the people enabling them to buy the goods which the nation produces. This would result in raising the standard of living for everyone, and would provide markets. It sounds strange to those who have never thought about it before, but the further one delves into a study of it, the more convinced one becomes that the Social Crediters have something.
Now, what would social credit's use of this debt-free money do in respect to old age pensions? Last night the Prime Minister gave us a rather forbidding picture of what he expected would happen to us if we began to pay all the people over sixty-five $100 per month. The bill would amount to something over a billion dollars. Why worry about a billion dollars?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: That sounds funny, but does it not sound ridiculous that a nation that is producing $16,500 million worth of goods in a year cannot provide a billion dollars for its aged people. Laugh that off. A nation that can produce $16,500 million worth of milk, butter, cheese, clothing, shelter, etc., cannot produce one and a half billion dollars for the elderly people! Such a nation needs
106	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore to have something done to its head. There is no doubt about that. What leads people into bewildered thinking is the belief that all the money we use to distribute goods has to come out of the taxpayer's pocket. This is not so, as the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna clearly indicates.
In respect of old age pensions, let me say that we would not pay them according to how much we could take from the taxpayer; we would pay them in accordance with the amount of goods we were producing. Certainly, if every person in Canada over sixty-five years of age were receiving $100 per month, it would represent an important factor in the event of the onset of a depression. If it could be done without increasing taxation, surely it is the responsibility of the members of this house to see that it is done.
Suppose we turn now to the Indian problem. I believe everyone in this house will agree that the aged Indian should be receiving an old age pension. Everyone agrees that we have neglected our Indians in the matter of education. Everyone agrees that there should be an Indian claims commission to give the Indian a fair deal such as he was promised by those with whom he made the first agreements a hundred years ago. Everyone agrees that the Indian ought to have the money with which to start out. Yet, in all these ways we are neglecting our Indians in a manner which is a public scandal. Indians are not being neglected because we do not want to do right by them but because we do not know how to finance; not because we cannot produce all the goods and services to provide the Indian with all the fine things he ought to have, but because we do not know how to put those goods and services in the hands of the Indians.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this whole situation constitutes a cause for serious thought. It has been said that the people of my group are engaged in being gloom mongers, but that is far from the case. When I first came here as a member 14 years ago, the Hon. W. R. Motherwell, whom some members may remember, who was the premier of Saskatchewan at one time and federal minister of agriculture, one of the finest men who ever sat in this house-


Mr. Boucher:: May I ask the hon. member who has the floor to tell me the year in which the Hon. Mr. Motherwell was premier of Saskatchewan?


John Horne Blackmore: I shall finish my speech first. He was the minister of agriculture in this House of Commons. If I made a misstatement as to his having been premier of Saskatchewan, I shall take it back, but it has nothing to do with my general argument.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: If I have said something bad about him, it would be a terrible thing.


William Albert Boucher: It certainly would.


John Horne Blackmore: But I did not.


William Albert Boucher: You could not.


John Horne Blackmore: No, I did not. Mr. Motherwell said that this Social Credit group constituted the only bright spot in this house. As the days go by, you will find that this group does constitute the only bright spot in the house, because it is the only group that can see its way through the difficulties. Others cannot see, not because the light did not shine, but because the people who should have seen it were blind and could not see it.
The point is that the Social Crediters, being the people who think in terms of the new economy, see only cause for rejoicing in the great increases in production. Why should there not be rejoicing when we can produce more of everything than man can consume? If we were unable to do so that would be a real cause for worry, but we are able to produce so much more with our wonderful machines, with our wonderful ability to use solar energy, our knowledge about plastics and many other things. We have now reached the point where we can produce more than the world can use. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there are now at least a billion people in the world who are on the verge of starvation; people who are actually suffering for want of the goods that we can produce. In the face of this, we are contemplating methods of limiting our production because we do not know how to distribute those goods in our own country, much less among the people abroad.
The group of people who see in this wonderful productive capacity of this world a cause for joy certainly cannot be called gloom mongers. The world has never been in a happier time than it is today, if we only knew how to live in an age of abundance, instead of continuing to try to live in an age of abundance by using a financial system adapted only for an age of scarcity. Our financial system was built up to meet conditions of an age of scarcity. We now have reached a time when we have an age of abundance. The use of machines, solar energy and other devices has displaced man; and because we cannot employ men and give jobs, we do not know what in the world to do with them, and we do not know what to do with the goods which they could buy if they could get the money with which to buy them. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that there is every reason for rejoicing. No generation in this world has ever been so blessed as this generation, and no people on this earth

are more blessed than the Canadian people. Let us look up. Let us think our way out of the difficulty. It will require new thought and new energy; but in my judgment the members of this house are capable of that new thought and of that new energy for devising new means.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: In taking part in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, my first remarks should be those of congratulation to the mover and seconder of the address. I thought they both did a masterly job, especially the mover, who was extremely tactful in the delivery of his speech. [DOT]
I also want to congratulate one who has become a sincere friend of mine since I have been in the House of Commons on his elevation to a cabinet portfolio; I refer to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris). I am sure that he will do justice to the position he now occupies, judging from his performance in the years I have known him in this House of Commons.
In the speech from the throne there is reference to the proposal of a general conference early next autumn between the provincial governments and our federal government in order that matters of mutual concern might be discussed. I would think that the welfare of municipal organizations throughout Canada, both urban and rural, should be of some concern now. With that in' mind, I believe that heads of provincial and municipal organizations should be invited to participate in this proposed conference. Within this federal cabinet there is apparently a complete lack of understanding of many basic municipal problems. According to the Canadian Parliamentary Guide, I find that not one of the present federal ministers is shown as having had municipal administrative experience. That situation is unique, when you consider the fact that the ministers represent all parts of this nation from coast to coast.
I want to refer especially to the matter of grants to municipalities in lieu of taxation. This matter is also mentioned in the speech from the throne. I happened to receive a copy of lengthy correspondence which the Winnipeg and Manitoba chambers of commerce mailed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) under date of January 30, 1950. I want to endorse wholeheartedly the arguments contained in that correspondence, but I do not intend to quote it. I wish, however, to say that with respect to Winnipeg, in which there is federal property valued at over $7 million and assessed at $5 million, that is slightly over 2 per cent of their assessment; therefore under 55946-81
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross this 4 per cent regulation of the federal government they are not entitled to any grants. As I say, I want to endorse that argument wholeheartedly.
More than that, at our Manitoba municipal convention last fall, which is recognized as the municipal parliament in Manitoba, the province from which I come, there was keen discussion on this matter of federal grants in lieu of taxation, and a strong resolution was passed there requesting reconsideration of that matter. I would hope that the government would reconsider their attitude, because most if not all of the cities west of the great lakes do not qualify at all under the present regulations.
Then there was the matter of federal aid to education. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I set forth on this issue at the last session of parliament, but I want to endorse all of the remarks so ably made in debate yesterday by the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low). I thought he did a splendid job with respect to his arguments on federal aid to education. Having regard to my own leader, Mr. Drew, the people of Ontario especially recognize what a splendid job he did and what a splendid reputation he now has as the result of being minister of education in a government in Ontario: and he fully endorses federal aid to education.
In Manitoba the cost of education is borne to the extent of 75 per cent by a levy on real estate. That is an absurd situation. We have districts in which the highest-assessed land in the district has not produced any revenue over a period of three or four years: in one district that was because of flooding. Yet that property pays the biggest tax of any property there, for school purposes. When you think of such an inadequate system, under which 75 per cent of the cost of education throughout the province is obtained through a levy on real estate, you can see that it is completely out of date. Without repeating my arguments of last session, I want to endorse wholeheartedly the matter of federal aid to education and also to say, as was said by the leader of the Social Credit party, that I am greatly disappointed, after our debate last session, that no mention of this matter was contained in the speech from the throne at this time. That matter also was dealt with at the municipal parliament of Manitoba or the municipal convention last fall, and a strong resolution was passed asking federal aid for education and also criticizing severely our provincial department of education in Manitoba for not doing more than they are doing. I am sorry to have to be so critical of our Manitoba Department of Education, but they have

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross failed miserably with respect to their financial contribution to education throughout the province, and they have failed in other ways apart from that. I am sorry to say that they are so far behind the departments of education in many other provinces.
Reference was also made in the speech from the throne to the downward adjustment in the price of farm products. That is an important issue from coast to coast in Canada at this particular time, and all the more so when you consider the manner in which the producers have been misled by various federal government ministers throughout the past years and encouraged to expand their production. I wish to remind the house and the country that this government from 1942 to 1949, by their policy of, as a neighbour of mine said, "Gardinerizing" Canadian agriculture, has cost the farmer producers of Canada approximately $2,000 million that they might have had if they had been permitted to market their production on the same basis as the farmers of the United States, that great nation to the south of us. That is a great deal of money which they might have had in good times in order to tide them over the depressing market situation that now faces us suddenly. That is what it cost our producers through controls and embargoes imposed by our own government throughout those years. A recent survey of the Sanford Evans bureau in Winnipeg has pointed out that, with respect to wheat, in the period 1945 to 1949, the Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement has already cost the Canadian farmers $536,229,978. That is the loss, the difference between what the farmers in the United States received for a like number of bushels of their product and the amount received by our agriculturalists. According to that bureau, the average half section in western Canada had a loss each year of $1,064; or on a bushel basis the United States farmer received approximately 50 cents more per bushel for his wheat than his Canadian neighbour all during those four years.
At a given point, North Portal, where the main street divides the village, and the United States farmer delivers his grain to the elevator on one side of the street and the Canadian farmer delivers his grain on the opposite side of the street, according to market prices of February 7, 1950, which is not many days ago, the United States of America farmer received at the elevator, equal to Canadian funds, $2.14 per bushel. The Canadian farmer received $1,581 per bushel, or a difference of 551 cents per bushel. Therefore you will see, Mr. Speaker, that since the survey

of the Sanford Evans bureau, instead of our loss improving since it was made it is becoming greatly aggravated as the days go by.
Then quite recently the federal government have changed the terms of the final year of the wheat agreement, not in the interests of the wheat producers but rather in the interests of certain other producers who had received much better treatment from this government throughout the war years than did the wheat producer. In that respect I should like to quote from part of an editorial of the Winnipeg Free Press of December 23, headed "Sacrificing the prairies."
Latest reports from Ottawa are to the effect that by agreement between the United Kingdom and Canadian governments $2,500,000 is being diverted from the purchase of wheat to lumber. This is the third diversion of this kind to be reported in the past few days. The three amount to $30 million or to 15 million bushels at $2 per bushel.
Under the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement the British government is pledged to buy 140 million bushels at $2 per bushel, Fort William, in the crop year ending July 31, 1950. This is the fourth and final year of the agreement. Beyond July 31, 1950, there is no contract and, according to Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, no likelihood of one. It is clearly understood, however, that the quantity of wheat not sold under the contract because of these diversions will be bought by the United Kingdom at the price of $2 per bushel in the crop year 1950-51.
There has been a good deal of loose talk about the diversion from wheat to bacon, lumber and salmon. It has been presented here in the west as a mere postponement of the sale of a few million bushels of wheat, which will not really touch the pocket book of western farmers.
This is not true. The wheat producers of the west should note carefully what is happening to them under the political control of their business. This so-called diversion of cash from wheat to other products means the loss by the wheat growers of this money. There is no diversion at all. To the extent involved-$30 million as the figures now stand-the people who will receive it will not be wheat producers here in the west but hog producers largely in the east and lumber and salmon producers. This money will be irretrievably lost to the wheat producers.
In debates in past years I have pointed out the great advantage that the eastern hog producers had over our western people. In any successful business I think that we should feed our stock on the farm where the feed is produced rather than clutter up the transport system and the manpower problem; but at one time in Canada, owing to free freight on feed grain coming east, and other advantages, there was an advantage to the eastern hog producers of $9 per hog. That was a matter of $125 million of subsidies of free freight which all the taxpayers of Canada paid for. That is only one little example of very much of this business. Both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his parliamentary assistant encouraged agricultural producers of wheat, bacon, poultry, dairy

products, fruit and vegetables, and so on, to expand their production year after year throughout this country, telling those producers that, by taking less than prevailing world prices during wartime and after the war, they were assured of good overseas markets in the future. You know of the glowing pictures of future export trade which were painted during the election campaign last year by both the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture.
In a recent speech at London the Minister of Agriculture stated that he had information and had known for two years past, that Britain did not want to buy further produce from Canada other than her wheat. Can you imagine a responsible minister of the government, who had that information, encouraging as far as possible the expansion of agricultural production in this country? I know of many poultry people and others who had invested their money in plant expansion. Now they are suddenly informed that they had been misled, that there are no markets for them. I think it is most unfair that if these ministers had that information it was not imparted to those producers throughout the country.
I have been amazed to read in papers from coast to coast reports of the speech of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. I shall quote a paragraph from the British Columbia Country Life:
Advice of Robert McCubbin, parliamentary assistant to Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, to his fellow farmers, so the Canadian press reports, is that they develop their own markets and do not rely on the dominion government to help them secure outlets. Under normal circumstances, that would be sound advice but under present circumstances it is difficult to understand how such advice could be followed, because the farmers are helpless, in respect of developing markets within the British commonwealth of nations and in foreign countries.
It is difficult to understand. I have great respect for this gentleman to whom I am referring. He is the parliamentary assistant to the minister and assisted him in encouraging the farmers from coast to coast to expand their development; and by controls, embargoes and so on made it impossible for these same producers to obtain what they might have obtained during those years. Now when they find themselves in this dilemma they are put on their own to find markets to sell their produce. I say that is a very surprising statement to come from one occupying the position of parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. He apparently spoke as one of and for the government. He supported every one of these measures of control and embargo to which I have referred.
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross and which prevented those producers from obtaining as much revenue as they otherwise might have obtained.
Also during those war years the ex-prime minister, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, and the Minister of Agriculture, assured us repeatedly that by taking less money than they otherwise might have obtained these overseas markets were being assured to those producers in the future. Therefore it is all the more disappointing. I cannot find language strong enough to emphasize the seriousness of this situation. Since I am one of those who have spent their lives studying agriculture, I believe it to be the basic industry of this country upon which all other industries must build if we are to have a prosperous and united people in Canada. Therefore a great and serious obligation rests upon this government to make good some of those losses during the very trying and difficult days that lie ahead of us in the near future.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. I want to urge the government to set up a standing committee of the .House of Commons on veterans' affairs. I think that is very important. There are many problems which face our veterans in this country. Reference has been made in the speech from the throne to bills which will be introduced having to do with veterans' problems. That in itself is further proof of the necessity of what I suggest.
In my opinion the consolidated measure in connection with national defence, when it is introduced, should be referred to a comniittee for consideration. I realize that last year the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) had strong arguments against the formation of such a committee. If he still retains those arguments, then I would point out to him that he himself is a veteran and I am sure every veteran, irrespective of the corner of the house in which he may sit, is vitally interested in national defence at this time. I would imagine that, if a special committee were set up to consider matters connected with national defence, many of the members who served on veterans' committees would be members of such a special committee at this session. Therefore I urge with all the power at my command that a veterans' committee of the house be set up to look after veterans' affairs, and that this very important measure should be referred to it.
I wish to quote some observations of the Minister of National Defence which appeared some time ago in Maclean's magazine. He stated:
One reason why parliament has not functioned better is that 245 members cannot get down to close grips with a subject. Also there is not enough

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross time for the whole house to deal with everything. Hence, the practice of referring specific matters to committees for study and report should be extended.
Then he states further on:.
Committees should sit regularly on matters like manpower and labour, financial and economic questions, reconstruction, external affairs and information, munitions and supplies, agriculture,-
And then the very points contained in the new bill-
-the navy, the army and the air force.
This is his own expression as published in Maclean's some time ago.
He says:
The United States Senate has .forty-seven committees exercising great power. We do not need anything like that number. The close connection of our executive with our legislative branches makes it unnecessary. Fifteen working committees of our house, most of them only meeting through half the session, would do the job. My fifth point, therefore, is: Whenever possible a matter of major importance should be referred to a committee of parliament and where necessary the committee should be provided with adequate research assistance.
I am sure there is no one in the country who would not agree that this is a very important matter and that the committee should deal with those very items set forth so well by the Minister of National Defence. As I say, I know there would not be many who would not be interested in a veterans' committee, and I urge the necessity of such a committee so that this bill may be referred to it for consideration.
I have already referred to the speeches of one parliamentary assistant, when I have been discussing this matter of veterans' affairs. There is another parliamentary assistant, a very good friend of mine, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch), to whom I would refer. Knowing him, as I have known him most of my life, I find it most difficult to understand the speech he made only the other day to a businessmen's club in Toronto. More especially do I find it difficult to understand when I point out that he is parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg). His speech is reported in the Toronto Daily Star, a newspaper which, after all, has been rather friendly at times to this government, I believe. The article is headed "Social Security under Fire" and states:
In addressing the Toronto Liberal Businessmen's Association, Mr. Leslie Mutch, Liberal M.P. for Winnipeg South, had some hard things to say about social security. He is quoted as stating that "social security in Canada is an ill-fitting garment that hampers our development and could strangle us." Mr. Mutch might have stopped there and felt he had put social security in its place. But he saw fit to add that social security "is the excuse of the lazy, the narcotic of the weak-willed and the refuge of the coward."


With those remarks and more along the same line, Mr. Mutch left no doubt that he does not approve of social security. The revelation might be of slight interest were it not that Mr. Mutch is parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in a Liberal administration.
I recollect that this hon. member was out campaigning against me in my riding last summer. I happen to have with me one of the advertisements which appeared so frequently in all newspapers throughout Canada, and which dealt with social security. "Vote Liberal For Your Future Social Security". Is this not a strange set of circumstances? It is difficult to find a reasonable explanation for it.
There is another matter I should like to mention, and my reason for bringing it up now is that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) did make reference to it yesterday. He referred several times to the House of Commons, and the overwhelming majority this government received last June. As to the number of members elected, I am bound to agree with him. I believe he stated yesterday, if I heard him correctly, that 73 per cent of the constituencies in Canada by their votes certainly approved of this government and its policies.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemonl):: Very good.


Mr. Rowe:: Just approved the part he told them.


Alphonse Fournier: And
it will be repeated.


James Arthur Ross: There have been very few sessions since I came to the House of Commons that I have not spoken in favour of the transferable vote. Therefore I cannot be accused of advocating something new because of the present set of circumstances. However, it could happen the opposite way in another election.
Let me place on record some figures released to the Canadian Press on August 24. The article states:
A record total of 5,856,307 votes was cast in the June 27 general election compared with 5,246,130 in the 1945 election, it was disclosed Tuesday by Jules Castonguay, chief electoral officer.
The Liberal party, returned to power with an overwhelming majority, received 2,926,029 votes in the last election compared with 2,170,625 in 1945.
The Progressive Conservatives, second largest group in the commons, polled 1,742,235, compared with 1,455,453.
Then the article gives the figures for the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties.
The point I wish to make clear is that it is indicated by this statement from the chief electoral officer that the majority of people who cast their votes on June 27 did not vote for the present government in Canada.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh,
oh; that is a good one.


James Arthur Ross: To break that down, just a shade under 50 per cent of the electors obtained 75 per cent of the government seats. Approximately 30 per cent elected 16 per cent of the seats occupied by the Progressive Conservative party; 13 per cent of the voters elected 5 per cent of the seats occupied by the C.C.F.; and approximately 7 per cent elected the 4 per cent occupied by Social Credit and other members.
In other words, on the basis of these figures it required approximately 15,160' votes to elect a Liberal last June, as compared with about 42,540 to elect a Progressive Conservative. Then, at that general election there were some 121 members elected to this House of Commons by minority votes within their ridings.


Mr. Cruickshank:: And some by majority votes, too.


James Arthur Ross: The balance were
majority votes. I am stating my argument in favour of the transferable vote, as it has been in operation in Manitoba and Alberta for many years. In each of those provinces, before a candidate can be elected he must have received a majority of ballots cast on election day. In my view that is the only democratic way.


James Garfield Gardiner: It made a difference in only three by-elections.


James Arthur Ross: I am not saying anything about that. I do say that members should be elected by a majority of the people. I have been here as a minority candidate- on other occasions as a candidate elected by a clear majority. However, I feel strongly in the matter because I believe some day we will find ourselves in great difficulty because a majority of the people have not elected our representatives to parliament. I admit that I have been on both sides, and I think I made that quite clear. I urge the government to amend the Dominion Elections Act to provide for the transferable vote before another election occurs in this dominion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That will give us a larger majority.


James Arthur Ross: That is O.K. with me if the electors so decide. Then we had the withholding of the report of the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act on the flour-milling industry which was dated December 29, 1948, but withheld until November 7, 1949. In the debates that followed we had both the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross absolutely contradicting the statements they had previously made during the last session of parliament.
Then on December 9, 1949, as recorded on page 2983 of Hansard, there is the silly statement of the Minister of Justice that it was quite impossible for him to comply with the act and make public the report within the required fifteen days. Then he reversed himself by the action he took later on when he made public the reports on the glass and match industries within the fifteen-day period required by the act. In that connection I should like to quote from an editorial in Maclean's magazine of December 15, 1949, as follows:
This government has been guilty of deliberate defiance of the law, by the very men sworn to administer it. This is an offence that ought not to be forgiven.
By the Combines Investigation Act, the Minister of Justice is obliged to publish any report of the combines investigation commissioner within fifteen days of receiving it. That clause has been kept in the act by the government's own insistence. A couple of years ago John Diefenbaker urged them to modify it-he thought it too rigid, leaving the minister no option but to publish even an unfair report. The government brushed him off. The "white light of publicity" was just what they wanted, they said; abolition of that clause would defeat the main purpose of the act.
That was their attitude until December 29, 1948, when Fred McGregor turned in his report on the flour milling industry.
And then again:
So, in the words of justice minister Stuart Garson, the government "took the responsibility" of ignoring the law. Instead of publishing the McGregor report, they sat on it until after the election.
This action is indefensible-as the government well knows. No coherent defence of it has been attempted. Liberal M.P.'s admit cheerfully that the government is wholly in the wrong, but they add cynically that the voters will have forgotten it by 1953.
If we forget that easily we deserve the kind of treatment we've been getting.
Then this afternoon I listened to my good friend, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), refer to the generosity of the Minister of Justice. I am sure the hon. member would have obtained endorsation of his statement if he had consulted with the officials of the millers' association. I am sure they would have told him that they also appreciated the great generosity of our Minister of Justice. At page 79 of the report it is stated that in effect the millers' association had a double set of minutes. Surely that matter should have been looked into, but yet the report was withheld until the time had expired when anybody could institute legal action against the millers. Only the courts of this land could decide whether they were guilty or not.
112	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
As I say, I am sure that my hon. friend would have found endorsation of his statement as to the generosity of the Minister of Justice. I wonder about the people in our country, especially those in our high schools, our universities and churches. They are endeavouring to teach our young people respect for the law of the land. I can well remember my teachings and that previously I had never known of a minister of justice, irrespective of what political affiliation he may have had, who was not possessed of character and high principles or who could be pushed around.
There should be respect for our parliamentary institutions. That respect should be instilled very strongly in the minds of the younger people of this nation. Yet those young people are today openly saying that this session of parliament has opened with the same minister at the head of that great Department of Justice for which we have had such great respect, and that is considered to be a direct reflection on the Prime Minister of this nation who is responsible for his appointment. I feel keenly about this. I do not think it matters whether certain ministers on the front benches are here, individually, or whether I am here, but I am concerned about the example being set before the rising generation, especially when they are faced with the difficulties they have to contend with in growing up to manhood and womanhood.
I have been amazed at the lighthearted attitude of the Minister of Justice toward such a serious matter as this. We held him in deep respect when he was in Manitoba.
I regret his attitude toward such a serious matter and the example he has set as head of this important department to the young Canadian citizens who are growing up.
In conclusion I want to urge as strongly as I can upon the government that as agriculture is the basic industry of all national progress upon which all other industries in Canada must build, the same basis of income tax exemption should be allowed to the Canadian farmer for building, equipment or plant expansion during 1949 or 1950 as has been allowed to industry. Respectable floor price legislation should be provided immediately for agricultural products. The policy for the handling and disposal of the 1950 wheat crop should be made known before the Easter recess so that our farmers may have this information before seeding time.
I urge that the Crowsnest pass freight agreement be left on the statute books and be not placed in the hands of the transport commission. I urge that provision be made for the granting of federal aid to education. This is most essential, as has been pointed
LMr. Ross (Souris).1

out by members on all sides of the house, as in different parts of the country there is great inequality in the opportunities afforded for education.. There is nothing more important in this nation today than education.
I urge that the federal properties grants in lieu of local taxes scheme be reconsidered and a more equitable and reasonable plan worked out and offered to the municipalities. I urge that the committee of the House of Commons on veterans' affairs be set up and that when the consolidation measure in connection with national defence is introduced it be referred to this committee for consideration. I urge that the elections act be amended and provision made for the use of the transferable vote.
I shall support the amendment moved by my leader and seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), which reads:
That the following words be added to the said address:
"We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers have:
(1)	failed to take adequate measures to preserve and expand markets for Canada's surplus products of farm, forest, sea and mine, and to deal with the problems of increasing unemployment and reduced income to Canadian farmers and other producers; and
(2)	failed to take steps to inaugurate a national contributory system of old age pensions without a means test; and
(3)	deliberately violated a law of this parliament by illegally suppressing the report of the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act on the flour milling industry for ten months, including the period of the recent general election campaign, and denied to parliament information essential to the performance of its duty and the maintenance of responsible government; and
(4) failed to take adequate measures to curb espionage and other harmful activities of communists in Canada.
For these and other reasons we respectfully submit that Your Excellency's advisers are not entitled to the confidence of this house."
(Translation) :


Mr. Pierre Gauihier (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, it is always comforting to note that in the House of Commons we can use either of the two languages said to be official in Canada and1 speak in our mother tongue or in the language which is said to be that of the majority. We wish Canada to become a bilingual country and I think that where there is a will there is a way. Moreover, the example set in this house should spread throughout the country. The friendly tussles of days gone by have ended. This means that Canada, with its religious and political freedom and its dual culture can, nay should, become one of the great countries of the world.
It is customary, and the tradition is commendable. to congratulate the mover and

seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am delighted to do so because these two gentlemen, younger members of the house, acquitted themselves like veterans.
Naturally, I am better acquainted with the riding represented by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) since I toured it a few years ago. I notice that he devoted special attention to the mining problem.
The constituency of Portneuf and especially its population are concerned with mining matters because the county has very rich mineral deposits. In fact, one mine is already in operation and another soon will be. Moreover, I am sure others will be developed in the near future.
I therefore congratulate the two hon. members for a good job well done and I am certain that the house and their constituents are very grateful.
Mr. Speaker, last week we received the sad news of the death of Judge Lucien Cannon, of the superior court. Portneuf county, which he represented for a few months only, is especially saddened by his demise.
If the bench has lost an eminent jurist, the body politic cannot remain indifferent, since it too loses one of its most brilliant orators. In the course of its many sessions, the House of Commons of Canada was the scene of important discussions, famous in our parliamentary annals, to which Lucien Cannon, then member for Dorchester, brought many assets, his remarkable power of expression, and his exceptionally fine and powerful talent as a debater.
Those who have crossed swords with him know better than anybody else how keen was his blade, how quick his hand. His political battles in Dorchester and Portneuf have not been forgotten; they are still well remembered by those people who love good and brilliant speeches. They love fighters and Lucien Cannon had no peer on the hustings.
As for us, we had him in our midst for three months, during which time we were able to appreciate his broad mind, his heart ever open to all requests from his electors, his utter devotion to all those who had placed their trust in him. During those three months, Mr. Cannon worked methodically and devotedly for the welfare of his new constituents.
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
The bench took him away from us in 1936, but he left behind him fond memories.
A brilliant man, he served his country well and will be remembered as an outstanding figure in our political and legal life.
At the risk of again passing for a fascist, a supporter of Franco, I wish to thank the government for having allowed a peaceful invasion of Spain by our commercial attaches. I feel sure that both our country and theirs will profit much by it and I hope that the Canadian government will even go further and appoint an ambassador so that we may take advantage not only of commercial exchanges but also of cultural exchanges since all the members of this house know the high value of Spanish culture or of any other Latin culture for that matter.
I trust that in making this request to the government again as I have during the last three sessions, I shall not be branded as a fascist or a supporter of Franco. Even if I were, the only explanation I could give would be that, first of all, I believe in the full enjoyment of all political, social, economic and religious liberties under a moral law. If I requested, interceded and prayed for the re-establishment of our relations with Spain, I did so for two good reasons which were, which are and which will ever be all-important. First, Spain was the anti-communist bulwark in Europe; second, Spain is a strategic point which could close the entrance to the Mediterranean sea should our enemies, the communists in this case, take a part of Africa and definitely invade the European continent. Those are the two reasons I have given and I repeat them. I am proud of having insisted on renewal of our relations with Spain.
I wish to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) for the construction and completion of a splendid public building at Donnacona. The Post Office Department took possession of it recently. Service is perfect and I am sure that the people of Portneuf are grateful to the two hon. ministers and to the government.
I now come to a subject I have already dealt with in this house. I believe it to be important. I refer to the digging of a channel between Deschambault and Lotbi-niere. I know that the amount required for the dredging of this channel may seem huge to the layman and may cause the Minister

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier of Public Works to frown. Even so, I still say that this project is necessary and unavoidable for reasons which I shall mention as briefly as possible.
The parishes concerned, the parishes of the district of Portneuf, fully aware of the necessity of this ferry have asked me to submit resolutions they have sent me to the Minister of Public Works and to the government in order that the necessary appropriations for digging the channel may be made. The parishes of Deschambault, Grondines, St. Casimir, St. Alban, Donnacona, Portneuf and St. Marc des Carrieres, have sent me resolutions asking that these works be undertaken. The reason is that because of a considerable trade in fertilizers between the counties of Lotbiniere and Portneuf, the digging of this channel has become absolutely necessary.
In St. Marc, they use a fertilizer known under the name "Calco", made up of pulverized stone. Farmers use it to increase the yield of their land. It is manufactured by the Deschambault quarries which sometimes employs about five hundred men during the year. Four other limestone quarries are located at St. Marc des Carrieres and produce cut stone. Altogether these quarries employ over a thousand men. St. Marc des Carrieres is the centre of a considerable trade which, from an economic standpoint, interests not only my constituency but also that of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Lapointe), who knows what I am talking about and is familiar with the situation.
A resolution was forwarded to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) requesting that certain works be carried out. I know that the hon. the Solicitor General is aware of the farmers' needs and that he will support my request to the Minister of Public Works and to the government.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the amount of money spent on those works may seem very high with respect to the needs of those two areas, but they are not for those digging operations are absolutely essential to the development of those areas. Indeed they will promote the welfare of farmers and workers of St. Marc des Carrieres and many other parishes in the constituency. These vast works would also be important from a touristic standpoint,
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) .1

as a ferryboat would operate 24 hours a day, eight months a year, and the money thus brought in could be spent in those two counties. I feel it would be superfluous to quote figures on the production of the various quarries I just mentioned: Deschambault Quarries, Gingras et Fils, Standard Lime, Canada Lime and J. O. Gauthier, Ltd.
Other parishes have also sent me requests. I hope that my efforts and those of the hon. member for Lotbiniere will be successful and that the government will grant our request. It is fair and reasonable and is prompted by a real need. At any rate if the government can perform these works, they will be of great benefit.
I trust I have been able, in my brief remarks, to fully convince the Minister of Public Works and the government of the necessity of these works. I trust they will oarefully consider the requests of the members for Lotbiniere and1 Portneuf and see that the work is done during the summer so that the farmers, first of all, and then the labourers and the tourists may at last benefit from this absolutely essential ferryboat.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a matter which may concern the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. McCann) rather than the Minister of Public Works. I see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is laughing but I shall come to it later.


Lionel Chevrier: I expected it sooner.


Pierre Gauthier: I recently received from La Corporation de St. Marc des Carrieres a resolution in which I am asked to bring pressure to bear on the government so that work on the drainage of the various quarries I have mentioned may be started. I wish, Mr. Speaker, to read the whole of this resolution dated November 21, 1949:
Whereas important drainage operations have already begun within the municipal limits;
Whereas the municipality must, in order to complete said projects, make a considerable outlay;
Whereas such drainage works are of vital importance to the operators of our quarries and, consequently, to the whole population;
Whereas the development of these quarries comes under the federal Department of Mines;
Be it therefore moved by Omer Beland, seconded by Henri Petitclerc and resolved unanimously;
That a request be made to the Minister of Mines with a view to securing a grant of $25,000 for completion of these important undertakings. And that a copy of this resolution be sent to our federal member of parliament, Dr. Pierre Gauthier.

Passed at the regular meeting held on November seventh, 1949. Certified true copy.
Jean Louis Frenette,
Secretary-treasurer
I would therefore ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to accede to their request and to help these municipalities in order that this drainage may be carried out as soon as possible to improve the location and nature of these lands.
I have very little to say to the Minister of Transport, but I must thank him for having taken a hand at the right moment and when the need for it was felt. His intervention was sufficient to convince the Canadian National and certain projects were carried out in the municipality of Deschambault. May I be permitted to state here that I believe the Minister of Transport has always been friendly and, so it seems to me, that he has a soft spot for the people of my area who gave their all, not only in wartime but in peacetime, when it devolved upon them to do the piloting between Montreal and Quebec and between Quebec and Pointe-au-Pere. The Minister of Transport was always willing to consider all requests, not only those that had to do with the railroads but also with piloting. I wish to thank him, until such time as I have other more specific requests to make or I have to meet him with a delegation.
I must also note, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend from Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Fournier) has supported all the requests made by those who sail the St. Lawrence. I do not forget either the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) who also has something to do in this connection.
You might say that I am congratulating the government pretty often. However, when the government does the right thing, I like to say so just as I like to point out the errors of its ways. When the government brought in a bill for the protection of our forests I was happy to support it and I am convinced that this act will bear very useful fruits and that the provinces will co-operate in order that our forests may be more adequately protected. I remember that when I spoke on this matter I paid particular attention to the necessity for educating our people in general, with special regard for our youth. I will make so bold now as to quote an article in English, even though I am no great hand at it, on the necessity of intensifying this type of education in our schools. This article, entitled "Schools Need Forestry Books", is taken from the publication Woodland World.
(Text):
Study programs being revised in schools of seven provinces lay more emphasis than ever before on
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier conservation and forestry. That an encouraging pattern of conservation teaching is unfurling in elementary and secondary schools is indicated in a new handbook for Alberta teachers. It notes that teaching of conservation has traditionally been approached as our responsibility to the world of the future, and adds that present trends, however, bring out "that even in this rich new land of Canada, conservation programs are of direct significance to our present generation."
There's one discouraging factor in what otherwise looks like a promising picture. It's the lack of tools (graded reference material and suitable visual aids) to put across the program effectively. Practically all provinces deplore the fact that what material is available, particularly in elementary grades, is above the child's level of interest and comprehension.
One immediate step toward the solution of this problem would be the bulk purchase (at a special low rate) by education departments of "The Children's Book of Trees" from the Canadian Forestry Association. This book written by Leonard Knott with the editorial co-operation of C. F. A., tells the story of forests, forest protection and conservation in a way that will hold the interest of every child of elementary school age.
Still another help would be the placing of "Woodland World" and "Forest and Outdoors" in all schools for supplementary reading purposes. Through the generosity of 60 sponsors some 700 schools in outlying districts get F. & O. The same could be done for all schools through a similar but more extensive sponsorship system in which subscriptions are available at a special low rate.
Woodland World is certainly to be commended for this fine article. I hope that in the minds of the general public the impression will be created that an intensive teaching program should be started among our youngsters, and that the importance of our forests should be impressed upon them so that future generations will look on our natural resources as the real ones necessary to keep Canada in the forefront of the concert of nations. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I like to revert fairly often to certain subjects. I believe that in so doing, the words which I dare speak on this matter will have the same effect as water constantly dripping on stone where it finally leaves its mark.
Already, I have vehemently assailed drunkenness in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and, indeed, throughout the country. I have stressed the enormous amount of hard liquor consumed in these two provinces.
If I revert to the subject, for the hundredth time perhaps, it is not for political purposes, but because, in my opinion, there is a lack of earnestness in certain quarters when it comes to canvassing taxpayers for funds for educational pursuits. On the other hand such education is useless if we waste it by making it possible for our people to drown it in a glass of beer or hard liquor.
lie	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
People, especially in my province, often talk about respect for authority, which they demand at all cost. I wonder if those who so strongly advocate that respect are fully aware that they lay themselves open to ridicule. When we ask our people to respect authority, it is inconceivable that they should be taught to do so by giving them every possible means of destroying their intelligence and their health, as well as their moral, intellectual and spiritual values through inconsiderate use of alcohol.
Constitution is often discussed in my province. We should give more thought to the physical constitution of our people and to the immoderate use of alcoholic beverages not only in Quebec but in the other provinces as well. Statistics show that fabulous sums of money are spent on liquor.
Quebec and Ontario are, at the present time, launching an offensive against excessive drinking. A similar offensive may have been launched elsewhere, but I have not heard about it. We have organizations dedicated to the eradication of this evil. If these organizations are to attain results which will be of value to our nation, in a moral, physical, intellectual and spiritual sense, the governments must help them.
I do not dare ask the federal government to help those organizations, since there will most certainly be shouts from those who are afraid for their autonomy. I will nevertheless ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who seems to be listening attentively, to insist upon preventive measures, to launch, with the help of his department, a campaign for preventive medicine especially directed against alcoholism. I would ask him to give his patronage to an educational campaign with all the courage, initiative and frankness which I know him to possess, so that these associations may succeed and therefore be in a position to ensure better protection for our people.
I know that among physicians, many colleagues have no great faith in prevention. I will refer only to a case where often the members of the medical profession hesitate to speak with the necessary unanimity. Let us take for instance the use of B.C.G. vaccine against tuberculosis. I know that many doctors do not believe in constant or widespread use of B.C.G. but the minister should not be discouraged. Results obtained in the United States and Canada will soon be conclusive enough to induce the people to believe that constant use of B.C.G. can really protect the future of our population. These

results will enable the minister to keep on advocating the use of the vaccine and to insist on preventive medical protection in order that unanimity may be achieved and that this preventive measure against the dread disease of tuberculosis may come into constant use and that it may emerge victorious in the battle it must wage at the present time against this disease.
While campaigning against excessive drinking the minister could, with the help of his experts, point out all the imminent perils with which our people are faced. We are even now able to see what dire results this excessive drinking has had among our youth. I ask the minister to conduct this campaign vigorously, and to help the various associations in their fight against alcoholism. Moreover all the responsible authorities in this country could rise together and build a wall in order to defend us against this danger which grows greater day by day.
(Text):
Now I shall continue in English. An inquiry was made in the state of Massachusetts on the cost of drunkenness. This is an extract from the report of the legislative commission to investigate the problem of drunkenness in Massachusetts. It reads as follows:
One of the specific requests made of this commission was that we interest ourselves in the cost of drunkenness in Massachusetts. This we have done. From the information we have been able to obtain it seems that this cost may be represented as
follows:
A. Tangible Costs
1.	The annual cost of caring for those
mental patients whose illnesses have been caused or precipitated by alcoholism approximates	 $ 4,000,000
2.	The annual cost of crime due to inebriety approximates	 6,000,000
3.	The annual cost of financial dependence on others (or charity or whatever name one chooses to call it) due
to inebriety approximates	 51,000,000
Total annual probable cost	 $61,000,000
Parenthetically, it might be pointed out that against this cost figure, the commonwealth and its cities and towns received $13,139,266.79 from alcoholic beverage taxation in 1943.
On the other hand, I know that if the government is receiving taxes on the consumption of alcohol, electoral funds receive money as well from liquor vendors, from tolerances, especially in my province. The electoral fund in my province is enormous from tolerances, especially where there are no licences. In my county, in my parish and in the parishes around mine, there are no licences, there is only what we call tolerances. These people are obliged-and I know it, and we can prove it any time-to give funds to the organization to help the party in the next election. Without fear of being

too greatly mistaken I would say that the electoral funds coming from these tolerances would amount to over $2 million in four years.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Pierre Gauthier: That is the
situation.


Mr. Gibson:: What party gets this?


Pierre Gauthier: In Quebec province the government is Union Nationale. Mr. Speaker, I should not like to go past my time. I have been speaking for a long time now. If I come back to the question it is because I see the danger, I see the evil done by the immoderate consumption of liquor. I repeat my request to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to help the different organizations in the country, and . especially in Ontario and Quebec, so that these organizations will not see their work fade away and get discouraged after many efforts carried on and many years of battle on the right front.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with those who have already taken part in this debate by offering my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address. Both of them carried their task through in an admirable manner, worthy of the highest traditions of this house.
In the time at my disposal I desire to make a few observations regarding the intimation that was given in the speech from the throne that amendments to the Canada Shipping Act would be introduced during this session. My remarks will be based upon various occurrences which have happened during the last few months on the Pacific coast.
In the first place I understand that the amendments will be mainly based upon recommendations which have been received from the international convention on the improvements for safety at sea, and they will also be prompted by the findings of the court of inquiry which investigated the tragic disaster of the burning of the Noronic last year. I do not intend to go into details regarding that aspect of these amendments, but I should like to say at this time that I hope restrictions placed on small vessels operating in waters that are not far removed from the shore will not be so stringent as to make it impossible for those vessels to carry on their normal trade. It might be that recommendations will be made, which would be more applicable to the larger vessels, that would cause such a heavy expense upon the smaller passenger-carrying vessels as to put them out
The Address-Mr. Pearkes of action, and make it impossible for their companies to carry on effectively. It might be that recommendations can be made applicable to larger vessels that would cause such an increase in the weight of the smaller vessels plying in safer waters as to very seriously reduce the carrying capacity of these smaller vessels and ferries.
Also there is the danger that if some types of automatic sprinkler systems were installed there might be just as great a danger from flooding as might exist from the danger of fire. I just close that part of my address with these remarks.
I now want to refer to an occurrence which happened last November just off the coast of Vancouver island. I refer to the sinking of of the tug George McGregor, which left Bamberton on Vancouver island at midnight on November 25 destined for Victoria. After passing into the open sea she ran into very heavy weather and sank with the loss of the entire crew of seven men with the exception of one young deckhand. A very thorough and efficiently conducted court of inquiry was held in Victoria this year on the sinking of that vessel. The finding of the court was that the George McGregor had foundered through losing her stability under adverse weather conditions. Reading from that report the statement is summed up in these words:
After reflecting on all other potential factors we-* That is, the court.
-took the view that this was lack of stability in that the vessel once inclined had a righting lever too low for all conditions of weather that might reasonably be encountered and in particular of the conditions of the vessel in the weather that night.
Then the court went on to examine the various causes of this disaster. It exonerated the crew, the company, the steamship inspectors and all those who were connected with the loss. In fact, the court gave high credit to all those officials and to the members of the crew for having done everything that might reasonably have been expected of good seamen to have saved the vessel.
Referring to the steamship inspectors, after complimenting them upon having carried out to the best of their ability the inspection of this vessel some time before she had gone on this voyage, the court reported:
The steamship inspectors knew that the vessel had been classed in a recognized classification society of the United States, and there was nothing whatever in her construction or otherwise to raise any question in their minds as to her stability. In these circumstances it has not been the practice to carry out inclining experiments.
Then, a little later on, the report goes on to make recommendations, one of which was to call to the attention of the Department of

The Address-Mr. Pearkes Transport the advisability of applying inclining tests to foreign-built vessels hereafter coming under Canadian registry and steamship inspection for the first time, failing satisfactory proof as to the vessel's stability having been established while under foreign registry.
That seems a reasonable recommendation, and I hope it will be possible to include it, or some modification of it, in the amendments introduced this session to the Canada Shipping Act. Subsequently the steamship inspection board in Vancouver called a meeting of the owners of fish boats and tugs to discuss this question of having stability tests. I believe the board of steamship inspectors there stated that stability tests would be carried out by steamship inspectors in future.
I think that that was a slightly different practice, or was notification that a slightly different practice would be followed from that which had been carried out on the Pacific coast in the past when, if a stability test was required, naval architects were invited to come in and to carry out those tests in the presence and to the satisfaction of the steamship inspectors.
There is a difference between the steamship inspector carrying out the inspection himself, and calling upon an expert naval architect to carry out the test in his presence. It is questionable whether the examination for entry into the steamship inspection service calls for high enough standards in mathematics to enable a steamship inspector, once he is admitted to the service, to carry out the rather complicated tests demanded, if the stability of a vessel is to be thoroughly tested.
It is questionable whether steamship inspectors without the adequate knowledge might not constitute a very serious danger to shipping and seafaring men in the future as, if the tests were not carried out efficiently, it might result in a considerable loss of life.
Without going into all the technical details required to carry out these inclining tests, I might say that they consist of shifting known weights through measured distances across the surface of a vessel, and at the same time measuring the angle of heel of that vessel as the weights are shifted across its surface. The weight of a vessel is then obtained by the volume of the displacement of water. Hence what is known as the GM or metacentric height in the condition in which the vessel is then inclined is obtained. Then follows an analysis of the stability of the vessel under various conditions-that is, the amount of cargo she may be carrying, whether it is a full or a half cargo, whether her tanks are full or only partly filled, the number of passengers and so on.
As a result of that analysis it then becomes possible to plot the hydrostatic curves-that

is, the height of the metacentric above the baseline at the various drafts. Then, through the means of a rather expensive instrument known as an integrator, the curves of the righting lever are plotted. Those in the trade are known as the GZ curves. These show the maximum righting lever tending to return the vessel into an upright condition. They will also show the range at which the righting lever may disappear when, of course, the ship would capsize.
I understand there are no precise or fixed mathematical standards which can determine these actual ranges or distances at which the vessel may right herself, or at which it is inevitable that she will collapse. That is where the personal and professional experience of the naval architect can be brought into play. From the data that he has acquired from his calculations, and from his experience, he is able to advise as to the stability * of the particular vessel under examination.
The point that I should like to have considered is whether it is now advisable to have these stability tests carried out entirely by the steamship inspectors and whether it might not be desirable to require a higher standard of education in order to enter that service than has been considered necessary in the past. It might still be advisable to call in qualified professional naval architects to carry out these inspections, as has been done in the past in the presence and to the satisfaction of the steamship inspector who was present. In view of the unfortunate experience that occurred with this particular vessel I believe it is most desirable that ships being brought under Canadian registry from a foreign flag should be required to take the stability and inclining tests that are now considered essential.
I come now to another occurrence in Pacific waters during the last few months and I refer to the experiences of the S.S. Lake Canim. Last summer the Chinese national government informed various governments of the world that they were going to close to foreign vessels certain ports then held by the communist forces of China and the territorial waters adjacent to certain parts of China, that they would in effect establish a blockade of certain ports and the entrance to certain navigable rivers of China. Great Britain, the United States, and I believe Canada, refused to accept that announced blockade as being valid because according to international law a blockade must be real and effective. The Chinese national government were not able to produce evidence that would lead the other great powers to believe that they were able to establish a real and effective blockade of the waters which they

claimed they were going to close to foreign vessels. I believe that the great powers, including Canada, announced that they would retain their freedom of action to deal with any incident that might occur.
At the same time Canada warned interested shipping companies that if their vessels were trading in these wtaers they might expect attack by Chinese national forces or Chinese air forces which might try to intercept their vessels as they were moving into or out of the ports in question. A little later, I believe December 20 was the exact date, the announcement was made that these waters would be mined and warnings were sent out, certainly to United States vessels, that such action was taking place.
A Canadian ship, the Lake Canim which I have mentioned, owned and operated by the Western Canada Steamship Company of Vancouver under the command of Captain J. Wright, was in Far Eastern waters. She had been to Japan and then had been ordered to proceed to Hong Kong. According to a statement by the president of the company, Mr. J. Racine, she was instructed to take on a cargo in Hong Kong and to proceed to Shanghai, one of the ports designated by the Chinese national government as being closed. I believe that the crew of the ship took objection to embarking on the voyage, but the voyage was carried out, the so-called blockade was run successfully, the cargo was delivered at Shanghai and the Lake Canim returned to Hong Kong.
She then took on a second cargo and again was instructed to proceed to Shanghai. When she came near to the entrance of the river leading up to Shanghai she ran into trouble. She was shelled by a Chinese gunboat, according to press dispatches. She ran aground and only just managed to get off before the Chinese war vessel came. After a third attempt she had to abandon her efforts to reach Shanghai. She was chased away by a Chinese gunboat and had to land her cargo some 400 miles to the north of Shanghai at Tsingtao, after which she proceeded to Hong Kong where she went into drydock.
On January 27 of this year a letter was published in the Victoria Daily Colonist written by Mr. H. Mobsby, the engineer on that vessel. He describes some of the experiences undergone by this ship in attempting to run the blockade at Shanghai. I shall read this letter because it contains a graphic description of this vessel's experiences. He says:
So far we have tried to run for it twice. The first time it was seven a.m. with a heavy rain and mist. We were about two and a half to three miles past the gunboat-apparently we caught them asleep at the radar apparatus-when the weather cleared and he saw us.
The Address-Mr. Pearkes
He (the gunboat) straddled us with a couple of shells, so we had to stop and return to anchor outside the three-mile limit.
His placing of the shells was perfect and the next one, I am sure, would have popped us.
On our next attempt, it was 3 a.m. with heavy fog, we went into the darkness with all lights blacked out, even the running lights.
This time we went aground four miles up the channel. He-
That is the Chinese gunboat.
-must have spotted us, for his searchlight began working as we were making a frantic effort to get free of the mud bank . . .
Then a little later, describing the third attempt, he said:
. . . we have real opposition, a destroyer, roughly 35 knots and armed to the teeth . . . blocking the narrow channel. Besides this he has the usual naval large-screen radar, so it would be foolish to attempt it.
It was then that the Lake Canim turned around and delivered her cargo at another port. This cargo, I understand, was of considerable value, consisting mainly of chemicals. Apparently there were no Lloyd's surveyors at Hong Kong at the time; therefore Lloyd's did not pass on either the nature or the storage of that cargo. With respect to the reaction of the crew Mr. Mobsby writes:
Then when . . . the news came through, destination for cargo was Shanghai, everyone exploded and asked to be paid off and sent home. However, same was refused . . . We were politely informed that our agreement was for one year, and to break it at this time would mean three to six months in jail. Consequently, here we are at the mouth of the Yangtze.
I have been shown letters from other members of the crew of this vessel which also indicate that the crew very much disliked the idea of going into what they described as a war zone, where they would have to run abnormal risks, in order to deliver their cargo at a port which the Chinese nationalist government had declared closed and as to which the Canadian government had advised all concerned that if they entered those waters they were liable to be intercepted by hostile air and naval craft, and also that mines had been laid.
We have all kinds of regulations to protect the man working in a factory, but here were men who had signed on for a sea cruise for a year. They were prepared to run all the normal marine risks which might be described as acts of God, such as hurricanes and tempests, in the course of their normal duties. Suddenly, without being asked to volunteer and without their consent, they were told they must enter a zone in which they would experience exceptional dangers because of the hostile attitude of the nationalist government. It does seem to me these seafaring men, who are required to sign on for a year and who may be punished with

The Address-Mr. Bruneau, jail sentences if they desert ship or seek to be paid off at other than a Canadian port before the end of that year, deserve more protection than they are getting at the present time. The mere warning to the ship owners by the government that vessels traversing these waters would be in danger seems hardly adequate to protect Canadian seafaring men.
With respect to these one-year contracts I noticed that the report of the maritime commission, in referring to the strike of Canadian seamen, had this to say:
The system whereby owners and the union make an agreement governing wages and working conditions for one year allows grievances to be built up on both sides over that period, so that negotiations for the renewal of the annual agreement usually commence in an atmosphere of mutual hostility and mistrust. In our opinion many of the difficulties would be overcome by the establishment of a national maritime board, representative of both employers and seamen, similar to the national maritime board in the United Kingdom, which provides in effect for continuous negotiation of wages and working conditions at any time whereby grievances can be quickly dealt with through the operation of port panels.
I bring this to the attention of the government in the hope that this matter may be ' given consideration so that if it is practicable and desirable some amendment to the Canada Shipping Act may be introduced to deal with these points.
Just before I conclude my remarks I should like to stress the difficulties our seafaring men are experiencing at the present time due to the reduction in the number of vessels in the Canadian merchant marine. As everyone knows, our merchant marine has been drastically reduced, with the result that thousands of Canadian officers and seamen have been thrown out of their jobs. The reduction in the number of Canadian merchant vessels has also had a very serious effect upon the operations of the shipyards on Vancouver island, both with respect to shipbuilding and the repair of ships. As a result many men in these associated trades are also out of jobs. I do hope the government will lose no time in authorizing the commencement of work on the new minesweeper which it was announced last year would be built by the Victoria Machinery Depot Company, on which work has not yet begun. It will relieve the unemployment in those shipbuilding trades, and will help those men to bridge over a period of readjustment, which is causing them the greatest anxiety and the greatest difficulty, because many of them have to seek occupation in trades quite different from those in which they have been brought up from their early days of apprenticeship.


Mr. Raymond Bruneau (Prescott):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a great privilege for any representative in this house to be able to

rise and voice the opinion of those he has the honour to represent in the management of the country's affairs. In the name of the people in my constituency, I wish to support all those who have so eloquently and admirably proposed the adoption of the speech from the throne which, in itself, constitutes a vote of confidence in our present government. To those who have doubts as to the confidence which the people of Canada still hold in the party in power, and to those to whom the people have accorded acknowledgment in the form of such a huge majority on June 27 last, I would advise a trip through my constituency. It would soon convince them that the farmer, the workman, the man in business, and the man on the street, have greater faith than ever in this administration.
With regard to our leader, Mr. St. Laurent, my people, the majority of whom are of French origin, and our brothers of other extractions, hold him in the same esteem that our predecessors had for another outstanding Liberal leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In that capacity, we all expect as much from him as those who came before us achieved through the Laurier administration. Let me congratulate, sir, our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the wonderful expose he gave us while commenting on the speech from the throne. His great sense of duty and serious interest in finding a solution to our present problems are worthy of commendation.
I join with all my colleagues in congratulating the mover and seconder of the resolution now under debate, the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson), and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas). I am sure that the province of Saskatchewan, and Canada at large, has reason for rejoicing in the election of this young representative from Kindersley, and are justified in entertaining high hopes for a promising career.
(Translation):
As for my hon. friend, the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas), I wish to congratulate him heartily, on behalf of all my colleagues, for the wonderful manner in which he discharged his heavy responsibilities a few days ago. I feel, without exaggeration, that all the French-speaking members in this house were rightfully proud of their compatriot in whom they have great hopes.
(Text):
Before commenting further on the salient points in the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to give you certain information concerning the constituency I have the honour to represent. The county of Prescott is situated halfway between the capital city of Ottawa and the metropolis of

Montreal. It covers a strip of land equidistant between our two main waterways, the St. Lawrence river and the Ottawa river. Geographically speaking, I am sure it compares most favourably with any other constituency in our vast dominion.
Situated in what we call the golden triangle of the eastern tip of Ontario, in the midst of the Ottawa valley, the farming class which I represent in this house cultivate the richest soil on the North American continent. The largest centre in my riding, Hawkesbury, is an industrial city which has a population of approximately 7,500 people. Three highways pass through it. I hope that the Minister of Resources and Development will permit highway 17, which will form part of the trans-Canada route, to pass through this municipality. Highway 34 leads from Cornwall and the state of New York, and there is the interprovincial bridge which connects with the Quebec north shore highway.
My people can claim also the possession of the wickedest river in Canada, the Nation river. Unfortunately, every spring it floods the northwestern tip of Prescott. I would therefore ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) to embark upon a construction program to check this overflow of water. If that is not possible, I would ask the Minister of Resources and Development to implement a program of reforestation which could remedy the situation. I am informed that there are approximately 3,000 acres of waste land in the region which could be used for that purpose.
Furthermore, in the county of Prescott there are three airports; one in Pendleton, another in St. Eugene, and the third in Hawkesbury. The first two mentioned airports thrived during the war, and I am sure we could persuade the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to find a way of putting those three airfields to good use. Considering all those assets, and the ideal geographical factors concerning my constituency, it will be seen it has undreamed of possibilities. I am sure therefore that the cabinet ministers will lend a sympathetic ear to any project I have the opportunity of presenting during this twenty-first parliament.
I was glad to hear in the speech from the throne, that the federal-provincial conference "marked a promising beginning in working out a satisfactory procedure for making within Canada whatever amendments to the constitution may from time to time be required." Let me say at once, sir, that since we have now done away with appeals to the privy council and have chosen to rely
The Address-Mr. Bruneau upon our own supreme court, Canada is now a truly sovereign country. I believe it would not be expecting too much to have, in the very near future, a national flag acceptable to all, towards which we could proudly lift our heads, and which would be a living symbol of the true sovereignty of our great Canada.
One was also pleased to hear in the speech from the throne that negotiations are well under way for the implementation of programs adopted during the last session respecting housing, the transcontinental highway and forest conservation. All these are great problems of urgent necessity. With regard to health facilities and services, which will be under consideration during this second session, I hope consideration will be given to passing a bill for the assistance of invalids.
In the international sphere, it is comforting to know that our country is giving "full support to the charter of the United Nations". We all hope that the Canadian delegation now attending the session of the economic and social council, to which Canada was elected at the last session of the general assembly, will do its utmost in cooperation with the other peace-loving countries represented at the world government to achieve a true and lasting peace and, if necessary, keep communistic Russia at bay. The seventh paragraph of the speech from the throne is a true indication of the will of our government to strive towards the achievement of peace. It reads as follows:
The measures for the preservation of peace and the restoration and maintenance of prosperity contemplated by the North Atlantic treaty are being devised and applied as expeditiously as circumstances permit.
With that in view we are giving constant attention to the best use of our resources and the development of Canada's defence forces.
As regards employment, I believe that the security provisions established under unemployment insurance legislation are the best means to counteract the ill effects brought about by seasonal factors.
In the sphere of markets for our farm products, which have suffered from readjustments in the sterling area, we are securing other markets throughout the world; and I will say here, Mr. Speaker, that at a meeting with farmers of my constituency in Plan-tagenet on January 16 last, when I informed my people that we were trying to secure markets for our basic products on a cash and carry basis, I had occasion to find out that they were more at ease. I even went so far as to tell them that we should not meet with any difficulty in selling those goods abroad because they could compete with the exports of any other country in the world.

The Address-Mr. Follwell
You may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that I was more than pleased the other day when 1 heard our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) say in this house, as reported at page 58 of Hansard, that we were now striving to find markets-
. . . tor our increasing production; but we do not want to find markets which will absorb our products and give us nothing in return.
I will add here that it will please those I have the honour to represent, particularly those of the farmer class, to read further in the same speech of the Prime Minister:
. . . those loans of Canadian dollars will eventually have to be either written off or reimbursed in commodities. We will have to take goods for everything owed us-or take nothing.
This is undoubtedly the right attitude; and with the preparations actively under way for further multilateral trade negotiations later in the present year, as stated in the throne speech, we will surely find better markets to the advantage of all. In this way, if we can assure our farming population of a steady income, it will in turn have the purchasing power necessary to buy the commodities manufactured in the factories by the working class; and we shall thus be in a position to avoid unemployment and ensure the true prosperity which we truly deserve, having regard to our position in the economic field and the wealth of our natural resources.
Finally, as a result of consideration of the policy concerning the control and the orderly decontrol of rents, let us hope that we shall be in a position to afford the worker housing within his means. In this manner and with Divine Providence blessing our deliberations,
I am sure our great country will continue to go ahead and that all of us here, as legislators, will be in a position to make come true the prophecy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier: "The twentieth century will be the century of Canada."


Mr. F. S. Follwell (Hastings South):: At the
outset of my few remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I compliment the two young new members, like myself, who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have already been complimented, but may I join in complimenting them once more. They certainly did a really good job.
May I also congratulate the government on the progressive manner in which they have proceeded-as they usually do when the Liberal party forms the government-in establishing a Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I am sure all the members in this house agree that it is a department that can be of vital service in helping this great country of ours to achieve its ultimate destiny. In looking around for a man to head that


responsible department I am sure the government have chosen the right one in the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris), who has been privileged to serve in this House of Commons for a number of years. He is from a constituency that has thrived; he is from the grass roots of a farming community. He knows full well the humility and the greatness of Canadians.
May I refer to a remark that was made here this evening by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), who mentioned the fact that in the cabinet today there are no men with civic experience. As he has said so, it no doubt is so; I shall have to admit that I do not know whether that is right, but I presume it is. May I point out to the hon. member however that on the government benches there are many men who have served through the municipal offices in civic councils and who are at the present time serving in that capacity. I am pleased to say that I have had ten years' civic experience and was honoured by my own city of Belleville on three occasions in serving them as their chief magistrate.


James Garfield Gardiner: I used to be mayor of my town too.


Frank Sidney Follwell: May I say to the members of the opposition that with men with civic experience sitting on the government side at the present time and with those men joining in the government caucuses, the cabinet ministers have the ear of the people through their private members. Through my association of only this one term, I am convinced that the cabinet are prepared to listen to the requests from private members. I believe that our cabinet today is in that respect unlike the cabinet of the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett.
In the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I believe some latitude is allowed with regard to the subjects on which a member may speak. I should like to make just one or two observations with regard to experiences that I have been able to absorb through sitting in this house for one session. On the day on which I first came to parliament last session, I had the pleasure of visiting with one of the older members who had served for a number of years. He recommended to me that it would be wise to sit through the session and endeavour to absorb as much of the parliamentary procedure as possible and to observe the way in which government was carried on in the House of Commons. I admit that I still am a very new student of parliamentary affairs; but I assure hon. members that I am endeavouring to absorb, and I sincerely hope and trust that I shall have the opportunity

to continue, as long as I am here, to learn some of the things that are vitally necessary to the Canadian people.
I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members something which I think needs a bit of streamlining. I think the leader of the Social Credit party in this house said the other day that probably it would be a good thing if some of the parliamentary rules and regulations were streamlined. I believe that hon. members on all sides agree with these remarks. I am sure that I do. During the two openings of parliament that I have been privileged to attend I must admit that during the time that the speech from the throne was being read by the governor general I do not think I heard one word, and I doubt very much whether many of the hon. members who were standing at the rail in the Senate chamber heard anything more than I did. Therefore I would suggest and recommend that whoever is charged with the duty of seeing that it is done should see that we modernize at least to this extent, and instal a public address system if only on the occasion of the opening and prorogation of parliament so that the words of the governor general may be heard, and heard clearly. I would even go further than that and say that, in installing this public address system for the use of the governor general at the opening, it would be well to instal loudspeakers throughout the rest of the parliament building. I observed many hundreds of Canadian citizens here for the opening of parliament, who I am sure would have liked to hear the address of the governor general on the radio. I believe it would be good Canadianism and good public relations for this parliament to broadcast from coast to coast the ceremony of the opening of parliament. We now have ten provinces. The province of Newfoundland is the baby province of our great dominion of provinces. I am sure that all the people in Newfoundland are very much interested in the rest of Canada, as we are in Newfoundland. These people at the far end of our country may never have the opportunity, as you and I have, of attending the opening of parliament or even viewing these beautiful parliament buildings and the beautiful surroundings here in Ottawa. Since we have the government-sponsored Canadian Broadcasting Corporation I believe we should make the fullest use of it. We should bring to every citizen the opportunity of hearing a full word-picture of the complete opening of parliament at all sessions.
We might even go further than that. We might prevail upon the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast on certain days the debates of this House of Commons. 1 am
The Address-Mr. Follwell sure there are many thousands of people in Canada who would be pleased to take the time to listen to a broadcast coming direct, on the spot, from this house.
While speaking of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), who heads that department, on the way in which, under the direction of this parliament, his department is proceeding to establish television broadcasting stations. I understand that these stations are to be established in Montreal and Toronto in the first instance. I am sure that as time goes on more television stations will be established from one end of the country to the other, so that all people may enjoy the benefit and pleasure of television as they now enjoy the pleasure of radio.
In my constituency I find that there are many people who have television receiving equipment at the present time, but unfortunately they are limited as to the reception and the length of reception that they can get.
I believe that in my constituency they are limited to two stations, Rochester and Buffalo, and these two stations are not very clear on the television screen. Therefore I compliment the minister on the way he and his department are proceeding to establish these stations. They will be a boon and a pleasure to all the people within receiving distance. But I urge this parliament to consider also the people who are at either end of the country.
In the constituency of Hastings South we have a Royal Canadian Air Force station. It is known as the Trenton air station. It is the largest Royal Canadian Air Force station in Canada. During the war, under the commonwealth air training scheme, the air force station at Trenton trained many of our Canadian boys and many of our allied boys from Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, yes, and many who came to enlist from the United States.
In that connection may I pay a just tribute to the man who was then the Minister of National Defence for Air, namely, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). It is a well-known fact that his leadership and his counsel made this scheme an outstanding achievement, and one that contributed in no small way to the winning of the great conflict. I am sure hon. members join with me in paying this tribute to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power).
On September 30 last, in company with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Robertson), the county which adjoins Hastings, I had the pleasure of being present at the
124	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Follwell dedication of the memorial gates commemorating the sacrifice made by the airmen of the British commonwealth air training scheme.
I would urge every hon. member who has the opportunity of. passing that way to stop and inspect those magnificent gates presented and erected by the governments of Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia and the United States. They are a work of art and an inspiration to all the young men who are now in training under the national defence scheme at the Royal Canadian Air Force station at Trenton.
Also at Trenton we have what is known as No. 6 repair depot. This is the largest repair depot maintained by the Royal Canadian Air Force, and is and has been of great value and service not only in the prosecution of the war but in maintaining the equipment necessary to keep the defence force on the alert in peacetime. May I add that upon the occasion of the opening of the gates at Trenton we were honoured by the presence of Lord Tedder, chief of air staff, as the representative of Great Britain.
Hastings is one of the greatest cheese-producing counties in Canada, and may I say with pardonable pride that in 1949 it led all other counties in this wide dominion in the production of cheese. Not only does it' produce an abundance of that commodity but it is also noted for its production of apples.
During the recess of parliament, as no doubt did every other hon. member, I attended a number of farmer protest meetings dealing with the falling prices of farm products. I remember distinctly attending a meeting of the cheese producers association in our county, where the statement was made that there was a surplus of cheese. I suggested at that meeting that, through co-operative efforts of the dominion and provincial governments, it would be well to set up a method of merchandising cheese products. There was also a discussion concerning prices.
During my remarks I pointed out that' I had-and I still have-the utmost confidence in the leadership of our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I said to the people assembled there that I knew we could count on the minister to see to it that the farmers got a square deal. After my remarks I was followed by my good friend the member of the provincial legislature who said that the farmers did not want a fair deal, but that they wanted 30 cents a pound for their cheese.
At that time the support price of 28 cents had not been established. Soon after that meeting however it was established. This price was set up because the dominion government was prepared to pay a subsidy of three cents per pound above the contract price. At


following protest meetings I said to my good friend who had pointed out that the farmers did not want a fair deal, but did want 30 cents for their cheese, that the dominion government had now seen fit to support the price at 28 cents and to provide a subsidy to the extent of three cents per pound. I stated further that in my view it was up to the provincial government of Ontario to pay two cents per pound so as to support the price at 30 cents-that is, on the assumption that a price of 30 cents is necessary. Indeed I believe it is, because it is my contention that no matter what is being produced, whether it be on the farm or in the factory, it must be produced at a profit.
Before the war the per capita consumption of cheese in Canada stood at three pounds while that in Great Britain was sixteen pounds.
I believe that with a proper merchandising scheme the per capita consumption in Canada can be boosted. Indeed I am informed that it has now risen to approximately five pounds per capita; and if it can be doubled to ten pounds I am convinced we will have no surplus problem. We would then have very little cheese to export and we could afford to give that away to help the unfortunate people in Europe.
I believe that all governments, provincial and dominion, ought to, and I am sure they will, co-operate in the merchandising of apples. If the per capita consumption of apples could be increased we would then be in the same position as we would be with cheese. We would have such a small surplus that we could give it away and yet everyone in Canada would <be better fed and the producers would find their operations more profitable.
The dominion government has established a floor price of 38 cents a dozen for eggs and since that action was taken egg prices have tended to level off. I was informed only today by an hon. member that his wife had paid 54 cents per dozen in Ottawa for eggs.


Mr. Hodgson:: She was taken in.


Frank Sidney Follwell: She may have been taken in, but I submit that that gives a nice profit. I am sure that the producer who received the 54 cents did not feel that he had been taken in.
I am gratified to find on the order paper a resolution to set up a committee to study contributory old age pensions and the means test. This committee should also study the problem of those who are permanently incapacitated but yet have not reached the age at which they would become pensionable. There are a number of people in my constituency who have been stricken fairly early

in life but who at the moment are unable to claim a pension or allowance of any kind.
I am sure that every hon. member has constituents in the same position. Many have been stricken with arthritis or have been incapacitated through accidents and, as I say, are not eligible for old age pensions.
I am pleased to know that we can look forward this year to a dominion-provincial conference which will lay the foundation, not only for a contributory old age pension scheme but for a contributory health scheme.
I think those two matters are uppermost in the mind of every Canadian, and have been for a long time. I am sure that those matters are uppermost in the thoughts of many hon. members who have sat through previous sessions of parliament.
With the streamlining of our constitution no doubt it will be much easier to work with the provinces and it is hoped that before too long these social services will come into being. But I think the people of Canada should be informed that the extent to which these social services can go and the speed
21, 1950
The Address-Mr. Follwell with which they can be brought into effect depend upon their ability to pay. All taxpayers should know that whether they are paying civic, provincial or federal taxes, all taxes are paid by the same taxpayers.
May I conclude by saying that I am still among the younger Canadians and I do not view with fear the future of Canada. I glory in its opportunities and I regret that our opponents are asking us to believe that we face disaster. I assure them that we look forward only to achievements. Canada is the greatest frontier now available to the world. We breathe optimism, not pessimism.
On motion of Mr. Weir the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 22, 1950