1950-03-13

Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, over the week end I read in the newspapers that the first live rat had appeared in the province of Alberta. That is a fact

I am not joking about it, and we understand the menace. Strangely enough, it came from the east, and was found in the city of Edmonton. Since we have all received copies of the Edmonton newspapers concerning a certain route for a certain highway, I must say I thought the choice of this animal to blaze a trail through the wilderness was very peculiar.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to table copies in English and in French of a regulation made under the Department of Veterans Affairs Act by order in council P.C. 1266 of March 10, 1950.
This regulation permits this department to give hospitalization and treatment to veterans who are ineligible under present regulations, but who are covered as to hospital costs by private or provincial government insurance plans; or who, though not insured, have the means to pay for the treatment for which they may apply at D.V.A. hospitals.
The prime responsibility of the hospitals maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs is to treat those who have pensionable disabilities, and such veterans will continue to have an absolute priority in rights to beds in our hospitals. Treatment under the new regulation will be given to paying veteran patients only to the extent that beds are not required for entitled veterans.
It is the intention to try out these new arrangements for the period of a year, during which their value will be assessed and the appropriate regular scale of rates for the various districts of Canada worked out.
For the immediate future the number of beds available for this purpose will not be great, so that no assurance is given that accommodation will be available for all who apply.
Fuller details on the plan will be available after March 31 next at D.V.A. district offices and through veterans organizations.


Mr. Green:: Will this cover the men of the merchant navy?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No.


Mr. Wright:: Will the minister file the rates to be charged?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It will be noted in my statement that the rates are now being worked out. Between now and the end of the month the head of our medical services will consult with all concerned in the districts, and the rates will be determined. The aim is to achieve a rate generally comparable with that charged by civilian hospitals in the various districts.


Mr. Pearkes:: Will the minister say whether the charges made to veterans who have entitlement to hospitalization will now be adjusted to the provincial scheme in British Columbia? Will the veterans who are not able to pay the full amount of the hospitalization charges also be admitted, or will it be extended only to those who are able to pay the full charge made by the D.V.A. hospitals?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As I indicated in my statement, many of the matters related to the question just asked are now being worked out. To answer the hon. member's second question first, under this regulation only those veterans will be accepted who pay the full amount which will be set for that particular hospital. As to his first question, an attempt is being made to work into the plan those benefits accruing in British Columbia and Saskatchewan under their provincial insurance plans.



WIDOWS OF NON-PENSIONED VETERANS

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Has the Minister of Veterans Affairs received representations asking for certain improvements in the provisions under the War Veterans Allowance Act relating to widows of non-pensioned veterans? Will consideration be given to those representations before the bill is brought in amending the act?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have received the representations referred to, and it is not my intention at the moment to recommend to my colleagues that any amendments based upon those representations be brought forward at this time.

Inquiries of the Ministry INCOME TAX



FARMERS


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, last week a number of questions were asked in reference to order in council P.C. 458, having to do with depreciation. The one of which I received notice was asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and was as follows, as reported at page 562 of Hansard:
In view of the fact that this order in council was made effective for 1949 taxation and may cause confusion among farmers who, in accordance with the law, filed their interim returns on December 31, will the minister consider delaying its coming into effect for this year?
That, together with other questions, prompted me to say that I would make a short statement on the matter, which I propose to do now.
Under the Income War Tax Act, which applied to 1948 and prior years, no depreciation was allowable except what the Minister of National Revenue, in his sole discretion, approved. The Income Tax Act, which applies to 1949 and subsequent years, provides that allowances in respect of capital costs will be as prescribed by regulation of the governor in council. If the regulation is suspended, the taxpayer will be deprived of his right to make any deduction for depreciation for 1949. It is for that reason I quoted the request for the suspension of the order in council.
Important changes were introduced in the 1949 budget, and, at the request of some members of parliament, the government agreed to amend the law so that certain provisions would not apply to farmers and fishermen. These were specifically the new method of computing depreciation, and the recapture provisions. As soon as possible after parliament approved the legislation, regulations were prepared, approved by the governor in council, and published. The rates applicable to farmers and fishermen are clearly set out therein. These rates have been made uniform with the rates available to all other taxpayers in Canada, having regard to the fact that farmers and fishermen are excluded from certain provisions of the law as mentioned above. For example, the fifteen per cent rate, allowed to farmers and fishermen on the straight-line basis on automotive equipment, results in an asset being depreciated by ninety per cent in six years. The thirty per cent rate, on the reducing-balance basis on automotive equipment, applicable to all taxpayers other than farmers and fishermen, results in an asset being depreciated by 88 -24 per cent in six years.


The comparison, therefore, is rather in favour of the farmer, as I indicated when I was making my reply.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, arising out of a Canadian Press dispatch on Saturday to the effect that the railway companies are applying for a further 3-4 per cent increase in freight rates. My question is, will the government consider postponing, under section 52 of the Railway Act, the coming into effect of the authorized eight per cent increase, or any other increase in freight rates, until after the royal commission on transportation has submitted its report, and until after the completion of the general freight rates inquiry by the board of transport commissioners?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I believe this question was asked in another form during this session by the leader of the hon. member's party. In any event my recollection of the meaning of section 52 is that the powers of the governor in council are judicial in nature. To my knowledge those powers have not been exercised since confederation, except on one occasion. I would not think that the circumstances are such today that the power should be exercised at this time.



INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the international conference on wheat that is opening in London today. Is he in a position to say what Canada's representations will be concerning the reallotment of the world wheat supply, and in particular what additional number of bushels Canada will receive under the new arrangement?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The Canadian representatives at the conference have been instructed to favour the accession of Germany and Japan to the agreement. I might say that there is some opposition to their accession, but Canada is favouring it.
Assuming that both countries are admitted, an additional 100 million bushels a year will

be added to the agreement, a quantity which will permit Canada to have its allotment revised upward to the 230 million bushels that was originally thought to be our fair share of the world markets. That quantity is about as much as we safely can assume on a continuing basis. There are some details of the arrangements for this year, next year and the following year that I would prefer not to announce until they are announced in London. These arrangements were worked out by negotiation with the United States government, and, if adopted, they will be very satisfactory to those responsible for the marketing of Canada's wheat crop.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Press dispatches appearing in Vancouver on Saturday indicate there is some possibility of the option to purchase the Alvin building being extended beyond the sixteenth of this month. It is also indicated that the Minister of Public Works is having the building valued by two local valuators. Can he tell us whether or not that statement is correct, and, if valuations are being made, by what firms?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: After listening to the hon. member the other night, I gave instructions to my department to have two Vancouver firms make a valuation of the Alvin building. The valuation work has proceeded, but I have not yet received a report. The firms retained for this work were McCarter and Nairne, architects, and the Northern Construction Company and J. W. Stewart Limited. If I continue to have valuations made, I may be obliged to pay more for the building.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the press report correct in stating that the budget will be brought down this month? If it is not correct, when will it be brought down?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: That is the usual careful speculation on the part of the press. I am not yet in a position to say when I shall be able to bring down the budget, but it will be as soon as possible.
55946-44*
The Address-Mr. Mayhew SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 9, 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.
Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when earlier he was making his first report on the Colombo conference intimated that I would take part in this debate. My remarks will be divided into four main sections: the first concerning the international labour organization convention which was held at Mysore; the second with reference to the commonwealth conference in Colombo; the third, a reference to our own position, economically, in those countries; and the fourth, my own observations or speculations as to what we might do.
I want to assure you, sir, that at this time I am speaking entirely on my own behalf. Before proceeding with what I wish particularly to say, I wish to pay the usual well-earned tributes to the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but I shall do it in a slightly different way. I think they have had an opportunity of becoming a little better known in the country as a whole. It is a great encouragement to us in this house to hear the younger men when they come in and make their maiden speeches. I think it is also a great encouragement to the people outside of this house to realize that there is a constant inflow of younger men who are capable, well-trained and prepared to fill vacancies as they occur in the ranks of the government of Canada. The fact that these young men have the urge, the spirit and the courage to go ahead with this career is, I think, one of the reasons why we should have so much confidence in our democratic system.
I should like also to say how grateful I am to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for making it possible for Mrs. Mayhew and myself to take this extended trip, which has been interesting and beneficial to us. It is my hope, and I am sure it is that of Mrs. Mayhew, that the country will receive great benefit also, and in the same proportion; but I doubt whether that will be so.
I intend to speak about the meeting of the international labour organization, attendance at which was my chief mission while abroad, because I feel that the ILO is doing most

The Address-Mr. Mayhew valuable work and should be supported. The ILO is one of the oldest and most successful of all international organizations. It was established after the first world war as an agency of the league of nations; and it is the only part of the league that survived the second world war. It has increased its membership and expanded its activities considerably during the past few years, a fact which affords ample proof of its vitality and the support it is receiving. There are now more than sixty member countries represented in this organization.
The purpose of the international labour organization is to promote social justice in all countries. It seeks to do this by improving industrial relations, raising living standards, and helping to bring about economic and social stability through legislative action and international agreement. It is a unique organization in that it is tripartite; its members represent governments, employers and workers. This I believe is the secret of its strength. The ILO delegates appreciate the view of others and try to bring about harmony out of diversity. The ILO meetings are unique also in that, so far at least, they have been fairly free of the ideological and political differences which have so hampered the work of the United Nations.
The governing body of the international labour organization meets four times a year. It was the 110th meeting of the governing body which I attended in Mysore, India, late in December and early in January. This was a significant and important meeting, because it was the first in the thirty years' history of the ILO that has been held in Asia. It signified the increasing interest which Europe and the Americas are showing in this part of the world, and it was a tribute to the new and independent nations which have come into being. By holding this meeting in India the ILO gave proof of its desire to fulfil its obligations to all regions and to live up to the principles of universality.
This meeting in India achieved the useful purpose of focusing attention on the many and difficult labour and social problems in Asia. It brought t'o light the urgent need of these countries for financial and-chiefly- technological assistance. It also revealed the serious consequences which might result were such aid not forthcoming. I think that all the delegates became acutely aware of the fact that they could not, in their own interest, ignore the many problems of Asia. Social and economic improvement and higher standards of living cannot be obtained for one-half of the world while the other half is left to struggle for existence.
During intervals between meetings and on week ends I had the opportunity of travelling 
by car some four hundred miles around southern India. Mysore itself is somewhat off the beaten track; hence what we saw there, though typical of country life in India, is not' what will be found described in visitors' handbooks. We saw much that was beautiful, and we saw much of the potential wealth of that fascinating country.
Hon. members may be interested in the agenda of the governing body meeting; it will give an idea of the scope of the work of the organization. Perhaps I might then conclude this brief report by commenting on one or two of the more important items which were discussed.
I will not name all the items on the agenda, but only some in order to indicate the type of work they were doing: Proposals concerning fellowships; questions relating to freedom of association; report on action against unemployment; safety in coal mines; labour statistics; report of committee on salaried employees and professional workers; report of committee on recreation; report of committee on juvenile employment; report of officers of committee on social security experts; report of the technical assistance committee; proposed establishment of an Asian advisory committee.
These are some of the twenty-six items on the agenda of the session.
One of the more interesting proposals was that concerning fellowships. The governing body agreed to establish a fellowship scheme under which young men and women, chiefly from underdeveloped countries, could obtain practical training in countries technologically more advanced. This scheme would supplement a similar but larger fellowship scheme already in operation under the United Nations. By adopting this proposal the international labour organization recognized the need for technical assistance in backward countries.
Another important item on the agenda was social security. In the early years after the first world war the ILO drafted conventions and recommendations on standards of social security, and these became the models upon which many countries based their national legislation. Now the organization is planning to review these conventions and recommendations, to integrate them and make them more practicable in view of the advances that have been made in recent times. It has instructed a special committee of experts to revise these international instruments and set forth the objectives and minimum standards of an integrated, fully-rounded program.
The most difficult and contentious, and certainly the most important, subject discussed at the 110th session of the governing body

was the proposal that the ILO set up an international fact-finding and conciliation commission to investigate violation of trade union rights or freedom of association, alleged to exist in member countries. Canada, of course, supported the proposal, because nationally as well as internationally we are interested in maintaining union rights as well as union responsibilities.
The proposal approved by the governing body envisages the establishment of an international commission to investigate all bona fide charges alleging the violation of trade union rights. It would consist of nine members, all of whom would be respected and recognized authorities in labour matters. Complaints referred to them would first be examined by the governing body who would weed out all frivolous charges, and only legitimate grievances would be investigated by the commission.
As the request of the government concerned is required before action can be taken by the commission, it remains to be seen just how far Russia and her satellite countries will go in permitting investigation of conditions within their territories by an international body.
In concluding this report on the ILO meeting, I would like to say how much impressed I was by the manner in which this international labour organization operates. I am proud of the fact that Canada has been a member of it since its inception and is now rated as one of the eight nations of chief industrial importance. We have always had close ties with the ILO, having been host to its secretariat during the war. I hope that Canada will continue to participate as fully as possible in the work of this organization.
A detailed report has been forwarded to the Minister of Labour and is available for reference if anyone wishes any further information regarding it.
After the meeting of the international labour organization at Mysore, to which I have already referred as being somewhat off the beaten path, an opportunity was given to us of seeing some of the village life of India. We left our plane on the first part of our journey to Bangalore. It was some ninety miles into Mysore, and in that stretch of ninety miles we passed one Indian village after another. We spent ten days in Mysore, and drove back to Bangalore. There we took a plane to Madras and from Madras to Colombo. At Colombo we joined my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the conference of ministers of external affairs.
I was very much pleased to have the opportunity of attending this conference and of
The Address-Mr. Mayhew meeting men whom we read about but rarely have a chance to see. To me-and I am off the regular path now-the chief good of the conference was not so much the deliberations of the meetings as the discussions at the functions, by way of various entertainment, and so on, that were held there and in Mysore; the opportunity it gave to each of the delegates to sit beside his neighbour at luncheons and other gatherings and to have informal talks. You can depend upon it that the good will that was generated in this conference was well worth while.
I would not like to have the house or the country think that we were a group of peregrinating individuals going round the world on a magic carpet, with a special magic eye pointed down to the oases and comforts and hospitality, and that only in those places did we try to do a job. Whether it was a magic eye or not, our trip was well planned. We met nothing but friendliness and the most cordial hospitality. I hope that some of my words-at least some of the earnestness that I try to express-will go back to the countries that received us and gave us such a wonderful time and the opportunity of seeing and knowing them.


Mr. Harris (Danforth):: While the minister is thinking about Colombo and the places at which he was entertained at different times, perhaps he will say a word of encouragement to the natives and the people of Colombo with regard to their standard of living as compared with our own, and indicate that the Canadian people would be ready to help them out.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I hope that nothing that 1 have said or will say will in any way be considered as disparaging of these people. Indeed it is the very opposite. I could readily be quite optimistic if I were asked to live in that country. They have every reason to be hopeful for the future, and I would be the last to bring back a message of despair about India, Pakistan, Ceylon or the other countries that we had a chance to visit.
We hear a good many people speak of the magnitude of the task connected with bringing a better standard of living to these splendid and hard-working people. They are as kind as any other people in the world, and they are anxious to do better. To hon. members who are interested I would recommend a reading of an article by Edwin Muller in the March issue of the Reader's Digest, entitled "A way to lessen world hunger". There you will get some idea as to what could be done without spending a vast amount of money.
It must be remembered that India and Ceylon, as well as all of south Asia, are not one-crop countries. They have no difficulty,

The Address-Mr. Mayhew if they have water, in getting three, four, and in some places five crops a year. It must also be remembered that that part of the world is very backward in the matter of tools. In a sense they are the victims of the kind of thing that we are victims of in Canada; they are as much afraid of the modern tool displacing workers as we are afraid of immigration. Both will bring prosperity-in India, the advanced tool, and in Canada, immigration.
Anyone in the United States or Canada who would think of employing a tractor, a large combine or a heavy plow would have in mind something which is not known over there and which would not do the job. The agricultural areas are divided into plots of three, four or five acres. Plots of these sizes are about all one family could cultivate properly if it is to take off three or four crops in the year.
Perhaps I should tell the house, however, what we did see. In watering the land-and what I am about to say is more particularly true of Egypt-they dip the water with buckets which carry it to the top of the bank, at which point it is poured into a sluice to irrigate the land. A treadmill may be used to pump the water. Others use the ancient method of the Archimedean screw, the principle of which I am sure is familiar to all hon. members. In that process a man turns a crank and a small volume of water comes up. A farm pump, with which we are familiar in Canada, would probably irrigate twenty times as much land as the methods they are now using.
It will be seen from what I am saying that the problem is neither colossal nor spectacular. On the contrary it could be handled in a simple fashion. These people should be encouraged to see whether the modern equipment we have been using could be used to their advantage. These are new countries with a new lease on life and new leaders. They are driving ahead at a rate which commands the admiration of all and requires very little encouragement. As they make progress they will have more rubber, more tea, more coffee, more spices

more of all the things which are needed in this country and which will be available there in greater quantities when they really get going. I look forward with confidence to the possibilities of these countries reaching a high level of production in quick time.
I fear I am completely off the track so far as what I had intended to say is concerned. I shall not take up too much time in saying some of the things I had intended to say, and which are set out in my notes, in the careful preparation of which I received some help but which because of the shortage of time I cannot complete.

One point I should like to make which, it seems to me, has been overlooked in the debate thus far. There seemed to be a feeling that all that took place at Colombo was a conference of foreign ministers, and that the discussions were all political. That, of course, is not so. Concurrently with those discussions were others concerning trade and commerce and finance. From Canada there were three representatives who attended and who worked continually while the other conference was in progress.
At the conclusion of the Colombo conference we left for Karachi, at which point we spent two days with the people in that capital city of Pakistan. We did not see much of Pakistan outside the capital, but I can say that in Karachi we saw in progress the building of a new capital which in a few years' time will be well worthy of that fine country. While there, however, we did have an opportunity to talk about trade with practically all the ministers. Perhaps in my conversations I was in a position to speak with greater freedom than was my colleague, and to take greater advantage of the time to speak about trade, not forgetting, of course, sales of fish.
I believe that in those conferences we had considerable success. I have before me some trade figures in which hon. members may be interested. They disclose that as to Ceylon, Pakistan and India, only Ceylon has a favourable balance of trade with Canada, and the amount is fairly substantial. In 1949 Canada exported to Ceylon approximately $2,159,000 worth of goods, the important commodities being milk products, railway ties and newsprint. In the same period we imported $11,635,000 worth of goods, of which tea accounted for $8,765,000 and rubber $1,593,000.
Our exports to Pakistan in 1949 amounted to approximately $18,097,000, in which was included over $2 million worth of commercial vehicles and more than $8 million worth of defence stores, plus another $1 million for ships and aircraft. During the same period we imported about $1,193,000 worth of goods, consisting mainly of jute and tea.
Canada's exports to India in 1949 were valued at approximately $72,551,000, of which $22,960,000 was for wheat and flour, and $27,125,000 for locomotives and parts. Other important commodities included newsprint, railway rails and track materials, commercial vehicles, railway cars, non-ferrous metals, fertilizers, aluminum and ships. Our imports in the same period amounted to $26,233,000 including $8,555,000 worth of tea, $10,528,000 worth of jute fabrics, $1,564,000 worth of nuts, and $1,270,000 worth of carpets.
Leaving India, we had a brief stay in Singapore. Here, despite political unrest in the northern part of the Malayan federation and

Indonesia which could affect the flow of rubber and tin, government officials and businessmen interviewed did not appear apprehensive, but on the contrary were optimistic.
In 1949 Canada exported to Singapore approximately $5,439,000 worth of goods, of which $1,741,000 was for milk products; $800,000 was for commercial vehicles and parts; over $400,000 was for wheat flour, and about $450,000 for newsprint. In the same period we imported goods valued in excess of $16,208,000 from the same area, the main items being rubber to a value of $10,139,000, and tin to a value of $4,834,000.
Our next stop was probably our most spectacular, to the extent that our plane, having been adroitly navigated, despite low-hanging clouds, through a mountain-studded approach to the airstrip, decided to blow two tires just after we touched down in Hong Kong. No two blowouts ever received as much attention as they did.
Here again we found a spirit of confidence and evidence of considerable current development. The dislocation in the trade with China is, however, making itself felt, and stores and warehouses are stacked with merchandise destined for China when trading facilities are restored.
Last year Canada exported to Hong Kong goods valued at approximately $10 million, including $3,438,000 worth of wheat flour, over $840,000 worth of fountain pens, and $490,000 worth of newsprint, plus quantities of fish, milk products and fertilizer. We imported from Hong Kong during the same period goods worth $2,989,000, including approximately $810,000 worth of tin, $230,000 worth of peanuts, and $185,000 worth of fireworks.
Our final trade talks were held in Tokyo with General Mac Arthur and members of his staff, and with Japanese ministers, officials and businessmen. External trade policy was placed in the hands of the Japanese authorities only as of the first of this year. Nevertheless we were satisfied that Japan was anxious to spend just as many dollars in Canada as we spent in that country, and that in any case there was no tendency to discriminate against Canada in favour of other hard currency countries.
In 1949 we exported to Japan goods valued at nearly $5,860,000, including $2,145,000 worth of pulp, some $818,000 worth of whisky, and quantities of beef, newsprint, nickel and sulphur. Our imports from Japan last year amounted to $5,551,000, including toys, approximately $950,000; textiles and products, approximately $1,350,000; oranges, approximately $493,000; and small quantities of porcelain, pottery and tea.
The Address-Mr. Mayhew
In my opinion a peace treaty should be negotiated with Japan at an early day. Until that is done and Japan is able to see her way through the clouds, I do not know exactly what is going to happen. She has lost her colonies; only 20 per cent of her land is arable; her population is increasing, and all she has to sell is what can be produced with her own hands. Neither we nor the United States are any too anxious to take in the products she makes, because we fear it will put our own people out of employment. We must take a realistic view of the position, but I do not think anyone can measure what will happen to Japan until after a peace treaty has been negotiated.
I hope I am not interfering with the affairs of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), but I do want to indicate one plan which may or may not have merit. I do not think any plan can be offered that would not entail a considerable amount of speculation and meet with great difficulties.
Our export position has been unique. Generally we have developed sufficient balances with overseas countries to pay for our dollar deficit with the United States. In the past this overseas trade has been regarded more as a financial operation than as a disposal of exports. Essentially this problem remains, although it has greatly changed its character in the past few years. Our dollar deficit with the United States is gradually contracting, and our industries have made many readjustments in the last four years to the new international trade position.
The fact remains, however, that these overseas markets remain essential for certain raw materials-wheat, flour, tobacco, fish, cheese, eggs and bacon, and certain manufactures, such as automotive goods, textiles, rubber, machinery, and chemicals. In relation to primary commodities, overseas restrictions will produce export surpluses for us; in relation to manufactured commodities, the market restrictions will show themselves in unemployment. The federal government will be pressed to take different kinds of action to meet these problems, but in effect the problems will be identical and similar in origin, and will best be met by action that expands our overseas business. Our need, therefore, is to find means of disposing of export surpluses to the non-dollar areas and of finding acceptable imports from these countries. It is clear that a solution cannot be found by attaching ourselves to the dollar or the sterling currency areas. The problem is not a financial one, but one of the exchange of commodities. So far as Canada goes, the problem is perhaps unique, and a unique solution has to be found. In short, Canada has to find a middle way.

The Address-Mr. May hew
Because of our previous rather elementary trade mechanism we lack many of the facilities necessary for meeting problems of this kind. We lack the knowledge to be found in many of the European brokerage and merchant houses, the shipping knowledge, etc. The sterling area has these facilities within it and uses them in handling the European and oriental trades. Because of this, our exporters lack direct contact with many markets that might want our goods and that might in return supply us with imports. Many countries may not be earning all the dollars they can in sales or in potential production. Individual Canadian firms that look for barter arrangements often find themselves faced with a sale of commodities in which they have no interest. Many of these difficulties may be overcome by extending the scope of barter arrangements for the particular commodities we have in surplus.
As the idea of the joint stock company developed originally to handle foreign trade in days when international financing was impossible, perhaps it can now be extended. Instead of using the concept only on a company basis, it might be extended to an inter-company basis. We might consider, therefore, the establishment of a national export-import corporation, beginning its use with countries that now take few Canadian goods. We should recognize that this may be more possible in Canada than in almost any other country, because so large a part of our trade now is concentrated in only a few firms. Likewise, large parts of the primary surpluses may soon be owned by government.
It seems possible, therefore, to work out in Canada a combination between the very large groups of manufacturers and wholesalers, to provide both the management and the finance to operate bilateral deals and to overcome the lack of facilities that faces any single corporation. The government, through the corps of trade commissioners, could furnish valuable assistance. Such a body could barter parcels of mixed Canadian merchandise for mixed imports from the non-dollar countries, and such merchandise could of course include capital equipment as well as foodstuffs or raw material.
This instrument might be used experimentally as an additional. means of meeting the surplus-unemployment problems. If the subject is not approached in some such way, there is a danger that the various boards handling surpluses will operate independently on a give-away basis, and that the various local unemployment problems will also be tackled by relief, public works or other means that will alleviate but not remove the basic difficulty.

This last part is purely my own, but it is the result of thinking while away and after coming home. We have to find some way out of this difficulty. If anyone knows of a better way, it is up to him to tell us. I assure the house that I am not speaking in any way for the government in offering this plan. I imagine it is new to the government.


Mr. J. A. Charlion (Brani-Weniworih):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I want first to congratulate the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address in reply to the speech from the-throne on the splendid job they did, considering the material that was placed at their disposal. I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris) on his appointment as minister of the new Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
In speaking at this time I am aware that much of what I have to say may be repetition, but I have no apology to offer in view of what was done last Wednesday by the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). It was bad enough to have to read the press report of the speech he made on May 28, 1949. To have to sit and listen to a repetition of it here was only adding insult to injury, and I am sure many farmers across this country will agree with that statement. What the minister hoped to prove is beyond my comprehension, unless it was to show- and I am sure it was not necessary to have further proof

that he is one of the smartest politicians, with a capital "P", that Canada has ever seen.
The low price program to which Canadian farmers submitted during the war years to my knowledge was without parallel anywhere in the world, and simple justice demands that their sacrifice be rewarded by the fulfilment of the government's pledge to provide a measure of stability in the post-war years, when economic readjustments might threaten to undermine farming. Here I should like to quote from a speech delivered by the former leader of the Liberal party, Mr. King, in a national broadcast on December 4, 1943:
I wish tonight to thank the farmers of Canada for their magnificent contribution to the battle of production. I wish as well to appeal to them to continue to help hold the front line against inflation by continuing to support the price ceiling. If, to help win the war, the farmers are asked to accept a ceiling on prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices to ensure them against an agricultural depression after the war. As an essential part of its post-war policy the government intends to ask parliament, at the next session, to place a floor under the prices of the main farm commodities.
In 1944, therefore, the Agricultural Prices Support Act was passed, with the unanimous approval of all members of the House of Commons. Section 9 (2) of that act reads:

in prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection one of this section, the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
As most hon. members will realize, this was the Progressive Conservative policy formulated under our previous leader, John Bracken, and forced upon this government by pressure from our party and from farm organizations across the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know whether I correctly heard the hon. member a few moments ago, but did I understand him to say that the Minister of Agriculture, who I notice is not in his seat, was a smart politician, with a capital "P"?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should use that expression, especially when the minister is not in his seat.


John Alpheus Charlton: Hon. members opposite
applauded, and I thought I was paying the minister a compliment.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the expression is permitted. I do not believe it is parliamentary to refer to an hon. member as a smart politician with a capital "P".


John Alpheus Charlton: Then I will delete the capital


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. gentleman should withdraw the expression, and I ask him to do so.


John Alpheus Charlton: Very well, Mr. Speaker. Last fall, however, the intention of the government was made clear in a resolution placed on the order paper by the Minister of Agriculture, as follows:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that section nine of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, shall continue in force for such period or periods as the governor in council may from time to time fix by proclamation, but shall expire upon the dissolution of the twenty-first parliament.
Since that is the only portion of the act that is workable as far as floor prices are concerned, I should say that resolution indicated the intention of this government to do away with that legislation.
By special efforts during the war Canadian farmers brought bacon exports up to a peak of 675 million pouhds during the thirteen months ending December 31, 1943. By 1947 our exports had fallen to 225 million pounds, and in 1949 a contract for 160 million pounds was signed, with the quantity sent to Great Britain only a little more than half that amount. It was never expected that we
The Address-Mr. Charlton could retain peak wartime bacon exports, but there was every reason to believe that a part of that market could and would be maintained. I want to quote the words of the Minister of Agriculture as they appear in Hansard for September 24, 1945, at pages 408 and 409: ... I wish to call attention to the contracts with Britain, because, after all, those contracts have established the floors right from the beginning of the war down to the present time.
And further:
If we in the dominion of Canada can produce 450 million pounds of bacon a year over and above what we require in this country, for the years that are ahead of us we shall just about be able to supply that part of the British market which we hope to retain after this war is over.
That we would retain a goodly portion of the United Kingdom market was one of the promises made by this government; but when the minister embarked upon his program of subsidy controls and other juggling tricks, many farmers, particularly western farmers, went out of hog production. By 1947 the minister explained to the House of Commons that the target amounts which were the incentive of Canadian production had been replaced in the negotiation of British food contracts by an estimate of the amount which Canadian farmers could supply. I well remember that on that occasion he took pains to explain that this did not represent a paring down by the United Kingdom government, but now he says it did. The truth is that as a result of his manipulation of feed grain subsidies Canada in subsequent years failed to fulfil the British bacon contracts, thereby encouraging and indeed forcing the United Kingdom to seek her bacon elsewhere.
With each downward revision of the contract our exports continued to fall below the stipulated quotas. The minister and his colleagues knew at least two years back, as he admitted in the House of Commons on December 10, 1949, that the United Kingdom would drastically reduce her imports from Canada; yet in the face of that fact the minister stubbornly maintained during the last election campaign that our British markets were not being reduced, but that they were quite normal. That is substantiated by Canadian Press reports of the minister's statements. I quote from a report dated June 23, 1949:
Agriculture minister Gardiner said tonight "There is no evidence" to support the contention of C.C.F. leader Coldwell that Canada is losing the British food market. Mr. Gardiner said, "The evidence is quite the opposite."
Then again on November 18, 1949, he is reported to have said:
"In any conversations I have had with Sir Stafford Cripps and food minister Strachey, I have never gathered the impression they were not prepared to take all the products they could afford to pay for from Canada," Mr. Gardiner said.

The Address-Mr. Charlton
I had the privilege of listening to the minister in Brantford on December 5, when he reached the ultimate in double-talk and selfprotection during his address to the board of trade farmers' night in that city. The minister's remarks seem fairly well explained in an editorial appearing in the Ottawa Journal of December 7. It reads as follows:
Our Minister of Agriculture makes a discovery.
In Brantford on Monday night our Minister of Agriculture, Mr. James Gardiner, told the board of trade there was "a very decided official effort" to drive wheat and other Canadian food products from the British market. Said he: "During the last two years a very decided official effort has been made to drive every one of these products (pork, cheese, beef, eggs, etc.) off the British market. And now that the four-year wheat contract is drawing to a close an effort is being made to drive off a considerable part of our wheat as well."
Sounds more, this, like Erie Stanley Gardner, the detective story writer, than James G. Gardiner, Canadian Minister of Agriculture. But as we must assume there is no case of mistaken identity on the part of the reporter, we feel constrained to ask: If this British official conspiracy against our food products has been going on for two years, how come that Mr. Gardiner just tells about it now? And telling it, not in the House of Commons, where it should have been told, and where Mr. Gardiner could be cross-examined, but to an audience in Brantford.
Not that we ourselves are at all startled by what Mr. Gardiner says. Ordinarily we should be inclined to say to him that at Brantford he said too much or too little, and to tell him that he should identify the British officials who allegedly work against us. What we feel, however, is that what Mr. Gardiner seemingly "revealed" in Brantford was not a revelation at all, but simply that he is now admitting something the British have been saying to us, and quite frankly, for more than a year-things which Mr. Gardiner, like the rest of us, knew all about, but which, because of promises he had made often to many, he stubbornly refused to admit. In other words, all that really has happened is that events have caught up with Mr. Gardiner, making a rubbish-heap of what he and some of his distinguished colleagues tried to tell us, for their own political good, before, during, and since the election.
One part of this very important speech has been missed in this editorial, and that was Mr. Gardiner's statement-very conveniently made, it would seem, in a city such as Brantford, which is one of the greatest implement manufacturing centres in Canada-that being a free trader himself, he would have to advise all farmers to buy where they could sell, in Canada. The only conclusion that could be arrived at from this statement is that the minister is now suggesting a policy of national self-sufficiency. This statement, from a minister of a government pledged to freer expansion of trade, would surely make strange reading to his western supporters.
A later confession of failure was made at the closing session of the tenth annual dominion-provincial agricultural conference held in Ottawa on December 14. I have here an article from the Globe and Mail, a Canadian Press dispatch dated December 15, 1949.

The headline is, "Little bacon, no eggs: U.K. food pact collapses, still chance for cheese." The subheading reads as follows: "Gardiner says outlook dismal for agriculture: Hears price support plea."
The article reads:
Agriculture minister Gardiner today painted a dismal picture of 1950 Anglo-Canadian food contracts.
Of the 1949 contracts for bacon, cheese, eggs, salmon and apples, no contracts appear in sight except for cheese, and even that still is uncertain. Wheat is covered by a two-year agreement which expires next year.
The minister was finding it increasingly difficult to pull these United Kingdom contracts out of the hat just before Christmas. Yet, we have the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at Moncton on May 19, 1949, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star. The statement reads as follows:
The outlook today is far brighter than at the end of the war-wherever there are markets to be found for Canadian exports a Liberal government will find them.
Then we have the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture trying his best, under difficult circumstances, to fly a trial balloon at the rural life conference held at the university of Western Ontario on December 28. I quote from a press dispatch appearing in the Globe and Mail on December 29, 1949, which reads as follows:
Farmers would be better without government aid is advice of McCubbin.
An early return to selling Canadian farm products by private enterprise rather than by government contracts was urged today by Robert McCubbin, M.P. for Middlesex West and parliamentary assistant to agriculture minister Gardiner.
"The sooner the dominion government gets out of handling the farmer's products the better the farmer will be in Canada," he told 100 farmers and junior farmers attending a three-day rural life conference at the university of Western Ontario.
"Government contracts were all right during the war, and for the first two or three post-war years, but I feel that now farmers should handle their own farm products," he said.
I remember quite well, Mr. Speaker, that two years after the war was over this party tried its best to persuade the government to get out of the field of business, and let the farmers' organizations handle the products for the producer. The parliamentary assistant's speech sounds very much like a good Conservative speech.


Mr. McCubbin:: Oh, no.


John Alpheus Charlton: The article continues as follows:
"As a farmer, I wonder if farmers wish the government to keep bolstering their products with floor prices and subsidies."
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member had attended as many protest meetings across the country as I did, he would

know the answer to that. It would be a definite "yes". The article continues as follows:
"When the beef contract with Great Britain was cancelled, Canadian farmers shipped to the natural market, the United States, and got a better price.
It was the same with poultry. In 1948 a record amount of poultry was sent to the United States. And it was all sent without government help," said Mr. McCubbin.
Speaking on the future prospects of world markets for Canadian farmers, he said he felt "it is impossible to balance our trade with Great Britain. To ask 13 million people to balance trade with 50 million is impossible-it never will be possible. We can never buy as much as we can sell to Great Britain."
Just here, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quole a few of the trade figures with Great Britain and the United States. I might say that during the last four years we have had a lesser plus trade balance with the United Kingdom than we have had a minus balance with the United States. I do want to quote those figures, and commencing with 1946, the unfavourable balance of trade with the United States was $496-7 million; 1947, $918-1 million; 1948, $283-6 million, and 1949, $427-8 million. The favourable trade balance for those same four years with the United Kingdom was: 1946, $397-4 million; 1947, $564-3 million; 1948, $389-2 million, and 1949, $401-8 million. It will be realized that practically every one of those figures shows a greater minus for the United States than a plus for Great Britain. If we cannot be expected to balance our trade with Great Britain, which only has 40 or 50 million people, how can we balance our trade with the United States with 150 million people?
The article from which I was quoting continues as follows:
Apart from the disparity in population there was a second big reason why Canadians would never balance trade with Great Britain, he said. "We are Americans, and whether we like it or not we are going to stay close to the States, and we are going to buy the majority of our goods from the States. We're a dollar country and we'll stay that way. Even if it means paying a little more for our goods we'll still buy from the States."
He said he felt that some solution to world trade problems might be found if "some method of common currency" could be brought into being to do away with exchange rates.
There had been a lot said about Britain's decision not to renew her egg contracts and her reduction of bacon contracts, "but you must remember the British have not changed in the last 500 years. They are still shrewd traders and are going to buy where they can buy the cheapest."
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that that is not much of a compliment to the people of Canada, to say that the British are smart traders and will buy where they can buy the cheapest; but he tells us that we are going to pay
The Address-Mr. Charlton more for our products from the United States, whether we like it or not. He then goes on
to say:
"Unless we can give them as cheap an egg as other people they will buy from other countries. And the same applies to bacon. If we can produce bacon at a price comparable with other countries, then Britain wants our bacon."
He suggested farm organizations could very well start formulating plans to lower food production costs to meet world and especially western European competition on the European markets.
Is it the parliamentary assistant's suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers should be singled out as the only group to lower production costs? We realize that we are pricing ourselves out of the European markets; but the same could be said of practically every other industry in this country.
I should be glad if the parliamentary assistant could tell us how to reduce our costs without becoming miners of the soil; and that situation, as I am sure all will agree, is a dangerous one. Farmers are not complaining so much about price reductions as they are about the fact that they alone of all producers are expected to take less income at the present time. If the prices of manufactured articles and services were falling, it is conceivable that the farmers' attitude might be different. But at the present time there appears little prospect of that; the tendency appears to be in the other direction.
As the result of new contract prices and their effect on all domestic prices, farmers face an income drop of between $200 million and $250 million this year from their average of the past two years.
Some serious consideration was given to this rapidly-descending deflated trial balloon put up by the parliamentary assistant. The minister discovered that it was not going to be so easy to throw his worn-out market basket back to the producers when surpluses began to appear and prices began to degenerate. It is the age-old squeeze to which the farmers are expected to submit, but national economics in these modern times are more delicately balanced than they were when the unorganized producers of foodstuffs were merely hewers of wood and drawers of water. Agriculture is an industry now, not only a way of life; and it provides a tremendous market for the goods of our mills and factories. Agriculture, however, provides that market only when it has buying power. By increasing the cost of operation and lessening the income, rural people will be forced to buy less and their plight will soon be reflected in bank clearings, sales and monthly employment figures.
This fact became increasingly evident to farmers, industry and government as unemployment increased rather sharply to levels
692	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Charlton near the peak of the thirties. Something had to be done, but how, and when? Criticism was piling up and protest meetings were being held. Finally, contracts were signed with the United Kingdom for bacon and cheese at greatly reduced prices. In the case of bacon the contract was for 60 million pounds of Wiltshire sides at 29 cents a pound, with a government subsidy of $3.50 a hundredweight; and the contract was for 75 million to 85 million pounds of cheese at 25 cents a pound, f.o.b. Montreal, with a government subsidy of 3 cents a pound.
Our Canadian Cheddar cheese is the best in the world. It constitutes one of the best markets for our surplus milk production. The United Kingdom could and would take more of our cheese; but as I have stated previously in this house, we must modernize our packaging and marketing methods if we hope to hold this market. It is my belief that we should establish a processing and packaging plant in the United Kingdom. When 90-pound Cheddars arrive there, they could be regraded, cut, and packaged as the demand required, and the trimmings could be processed into soft cheese. Certainly we cannot expect to sell our cheese by the same methods we used fifty years ago, against competition from packaged cheese of New Zealand and Australia. It is a question of going out and doing a selling job. It can be done.
The minister states that there is a little surplus of cheese. The total as of March 1, 1950, was 38,613,000 pounds as against 27,873,000 pounds at the same date in 1949, showing an increase of nearly 11 million pounds. What about the 17 million pounds held over by the government from last year? Is it still good or will it have to be sold to processors?
It was not, however, until January 26 that any announcement was made by this government regarding the floor price on eggs. For over a month and a half this government allowed poultry producers to flounder hopelessly. As a consequence whole flocks were liquidated at bargain prices. Ungraded eggs were sold for as little as 16 cents a dozen. The damage has been done, and unless hatchery sales increase considerably in the next two months, consumers will pay dearly for their eggs this fall because of another government blunder. The floor price of 38 cents to dealers, plus at least 4 cents for storage, is no guarantee to the producers. It is only the more efficient who can survive at that figure. Hence the low hatchery orders. In January, for instance, hatchery orders were only 25 per cent of orders in January, 1949. There is little increase in the orders for February. In order to avoid wide fluctuations


in production, the floor price should have been set as nearly as possible to the average cost of production. In this way only the inefficient producer is forced to liquidate his flock, and violent price changes are avoided. This is one contract that was definitely lost, whether the minister admits it or not.
On January 26, while speaking at the convention of the dairy farmers of Canada which I had the privilege of attending, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) tried to justify a 10 million to 20 million pound surplus of butter this spring when the new production season begins. Again last Wednesday he tried to dispel any fears of a little butter surplus and twitted the opposition that it was no more than we had asked for a couple of years ago. I believe the minister realizes all too well that the situation with regard to butter has changed somewhat in the past year. The minister or his government did not have the courage to deal with the margarine issue but passed the buck to the supreme court and from there to the provinces. Now that margarine is on the market, the danger is not a scarcity of butter as it was previously, but a surplus as exists today.
Appearing in the Ottawa Journal of March 3 of this year is an article headed "Six cent slash coming", which reads in part as follows:
Dairy farmers are expected to submit to the government that they should have greater protection against the inroads of margarine. They set forth that in no other dominion is so little assistance given dairymen in saving their industry from the inroads of vegetable oil products.
They submit that their income in 1949, even with the price support program, showed a decline of 12 per cent in the six months ending in September, and if this was spread over a year the loss to Canadian dairy farmers1 would total $46 million. With a reduced butter price the loss would be even greater.
Then a little further on:
The increasing competition offered by cheaper margarine was indicated by January figures showing its consumption in that month totalled 8,152,000 pounds compared with 19,400,000 pounds of creamery butter disappearance.
On February 1, total stocks were reported at 46,500,000 pounds including the 30,000,000 bought by the government under the price support program. This was 12,000,000 pounds more than the previous record for this date and 27,500,000 more than for the same date last year.
Then again, there was a Canadian Press report in the London Free Press of March 10, headed "Production of margarine exceeds creamery butter", which reads in part as follows:
For the first month in history, the production of margarine has exceeded the output of creamery butter.
It happened in February, when butter production in Canada is always at its lowest point for seasonal

reasons. During that month, production of margarine totalled 8,646,000 pounds compared with creamery butter output of 8,494,000 pounds.
On Thursday, March 9, the minister gave a report to the house on the butter situation. I quote from Hansard at page 585:
For the benefit of hon. members I wish to state that the last ten-year average storage of butter, as of March 1, was, in round figures, 19 million pounds. The highest storages as of that date were 23 million pounds1 in 1940 and 24 million in 1947. The storage as of March 1, 1950, is 36 million. Of this amount the government had 25 million pounds.
According to the figures I received from the department the total is a little larger than that, but the difference is not too great, only 578,000 pounds. As a matter of fact that would be considered nothing by this government.
Incidentally I might mention a few other little surpluses which the minister seems to have pushed aside as unimportant. As of January 1, 1950, there were 10 million pounds of honey on hand-a million more than at the same date last year. As far as white beans are concerned, I am sure the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture has heard about the estimated figure of 200,000 bushels above our domestic requirements. The minister might also use the word "little" to describe our potato surplus. Total holdings are only 432,020 tons as of March 1 of this year, the largest amount ever known in this country at this time of year. Translated into bushels it is 17,280,800. It is also interesting to note that to date this year we have exported a total of 3,298,112 bushels of table stock, while the total for last year was only 3,444,965.
The total hold-over at this time this year is 82,625 tons more than last year. These figures are taken from the dominion Department of Agriculture, fruit, vegetable and honey crop market report, No. 49. The figures for this year are 432,020 tons, while the figures for last year were 349,395 tons. That is the total for all Canada. This difference of 82,625 tons amounts to 3,305,000 bushels.
With regard to apples, there is also a little surplus in the country. Let us start with the maritimes. These are cold storage and common storage figures. In 1949 there were 9,111 bushels in cold storage. This year there are 210,165 bushels in cold storage. No doubt if there is a by-election down there shortly they will all be disposed of before that time. I shall not mention all these figures. In Quebec this year there are fewer apples in storage than there were last year. In eastern Ontario there are a great many more than there were last year. In western Ontario there were 229,951 bushels in storage
The Address-Mr. Charlton last year; this year there are 258,783 bushels in cold storage. I remind the house that these are cold storage figures, and do not include common storage. There are many more in common storage as well. The total for all Canada as of March 1, 1950, was 2,332,663 bushels, as against 1,181,308 bushels at the same date last year. The difference is over a million bushels.
The Minister of Agriculture has bungled the agricultural policy of this country. He has laboured to create a condition in which it is most difficult for us to do business with our best customer, and an atmosphere of uneasy mistrust exists between Canada and the United Kingdom. He condemns Canadian farmers to their fate with only a vestige of former markets abroad left to them and no substitutes in sight.
This government has depended too much on ECA funds from the United States supplying the dollars for our United Kingdom markets-a fund which is diminishing rapidly for our use in view of large surpluses in the United States.
The farmers of Canada have paid the premium-a very dear one of over one billion dollars-on a policy of price stability handed to them by this government and accepted. Paid for in advance they now expect that policy to be honoured, not thrown back at them without even a return of premiums paid.
Not all Liberal campaign advertising followed through with what their leaders were saying. I have here an advertisement which appeared in the Prairie Examiner under date of June 13, 1949, in which it seems they were very frank in what they intended to do. Referring to their past policies they said this:
How successfully it tackled that job is charted above. Never have Canada's farm families been so prosperous, so secure. Never have they enjoyed so large a share of the nation's income.
But in referring to the future they say:
Floors under farm prices to assure farmers a minimum guaranteed return; the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to protect grain growers against the hazards of crop failure; long-range programs of conservation.
And so on. Then they say:
These and many other constructive steps reflect the Liberal policy "not only to provide farmers with a minimum of stability and security but also to help them to achieve an ever-increasing prosperity."
This advertisement was inserted by the national Liberal committee.


Mr. Fulton:: An official pronouncement.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have consulted several dictionaries and there seems to be no difference of opinion as to the exact meaning of the word "minimum". They all agree that it is the least or smallest possible proportion.

The Address-Mr. Harrison From all indications thus far, Mr. Speaker, that Liberal election advertisement may prove to contain the truest words ever spoken or printed.
As stated by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, the trend is toward the United States and depreciating the value of the United Kingdom market. I would point out to the government that the United States is a very unstable market for most of our agricultural products. They are a competitor nation, and while we may sell certain products there we are never sure that quotas or restrictions will not be placed on them as surpluses appear on their markets.
We have always had an unfavourable trade balance with the United States and a favourable balance with the United Kingdom, as figures I gave previously clearly indicate. It would seem that there are many articles now purchased in the United States that we could buy from the United Kingdom and thereby strengthen our own position with regard to the sale of our agricultural products. This would not endanger our own industries but simply transfer purchases from the United States to the United Kingdom.
I would therefore urge this government to arrange a trade conference with the empire countries and try to work out some solution to this very pressing problem. We must keep at least one foot in the United Kingdom market.
I would also urge the government to continue a support policy until adequate marketing legislation can be put into operation by producer organizations.
During his speech last Wednesday, the Minister of Agriculture jokingly referred to the fact that he had taken time to go out to a provincial by-election in his home province of Saskatchewan and had won that election. I should think, with the tremendous majority this government have, they would abandon the arrogant indispensable attitude they have adopted and that the hon. minister, having adopted the word "little" to describe our surpluses, could quite well forget a little politics and get down to a little business.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my short address with the usual congratulations to the mover (Mr. Larson) and seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I might say that the people of Saskatchewan are very much honoured in the choice of the mover of the address in the person of the hon. member for Kindersley.
No doubt farmers from the west will be surprised to read in Hansard the speeches delivered by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. [Mr Charlton.]
Wright) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) in which they protest against the twenty-cent interim payment on grain which was made last spring. Both hon. members suggested it should not have been made, and one said it should have been only ten cents or less. This is a strange attitude for hon. members representing agricultural constituencies. I know that in the southern part of my constituency, where we had three years of crop failure, this twenty-cent payment was an absolute necessity. They pointed out that the government had to borrow money. Naturally it had to; any farmer would be well aware of that situation, because he cannot have grain in his granary and money in the bank at the same time. Until the wheat is disposed of the money would not be available to make payments.
It was also pointed out that the interest charge in connection with this borrowing would be charged against' the farmer. That may be so; but they would have had to go to the bank to borrow it, in any case, and perhaps would not have had as easy a time as the government did. The farmers may have had to borrow the whole amount whereas the government had to borrow only a small portion because it was selling grain from time to time. If the constituents of those hon. members are like mine, then they will have some difficulty in explaining the attitude they have taken in the house.
It was also suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia that if the farmers had known in June of last year what they know now they would not have voted as they did. I went through my riding during the Christmas season, when they knew considerably more than they did at the time of the election, and I believe that' there were more Liberals at Christmas than there were on June 27. Perhaps that is not because of any action I have taken, or that has been taken by any member of the government; possibly it is more due to the action of the C.C.F. government' in Saskatchewan.
I do not wish to be-unduly hard on hon. members across the floor, because I do not think they subscribe to much of the action taken by the Saskatchewan government. Certainly their attitude in the House of Commons is usually just the opposite to that of the Saskatchewan legislature, as indicated by the action it takes.
The further criticism is made that the twenty-cent payment was made available so as to influence the farmers at the time of the election in June. We realize of course that the system followed by the C.C.F. to exert

influence at election time is somewhat different; but let us not forget that they have ways of influencing the voters.
Mention has been made of the election in The Battlefords, and I do not intend to discuss it in detail. Perhaps I might point out however that the first action taken by the C.C.F. candidate in that campaign was to go on the radio and make the statement that if he won the seat he would spend $200,000 in it. Of course that was done to influence the voters. Then, if we want to go back as far as 1944, we know that many things were said by members of the C.C.F. party to influence the voters.
I well remember that the leader of the C.C.F. spoke in our half at Medstead, where I live. I went to hear him and I must say he made an excellent speech. Referring to the education tax that had been imposed in years of depression by the Patterson government, a tax which had been imposed for educational purposes in those difficult times, he described it as being very bad and said that it was inequitable. Indeed he went on to say that the tax was most iniquitous, and that they were going to take it off.
If it was iniquitous at that time surely it must be more so now. We have just read of the announcement of the Saskatchewan budget, and we find that in that budget the education tax has been increased from two per cent to three per cent. If it was iniquitous in 1944, then the iniquity is now fifty per cent greater.
I do not know whether hon. members have looked over the new Saskatchewan budget, but if they did they would see at once that it runs contrary to the attitude taken by C.C.F. members in this house. They tell us here that we are facing hard times, that we are likely to have a depression, and so on. They always take the stand that things are going to be tough. If that is so, one would expect them to have those thoughts in the back of their minds in Saskatchewan.
Delivering his budget in Saskatchewan it would seem that Mr. Fines said something to that effect. A report in the Regina Leader-Post, referring to Mr. Fines' budget, states this:
"In my opinion," said Mr. Fines, "we have now passed the peak and from now on revenues will decline. I do not anticipate any sudden fall during the next six months but rather a steady gradual decline. What will happen after that time will depend on crop conditions and ability to dispose of our agricultural products at reasonable prices."
In the face of that statement one would expect that he would take some heed of the future. Instead of that however the budget is expanded, showing an increase of some $6 million, from $49 million last year to $55
The Address-Mr. Harrison million this year. Then, if one considers grants from the federal government, compulsory insurance on automobiles and hospital taxes, all of which must be classed as taxes, it is clear that the legislature this year is going to spend in that province about $69 million.
The attitude of the C.C.F. party in Manitoba, where the government is about to spend $39 million, is to the effect that this amount is out of all proportion, and that it is far too high. Yet, in Saskatchewan, with a C.C.F. government, they propose to spend $69 million.
Bearing these thoughts in mind, one finds it hard to reconcile the budget with what the provincial minister of finance says in his budget speech. It is hard to reconcile that budget speech with some of the speeches made by members of the C.C.F. in the House of Commons, wherein they point out that we must expect at least a recession. In brief, this means a contribution of about $80 for each man, woman and child in Saskatchewan, or a total of $400 for the average family of five. It is possible that if we do not continue to have favourable crops such as we have had in the last few years, when they have been fairly good, we will be pricing ourselves out of the land picture. If the tax is not paid the land will be taken over, rather than leave it in the possession of the people who now own it. The net debt as shown by the Saskatchewan budget has been increased by about $3 million, and the new education tax of three per cent will provide an additional income to the province of between $3 million and $4 million.
Some hon. members heard the discussion which took place the other evening following the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) in which he pointed out that the means test was imposed in Saskatchewan on the $2.50 supplementary payment basis. I well remember during the campaign of 1944 seeing placards in my constituency displaying the legends "Humanity first" and "People before profits." These were distributed in considerable quantity. One would wonder at a government supporting those slogans imposing a means test of the kind indicated-and then going out and saying that the means test should be removed.
I, too, believe that that should be done; but certainly they are in a position to do it when it is imposed on only $2.50. Some hon. members may not be aware of this fact, that the share of pensions borne by the Saskatchewan legislature is no more now than it was in 1927, when the scheme was first established. At the same time the income of that government has been trebled. Other provinces, such as British Columbia, have been paying $50 or over. That is what they

The Address-Mr. Harrison believe in and that is what they fought for in this house. Naturally you would think that they would do that in Saskatchewan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us what Ontario and Manitoba pay?


John Hornby Harrison: They pay something less, but they did not get up in this house in 1944 and say that we should pay a pension of $50. That is a point I want to make, that your actions are entirely different from what you say.


An hon. Member:: Double-talk.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that within the last few minutes he has criticized the Saskatchewan government for spending too much money and now he asks them to spend more money? Which way does he want it?


John Hornby Harrison: That is a good question. You have $69 million. I can easily tell you how to do it. In the 1944 campaign your leader criticized the then government for having too many employees. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), when attacking the education tax, said that he would fire 600 of those people. You now have about 1,600, more than they had then.
I want to say an odd word or two about my own riding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Odd is right.


John Hornby Harrison: I want to refer to some of the things required in that part of the country. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act has proved to be most desirable. Considerable dairying is carried on in my constituency, especially in the southern end, but we are precluded from the benefits of this act because we are outside the Pre-Cambrian shield. The water table in this part of my riding has dropped 25 feet in the last 20 or 25 years and this is causing considerable concern to those engaged in the dairying business. They are faced with the possibility of having to reduce their herds at a time when they should not have to do so. When this matter is up for consideration I shall urge that this act apply not only to territories like my own riding but to the maritimes and other parts of the country. We should get rid of the "prairie" in the title of the act and consider it as a rehabilitation scheme for the whole country.
The hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater) referred to the curtailment of train service and urged the use of our own coal and oil, particularly by the Canadian National Railways. Some action should be taken to see that our own coal is used, possibly exclusively, even though it meant the payment of additional subsidies. If more of

The Address-Mr. Harrison feel like taking a day off they may do so, or they may have a couple of weeks at the lake, and things are as they should be.
It is possible that these thoughts were in the back of the minds of so many Canadians who were pulling for Winston Churchill in the recent British election. Certainly he could have made a clean sweep in this country if Canadians had been allowed to vote. No doubt they felt he would have insisted upon an approach to Britain's problems as realistic as when he came out with the "blood, sweat and tears" that brought us all through the war. Certainly it will be the hope of every Canadian, especially those in the west, that Britain will soon regain her prosperity, and have her eight-hour day and the odd holiday at the beach, as we and our neighbours across the line are able to do. Until she is able to do this, she will buy from us only what she has to have, or we will have to loan or give it to her. If she will approach her problems realistically she will not And Canada wanting in giving her aid, for by so doing we will help ourselves regain one of our best cash customers. I do not want this house to think I am condemning Britain too severely, but I believe she should face her problems in a different light. I should be one of those in sympathy with her, because I was born there and usually you have a soft spot in your heart for your native land. Certainly I have for mine. I do think, however, she might approach her problems in a different manner and obtain better results.
The answer of the leader of the opposition to our trade problems was to suggest a commonwealth conference. In the light of realities a conference makes little contribution to a solution. As I said before, you would be faced immediately with the question of what to use for money. The leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) suggested that we should take sterling in payment of our goods. That would have some merit if we were in a position to extend more credit, because that is what it would amount to. Sir Stafford Cripps made that quite plain in an interview reported in the Toronto Star of February 11, when he said:
The acceptance by Canada of sterling instead of dollars would not in itself solve the problem. This really wouldn't solve anything. It would only defer payment. It would really be a Canadian credit given without interest.
That is the long and short of it. The leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) went a little further and suggested that the sterling might be reinvested in empire countries. I thought his proposal had considerable merit; but I am afraid the only country in the world in a position to accept that responsibility is the United States. That is about the only


country with enough money to develop her own economy and have anything left over for development elsewhere. We are in the position of a young fellow just starting in business, who needs all his capital for his own affairs. Canada has much to develop here, and in fact needs outside money in order to proceed with the development of her own resources. Having that in mind I agree with the leader of the Social Credit group that the policy he suggested would be a good thing not only for us but also in the promotion of peace. I am afraid acceptance of that theory, however, is precluded by the fact that we require our money here in Canada.
The picture as to the sale of our agricultural products is not too dark, though it will require thought and wise merchandising by this government, and a realistic approach to her problems by Britain herself. She will buy a great deal from us in any case, but we may have to eventually reduce our acreage in wheat and grow more coarse grains, marketing that as beef in the United States. In other words we will have to make some adjustments. We may have to increase the production of hogs for our own use, because right now we are using about 90,000 per week and are not producing much more than that; and we are not going to be able to fill the small contract we now have with Britain.
The economic outlook for 1950 is one of continuing general buoyancy. Surveys of the research branch of the Department of. Trade and Commerce covering all levels of government and some 17,500 business firms show that this year we will spend over $3,500 million in improvements and expansion of plants. This is always a criterion by which to judge the progress of a nation. This is the largest expenditure on expansion in our history, and represents 22 per cent of the estimated national income, which is expected to reach an all-time high of $16,250 million this year, or about eight times our pre-war income. We are the third largest trading nation in the world, though we only have one-half of one per cent of the population of the world. Per capita we trade three times as much as the United States, and twice as much as Britain. To further diversify and stabilize our economy, great oil fields have been discovered. Add to all this a great national leader in the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and we can look to the future with confidence.
For my constituents in Meadow Lake I have only one wish to assure their prosperity; that is, that they may be up to their knees in mud about June 1. This, together with the leadership I have mentioned and the proven

policies of the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), will assure a high level of prosperity for my constituents.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the member who has just taken his seat referred to the fact that he had a soft spot in his heart for the country in which he was born. I would fear for what might happen to Britain if he did not have that soft spot. He wants the British to take a more realistic attitude toward their problems. Does he not know that, according to international statistics compiled by an international authority, Great Britain has made a greater and more rapid recovery than any other country that was engaged in the war with her? Great Britain's production is now more than 130 per cent higher than it was in 1938.


An hon. Member:: And who paid for it?


Angus MacInnis: It came out of the sweat of the people of Britain.


An hon. Member:: And loans.


Stanley Howard Knowles: These members do not know the difference between money and production.


Angus MacInnis: The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
mine, mill and smelter workers from that body. Again, so far as I know, the political influence of the C.C.F. does not extend to the C.I.O. in the United States. Since this question has been raised, it may be of interest to the members of this house to hear the concluding paragraph of the report of the C.I.O. committee which investigated the charges against the mine and mill union. It reads as follows:
For the reasons stated, therefore, and on the basis of all the evidence presented to it, the committee unanimously concludes that the policies and activities of the mine and mill are consistently directed toward the achievement of the program and purposes of the communist party rather than the objectives and policies set forth in the C.I.O. constitution.
The member for Kootenay East cannot be unaware of the fact that the mine, mill and smelter workers union is controlled by the communist party at top level. He cannot be unaware of the fact that Harvey Murphy, who is in charge of the organization of his union in the British Columbia district, is one of the top members of the communist party in Canada. He cannot be unaware of the fact that the government of Canada has found it desirable to deport from Canada organizers of the mine, mill and smelter workers union, the latest deportation being from the British Columbia district a few weeks ago.
In the struggle that is now taking place to destroy the influence of the communist party in the trade unions of Canada, the member for Kootenay East should clearly state where he stands, with Harvey Murphy or with Pat Conroy. Before he makes his decision I, as a friend, suggest that he have a talk with the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr. Gibson:: Does the hon. member have to be a socialist or a communist?


Angus MacInnis: The question does not arise, and when the member for Kootenay East makes statements such as the one I quoted from his speech he is parroting Harvey Murphy.
My main reason for taking part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, is to draw the attention of the government to the concern of the people of British Columbia, and the city of Vancouver, with the question of unemployment, as well as other important questions which are now confronting us. With 15-8 per cent of the labour force of the province unemployed, the question of unemployment has reached the proportions of a major emergency. Furthermore, the concern of the people of the province and of my city is increased by the unconcern of the authorities here.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke in this debate he concluded his speech

by reading an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Star and which was headed: "1950, a Year of Adjustment." I think it was fitting that the Prime Minister should conclude his speech by reading a conservative editorial from the most conservative newspaper in Canada, for his own speech was as Conservative as anything I have heard in this house for many years.
That 1950 is likely to be a year of adjustment is one of the reasons why so many people are filled with concern. People are worried because they see the pattern of that adjustment emerging before their eyes, and what they are seeing does not inspire them with hope or confidence in the future. They have experienced similar adjustments in the past and know what they mean in human suffering. They see the cost of living increasing, employment decreasing and, worse still, they see the government throwing overboard the program for full employment and extended social security on which they won two elections. If anything further was required to complete their disillusionment and to increase their fear of the future, the Prime Minister's speech on the address provided it.
To hon. members on all sides of the house may I suggest that the times we are facing require of us that we should give the most searching analysis to the operation of our economic system. In my opinion the functioning of our economy has reached a stage which capitalism in the past has never been able to surmount. I shall explain what I mean. The so-called free enterprise system under which we operate fluctuates between periods of booming production and stagnating depression or, in other words, between high employment and mass unemployment. In boom periods, such as we have had since about 1939, everyone is more or less prosperous. When times are bad, millions are in want. We should try to understand what are the causes of our periods of prosperity and also what are the causes of our periods of depression.
Our periods of prosperity are caused either by supplying war needs, as we have done twice in the last thirty-five years, or a high demand for capital goods for use at home or abroad, or both. The amazing paradox of our system is this. When we have supplied our needs or other people's needs for capital goods, hard times begin. This is just the reverse of what the situation should be in any sane system of production. When our need for capital goods is met, we should then be in a position to start increasing our production of consumers' goods. But paradoxically, the reverse of that happens: we start curtailing the production of consumers' good

The truth of what I have said will be clear to anyone who will take the trouble to analyse the periods of prosperity and depression during the last one hundred years. It has been a succession of booms and busts, with the booms getting shorter and the busts getting longer with each economic cycle. Every time we have reached the stage when we should be in a position to make a mass attack on poverty in order to reduce it and to raise the standard of living of that part of the population which is always living below the line of health and decency, business begins to slow down, opportunities for investment begin to decline, unemployment increases and hundreds of thousands lose all they gained when production was booming. That has been the picture ever since I can remember, and it has been the picture for one hundred years before that. I am convinced that in this year of 1950 we are fast approaching a situation such as the one I have outlined, and that it will shortly overtake us unless something is done quickly to prevent it.
What can be done? Profiting by the lessons of the great depression and the knowledge of what we demonstrated we could do during the war, when as a people we had a national objective and a common purpose, the government in 1945 in a white paper outlined what they thought the future government policy had to be if we were to avoid the ups and downs which have always plagued our economy. On Thursday evening the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) dealt with the salient points of the white paper, and I will not repeat what he said. I believe, however, hon. members will agree with me that the proposals contained in the white paper were worth-while aims. The authors of that document were aware of the fact that the social essentials mentioned therein, namely, opportunity, welfare and security, were lacking for hundreds of thousands of Canadians in the decade before 1939. Furthermore, by the achievements in production during the war, they were convinced that that lack was unnecessary. I am satisfied that that was the reason why we had the white paper.
The government itself placed a great deal of importance on that document at the time it was issued. On April 12, 1945, when the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), then minister of reconstruction, tabled the document he had this to say, and I quote from page 808 of Hansard of 1945. It may have no significance whatever, but I may mention that April 12, 1945, was the day before parliament prorogued; it was
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis later dissolved and we had the election of that year. The then minister of reconstruction is reported as follows:
Mr. Speaker, acting in my capacity as minister of reconstruction, I desire to lay on the table of parliament a statement on government policy, having to do with employment and income, with special reference to the initial period of reconstruction.
I commend this document to you as deserving careful study. It is perhaps the most important government document that has been presented to this parliament in recent months.
It is regrettable that the government so soon forgot its importance. Then he went on to show some of the things that were to be done. I am now quoting from page 810 of Hansard:
A co-ordinator of public projects will stimulate the planning of public works and map out the timing and nature of government expenditures on public works projects. The purpose will be to have in hand at all times a shelf of public projects already planned and available when needed to stimulate employment in any given area.
We were told by the Prime Minister the other day that unemployment was spotty; that it' was localized. That is just exactly what the proposals and the program outlined in the white paper were intended for, so that as soon as unemployment showed itself in any locality plans would be ready to provide for it.
I continue with the quotation:
In order to keep the department in close touch with every part of Canada, local regional councils have been appointed, one in each province of Canada, and two in the large industrial provinces of Ontario and Quebec. These committees will have a permanent executive staff. The duty of the committees will be to keep the department informed of employment conditions in their respective areas, to recommend public projects suitable for their area, and to keep citizens within their area informed about the work of the department. These committees will be representative of the various economic groups within the area, and will include representatives of labour.
I have one or two other short sentences and I shall be finished with these proposals, the outline of which was given so dramatically by the minister of reconstruction on the date I mentioned. I continue:
The need for immediate and extensive reconstruction measures has not yet arisen, but the machinery is ready, and action will be prompt whenever we enter into the period of transition following the defeat of Germany. However, the machinery cannot operate without a comprehensive policy to guide it in its working, and set the targets for it. Here also the pattern has been set, the principles have been agreed upon, and the way cleared for action.
The way was cleared but no action was taken. In the last paragraph we have this:
To attempt to summarize the document would be an invitation to hon. members to avoid giving study to the document itself. Therefore, I will not attempt such a summary. Once again let me urge you to read and study this important statement of government policy.

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the government ever study it?


Angus MacInnis: I doubt very much whether the minister ever looked at it after it' was tabled. Perhaps they did, because later some of the proposals in the green book seem to have been taken from the white paper. Certainly, now is the time when they should put these policies into effect, because there are many places where they are needed.
We have been living in troubled times since the end of the war; but nevertheless in nearly all of the countries of the world, and particularly in the democratic countries, there has been a tremendous increase in production. I noted in a publication a few days ago that in the Marshall aid countries of Europe, with the exception of Germany, production had reached 130 per cent of pre-war. In all of the countries of western Europe shortages are disappearing, and on this continent they are disappearing also. Those who now go without the things they need go without them because they have not the money to buy and not because the goods they need are not available.
I have a feeling that the ease with which the transition was made from war production to peace production has lulled this government into a false sense of security. They seem to have forgotten how capitalism works. They seem to have forgotten the depression of the 1930's, and the events which led up to it. That they have forgotten or refuse to see is apparent from their insistence that the present high unemployment is due to the weather. But to show that there are other and more fundamental reasons for the unemployment, I shall quote from the Prime Minister's speech in this debate at page 53 of Hansard. He said:
About eight or nine months ago, as hon. members know, there was an indication of some slackening of economic activity in the United States. Our pulp and paper people felt that it would be a prudent thing to reduce the size of their inventories in which so much of their working capital was tied up at rather high costs of production,
I am informed the result was that this year there were about 35,000 fewer jobs in the woods than in previous years. That does not mean unemployment merely for 35,000 men.
The Prime Minister went on to show that many workers in other industries were thrown out of work because of the so-called prudent action of the managers of the pulp and paper industry.
When the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) spoke in this debate last week he showed what happened to the men who supplied the wood to the pulp and paper people. I read from the English translation of the hon. member's speech. He said:
I admit these production costs are rather high, but the companies have reduced their inventories.

He was referring to the statement made by the Prime Minister. I continue:
They have not omitted, however, to reduce, in a shameful manner, the price paid to small operators for pulpwood, and the salaries paid to woodcutters for job work. In view of the price the paper companies get for pulp, it really is a shame that they should be allowed to pay these forest labourers the meagre wage they force them to accept with a knife at their throat, if I may say so.
The knife at their throat is the fear of hunger, the fear of unemployment. I am drawing attention to this quotation, Mr. Speaker, from the Prime Minister's speech and also from the speech of the hon. member for Beauce, because first they show the unemployment is not wholly due to the weather; and second, they show on what a slender thread the livelihood of the people rests under the so-called free enterprise system.
In my home city I do not find any of that easy optimism which flows so easily in the speeches of the Prime Minister. Authorities in Vancouver are convinced that unemployment is due to a slowing down of business. They know that unemployment is worse this winter than it was last; and they are afraid it will be worse next winter than it is this, unless planned action is taken to prevent it.
I hold in my hand a copy of a brief sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) by the city council of Vancouver. I shall read from it two short paragraphs to show how the city council of that city looks at this question of unemployment. It reads:
This situation cannot be referred to as unique or surprising, considering the fact that just prior to the last war our economy was reeling from the worst depression known to our country. On the contrary, the last great depression served to make our people and their government more aware of the hardships of an unplanned legislative approach to the emergency which arises when an economic recession sets in. This public consciousness grew and in fact became international when it culminated in the recommendations put forward for the benefit of the peoples of the world and incorporated in the United Nations charter.
The heartening factor to the working classes of Canada, even before the recent overwhelming victory of the government in the last election, was the publicly expressed desire and plans to overcome the unemployment situation which is critical at the present time. These sentiments so expressed with apparent sincerity no doubt accounted for the said overwhelming victory at the polls.
The sentiments to which they refer are the proposals outlined in the white paper and in the speeches by members of the government made afterwards.
I, too, have a letter which I should like to read into the record. This letter is written by a man who for many years has had the job of trying to help those who fail in the day-to-day struggle of earning a livelihood. I believe this letter is far more realistic in its evaluation of present conditions than the editorial read into the record by the Prime

Minister when he spoke. This man sees life from its seamy side. He comes in contact with people who are the first to feel the effects of hard times. I shall not read the whole of the letter, but I am sure the condition this man outlines as being the case in Vancouver is the case in every large centre in Canada. He says:
We are writing, however, to ask you to strive for immediate action to provide financial assistance for families of unemployed persons who at the moment are not eligible for unemployment insurance . . . No assistance to cover food, shelter and fuel for this group is available at the present time in Vancouver. The high cost of living and housing problems, in our experience, make it impossible for families of average income to maintain proper standards of health and decency, and at the same time to put anything by for a rainy day. With jobs not available, savings gone and the breadwinner categorically rejected as ineligible for any assistance, unemployed citizens of Vancouver are now forced to rely upon their grocer, landlord and neighbours, or go the rounds for hand-outs.
It seems unspeakable that in 1950, in the third largest city of Canada, veterans' and non-veterans' families are suffering while our three governments disclaim responsibility for action. As you probably know, in 1945 the federal government framed a comprehensive scheme for unemployment assistance, the provincial statutes of this province include permissive legislation covering assistance, and the city of Vancouver charter sets forth the responsibility for providing for its poor and destitute. Yet, year after year, as unemployment mounts, more families are left without the basic necessities of life.
Then he shows the consequences of this neglect. Referring to the family welfare bureau of greater Vancouver he states:
This organization for twenty-two years has stood for strengthening family life, and we regard the present impasse as both unnecessary and alarming. We know how insidiously under-nourishment, fear and desperation are undermining the physical and mental health of parents and children. In turn these will result in greatly increased public costs in combating physical and mental illness and delinquency in all its varied forms.
I am sure if the editor of the Montreal Star had had the job of looking after these people he would not be so optimistic as he appeared in that editorial to be.
I should like to have made some comment on the amazing speech delivered by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) in the debate, but time does not permit. May I point out however that the hon. member seems to have more than his share of fear. He is afraid of statism, whatever that is. He has a congenital distrust of planners-and my understanding of "congenital" is that it is something with which he was born. He has a holy horror of the welfare state, and looks with a jaundiced eye upon subsidies in any form. I do not know whether this completes his list of phobias, but I believe hon. members will agree with me that a man who is prey to
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis so many fears is in no condition to make a full and objective study of the problems confronting our world today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He should go to a psychiatrist.


John Lambert Gibson: He does not vote socialist.


Angus MacInnis: And thank God for that. I would like to tell him a few things, but I do not suppose it would do any good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just add to his fears.


Angus MacInnis: A man who has as many
fears as that is-


An hon. Member:: Hopeless.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, hopeless. You cannot do anything with him. In conclusion I would urge the government and the members of this house to get back to the thinking that produced the white paper-yes, and later the thinking that produced the green book proposals. Not only should we get back to the thinking but to the spirit of the times when we were all working for a common, national objective. Until we go forward to that stage, where we are thinking in terms of co-operation, and not everyone for himself, we shall not meet effectively those problems which today confront us on every hand.
Any policy based on the assumption that so-called free enterprise will permanently, or even over a relatively long period of time, provide full employment, is bound to lead to disaster. Capitalism will provide employment only so long as substantial profits can be made. This condition applies only in periods of scarcity. It always breaks down in times of plenty. If we are capable of profiting by the experience of the past we must without delay formulate and put into operation policies which will demonstrate to our people that the harder they work, the more they produce, the more secure their lives will be. Indeed the opposite of that is the feeling that they have today where plenty breeds poverty 'and misery.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The way the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) acquitted themselves has brought honour not only to themselves but also to the constituencies they represent. I should like also to

The Address-Mr. Decore pay tribute to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris) on his elevation to the very important position of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. As a new member of this house I am sure I am expressing the sentiments of most new members here when I sayi the minister has been very kind in giving us guidance in our new surroundings and encouragement in our new responsibilities. Being an Albertan-and incidentally, regardless of the Social Credit government, my province is still known as sunny Alberta-I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Prudham) on his appointment as parliamentary assistant. Those of us who know him well are familiar with his ability and honesty, and we know he will carry out his duties effectively and conscientiously. We hope that in the not too distant future he will be given even greater responsibilities which will enable him to take a more active part in the affairs of this country.
I am not going to talk too much about my constituency, except to say what I suppose most hon. members already know, that the constituency I have the honour to represent includes the biggest oil sector in Canada, the famous Redwater oil field. In my constituency we have very progressive farmers, who for the last number of years have gained world recognition of their efforts. Last year the farmers of Vegreville constituency managed to capture three major awards at the Toronto royal fair and the Chicago world show.
In recent days, and indeed over the last few years, we have heard repeated statements by some members on the opposition side of this house as well as other people throughout the land to the effect that a major depression is just around the corner and that this country is heading into economic ruin. While we must be on our guard, such utterances by these calamity howlers certainly are not in the best interests of this country. In this connection I should like to direct attention to an editorial which appeared recently in the Montreal Gazette; and I chose the Gazette for a specific reason, because we all know this particular newspaper supports certain political views in this country:
Ford Head Haps Calamity Howlers
A useful and timely public declaration was made in Toronto yesterday by Mr. Rhys M. Sale, the recently appointed new president of the Ford Motor Company of Canada. He spoke out firmly against the dangers and lack of real basis in the tendency in some quarters to fear and foretell a business depression in the next two or three years. He confessed with good reason to being worried to see "professional gloom-spreaders doing their best to talk us into a depression."
Mr. Sale was rightly concerned that, even without any valid foundation or signs of economic collapse, the talk of such calamity howlers could engender public apprehension which, in itself, could bring

on business stagnation and instability. Evidence presented by public opinion polls and otherwise indicated an initial undercurrent of unjustified fear akin to the panic which largely contributed to the depression of the 1930's.
The motor company head saw "not the slightest" ground for the kind of fear being stirred by "some opportunists" and by scare reports on current economic problems which, while real, had hardly brought the country to the brink of disaster. He pointed to Canada's continuing increase in population, in capital investment and creation of new wealth, and the high level of personal earnings, as some of the factors warranting a firm confidence in the future, whatever moderate or temporary adjustments there might be from time to time in the business tempo.
We all realize that we are now in a transitional period, passing from a wartime to a peacetime economy. That is bound to be reflected in conditions throughout Canada. During the war it was quite an easy matter for us to dispose of our surplus products, especially agricultural products, because the whole world wanted our wheat, our bacon, our beef, and whatever we had to sell. But gradually the economies of the European countries are being adjusted, and of course we are experiencing certain difficulties. However, I repeat that Canada has no room for calamity howlers and gloom-spreaders. It seems to me some of these people almost wish there would be a major economic depression so that eventually they would be in a position to say "I told you so." My submission is that if they continue to spread fear and distrust their efforts might very well bear fruit and bring about a depression.
At this time I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the matter of the trans-Canada highway. I appreciate that legislation in this regard was put through last session, and I do not want to create the impression that I am dealing with a dead issue or whipping a dead horse. However, I do not believe the question of the trans-Canada highway has been settled, especially in the prairie provinces. I am referring to the route, Of course. As a representative from northern Alberta you would naturally expect me to favour the Yellowhead route; and for that I offer no apologies. However, I prefer to look at the matter not merely as one coming from the town of Vegreville or as an Albertan or even as a westerner, but rather from the Canadian point of view. I am not casting any reflection upon any government, but I do not believe for a moment that any of the provincial governments in western Canada are competent to decide the route on a national basis. Naturally they will be guided by provincial rather than national considerations.
The question of the trans-Canada highway route is of great importance to the Dominion of Canada from the point of view of defence. We realize that we are going to spend large

sums of money for defence purposes this year. Again, the question of where this trans-Canada highway is to go plays an important part in our defence. I have been told that the three most westerly provinces seem to favour the Calgary-Kicking Horse route. If I were satisfied that the decision to have the highway go through Calgary and Banff had been made by competent persons with full knowledge of the relevant facts as to alternative routes, then I would be prepared to abide by such a decision. But I am not satisfied.
At the moment, I believe the Calgary-Kicking Horse route is only second best, and a poor second, when compared with the Yel-lowhead route. A reference was made today by the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) to a rat, and the important role that that rat landing in Edmonton would play in coming from the east and blazing a trail for the trans-Canada highway. An interesting question arises as to why this rat, instead of going through Medicine Hat and that part of the country, stopping over at Calgary, by way of the Kicking Horse pass, in which there are hundreds of miles of desert, arid land, sand, cactus and no water, chose to go to Edmonton. I think the answer is quite simple. Even a rat knows better.
On a prior occasion the member for Calgary West referred to Edmonton, and said he never knew about Edmonton until he heard of a little place called Leduc. It was Leduc that put Edmonton on the map. He went on to say that, so far as Edmonton was concerned, for miles around Edmonton there was nothing but swamp. It so happens that takes in part of my constituency, and I must confess that I have been getting complaints from some of my constituents about it. I should like to say that those of us who come from that part of Alberta have a high regard for the member for Calgary West. He is held in high esteem and, of course, we realize his ability in this chamber. But as you know, at times most of us have to go through certain misfortunes. We are bound to do certain things we do not like to do. It appears to be the unfortunate lot of the hon. member for Calgary West to have to represent a portion of that cow town called Calgary.


Mr. Harkness:: It is the only town we have out there that anybody knows anything about.


John Decore: May I tell the member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) that I have a lot of friends living in the city of Edmonton. They tell me that if they want to get away from it all after a hard week's work, and spend a quiet week end, they do one of two things. They either go out in the country, or they go to what is now rapidly becoming a suburb of Edmonton, Calgary.
The Address-Mr. Decore


Douglas Scott Harkness: They certainly would not stay in Edmonton if they could help it.


John Decore: The advantages of the Yellow-head route have already been enumerated on the floor of this house. I am sure some hon. members have seen the edition of the Edmonton Journal dated February 28 last, which contains an editorial on the subject. A portion of that editorial reads as follows:
The advantages of the evergreen highway have been listed by the Yellowhead route association. The most important of them are as follows:
1.	The evergreen highway is particularly important at this time as a potential military highway. It connects central Canada with the Alaska highway most directly, and also with Vancouver and Prince Rupert. "Exercise Sweetbriar" reflects the important place the Alaska highway plays in Canadian and United States defence thinking. That northern highway is only as good as the highways feeding it from the south. And the time to build a defence highway is long before its possible need for defence purposes.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that is very important. It is certainly something that should be taken into consideration. Again I suggest the provinces are not competent enough to decide this question of defence from a national point of view.
The article continues:
2.	The evergreen highway would prove to be the finest motor tourist highway in the west. It would link four great national parks, and five splendid provincial parks, from east to west. Its whole length would run through beautiful country, wooded, parklike, and gently rolling; not through hundreds of miles of flat prairie with scarcely a tree in sight. It would attract tourists far into the country, keeping them in Canada for longer "spending" periods.
3.	The evergreen highway would cost less to maintain, particularly through the Rockies, for the Yellowhead pass is lower. Its altitude is 3,717 feet compared with the 5,337 of the Kicking Horse pass and the 4,450 of the Crowsnest.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It does not amount to anything.


John Decore: It does amount to a lot. I continue reading from the editorial:
Snowfall on the Yellowhead route also is less. Mud, rock and know slides in the Kicking Horse pass are a constant threat, while in the Yellowhead they are not, for the pass there is much wider.


Mr. Johnston:: Just recently the trains from the Yellowhead pass had to go through the Kicking Horse pass.


John Decore: May I also refer briefly to an editorial which appeared in the Edmonton Bulletin under date of February 9. This is what it says:
The Kicking Horse route builds into the past where development and growth have come to a halt. The Yellowhead route builds into the future where development and growth will continue for a century or more.
Now, if I may go back to that rat again, which found its way into Edmonton, they

The Address-Mr. Thomas tell me that rats like to be where there is a concentration of human beings. Now, I believe that is very significant.


Arthur Leroy Smith: So do I.


John Decore: It is significant that this rat did not find its way into Calgary. I am told that rats are conscious, as a class, and they prefer not to deal with human rats.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize now that there are too many interruptions.


John Decore: Although the proposal is that the province pay half of the cost, and the federal government the other half, the fact remains that 100 per cent of the cost of construction and maintenance will have to come out of the pockets of the Canadian taxpayers. The Canadian taxpayer is concerned, and should be concerned, to see that the money spent on this national project is spent to the best possible advantage of this great country of ours. Again I stress the matter of defence. It has been emphasized before, and I am stressing it again, that there should be some fact-finding board or, in the alternative, a royal commission appointed by the federal government to investigate all phases of the construction of the trans-Canada highway. As an alternative, an independent board could be appointed by the federal and provincial authorities to investigate the question of a route for this highway from Winnipeg to Vancouver. The enormous cost of the work, plus the effect it will have on our whole Canadian economy, makes it necessary that the matter be determined not only impartially, but also on a national rather than a provincial level.
I believe the question of the route of the trans-Canada highway, from the point of view of national defence, national development, and national economy, is of vital concern, not only to the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, but to all Canadians, regardless of whether they are in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia or any other part of Canada.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of difficulty to take part in this debate. I was in a difficult curling match yesterday, and I find myself stiffened up in quite a few muscles.
This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) put on Hansard the record of production in the British isles since 1938 and said that the production this year was 138 per cent' of production in 1938. We all agree that Britain needs that added production. He left the impression, however, that it was as a direct result of the Labour government regime that this increased production came about'. I have here a statement

written by Mr. Alfred Edwards, a member of parliament in Great Britain; he was a Labour member during the last regime. This is what he has to say:
. . . let us look at coal under nationalization and steel under private enterprise. Heaven knows coal under private ownership was no model. England's plight was desperate and she needed full production. So the Labour party took over the mines for the people and voted the equivalent of $100 million for mechanization to increase the per capita production of the worker. Yet from June to October, 1948, in spite of the increased mechanization and in spite of the fact that it is now the people's coal-not that of the greedy capitalists- the mines produced 158,000 tons per week less than in 1938.
He goes on to say that most of the privately run industries have shown a large increase in production since 1945 but coal actually shows a loss. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it has become a laughing stock in Great Britain. One of the cartoonists has pictured a miner talking to the minister and saying: You told us that under socialism we would get more money for less work. Well, we have given you less work. How about giving us more money? He also says:
The next target for socialism is steel. This is by all tests the most efficient industry in England- perhaps in the world. It produced 11 million tons in 1938, more than 15 million tons in 1948 with but little increase in its mechanization. It has not had a strike in thirty years. Its wages rise and fall according to an agreed arrangement in relation to prices.
This is in striking contrast to the impression left by the hon. member for Vancouver East this afternoon. It looks a great deal as though Britain has made great advances not because of the Labour government but in spite of it.
From there I should like to go to another nationally run concern, and this time one here in Canada. Since the reduction in railway service was put into force-and I am exceedingly glad to see that the regular runs are in operation again-I have received numerous letters and resolutions. I shall not take the time to put any of them on the record word for word, but they ask for an investigation into all of the details; that is, into whether or not there was a coal shortage, and if there was, why; into the effect of the curtailment on the mail, l.c.l. service and express, the loss of business to busses and to the C.P.R.; and into the employment situation as it was affected at that time.
The minister dealt with the matter in part, as reported at page 23 of Hansard, when he said that the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways, at its meeting in October, 1948, approved an objective of 2,365,000 tons of coal for stockpile as at December 31, 1949. As the result of Mr. Vaughan's instructions to cut it down to three

months' supply, the stockpile as of December 31, 1949, was 1,043,000 tons. If the minister had studied the matter he would have found that the suggested stockpile came to something like 532,000 tons of coal per month; that is, for four and a half months' supply. If the stockpile had been up to Mr. Vaughan's suggestion for three months we would have had in the stockpile one-third again as much coal as we had at the end of December. That extra third would have much more than taken care of the 25 per cent reduction in passenger service that was implemented by the C.N.R.
The minister gave us the relative mileages of the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. in eastern Canada, central Canada and western Canada, and he pointed out that the largest mileages of the C.N.R. were in central Canada where no coal supplies were available. What he neglected to say was that the Canadian National Railways serve the Brazeau collieries in Alberta as well as the collieries at Mountain Park, Cadomin, Nacmine, Luscar, and various other coal mining centres. We could go on and name others. We have the Drum-heller and Camrose mines, all served by the Canadian National Railways. I should say, of course, that the coal from some of these mines is not suitable as steam coal but in a good many cases it is. During January I had the pleasure of spending some time in Mirror, which is the divisional point which serves Brazeau. While I was down at the station there I looked over the bulletin for trains; and believe it or not, there were no coal cars available to run into the Brazeau mine. Trains were running out of Brazeau under tonnage; and the Brazeau mines laid off 27 men in the month of January. The mines were there; the coal was there; the will to produce was there, and in a national emergency I would think that not only would the trains be running with full tonnage, but there would be extra trains put on. Where were the coal cars? Alberta has coal reserves of 46 billion tons. If they had wanted the coal we could have given it to them; and that also applies to the great mines in the maritimes. The great Cape Breton mines are served by the Canadian National Railways.
I would suggest that a complete investigation be made into the trans-Canada freight service to determine whether or not the full possible tonnage was being carried between the Alberta coal mines and central Canada, and between the maritime mines and central Canada, and to see whether or not full advantage was being taken of the possibilities and of the reserves of these two parts of the country. The damage that has been done by cutting down this service cannot be estimated.
The Address-Mr. Thomas
During the depression the Canadian National Railways cut off a part of the service between Edmonton and Calgary on Nos. 13 and 14 through Mirror, and Nos. 25 and 26 through Drumheller. That was only temporary, but in that instance it was a financial necessity; at least these lines were never restored to full service. They never needed full service again because as soon as the Canadian National Railways took off that service the Canadian Pacific service between Edmonton and Calgary had to put on extra trains. The Greyhound busses increased, and every little town has a fleet of trucks. The damage can never be repaired.
I have received numerous resolutions from various branches of the Canadian Legion in my constituency, and I should like to put one of them on the record at this time. This is from branch No. 229 Millet, Alberta, and reads as follows:
Millet branch of the Canadian Legion, B.E.S.L. No. 229 heartily concur in the following:
First, the paramount need for a basic increase in war veterans' allowance;
Second, the crying necessity to bring widows and wives completely under the War Veterans Allowance Act to accord them the same benefits as the male recipients;
Third, the importance of setting up a special parliamentary committee on veterans affairs.
I think the basic allowance is now $40.41 for a single man, and $70.83 for a married man. These veterans are being paid for the burning out they received during the first war. They are being paid for services rendered, and it seems a pity that they should be penalized to the extent that they are now getting less than the old age pension. I would strongly urge the minister to consider increasing the basic allowance for a single man to $50 and to $85 for a married man. This would be in accordance with the recommendations of service organizations throughout Canada.
Another point has to do with the widows of the recipients of those allowances. At the present time so long as they have a husband partially to support them they are in receipt of a supplementary allowance, but as soon as their husbands die they are penalized to such an extent that they get nothing.
I would strongly urge that the means test be abolished with reference to those in receipt of the war veteran's allowance, or at least raised to the minimum of the income tax exemption.
There is another group of veterans who deserve a great deal more consideration than they have been getting. We hope that the measure now on the order paper to give the imperial veterans the war veteran's allowance will be passed. I have in mind a man who came over here in 1919 and who has worked

The Address-Mr. Thomas hard to raise his family. He has been an A-l citizen ever since, and at the present time he is getting a basic allowance of $8.41.
I should like to add my plea to the many that have been expressed to give the veterans clear title under the Soldier Settlement Act. Last summer I was approached by one old soldier who had been unable to keep up his interest payments and was unable to pay anything down on the capital because of a bit of tough luck. He owed them $2,000, so he had to get off his land. As soon as he got off, that land was sold to another settler for $800, including improvements.
What is more, I say all this could be done without any further taxation. It could be done out of the wealth of the country. I see some hon. members shaking their heads. Possibly they will remember that the Minister of Finance said that money came as a result of production. I cannot entirely agree with the minister on that. At the present time money is the result of the producer's ability to pay back a loan with interest after he has paid for his own livelihood out of his production. During 1948 production in Canada was estimated at $1,250 per capita. It was also estimated at the same time that the available purchasing power in Canada was $1,000 per capita, thus leaving a discrepancy of $250 per capita short of having enough money to purchase what we produce.
All the federal government has to do to pay for all these things, and to put forth an immense social service campaign, is to issue debt-free money and place it in circulation so as to maintain. a proper balance between our production and our purchasing power.
May I leave one thought in the minds of the government in connection with the payment of family allowances? At the present time these payments begin at birth and end just when a child is reaching a stage of advanced education and requires money most. I suggest that the payment of these family allowances should be continued until a child has finished its education or quits school.
May I say a few words about the subamendment moved by the leader of the C.C.F. party. The proposed amendment to subparagraph (2) of the Progressive Conservative amendment is expressed in broad general terms. This part might be considered to state the objective toward which we are all working, an economy wherein all our people are ensured social justice.
It appears to envision an economy so organized that every Canadian can be assured of adequate food, clothing, and shelter limited only by Canada's productive capacity. Nothing is said as to the method by which the objective shall be reached. We are left, therefore, to fill in the details of method as we

think they should be applied to ensure that social security for Canadians is realized. We favour the broad objective, and we propose to support this subamendment, reserving the right to say by what means we shall attempt to achieve over-all social security for the Canadian people. We want to make it clear that we do not believe it is possible to attain adequate social security by schemes of nationalization, or socialization. And if it has to depend in the main upon taxation we shall never realize social justice in this country. I am confident that we can produce a great enough volume of goods and services that every Canadian can have plenty to eat and wear and to keep him warm, comfortable, and happy. I am also perfectly sure that, through the application of wise reforms in our distribution system, a just over-all level of social security is possible.
As to the second part of the subamendment, we think it is so vaguely worded that it might mean one thing or it might mean another. We interpret it to mean that the government should have pursued a vigorous policy of curbing communism and fascism in Canada, and while doing so, to respect fully the rights and freedoms of individual Canadians.
In dealing with all such movements the appropriate and effective method of attack is to remove undesirable living conditions in Canada. Certainly the government has far too long neglected to apply a remedy to the outrageous cost of living in Canada. Therefore we propose to support this part of the subamendment also. As I said before, we shall support it, but we reserve the right to choose our own methods as to the way in which it should be carried out.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I had determined to tell the house of the beauties of the constituency of Burnaby-Richmond, and the abilities of its people.


An hon. Member:: What about the weather?


Tom Goode: The weather is good, too. However, I propose to tell the house tonight something about what our people are thinking-in fact what people are thinking not only in the House of Commons but everywhere in Canada. We hear from time to time, and we see in the newspapers, statements regarding the President of the United States and his authority to manufacture the hydrogen bomb. We wonder why in this age of modern learning it is necessary at this stage of our development to start on a crusade of destruction, when there should be no need for it.
It seems that our people are thinking, and that everyone in this building tonight is thinking, of what can be done to stop the carnage before it gets started. We believe that the

cemeteries of Europe are full enough of Canadian dead. We feel something should be done-indeed we know something should be done to stop any further battles before they begin.
The situation in the world today seems to be one of fear, and there is some reason for it. We have just witnessed the conquest of China by Russia, and in a moment I shall quote some figures to prove that Russia is now embarked upon a series of conquests, and that we are not prepared to take care of that situation when it develops.
I should like to quote from Newsweek of March 13, referring particularly to an item headed "How we stack up against Russia." As everyone knows, Canada's future is tied up with that of the United States. This article in Newsweek states:
The United States army today consists of ten divisions, including one armoured division and one airborne. Man for man, these divisions have a great deal more firepower than any of the outfits of the last war; they are fairly well trained, and their morale is high. Except for the 82nd airborne and some infantry units in Japan, however, the army is undermanned and underequipped. In contrast, the Red army is believed to have between 150 and 170 divisions, including perhaps 30 armoured divisions, all of them at fighting strength.
The United States air force consists of 48 groups, with roughly 3,300 combat planes and 5,500 transport and support- planes in operation. The Red air force has about 9,000 combat planes ^nd perhaps 8,000 transport and supply planes. More than half of the Russian combat planes are jets; about 300 are TU-4s, a long-distance bomber much like the American B-29.
The United States navy has 7 large carriers, 8 smaller carriers, 1 battleship, 13 cruisers, 140 destroyers, 70 submarines, and 414 other craft in the active fleets. The Red navy has 3 battleships, 14 cruisers, 110 destroyers, about 270 submarines-
And a force of over a thousand vessels in support.
That is the situation in bare outline. The details make it rosy in some respects and blacker in others. As I said, the Canadian future is tide up with the future of the United States. I believe and my people believe that there is no necessity to bring these two great forces into conflict. We believe that if ordinary brains are used-surely we have them in high places-and men from the top level meet around the table, in the end the world will be better off.
It may be said that Russia has refused to keep its obligations in the past. That may be true, but we believe that one more try should be made so that the world may be kept from the destruction that will follow if we go on the way we are. Scientists have told us that if the H-bomb is used at this time it will start a chain reaction that will put civilization into chaos for 500 years; there will be no living on earth. Other scientists tell us that the
The Address-Mr. Goode H-bomb will never be used. There seems to be confusion, not only at the public level, on the part of the man in the street, but in the minds of scientists and government officials.
Before the British elections Mr. Winston Churchill said that if his party was elected he would call a conference at top level immediately to see that Russia and the western democracies were brought together and some type of solution arrived at. Unfortunately- perhaps fortunately for some-that conference will not take place in the near future. My suggestion is that Canada should institute this meeting. We have men of ability who have proved themselves in the United Nations to have what it takes to do this job. Canada should take the lead in bringing Russia and the great powers together to stop this great holocaust.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I did not take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne last session, so speaking now in this debate I wish first to congratulate you upon your elevation to the honourable office you now occupy in this house. I want to comment upon the fairness of your decisions during this and the previous session. It is customary for speakers in this debate to congratulate the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas), and in offering my congratulations I shall not attempt to add adjectives to those that have been used already. It would be just a repetition of the good things that have been said of these hon. members in connection with the impression they have made with their first speeches. In my humble opinion they did a good job with the text they had to work with.
I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) upon his return to the house after an absence on account of illness of three or four weeks. The hon. member is first, last and always working in the interests of the maritime provinces. He is not here at the moment, but I want to say that I am glad to see him back and I hope his health will permit him to remain during the rest of the session.
There are many subjects referred to in the speech from the throne but this debate permits a member to speak on any subject, to travel far and wide without being taken to task for irrelevancy. Any remarks made by an hon. member during this debate cannot be considered to reflect in any way upon the private or public life of His Excellency. His Excellency simply read a document which was placed in his hands by his political advisers.
710	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McLure
The speech from the throne is vague and full of pious hopes. I have listened to many of the speeches that have been delivered during this debate and have read others when I did not have the pleasure of being present when they were delivered, and I am fully persuaded that this speech from the throne is exceptionally vague and full of pious and porous hopes. I do not intend to follow the many speeches that have been made, but there are a few remarks to which I may have to refer.
In preparing the speech from the throne the government apparently recognized its unfavourable position. It indicated the weakness of the government to cope with the various situations that exist. It seemed to be an effort to forestall criticism by His Majesty's loyal opposition. The government seems to be quite orthodox because apparently it believes in making a full confession thinking that will be good for its soul. This'speech from the throne is a clumsy exhibition of an effort to befuddle the public. It indicates complete confusion and failure to grapple with the grave situations which are overtaking this country, which are now ripening and bringing about climaxing hardships.
The two main causes of the hardships that exist in this country are unemployment and the lack of markets for our agricultural products. The remedies suggested by the government in the speech from the throne are not good enough to take care of the situation. For instance, widening the scope of the unemployment insurance legislation will not take the place of good jobs. Promises made before and during the last election campaign of undertakings which would provide employment, even if immediately effective, would not give our unemployed what they deserve at the present time. What has the government to offer with respect to unemployment? As I said a moment ago, they said they would widen the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Let us go a little further and look at something else which is causing great hardship throughout the country. What about the farmers' products? They are packed away in cellars and storage houses across this country, although the government promised to market them. Today the government knows full well that many of these products of the soil are unsalable at the present time, even at prices far below the cost of production.


An hon. Member:: What products?


Mr. McLure:: Well, if you do not know you cannot have been listening to what has been going on here for the last three weeks. The government knows better than I can tell them what those products are, and that they cannot


be sold at anything like the cost of production. During the election campaign the government promised to find markets for our agricultural products, but have they done so? They have not. All they offer the farmer now is sympathy. They say to him, practically in these words, "Live, horse; grass will grow sometime." Addressing the meeting of the Ontario Liberal association in Toronto on April 7, 1949, the then minister of reconstruction and supply (Mr. Winters) is reported as follows in the Globe and Mail of April 8:
Federal government departments have shelved a number of public projects which would act as a bulwark if depression threatened.
He is further reported as having said that these projects would provide employment when needed and would promote the general economic welfare. Of course you realize, Mr. Speaker, that this was election propaganda, which it was hoped would bring results when the voting took place. At the same time the minister referred to different works in different departments. This assurance, so glamorously announced by the minister and consistently nodded to by his cabinet colleagues, brought many a vote at the testing time on June 27.
Now let us look for a moment at this shelf of public works. Perhaps those works were shelved so solidly they have not been able to bring them out.yet. As we look across the country we find a great many people now unemployed. The latest statistics give the total as something over 400,000, and I would say a later count would show that this total has now reached more than 500,000. But even at 400,000, the figure we were given a few days ago, why were not these public projects brought out, if they were real, in order to relieve that unemployment? Today many people are in desperate circumstances. I know that in several communities from which I have heard unemployment is so great that many people are almost facing starvation. Yet the government refrains from putting into effect this shelf of public works that were promised before the election. A short time ago I read an address by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself to the chamber of commerce of Montreal, I believe, in which he was reported as having said that the government was expecting and depending upon private enterprise to supply employment to the Canadian people.
He was further quoted as saying that the shelves of public works were not intended for that purpose, only under conditions and circumstances named by the government. So to all intents and purposes this was just a June 27 promise; and it did bring results. In all my memory, Mr. Speaker, going back over

many years in political life, I must say I do not think there was ever an administration that entertained such callous disregard for truth toefore an election and such utter contempt for promises made after an election as the government now surrounding the Prime Minister.
Let us look a little further at some of the government's election promises. Mine is an agricultural province, and as a member representing Prince Edward Island I take pride in the fact that nowhere in all Canada will you find more skilful or more scientific or more productive use made of the land than in that province. Nor have we stopped at farming the land alone. In our rich Malpeque oyster beds we even farm the bottom of the sea. I believe not only the maritime provinces but also the rest of Canada can take a lesson in farming and producing from the soil of that little province of Prince Edward Island.
This government promised our farmers markets for butt'er, cheese, eggs, poultry, bacon and potatoes, as well as other things. Last spring before the election, when there was a surplus of potatoes, the government purchased all the potatoes the farmers had in the bins at 69 cents per bushel. A farmer could then use those potatoes for feed purposes, or if he chose he could dump them on the compost heap. This created the impression, in fact the promise was made, that the government would see that the farmers were protected this year on the price of surplus potatoes. Have they done so? Not as yet, nor does the problem seem to be anywhere near settled. Delegation after delegation waits on the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), to see if some assistance can be secured.
Let me look at another government promise. Before the election of June 27, the aged people across Canada were promised old age pensions without a means test. Was that promise kept? No. Furthermore, to the men who were retired on small pensions, such as the men who had been working on the railway and were retired on an allowance of $27, $30, $40 or even $50 per month, the promise was held out that they would be able to secure the old age pension without a means test. Nothing has been done about implementing that promise, and it looks as if nothing will be done.
I should like to consider further this question of unemployment. Unemployment is growing everywhere, and it is becoming more difficult' all the time to keep it under control. Even in the small province from which I come, there is a great deal of unemployment. It has reached such proportions that the mayor of Charlottetown issued a proclamation to all citizens requesting their assistance
The Address-Mr. McLure in a jobs campaign, in an effort to overcome the growing number of unemployed who are daily seeking food and lodging. It is difficult to have to mention these things which are happening in your own constituency, but I am mentioning facts. If some of these promises had been fulfilled, especially those concerning public works, the city of Charlottetown would not have half the unemployment it has today.
Speaking about public works, I may say that the city of Charlottetown certainly needs public works. For the last three or four years, we have been promised a public building to house all the dominion offices and the post office. Although it has been promised for three years, it is difficult to get a statement about that public building. Even the site of it has not been fully established. The land owners and tenants, who have been ordered to vacate their premises by April 1, are wondering what the public works department is going to do. Many of these people have not had their properties appraised, nor have they been paid for them. I believe this is something that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) should attend to immediately. I hope he will not keep these things a secret. I should like to know how many of these land owners have had their properties appraised, whether they are going to be paid for them, or whether the government is going to walk in and take the land, then make a settlement afterwards. I believe this house, and the people of Prince Edward Island, should have a statement from the Minister of Public Works as to when construction of the building will be commenced. In the interests of solving the unemployment problem, construction should be begun immediately.
There are other matters with which I should like to deal. For instance, the city of Charlottetown has been promised harbour improvements for years. The Andrew Rae Duncan commission strongly recommended these harbour improvements. Perhaps the Minister of Public Works will say that certain improvements are being made. I will admit that some money has been voted for the last two or three years for improvement's to the shipping sheds on the marine and railway wharf. Apart from that, these promised harbour improvements have been dangled before us. One harbour improvement which would create a great deal of employment is the building of a marine railway slip. This was definitely promised by all parties as far back as 1911.
In 1911, the Conservative party promised to build a drydock, or marine railway slip as it is probably called now. When the Borden government came into power, it immediately started to fulfil its promises. The main one

The Address-Mr. McLure was the Borden-Tormentine ferry that was there promised and they fulfilled it, giving us the first real communication we had with the mainland, even if we had gone in under terms for proper transportation in 1873. Besides this, the Borden government went to work and purchased a shore property on which to build a marine railway slip, or, call it what you will, a place for making repairs to our steamers. What happened? They bought the property. They let the contract for the machinery to firms in Liverpool in England, but the war broke out and this matter was left dangling again until 1921 when it was again raised as a promise to the city of Charlottetown that a marine railway slip would be built.
There is the work there for a slip. We have our own boats that always have to be repaired. For instance, this railway slip should be built to take care of all the boats in the service for the province of Prince Edward Island; it should be built to accommodate all our ships. Here are a few of them that are in the government service: the Brant, the Sorel, the Prince Nova, the Charles A. Dunning, the Prince Edward Island, and the S.S. Ahegweit. In addition to these there are all the small ferry boats running between various points on the island, as well as the tugs and dredges. If we had a proper marine railway slip repairs to these boats would give employment to 200 or probably 250 men the year round right in the city of Charlottetown alone. We have the mechanics and the machine shops that can do all this work. But where does it go? Every particle of it is taken away from our province; as is said, we cannot work below the water line. Where does it go? It goes to Pictou, Halifax, Saint John and Sorel; thousands and thousands of dollars' worth of work is going away that should be available for the employment of our own labourers in the province of Prince Edward Island. In addition there is the danger entailed in taking these boats on the trip up to Sorel or even to Saint John or Halifax. In 1941 we lost the S.S. Charlottetown when she was on a trip up to Saint John, I think it was, for the purpose of overhaul. We should have from this government some assurance as to whether they are going to endeavour in any way to fulfil the promises made during the last election campaign and for years before that.
A little while ago I said it was difficult to get information on any subject dealing with matters in our province. From time to time I have had my difficulties with regard to particular matters concerning our own constituency. I want to cite one of them which

occurred here a few days ago. On March 6 I directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) a question which was as follows, as reported at page 467 of Hansard:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the Canadian National Railways made a general proposal to all the other provinces similar to that which has been made to the government of the province of Prince Edward Island, namely, to take over all the highway bus and truck services, and to place them under the control of the board of transport commissioners.
Here is the answer I received from the minister:
That is quite an order. I have had no advance notice of the question, but I may tell my hon. friend that I am not aware of any such movement. In any event I am sure that the Canadian National Railways, or for that matter the federal government, would have no jurisdiction over provincial highways on Prince Edward Island, and over one or two of the other matters which my hon. friend mentioned in his question. That is about the only information I can give him at this time.
The minister's answer was really a surprise to me when he stated that he was unaware of any such matters going on between the government of one province and the Canadian National Railways of the dominion. Surely the minister should be aware of what is taking place in connection with the Canadian National Railways transport matters. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to give him a little bit of information, as follows. Negotiations had been going on for a long time between the Canadian National Railways and the province of Prince Edward Island. As a matter of fact, the railways presented a brief; and in that brief they outlined all that they were willing to do and what they wanted to procure for themselves in this swap. We all know, of course, that the whole question would be one of jurisdiction unless it could be amicably agreed to between the parties. However, whatever the board of transport commissioners and the public utilities commission decided upon would be all that was required to have this highway traffic system established. The government of Prince Edward Island were so much at sea with regard to this railways' brief that was presented that they could not come to a conclusion. They did not feel like accepting, and neither did they feel like rejecting, the proposals of the Canadian National Railways for them to get co-ordination of the bus, truck and railway services all under the Canadian National Railways management in that province.
Before the railways' brief was presented, and it is dated February 15, a great deal had transpired by letter and conversation; because on February 22 the Prince Edward Island

government stated in a letter to the vicepresident and general manager of the Canadian National Railways at Moncton as follows:
Please accept for yourself and convey to Mr. F. A. Gaffney our appreciation for the lucid presentation of proposals contained in your letter of February 15, and for the exceedingly clear and forceful manner in which the same was presented verbally on February 8 and 9.
I have before me a clipping with reference to the whole matter giving the full details and the full brief of the Canadian National Railways. It is too long to read, but I shall be glad to send it over to the minister. Then I should like to have my question really answered, and the question is this.
Has the Canadian National Railways made a general proposal to all the other provinces similar to that which has been made to the government of the province of Prince Edward Island?
If they have, and if the governments of the different provinces were to accept it, the Canadian National Railways would be in absolute control of all transportation not only in and out of the province but in control of all transportation and the highways of the province. There must be something in it or they would not have gone to such detail in making up such a long brief.
I should now like to touch a little on transportation. To a province like Prince Edward Island, which is largely agricultural, transportation is without doubt the most important problem. I have endeavoured to emphasize that on the floor of the house several times since 1945. We have grappled with all the governments to see if we could not get the promises of confederation properly fulfilled. We have argued with them; we have tried different ways. So far we have had a certain amount of success. That success was accorded to us by the Borden government when they inaugurated the Borden-Tormentine ferry system.
For a few minutes I should like to give a little information regarding a second ferry system that we have in Prince Edward Island, and which has been in operation during the summer months, namely, the Northumberland ferry service from Wood Islands to Caribou, known as the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry service. Before the last war private enterprise took up this matter and established the ferry boats. At that time a great many people thought that private enterprise was making a mistake. Public works helped them build their docks for docking, and gave them some other assistance. The government also gave them a subsidy. That system has now grown to such an extent that the Canadian National Railways, and perhaps the government as
The Address-Mr. McLure well, are anxious to get control over it. The Northumberland ferry was first brought to the attention of the Canadian National Railways when they had to reduce their fares on the Borden ferry to compete with the Northumberland ferry. The idea is to get control, and it was rumoured for quite some time that that was what was going on. I asked a question with reference to it. There must have been something in the rumour. I could deal with it if I had a little more time.
When the Northumberland ferries were making their contract with the government they had written into the contract what the fare would be, and the farmers knew what they would have to pay for their produce being trucked across by this ferry.
Another part of Prince Edward Island which was promised a ferry, and which should have it, is the West Point-Buctouche area. This was one of the live issues during the last election campaign; but since then, like many others, it has been thrown into the discard. The farmers up there seem still anxious to have that ferry system.
As I said a moment ago, transportation to our province is the greatest problem, and the most important one that we have. I want to put on record the growth and development of the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry. It was stated when they started that they would not carry a thousand cars. Last year 67,000 passengers were carried from the first of May to the first of November, which is the period they run. During that time they carried 16,000 automobiles and over 5,000 commercial trucks. This will show hon. members why we have the rumours that the Canadian National Railways, or some governing body, want to get hold of this ferry, even if there is no railway line running to either terminal. It has already been said that if the government or the Canadian National Railways take over this ferry they will put on a boat that will be 50 per cent larger than the present largest boat there. That might be looked upon as quite a promise. Why do I say that?, I say that because the Charles A. Dunning, one of the larger boats that we have there, draws too much water at certain times. We had extreme difficulty in getting the Minister of Public Works to dredge the harbour further so that she could dock properly. There seems to be some underlying principle or motive in the whole thing, which is to get absolute control of our ferry system and of our transportation system on Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he has exhausted his time.
714

The Address-Mr. McLure


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the unanimous wish of the house that the hon. gentleman shall continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I do not want to impose on the generosity of the house. I shall deal with just one item. On Wednesday last I was anxious to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. I hesitated quite a while because it had to do with reefer cars. I want to explain why I asked the question. The question was as follows, as reported at page 564 of Hansard:
Will the minister advise, instruct and demand that the Canadian National Railways provide reefer cars for the shipment of potatoes and turnips from Prince Edward Island? The shortage of reefer cars at the present time is the greatest they have experienced1 in years.
The minister answered in this way, as reported at page 586 of Hansard:
I should like to deal with a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Queens. It had to do with the supply of reefer cars and part of it was to this effect.
Then he read the question I asked. Following that he said:
I promised the hon. member that I would get a report from the Canadian National Railways. I am advised by them today that there are 454 reefer cars on hand1 or in transit for Prince Edward Island traffic.
They might have been five thousand miles away and still have been in transit.
This total is made up as follows:
Cars on P.E.1	 292
In transit at Cape Tormentine	 43
Moncton	 30
Truro	 22
Campbellton	 22
Monk	 45
Total	 454
Officers of the Canadian National Railways report that a satisfactory position as to reefer cars is considered to be around 300. When it exceeds this figure there is danger of transportation difficulties arising in connection with the movement of the cars. Therefore my hon. friend can see that there is no shortage of cars. On the contrary, the situation is a good one.
May I say in closing that the onus was placed upon my shoulders when it was suggested that I had given wrong information and did not have the facts of the case. However, while at that time I did not reply, I knew I had the correct information, and really felt sorry that the minister had been so misinformed, or that he had received the wrong information from someone.
Since that time the minister has received the real information, and now he realizes, whether he wishes to admit it or not, that 
I was correct. The greatest shortage of reefer cars that ever existed at this season of the year is there at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You will have an opportunity as soon as I am through. I shall only take a moment.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member would allow me: I said I could not allow that statement to go unchallenged. The statement I put on the record included figures and facts given to me by the Canadian National Railways. I believe them to be correct. They have informed me that there is no shortage of reefer cars on the island. I have to accept that statement, and I think the hon. member should, too.


John Lambert Gibson: It is a good story, anyway.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister would have to accept it, too, were it not for the protests from the potato and turnip marketing association. 1 believe they wired him, and they sent me a copy of the wire. I believe I have here the reply the minister sent to them, in which he admitted that he did not realize the conditions were so bad.


Lionel Chevrier: I made no admission in the telegram.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Perhaps I had better read it.


John Lambert Gibson: What paper are you quoting from?


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. member's time has expired.


Lionel Chevrier: Let him finish his speech.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Thank you, gentlemen. This is the minister's reply to the potato and turnip marketing association:
Re your telegram. Am unable to understand situation described. Canadian National assures me supply refrigerator cars reasonable and that they will have no difficulty in moving the balance of the crop. Any empty refrigerator cars are being sent from central regions to take care needs in maritime provinces. Would appreciate receiving any additional information which you may have.
They proceed, then, to give this information which, I believe, was sent by letter. They say that at the present time it would take
2,000	reefer cars to move the crop that is there ready to be moved. While the price is not good, yet they do not want to see the supply destroyed. As one of the biggest

shippers said, it would take 50 cars every day for the next 40 days to clean up the freight that is there ready to be transported.
I did not wish to bring this matter up, but any time I have spoken with reference to reefer cars it was always, as I thought, in the interests of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), the railway and the people of Prince Edward Island. No man can ever prove against me that I would ever place on record any figures referring to this situation which were not founded on the best possible facts. I hope this matter will be cleaned up and that our people will have made available to them sufficient cars to move the potatoes and turnips still unsold.
(Translation):


Mr. David Gourd (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate you on the flawless way in which you carried out your high responsibilities throughout the second session of 1949. I also wish to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his colleagues on the choice they have made in selecting Mr. Larson and Mr. Dumas as mover and seconder of the address.
I also wish to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Kindersley, the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as well as to my good friend, the member for Ville-neuve, whose constituency is next to mine. He brought out all the most interesting and important points concerning his county and northern Quebec. He certainly deserved the honour which has fallen to him. I am also extremely pleased to congratulate him on having been elected with such an overwhelming majority as the representative of this new and beautiful county of Villeneuve which so proudly bears the name of the illustrious late prelate. The Liberal party is fortunate in having men of his stamp, who work for the development of our beautiful country.
Mr. Speaker, I now wish to deal with a subject very dear to my heart, namely the county of Chapleau, which I have the honour to represent and which is one of Canada's wealthiest districts as far as agriculture, mining and lumbering industries are concerned. In connection with agriculture, I pointed out in my first speech in this house, in 1945, that in 1944 we had harvested, in the Abitibi district, $25,150 worth of wheat, $472,540 worth of oats, $31,680 worth of barley and $2,261,500 55946-46!
The Address-Mr. D. Gourd worth of hay, not to mention thousands of dollars worth of buckwheat, rye, peas, beans and mixed grain. Moreover, our potato crop amounted to $587,820, which does not include the returns from alfalfa, turnips and corn. For that reason, I beg the Department of Agriculture to assist as much as possible this new part of the country through grants for cold storage and drainage. The Kapuskasing experimental farm being quite remote, the district should have enough agronomists to establish demonstration farms in every parish. Needless to say, a promoter specially attached to our district would be quite welcome.
I also emphasized, in another speech I made in 1946, the importance of the mines located in the northern part of the province of Quebec and I mentioned the mining of such metals as gold, copper, etc. Here are the figures I gave:	the yield in gold was $32
million, and in copper, $22 million, these amounts being exclusive of all other minerals. I then added that in the best interests of our national economy, the government should continue providing assistance to mines.
During the same speech I also said that we had exported 100 million feet of cord wood as well as millions of cords of pulpwood. Since there are such abundant natural resources in my constituency, they should be developed. First, the railroad between Barraute and Beattyville, which follows exactly the same gold mining zone and so forth, should be extended to Bachelor lake and later to Chi-bougamou. At present, several mining companies cannot work their mines due to a lack of transport facilities. I therefore appeal more particularly to the Canadian National Railways to examine further all the requests sent me by public bodies, such as municipalities, chambers of commerce and the economic planning council, which all show the urgent need for building this railroad immediately. As I already said in a speech I made in 1949, would it not be fair that Quebec should secure from the federal government the funds required to build, within the province, a section of the trans-Canada highway proportionate to those in other provinces? I said that the present highway, leaving the Manitoba boundary at 35 miles from Kenora and passing through Fort William, Kapuskasing and Ottawa, is 1,390 miles long. I would also point out that the highway from Point Fortune in the province of Quebec to the New Brunswick boundary, near Edmundston, covers a

The Address-Mr. D. Gourd distance of 388 miles. That means that it is located in Ontario to the extent of 75 per cent. If my proposal were carried out, the road starting at Kenora would still pass through Fort William, Hearst, Kapuskasing and Cochrane. It would cover a distance of 894 miles in Ontario. From Cochrane, it would head for La Reine in the province of Quebec and thence through La Sarre, Mont Laurier, Montreal and so on until it reached the New Brunswick boundary. The highway would then cover a distance of 828 miles in the province of Quebec, which would seem fair to both provinces. This alternative would also make the distance from the western provinces and northern Ontario to Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec 56 miles shorter. I do not see why the Ontario government does not build a road over the mere forty miles between Norembega and La Reine. This has been long requested by the boards of trade, and I know whereof I speak because I have been chairman of the Amos board of trade.
A short while ago, I organized a delegation of some of my constituents to meet northern Ontario boards of trade, M.P.'s and M.P.P.'s and get them to keep on exerting pressure on the government of Ontario and urge it to carry this road as far as the Quebec boundary, at La Reine. This connection means a great deal to us all, for it would help strengthen the ties of good will between the two provinces. '
To these suggestions, may I be permitted to add another very important one. It is about unemployment. We feel it a little, as everyone knows. Would it not be possible to reach an agreement with the government of Quebec to help colonization by building new roads to the north, as far as lake Mistassini and Mattagami? In addition, this would be a good way to check unemployment. Colonization would be the first to profit by the roads that would lead towards new land and I am sure that with the assistance given to settlers by the Quebec government, the unemployed in question would all take advantage of such developments to go and settle in these parts.
If I have spoken of my constituency and of its natural wealth as represented by agriculture, mines and forests, and if moreover I have taken the liberty of requesting your aid in developing it, it is because I earnestly wish for the progress of my constituency, that is to say, for that of my own country.
[Mr. Gourd (Chapleau).l
(Text):


Mr. E. W. George (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join those who have preceded me in this debate and congratulate the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas). Their constituents must feel justly proud of their representatives in this house. I do not propose to tell the house all about the constituency which I have the honour to represent as that would take too long. However, I do intend to present to hon. members an idea which, if it turns out to be sound, as some of us think it is, will help to solve the present unsatisfactory economic condition of the maritimes. I believe this is the first time this project has been discussed in public.
In my opinion the maritime provinces are the best place in the world to live in, but we lack some of the economic advantages enjoyed by other parts of Canada. We complain because we have not enough industry and were not allotted enough industry during the war. The reason has always been given that we have not enough power. We have plenty of coal but not enough electricity. I am sure that everyone in this house is willing to help the maritimes and we have been told many times to present our problem and we would have all the assistance we needed in arriving at a solution.
I believe the solution has been found. It is called the, St. Mary's tidal project which it is claimed will develop a maximum of 2,336,250 horsepower. This development would take place in the counties of Westmorland and Albert in New Brunswick, and Cumberland in Nova Scotia. I should like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), who returned to the house this afternoon, and to wish him the best of health for the remainder of the session.
If this project were completed the Chignecto canal could not be built over the proposed route for reasons which I shall give later. I do not wish it to appear that I am trying to prevent the building of the Chignecto canal and the development of hydroelectric power at that site; I am suggesting an alternative plan which would provide for a canal and the development of two and a third million horsepower as compared with the 135,000 horsepower that would be developed under the proposed Chignecto plan. If this plan is adopted much credit will go to the Chignecto canal committee which has done so much to mould public opinion into realizing the need for some such plan.
The St. Mary's tidal project is the brain child of Mr. W. A. S. Melanson, C.E., M.E.I.C.,

of Moncton, New Brunswick, and is the result of many long years of study and work. He is to be congratulated upon his vision. Not every possible site for tidal power development has been investigated, and the remarks which follow will deserve the attention of all persons interested in the welfare of the mari-times. The study of any tidal power development in the maritimes could not be justly undertaken without reference to and a review of the report on tidal power, Petitcodiac and Memramcook estuaries, as published by the department of mines and resources, Canada, 1945, part 1-test, and part 2-plans, disclosing full results and findings of the field investigations carried out from August, 1944, to October, 1945, by the firm of H. G. Acres and Company, consulting engineers, Niagara Falls, Ontario.
Unfortunately the adverse findings of this report from an economical standpoint have prejudiced public opinion to such a degree that too few have bothered to read it in full. It is doubtful if our men of letters or science, either within or without our institutions of higher learning, have given this all-important subject of maritime welfare the study it most assuredly deserves. Notwithstanding this seeming prejudice, this report contains concise, terse treatises on tides peculiar to the bay of Fundy and its tributaries; on the astronomical effects of the moon and sun in their various phases on the tides; on rock-fill dam construction on unstable foundations; on inlet and outlet gate structures; on various types of hydraulic turbines and their selection; on electric generators with power house and transformer station design. All these subjects, with many others, are interwoven into a mass of finite scientific information, permitting a proper step by step design of each and every structure embodied in such a large development.
The economic feasibility of the entire project was defeated by two adverse physical features of the site. These were, first, the existence of 80 feet of silt, mud and gravel in the beds of both estuaries; second, the great difference in the relative size of the two estuaries. I will not go farther into the reasons why the Petitcodiac tidal project was unsound, except to say that if it could have been built on a more favourable site a saving of nearly half the estimated cost could have been made.
Situated ten miles from the Petitcodiac-Memramcook estuaries, there exists the confluence of the Shepody bay and Cumberland basin at the head of Chignecto bay. These two relatively large estuaries are separated by the rock-bound Maringouin peninsula that terminates in a low headland at cape Maringouin, which juts out westerly a distance of
The Address-Mr. George one mile into Shepody bay. Here Shepody bay, with its tributaries covering an area of 70 square miles, and Cumberland basin, with its tributaries covering an area of 60 square miles, are separated by the narrow cape Maringouin. It is proposed to construct two barriers, one from the westerly side of cape Maringouin across Shepody bay to join with the rock masses of Grindstone island and St. Mary's point, and the other from the easterly side of cape Maringouin to Ragged point on the Nova Scotia shore.
Of the many physical features of the existing rock masses that would enter into the general scheme of this proposal, the greatest and most advantageous is the present rock formation of St. Mary's point. Jutting out from the mainland at Harvey bank, Albert county, there is a peninsula of rock formation that extends in an easterly direction to St. Mary's point. It then crosses St. Mary's ledge, St. Mary's anchorage, Grindstone ledge and Grindstone island, the outer tip of which was at one time the original St. Mary's point. The height or elevation of the St. Mary's and Grindstone ledges are just below mean sea level and therefore would permit the economic construction of a large number of inlet gates. St. Mary's anchorage or Grindstone island would be ideal for the construction of a navigation lock to permit ship passage at all times. The length of the St. Mary's peninsula is 3 miles, a little over half the distance across the mouth of Shepody bay. These facts explain the origin of the title given to this proposed tidal power. The outlet gates, power house and additional inlet gates would be located at or near the south end of the Maringouin peninsula, a very central location for the distribution of power to the entire maritime provinces.
British admiralty chart No. 354 indicates the existence of the rock formation in the bed of Shepody bay at an average depth of eight fathoms below chart datum, while across the upper portion of Chignecto bay the rock formation is indicated at an average depth of five fathoms below chart datum. Very little mud or silt is indicated except on the south side of Maringouin peninsula, where there exists a body of mud. However, this is a decided asset as it will be required to make the core of the Cumberland basin dam. Mud for the Shepody barrier can be obtained from the Shepody or New Horton flats. Therefore, drilling and testing for foundations are not necessary, as not one iota of doubt exists about the rock formations.
The question of choosing either the Cumberland or the Shepody basin for the high and

The Address-Mr. George low water basins has been given careful consideration from all economical and practical angles. These are as follows:
1.	The rock formation across the mouth of the Cumberland basin is just at the proper elevation for the most economical construction of outlet gates.
2.	The southeast side of the Maringouin peninsula is the only practical location for the power house.
3.	A rock-fill dam with mud core is the only economical manner of erecting a barrier across the mouth of Shepody bay.
4.	The head channel can be cheaply excavated across cape Maringouin and rock used in the rock-fill dam across Shepody bay and part of Cumberland basin and permit construction of a series of inlet gates near the power house.
5.	The St. Mary's rock formation permits very economical construction of inlet gates, of which there must be a large number.
6.	Along the shores of Cumberland basin and its tributaries there exists the bulk of the marshlands in the maritimes, estimated to contain 40,000 acres. Using Cumberland as a low level basin will reclaim all marshlands and will forever do away with the necessity for dikes and aboiteaux. It will thereby save the federal government, the provincial government and the farmers the high cost of reclamation.
7.	The existence of a large gypsum processing plant at Hillsborough, working twenty-four hours a day, with United States markets, depends in large part on water transportation for their supplies to reach the market. Also the proposed construction of a fertilizer plant at Weldon will require water transportation.
8.	Of the two basins, Shepody bay is recognized as the one taking precedence in volume of navigation.
Shepody bay has therefore been proposed as the head basin and the Cumberland basin as the low water basin. The designation of the Cumberland basin as the low water basin for economic reasons will somewhat alter the proposed scheme of a canal across the isthmus. However, this proposed power development is so vast and will be so beneficial to the entire maritimes that the greatest benefit to the greatest number must be our guiding spirit.
Much praise and credit is due to the Chig-necto canal committee, to the group of businessmen and to the newspapers that so nobly supported them in their struggle to make the maritimes and Canada conscious of the necessity of the navigation canal. Mr. R. Herbert Cooper, who saw the possibilities of the development of power along with the canal benefits, is deserving of much praise. His

scheme is practical and contains much merit. The use of Cumberland basin as a tail race basin in a big tidal power development will not diminish the necessity for a Chignecto canal; it will rather enhance its cause.
Out of the Shepody basin there are two or three possible routes. All proposed routes have merits and some demerits, but ultimately would join the waters of the Petitcodiac river with Shediac harbour. There is one route that possesses many natural features. Along this route the distance from Moncton harbour to Shediac harbour is 15 miles. This route would reduce the distance between the bay of Fundy points and upper Canada by approximately 75 miles over the proposed route across the Chignecto isthmus.
The tidal factors which make the development of power possible are long and detailed. I will not go into them. I have here the data on Fundy tides and the possible power development; and with the permission of the house I should like to place it on Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to put this material on Hansard?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it tables and figures?


Edmund William George: Yes, and it will be very unintelligible if I read it. It will be very interesting reading.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(See page 724.)


Edmund William George: From the information available, it would appear that Mr. Melanson's project is workable. It is estimated that the cost will be in the vicinity of $190 per commercial horsepower. This compares favourably with present-day construction, which is from $200 to $250 per horsepower. I do not feel that the capital cost is as important as the operating cost. If the operating costs and, upkeep are nominal, and we can get this vast supply of cheap power, then the expenditure would be justified.
The federal government is spending large sums of money protecting approximately
40,000	acres of marshland from the sea. The building of this project would protect the lands in the Cumberland basin area, and would save several millions of dollars which are required to reclaim these lands. There would be no more maintenance on dikes and aboiteaux.
In the Petitcodiac river area the water level might be above the marshlands. In this case, I am told on good authority that there would be no problem in draining the land by the use of pumps as in Holland. There should be sufficient cheap power available for that purpose. The other alternative would be to buy the land and let it out to sea.

I have great faith in the future of the maritimes. We are gradually turning from a wood economy to an agricultural economy. The forests have been depleted faster than reforestation has taken place. We are building for the future, and in a hundred years the world will need all the food it can produce. In order to prosper in the maritimes we must have industry, and industry must have an abundance of cheap power; I am sure there would be a ready sale for all that can be produced. I sincerely hope that the government will see its way clear to start a survey of this project immediately. I might suggest two phases of this study. First, a review of the H. G. Acres report, as applied to the St. Mary's idea; second, an actual engineering report on the St. Mary's project.
Another good reason, Mr. Speaker, for doing something about the project appears in a press release in the Moncton Daily Times, under date of March 10, 1950. It is headed, "Opposed to Quoddy bill," and reads as follows:
The budget bureau informed congress today President Truman opposes a pending bill to establish the Passamaquoddy tidal-power project.
If we needed any more reason, Mr. Speaker, I think we have it right there.
I am not asking for this because it is a part of our maritime rights. I feel that we have heard too much about that. I ask for it because we are part of Canada, and because all our natural resources should be developed in order that we may continue to play our part in contributing to the prosperity of the dominion.
(Translation):


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Like most hon. members who spoke before me, I am pleased to congratulate the mover of the address to His Excellency the Governor General, the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas), the seconder, for the manner in which both fulfilled their task.
I also take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Speaker-who is not here right now-and his assistants who have presided with fairness over the debates. I also wish to congratulate my colleagues for their courtesy to the members of the opposition, and for being so kind to them although I feel sometimes they are .much given to exaggeration. However, I do not envy their fate for there is every indication that the Liberal party will be in office for many years.
Divine Providence protects us by giving us men as talented as our Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.
I thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)-who I am happy to see at his
The Address-Mr. J. O. Gour desk-and all the members of the cabinet for the support prices on agricultural products such as bacon, butter, cheese, eggs and so forth.
I have the honour of representing a constituency both urban and rural in character. I know that in Russell, thousands of farmers are very thankful to the government for this help. Several farmers of my constituency own herds of more than fifty milk cows, market each year from 200 to 300 hogs, and keep flocks numbering 7,000 to 8,000 hens, which they raise for the sale of eggs and poultry.
The dairy cattle of our county have been tuberculin tested for more than twenty years. Last year, my constituency obtained the best results in Ontario. As a result our cattle find a large number of purchasers, especially in the United States; this enables our farmers to breed cattle on a large scale and get satisfactory prices for their herds. They are less concerned with the high price of their products than with their net earnings with which they are supposed to live decently on the farm.
Like myself, farmers feel that the price of what they buy is too high. That also goes for the cost of living for our urban population, particularly of the workers.
I have the honour of including in my constituency one of the most prosperous towns in Canada. I refer to Eastview where an extremely up-to-date high school, a community centre, a hospital and other buildings indicative of its increasing importance are now seen beside other great institutions.
My riding includes many other localities of note, for instance Manor Park, an attractive village which is but three years old; Rockcliffe, where the most important airport for national defence is located; Overbrook and Billings Bridge, blessed by the fact that the diocesan seminary is built in the vicinity; Billings Bridge, moreover, connects with Uplands, one of the most important points for commercial air transportation. Finally, there are many other small towns inhabited by wage earners all of whom agree in hoping for a lower cost of living.
In my opinion manufacturers should be content with a smaller profit and undertake to compete on world markets. I think their profits are inordinately large and their prices too high. Farm implements, motorcars,
720	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. J. O. Gour
ranges, refrigerators, furniture, textiles, lumber, plumbing and shoes are all too dear by 10 to 20 per cent.
If they cut down their prices, manufacturers would increase sales and enable farmers and small wage earners a better chance to buy more of those goods. This would compel them to increase production, which would entail an increase in manpower and would thus stem unemployment.
I can hear hon. members opposite deplore the loss of our markets and the ridiculous prices obtained for our produce. Let me remind them, however, of the years of 1930 to 1935, when our farmers were selling 200 pound hogs for $7 to $8, shipping prepaid, cattle weighing from 1,000 to 1,200 pounds for $12 to $15, shipping also prepaid, while the present government pays a premium or subsidy of $8 on a two hundred pound hog, grade A select, for export, which now brings the farmer from $40 to $50. An animal weighing from 1,000 to 1,200 pounds now sells for $125 to $150, that is ten times more than in 1942.
If I am not mistaken, one or two local agreements are made by two or more persons, while international agreements are made by two or more governments. Here, therefore, is the first rule. It is the price that counts. We have proof of that. We gave billions to Great Britain. I voted in favour of that bill myself; we did more than anybody in the world to help other nations out of their predicaments and we are still willing to do so. When the time comes to arrive at an agreement, the only thing that counts is the price of the goods. After all, that is only natural; that is the human way of looking at things!
All agree that we are one of the most skilful nations; then we can produce so as to meet the prices of the other honest competitors without lowering our present standard of living.
I would point out that people should spend less money on alcoholic beverages because, first, alcohol degrades the soul and too often takes up a considerable part of the essential income of large families. The same thing applies to many forms of entertainment which are far from being necessary to the welfare of our people.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I have given a suggestion which could prevent unemployment;
I now wish to suggest another way of going about it. Since the government of the beautiful province of Ontario, in which 1 live,

does nothing to help the farmers I feel compelled to request more from the federal government. I would therefore request the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)-he is not here but I trust that he will read my speech, which I have already mentioned to him-as well as the Minister of Agriculture to improve farm loans. Let me give an example. A hundred acre farm with good buildings warrants a loan of about $4,000. How can a farmer set up his sons or how can a young man try to set himself up on a farm with such a small amount? First, it costs about $4,000 to get an average herd of cattle and the equipment necessary to operate this farm, not considering the $10,000 to $12,000 required for the farm itself. If this farmhouse were built in a city, a loan of $4,000 or more could easily be secured. I therefore maintain and assert that the farm loan is not practical for our farmers.
More than half the farmers of my district did not apply because they feel it is useless. According to information I have from reliable sources, approximately half of the applications for farm loans were turned down during 1949-50 in Ontario.
I have also a request to make to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). I have here a plan in connection with the Nation river project, and works already carried out by the Ontario government. I am pleased to congratulate our provincial government for this well-balanced plan. I could submit a copy to each of the ministers concerned. I would now like to read a few lines showing clearly the importance of this plan. I would then ask the house that it be put on record.
(Text):
The south Nation watershed is an area of 1,511 square miles in the extreme easterly part of Ontario, and includes parts of the counties of Prescott, Russell, Dundas, Stormont, Glengarry, Carleton and Grenville.
From southwest to northeast, the watershed extends about 76 miles in a direct line, and its greatest width, from northwest to southeast, is about 35 miles. From the source of the area of the main river to its mouth is a distance of 69 miles, in a direct line.
There are no cities or large towns on the watershed; but there are a number of incorporated villages, including Winchester, with a population of 1,094; Chesterville, 1,241; Casselman, 1,089; Finch, 390; and Maxville, 812. In addition there are a few villages, which have not been incorporated, the largest of which are as follows: Spencerville, South Mountain, Crysler, Metcalfe, Moose Creek, Limoges, Russell and Bourget.
From the above, it will be seen that the watershed, by and large, is essentially a rural area of Ontario.

(Translation):
This plan consists in carrying out excavation and damming, which are most urgent and necessary since they would be extremely useful to the people who live in a dozen municipalities: Matilda, Mounta, Winchester, Edwardsburg, Augusta, Finch, Cambridge, Plantagenet South, Alfred, Plantagenet North, Chesterville and Casselman. I will read another passage from the same plan, with special reference to the damaged parts.
(Text):
Floods on the south Nation watershed present a serious threat to the livelihood of the people in all the municipalities in the area, and are detrimental to the economy of all neighbouring business centres. Indeed, it is self-evident that the periodic destruction of crops, the washing out of roads and bridges and the carrying away of thousands of tons of the best top soil in any area represents an important loss to the whole province.
Unfortunately, these severe losses are not rare phenomena but, on the contrary, have occurred in twenty-six out of the thirty years in the period1 1918 to 1947 inclusive. And in six of these years the Nation river overflowed its banks at least twice in the same year.
The severity of these inundations is increasing, as is attested by the 1938 and 1947 floods which were the greatest on record.
The most extensive flooding occurs in two areas: the Brinston flooded area located above Chesterville and comprising fertile lands in Winchester, Matilda and Mountain townships and the Cobb lake area, including the flats adjacent to the river from Lemieux to Plantagenet Springs.
The flood of 1938 inundated an area at Brinston of approximately 24 square miles to a maximum depth of 9 feet.
Many dwellings had two to three feet of water over their ground floors. The 1947 flood is reported to have been just about as severe.
Floods during spring freshets cause inconvenience, hardship and distress. Farmers do what they can to meet the threat: livestock and supplies are moved to upper floors or other safe locations and seeding is delayed until the spring floods are past. The duration of these floods from the time of overtopping the bank to the recession below the banks has lasted for as long as nine and one-half days.
These floods are not confined to the spring freshets but have frequently occurred after heavy summer storms. In fact, these are the most damaging as crops are either washed out completely or ruined through lying under water. It is reported that at least one farmer lost crops four years in succession through flooding.
I shall not read all this brief because I do not want to weary hon. members, but I should like to have it included in Hansard. I think the minister concerned should have a copy of it.
(Translation):
The project is not very costly, slightly over $2 million, and should be shared by the provincial and dominion governments. Because it will be undertaken in rural centres, municipalities are not in a position of paying any
The Address-Mr. J. O. Gour share of it. It should be remembered that elsewhere in Canada irrigation projects are financed by federal and provincial authorities. The project would prevent the flooding of thousands of acres of good arable land, as well as supplying work in urban centres, which would alleviate unemployment.
I congratulate the government for passing a reforestation act last fall. Russell has the most important nursery in Canada, the "Larose Forest". Started over 20 years ago, it covers an area of more than 15,000 acres, comprising over 6 million trees: pine, fir, spruce, maple and so forth. We intend to increase it to at least 25 million trees. That is the reason I am requesting federal aid. I practise reforestation myself, having had trees planted on my own farms.
(Text):
On my own farm I have over 200,000 trees consisting of pine, spruce, maple and so forth. It gives me great pleasure to offer each hon. member of this house and of the other place, all newspapermen and all employees of the house, a tree for next Christmas free, on condition that they pay the transportation costs.
I take this opportunity to invite everyone who would like to see that forest next' May to let me know and it will give me great pleasure to accompany all hon. gentlemen who would like to go there to see it. If they do, they will see that we are doing our utmost to conserve the soil.
(Translation):
Flax is also grown on a large scale in the county of Russell. As I have the honour of being chairman of the national flax council, I take this opportunity of thanking the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for what he has already done to help this industry. At the same time, I wish to ask him as well as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to grant us the financial assistance needed for the improvement of this industry already operating in Plessisville, in the beautiful province of Quebec, where flax is carded, spun and woven. Here is a sample of the work done in Plessisville. I am happy to show it to all the members of the house.
(Text):
This is what we call flax linen. This is a flax linen done with a cheaper grade of flax, what we call tow. This is a long fibre flax and it is manufactured in my own town of Casselman. This is the work we are doing with the flax fibre that I have here. Depending on the weather, and in good soil, this fibre grows up to from 36 to 44 inches long.

The Address-Mr. J. O. Gour (Translation):
I am in a position to show the benefits this development would mean for Canada.
If we had the factories needed to process this raw material, and to manufacture both thread and tow, at least in sufficient quantity to supply the home market, it would replace cotton and all other fibres of even less value which we have to import. This is the only fibre that can be grown in Canada and also the best in the world. At the present time we have to export 90 per cent of our raw material, both fibre and tow; we sell it at ridiculous prices and re-import it as linen, thread, etc., at exorbitant prices, often 20 to 30 times higher than we sold it. Such factories would also mean jobs for our workers and give farmers the opportunity to produce more flax. They could thus earn more money, to keep their sons on the farm, to hire workers who would help them grow this product because in order to supply only the needs of the country, we would require 400,000 to
500,000	acres of fibre flax.
An area of 1,000 acres sown with fibre flax gives jobs to 40 men, for six months, in our local factories, where flax undergoes a first treatment to extract the fibre and the seeds. This work is done from autumn to spring. This enables farmers' sons and local workers to find work during slack periods in rural centres. In my locality, we give employment to a great many men who would be without a job this winter.
The reason why I would like to get financial aid from the federal government and why I insist upon such help is that flax is produced in several provinces. I would like to see flax grown in every province, since flax gives good crops in fertile soil.
(Text):
Certified No. 1; germination, 96; variety, dominion. This group of farmers is a co-operative. I was for many years chairman and manager, but ceased my operations as manager when I was elected to the House of Commons. It was one of the finest ridings in Canada.
(Translation):
Everything in this plant in useful, seed grain, linseed-producing grain, fibres of all qualities which are used in all sorts of products, from shoemaker's thread to fishing lines, nets, etc. Waste products are used for poultry beddings, and several factories use it to provide power. That is what we do in Casselman
Linen, really the most important of these products, is very long wearing and is used for tablecloths, bedsheets, pillow slips, towels, underwear, dresses, etc.
(Text):
Cheaper fibres could be used today to manufacture overalls.
(Translation):
The cheaper linen, that of coarser fibre, is used for overalls, tarpaulins, tents, mail-bags, binder twine, etc.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the government on having had a law passed during the last session abolishing appeals to the privy council, thus making the Supreme Court of Canada our final court of appeal. I believe our jurists are perfectly qualified. It was high time that this law was amended in a country such as ours.
I was also extremely gratified that another law was passed during the last session, enabling us to change our constitution without asking another country's permission.
I was also pleased to be a spectator at the federal-provincial conference, last January. I congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister on the very able fashion in which he presided over these meetings. I also would like to congratulate the various provincial premiers on the impartiality of their deliberations. I am convinced that subsequent conferences should follow the same pattern so that we would be able to amend our constitution in accordance with the requirements of our country's development, without infringing upon the legitimate rights of the provinces.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I state that it is high time for our country to have a distinctive flag, and by "distinctive" I mean a truly national flag bearing no trace of the emblems of the lands of our ancestors: France, England, Ireland or Scotland. Let us fcrget about the fleur-de-lis or the union jack. We are a nation and we need a flag. I have a model here which I believe would meet with the approval of all Canadians, and would help national unity and would thus increase national pride.
I also think that it would be appropriate for us to have a diplomatic representative at the Holy See; nearly all countries have one except the communist-controlled countries. I am convinced that this would have great diplomatic value for Canada. I wish that all the hon. members of this house would support this, for it should not be a matter of religion but really a diplomatic matter.

I also think that we should have a Canadian as the representative of His Majesty the King; we have Canadians as lieutenant governors of the provinces and there is no cause for complaint in this regard.
As a last request, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should allow the public to enter the galleries before we recite our beautiful opening prayer.
(Text):


Mr. Edgar Leduc (Jacques Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the first time in the house to speak on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. May I first of all join with those hon. members who have spoken before me in congratulating the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address. They have done a good job and have indicated what legislation is likely to foe brought up for discussion. They have made suggestions which will be discussed thoroughly by hon. members.
May I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) upon the appointment of the Hon. Elphege Marier, former member for Jacques Cartier, to the position of judge of the superior court of the district of Montreal. Mr. Marier, with his knowledge of law and the experience he has acquired through many years of practice, together with his sound judgment, qualities of heart and spirit of justice, is an ideal candidate to carry out the duties of judge. I congratulate Mr. Marier upon his appointment, which was well deserved. I am convinced that Mr. Marier will discharge his duties honourably and in conformity with the traditions of honesty known to exist in our courts of justice. This appointment created a vacancy which opened a door to my candidature and election as a member of this house.
Before going further let me introduce myself to the members of this house. I have the honour to represent the county which bears the name of the discoverer of Canada, Jacques Cartier. There are 36,000 electors in this county which comprises an agricultural section and a more important industrial section. Here we have the most important factories of Canada which have done so much with their skilled labour to help win the war and are continuing to help make Canada stronger and more prosperous, the Dominion Bridge Company, Dominion Engineering Works, two wire rope factories, a subsidiary of the Steel Company of Canada, Canadian Allis Chalmers, Jenkins Valves, all steel industries and many other smaller plants. These industries are prosperous and are still expanding.
In our midst we have an important distillery, Distillers Corporation. We also have an agricultural college, Macdonald college at
The Address-Mr. Leduc Ste. Anne de Bellevue. You will realize that I have the honour to represent a very important county.
I would like to have the experience and ability of some of the members of this house to discharge my duties as the representative of such an important county but I can assure the house that my desire to work and my devotion to the service of my constituents will supplement my oratorical ability.
We have a mixed population, about 35 per cent English-speaking and 65 per cent Frenchspeaking. The understanding and harmony between the two races have been very good. The understanding between the heads of the industries and the labour unions has been such that no walkouts or strikes have occurred for a number of years. Grievances have been worked out to mutual advantage, and our municipalities within the county have gone ahead and are prospering.
Being a new member, I do not intend at the beginning of this session to dictate my views to this house, but I am prepared to listen, study, gather experience and submit recommendations as the occasion arises.
May I be permitted to say that I intend to pursue the course of action which I have followed in supporting the Liberal party in measures that I consider the best under prevailing circumstances, reserving my liberty of action on matters being brought up which I would consider contrary to my principles and conscience, but I hope that such controversial matters will not occur during my term of office.
During the last two months I have been in this parliament I have had fairly good understanding with the ministers of the crown, although I am just an Independent Liberal. May I hope that full recognition will be made of my status in consideration of my past services to the Liberal party as organizer for 27 years without interruption of party affiliation, until I was called Independent. I supported the Prime Minister and I congratulate him upon his success in the general election, and I rejoice personally in the results I obtained on October 24.
(Translation):
I thank the hon. members for their kind attention to the speech which I made in English, in order to be understood by the great majority of members. I shall no doubt have other occasions later on of speaking more fluently in my mother tongue.
However, I wish to mention that prior to entering the political arena, I served some sort of novitiate as a public servant for twenty-two years. I was secretary-treasurer of the municipality of Lachine for eight years,



PRIVILEGE


Edmund William George: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Earlier this evening I requested and received permission from the house to put on Hansard "Fundy Tidal Facts" and available power data in connection with the St. Mary's tidal project. I understand now that I was in error in asking to have that done, and I now ask permission to withdraw my request. Any hon. member who wishes to see this information will find it available in my room.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member permission to withdraw?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow being government day we will move to go into supply.
If the motion carries we will call three departments, transport, finance and fisheries. From eight to nine will be private and public bills. If there is a discussion on the motion to go into supply and we finish it some time during the day we will then take up the motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to refer his estimates to the external affairs committee. If we get through with that, we will take up the motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the setting up of a committee on old age security.
That is one way of proceeding. If there is no debate on the motion to go into supply we will take up the estimates of transport.


Mr. Drew:: So that we may understand what the procedure will be, may I ask if it is the intention in the following weeks to call one department as was mentioned earlier?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes. I was not successful last week in getting the motion to go into supply agreed to by the house and could not call any departments. I find myself now with only the estimates of national defence that could be brought up on Friday. I hope to have them up on that day. I am asking for these three departments so that I shall have at least a few on which I can rely.


George Alexander Drew: I only asked the question for the purpose of understanding the situation. I thought when the suggestion was made that three departments would be called that that was carrying forward the original intention to call two departments last week and one this week. All I wanted to know was whether the course then would be followed of not calling more than one department each week hereafter.


Alphonse Fournier: It is not the intention of the government to call more than one department unless there is some understanding as to the necessity of calling more than one.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 14, 1950