POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. BENOIT MICHAUD (Restigouche-Madavvaska):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of an item appearing in the Ottawa Journal of this day under the heading "Britain Must Cut Potato Consumption", is the Minister of Agriculture in a position to make a statement as to the possibilities of Canada's selling potatoes to the United Kingdom?


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The possibility of selling potatoes to the United Kingdom has been rMr. Michaud.]
under discussion for the past two or three weeks. Only yesterday, as suggested in the statement of Mr. Strachey, an arrangement was entered into under which a very considerable part of the surplus potatoes of the eastern provinces is to be delivered to Great Britain at a price which, I think, will be satisfactory both to the British government and to the potato producers in that area. The full details with regard to the arrangement will be published within the next twenty-four hours.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: May I ask the minister from what province in the east most of those potatoes will be shipped? I understand that Prince Edward Island is to ship practically one hundred per cent of them.


James Garfield Gardiner: The potatoes will require to be those which meet certain conditions which are being set up by the purchaser of the potatoes. Wherever they may be taken from, I am sure that it will be of great assistance to all the potato producers in the eastern part of Canada. The present situation is that there is a considerable surplus over and above what is required on the local market, and any quantity that will be taken off by the British at this time should be of help to all those who have potatoes to sell.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. It arises out of yesterday's discussion in connection with the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. He referred to "orders regarding veterans preference in the civil service which remain in the schedule pending examination of this subject by a parliamentary committee with a view to later introduction of legislation." My question is this. Are we to understand from this statement that the special committee on veterans' affairs will be set up again this session?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: On the matter
of the preference only.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether the Steel Company of Canada has accepted the recommendation of the special

_________________Inquiries of the Ministry
commissioner, Judge Macdonell, with regard to the reinstatement of certain employees at the 'works in Hamilton. If the company is not accepting the findings of the commissioner, is there anything further the minister can do to bring about harmony at this plant?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: My hon. friend spoke to me about this matter the day before yesterday, I think in the evening, and I told him I would look into it. I was away yesterday and the trains were late this morning, circumstances over which I had no control whatever. If my hon. friend will let the question stand until tomorrow afternoon I will give him an answer.


Angus MacInnis: I shall be glad to do that. COOPERATIVES
request for interpretation of amendment
RESPECTING INCOME TAX On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Will the Minister of National Revenue in the near future make a statement in the house outlining the interpretation of the deputy minister of taxation of the 1946 amendment to the Income War Tax Act in regard to cooperatives, in so far as the amendment applies to cheese factories in the province of Ontario, which operate more or less on a cooperative basis?


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I received no notice of this question, but I shall take this as notice and give the hon. gentleman an answer later



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. ROSS THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Resources whether any additional medical inspection depots have been set up by the immigration department in Europe since last December. If so, at what points are such depots now located, and is the department considering the opening of any other depots in Europe?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Though this question really
should be placed on the order paper, I shall answer it now. Immigration officers are now located in Paris, Brussels and The Hague, and 83166-9J
provision is also being made for the opening of inspectional facilities in Norway, Greece and Spain.


Mr. FRASER:: May I ask the minister
what procedure must be followed by people living in countries where there are no such offices, in order to come to Canada?


James Allison Glen: The hon. gentleman is speaking of applicants in Europe?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, where there are no
medical offices. [DOT]


James Allison Glen: The application is considered! by the immigration officers; those who are applying find their way to the medical inspection offices and are there inspected, and if the result is satisfactory the application is dealt with.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. WHITE (Middlesex East):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether it was the intention of his department to include swimming pools with the Veterans Land Act houses in IVestminster township. They are full of water now.
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	I think this question
indicates perfectly the attitude of the Tory party toward one of the most constructive things ever done for the veterans.



TRANSFERS OF DUTIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yesterday the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) asked a question concerning the transfer of the functions of the Canadian information service to the Department of External Affairs. I intimated that I thought some announcement had been made on the matter. What actually had taken place was that cabinet had decided on the transfer, but an order in council had not been passed at the time. However, an order was passed this morning, and I now ask leave of the house to table it. My hon. friend drew attention to the fact that the press had made some mention of the intention of the government in this matter. May I say to him that that was no surprise to me. The press have a way of getting hold of intentions, which on occasions is simply marvellous.
Transfers of Duties


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have another order in council I would ask permission of the house to table. It relates to the transfer under the Public Services Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, providing for the transfer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce of functions regarding defence purchasing hitherto exercised by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. This order in council is P. C. 314, and was passed today.
The order provides that under the authority of the Transfer of Duties Act, the power, duty and function vested in the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply under the Department of Reconstruction and Supply Act, 1945, to buy or produce war supplies and to carry out projects required by the Department of National Defence is transferred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as of February 1,
1947.	It also provides that the Minister of Trade and Commerce in performing this function may make use of the services of personnel of the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
As hon. members know, wartime experience demonstrated the advantage of a single purchasing agency operating under separate ministerial control on behalf of the three armed services. The organization which was built up for this purpose by the present Minister of Reconstruction and Supply from virtually nothing performed a magnificent service during the war years and played a major part in Canada's contribution to victory.
The government has decided that the advantages of a single purchasing agency for defence supplies should be continued and that the responsibility for this activity should be transferred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is already responsible for large purchasing activities in his own department and in the agencies under his control.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce will make use, as may be required, of the staff of the Canadian Commercial Corporation to assist him. This corporation which has been set up by statute to carry out certain purchasing functions connected with external trade, will lend itself readily to assisting the Minister oi Trade and Commerce in this new task.
In order that the experience of personnel who have been dealing with defence purchasing in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply shall not be lost to the government, a

number of these officers and staff will henceforth be attached to the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
At a later stage in the session it is the intention of the government to introduce a bill to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act to provide that the corporation, as directed by the minister, may perform the defence purchasing functions which have been vested in the minister under this order in council.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: May
I ask the Prime Minister whether or not this is a move in the general direction of taking away from the Department of Reconstruction and Supply the general purchasing functions which it performs in other spheres as well ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon.
friend is aware, by degrees the Department of Reconstruction and Supply is being freed of certain obligations it formerly undertook, and this is in accordance with the move in that direction.


Mr. G. RUSSELL BOUCHER (Carleton):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the career civil servants who were formerly members of the procurement branch of the Department of National Defence, who are now being transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce and through it probably to the Canadian Commercial Corporation, will continue to receive their benefits and privileges under the Civil Sendee Act, or whether they will be given similar privileges under the crown companies operations act. I ask the question because these career civil servants have certain rights and privileges under the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Superannuation Act which may be affected if they are transferred to the employment of a crown company, and I wondered whether those rights and privileges would be retained or whether they would be given equal privileges under the crown companies act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid
I shall have to read my hon. friend's question in order to give him an answer. I followed the first part, but as he continued I lost the question. I shall give an answer later.



DOMINION ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
MARCH 31 On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): While I am on my feet,
Mr. Speaker, and in case I should not have

__________________Inquiries of the Ministry
another chance to speak, I would state that March 31 has been fixed as the polling date for the by-election in Cartier.
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether a date has been set for the by-election in Halifax?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been a vacancy in Cartier for a long time, as no doubt the hon. member is aware.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Only two or three days.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should have said that there has not been a member for the constituency of Cartier in the house for some time past and, to all intents and purposes, for that length of time the people of that constituency have not been represented here. The government thought no time therefore should be lost in bringing on a by-election to fill the vacancy. In respect of Halifax may I say that fortunately we are in a different position. Halifax has a member in the house at the present time-and an exceptionally good member. In the circumstances the government felt perhaps it would be advisable to take these by-elections one at a time, and to bring on the Halifax by-election a little later on.


Arza Clair Casselman: How is the weather down there now?



INCENTIVE BONUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): In view of the incentive bonus which press reports indicate the government has undertaken to pay Crane Limited on bathtubs and other cast iron ware produced by that company, at an estimated cost to the country of $400,000, will the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply state whether the government contemplates offering similar bonuses to other producers of other kinds of building materials.
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act makes provision for incentives to stimulate production of building materials. It has been our policy to use that incentive provision as a last resort. I think it has been used only in the Crane operation. Whether it will be used again is a matter within the discretion of the department, and I can tell my hon. friend that if it is used in future it will be only as a last resort.



FEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) about a pressing matter. But first I shall read a telegram signed by Mr. J. A. Marion, general president of the Catholic Farmers' Union of the province of Quebec:
Quebec live-stock threatened by scarcity of feed. Urgent that government compel railroad companies to supply rolling-stock to bring in western grain. Immediate action imperative.
In view of the urgency of this request, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he could do anything to facilitate the shipment of western grain to eastern Canada, so as to help out the farmers of the province of Quebec.


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Btunelle), the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Lapointe), and a few other members from the province of Quebec, have drawn my attention to a wire they have received today and yesterday from the Catholic Farmers' Union of the province of Quebec. The government is busily attending to the matter referred to in this wire. The situation of which the farmers are complaining is due to two causes: first, a shortage of boxcars, second, unfavourable weather conditions. The weather is fast improving, however, and I may assure my hon. friends, and anyone else concerned, that the controller of transport, in cooperation with the railroad companies, is doing all he can to distribute the required cars as fairly as possible under the circumstances.



EMERGENCY POWERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) asked a question with respect to the circulation of a draft bill dealing with labour relations. May I say to him and to other hon. members who have requested a copy that it is not essentially a bill. In this instance I adopted the same procedure as I did in connection with order in council P,C. 1003, so as to get the views of
The Address-Mr. Miller

provincial governments and organizations both of labour and of employers. It is merely a draft of ideas, if I may so describe it, and was sent out confidentially. When the bill is finally drafted and approved by the government, then of course hon. members either in committee of the whole or in some other committee of the house will have ample opportunity to offer amendments. At the present time it is merely a confidential set of ideas I had sent out to these different organizations for consideration.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: I would point out to the minister that it has received wide circulation. May we not have these "drafty" ideas, if we may call them that? I am sure hon. members would like to make a study of them at the same time as these various organizations are studying them. Surely the minister will loosen up a little bit and give us something. Come on, now.


Mr. KNOWLES:: What about the Financial Post?


Humphrey Mitchell: Now, one at a time. You will have your turn in a minute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you; that is very good of you.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the reason they were sent out confidentially; we did not want any of the "drafty" ideas to which the hon. member has referred. In a country as vast as Canada hon. members will appreciate the position of a department such as the one I head when we are confronted with the necessity of obtaining the points of view of national organizations. These have been sent only to the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the National Catholic syndicates, the railway brotherhoods, the Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the provincial governments.


Gordon Graydon: And the Financial Post.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh. well, my hon. friend talks about his friend the Financial Post.


Gordon Graydon: It must be your friend, because they carried your bill.


Humphrey Mitchell: Don't always believe all you read in the Financial Post.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February
4.	consideration of the motion of Mr. J. W. MacNaught 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. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. C. C. MILLER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise in my place to make my first speech in the house, I should like first of all to thank hon. members on this side, and also some on the other, who have been good enough to encourage me by so friendly a reception. I know it is customary to do that, but it is a great encouragement and a great help to one when he rises to address the house for the first time.
Again according to custom I should like to congratulate both the mover and the seconder of the address in reply. Without showing discrimination I would congratulate particularly the seconder, not that I agree with everything he said, but because as a new member in his maiden address he was called upon to perform an important and perhaps an exacting duty. He acquitted himself with credit to himself and his riding, therefore I offer him my special congratulations.
Whether it is customary to do so or not. may I express to hon. members my appreciation of the extreme friendliness shown to me and to other new members who entered the house for the first time following recent by-elections. Strangers as we are among 240 or 241 members who have already had the opportunity to become acquainted, I question if hon. members fully realize just what they do for a new member when they go out of their way to make friends with him. For that I express my sincere appreciation.
I hope I shall not be deemed to be parochial or lacking in a national viewpoint if on this occasion I confine my remarks particularly to my own constituency and matters concerning it. It did me the great honour of sending me to the house, and in my first address I should like to nay tribute to it.
The constituency of Portage la Prairie is an old one, located practically in the centre of the dominion. Perhaps it will not be considered to be facetious if I add that the Dominion of Canada revolves around the constituency of Portage la Prairie. The virtues of that old riding have long been proclaimed in the house, and on occasions by an orator certainly more fluent than I; I refer to our riding's most famous son, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. In any event, so far as lies within my power I should like to provide some additional information with regard to the riding of which we in Portage la Prairie are so proud.
In the early days of the settlement of the west this area was recognized, particularly by

The Address-Mr. Miller
the people of Ontario, as a rich land in which there were great prospects. Many people came to this district in those early days from the old province of Ontario, and many of their descendants are still located there. Those early pioneers built well, and we of the later generations have had the benefit of their experiences and their efforts.
While persons of Anglo-Saxon origin dominate the riding of Portage la Prairie so far as numbers are concerned, it is interesting to learn, as I learned only recently, that in that riding are to be found representatives of over twenty different nationalities. They live together in a more or less small area in amity and cooperation. As citizens of this great Dominion of Canada they enjoy comfort, prosperity and happiness.
The French Canadian has contributed much to the development and history of the riding. The name of La Verendrye is not one easily forgotten. That intrepid explorer and trapper came up the Assiniboine river and established a trading post and fort known as Fort La Reine, approximately on the site of the present city of Portage la Prairie. Many people of French descent still live in this old riding, most of them along the banks of the Assiniboine. There we find perpetuated the names of many of the prominent families of the old province of Quebec through the descendants of people of French origin who came to this district in the early days and remained there.
We have a large number of Icelandic people. They are industrious, friendly though somewhat retiring, thrifty, and frugal. Throughout the years they and their children have become good citizens and good Canadians. There are many Ukrainians, quite a few Hungarians and other nationalities who are good Canadians and are now valued residents of this electoral district.
Our riding is diverse not only in the nationalities that are represented, but also in the occupations of its people. We have fishermen, farmers, stock raisers, workers, professional and business men, trappers, and even a small number of miners. We have urban, suburban and rural communities. Actually this little bit of Canada presents a general picture of Canada as a whole. The city of Portage la Prairie is one of the urban centres, but we have large areas of farm lands. The boundaries of the riding go right to the city of Winnipeg, including as it does a large portion of the suburban area of that city.
When I was a boy the constituency of Portage la Prairie had only one industry, that branch of agriculture known as wheat growing. W ho has not heard of the famous Portage
plains? The Portage plains have been producing from their fertility year after year, and many other areas in the riding are equally fertile. While it is still a marvellous wheat producing country, its production has been considerably diversified. Coarse grains are grown in abundance, as are flax, sugar beets, barley and peas, and there is a considerable production of cattle, hogs and dairy products. All these items figure largely in our agricultural economy.
Let me say a special word about sugar beets, which is a new venture in our area. We have been growing sugar beets for only a little while, but the Portage district has become one of the important sugar producing areas in Manitoba. It is a good crop; it is a paying crop to a large extent, but it needs encouragement. It is my hope, and the hope of many people in the riding who are interested in the production of sugar beets, that the government will realize that this industry offers an important source of Canadian sugar. While at the moment it represents only $150,000 to the people of our riding, with encouragement instead of discouragement the industry can be built into something of importance, not only to our riding but to all the people of Canada. I shall not enlarge today upon our complaints with regard to the sugar beet industry but I think they are well known to the Minister of Agriculture.
The growing of peas has been expanded considerably in a very short time. This is an important crop in the immediate vicinity of Portage la Prairie and this year it was worth approximately three-quarters of a million dollars. We are anxious to continue with this paying crop and to bring about additional diversification.
I should like to say a word about barley. While the Minister of Agriculture has not definitely stated as yet that the price of barley will be wrapped up in an acreage bonus scheme, many papers in western Canada are suggesting just that. I want to pass on to the minister and to hon. members of this house my belief that the farmers of the constituency which I represent, and it is an average constituency, are unalterably opposed to an acreage bonus scheme.
Just before I came to Ottawa I wrote letters to a large number of farmers in all parts of the riding in connection with this particular problem, and besides that I spoke to countless numbers about it. It is well known that farmers do not usually answer letters, but I was astonished at the number of replies I got, indicating that they were desperately interested in the question of a barley price and how that price was to be fixed. As I say,
The Address-Mr. Miller

I also talked to a great many people. From the answers I received to my letters and the conversations I had I found that with the exception of two people the farmers of that area do not favour a bonus scheme for barley.
I just pass that on to the minister.
The arguments against the acreage bonus may be briefly summarized as follows. First of all, they all say that the administration costs of such a bonus scheme will be far too high. Secondly, and second in importance, the work of making the investigations, the filling out of the claim papers, the making of the inspections, the clerical work of keeping track of the results of the inspections, the writing of letters and making out of cheques and so on, would result in too much delay in making payment to the farmers.
Another objection which most if not all of the farmers have raised is this, that submarginal land and dirty land which should have been summer-fallowed will be sown to barley for the acreage bonus.
The next objection was the converse, namely, that the seeding of barley on good land will be discouraged and wheat will be grown on such land instead of barley, with the result that while the department may get an increased acreage of barley there will not be increased bushels of barley because the loss of the good land will more than offset the increased acreage sown to barley on poor land.
The fifth objection is that barley grown on poor land is poor barley and poor feed. Obviously it is the desire of the government and of all of us that more bushels of barley should be raised. We are not particularly concerned with the barley acreage. All right; if that is agreed, let us make it profitable for the farmer to grow barley and then we shall have all the barley we need in Canada.
I do not believe for one moment, and this should be obvious, that cheap barley will produce the quantity of barley needed for feed in this dominion. If barley is cheapened the feed supplies will dry up rather than be increased. I just mention that because at first blush hon. members from the east may feel that this acreage bonus scheme will give them cheaper feed. I suggest to them that cheaper barley will only have the effect of giving them no barley because the people of western Canada will not grow barley unless they can grow it profitably.
I want to say a word in passing about hogs, which is a subject of paramount interest to my constituency. A few years ago my riding was a great producer of hogs. We are proud of its record. We cau produce hogs a large percentage of which grade to the select bacon

type. We were very proud of that area, particularly the provincial constituency of Lakeside, which had established a very high record in hog raising. But the hog industry in that riding has come to a sorry pass. I doubt if we have ten per cent of the hogs that we had at our production peak. I am quite sure we have not. There are all kinds of piggeries now virtually empty. There are many reasons for the decline in hog production, but most of them are controversial and I am not going to discuss them today. I do want to say, however, that it seems to me the department relies too much on dovetailing the price of hogs with the price of barley. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the price of barley and the price of hogs should be divorced, and each should stand on its own feet. If we will do that and make it profitable to raise barley and profitable to raise hogs, then naturally both will be produced.
In part of my riding dairying is similarly declining. North and slightly west of the city of Winnipeg particularly there is what used to be a large and important dairy country. Ordinarily the large dairy barns there would be full of milk cattle, but last fall only about eleven-seventeenths of those barns had anything in them at all, and the reasons are somewhat akin to the reasons for the decline in the hog industry. The production of dairy products and the production of hogs is materially affected by the income tax. Whether we like that or not, it is a fact. The Minister of Agriculture, speaking, I think, in Moose Jaw on January 21, suggested that that question was not in the minds of the farmers in western Canada, that it was not a factor in the decrease in hog and dairy production. I have talked to farmers by the score and I have yet to talk to one who does not tell me that the primary reason for going out of hogs and ceasmg to produce dairy products is that they are fed up with the income tax. Whether that is fair or not, whether we like it or not, is beside the point. It is the fact.
Milking and hog feeding are done almost entirely, the farmers claim, and I think justifiably, in what they call their extra or off hours. Certainly they are off hours for me. When the farmer gets up in the morning before dawn to milk his cattle and feed his hogs for the first time that day, and when he is at it when the sun goes down and after, I do not think we can answer the farmers when they say that that work is done in their extra hours. Help is practically non-existent. The result is that this work has to be done in the farmer's off hours by himself and his

_______________The Address-Mr. McCullough
wife and children. They claim, rightly or wrongly, that they are not going to work these long hours when such a large proportion of what they earn in these long hours is taken from them by the government in income tax. I do not say whether they are right or wrong, but that is what they say,'and that is what we have to face. The farmers of western Canada, at the moment at least, do not have to milk cows and carry swill to pigs, and they are not going to do so unless there is some inducement. Therefore if the government needs hogs and dairy products, some inducement must be offered to the farmers to return to the raising of hogs and dairy products, and the inducement that would appeal to them above all would be an income tax concession. I realize just as well as other hon. members that it is dangerous to give special tax concessions to one industry or to one class, but if the hog industry is to be rehabilitated, in the west at least, the best way to ensure that would be to exempt for a definite period of years, say five years, $500 worth of hogs per annum. Something similar might be done to bolster up the dairy products industry.
There is a precedent for that, Mr. Speaker. When we were short of wartime workers for wartime industry in the war, what was done? There were tax concessions by way of additional exemptions given to married couples. If that could be done then, it can be done now if the urgency is great enough. If these concessions or something along this line were worked out, the butter and hog scarcity would solve themselves. If it is necessary to do something definite to get the bacon to fulfil our British commitments, then I at least know of no other way in which it could be better and more effectively done than to give some income tax concessions to the farmers of western Canada in connection with their hog and dairy products industry.
Today in the main I have talked about the constituency which I have the great honour to represent. It is a good area, and our people are good citizens. In fact I hope I shall not be accused of being proud, Mr. Speaker, when I say that they are marvellous people. Both my wife and I were born in that constituency and we are proud of our birthplace. I am more than happy and proud to have the great honour of representing Portage la Prairie in this house and to have the opportunity of serving my native land and the people of that constituency.


Mr. E. G. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker I do not wish to deal with international problems today, and it is not because 83166-10
I do not recognize the tremendous need that attention be given to international matters. We recognize that we are now in a great family of nations, and that we must so build that we can work together with other countries and live in harmony for the peace and security of the world.
There is the vexing international problem of building the united nations security council; there is the vexing problem of world food supply. All over the world there are many dark spots, yet here in Canada we are perhaps one of the favoured nations in that we have not been torn by modern war.
I do not wish to criticize my friends to my right for moving a straight want of confidence motion in the government, other than to say that it reminds me of their policy of 1934 and 1935 when they had no solution to the problems of the time. In those days we found that our young people were being pushed from pillar to post. Today it seems that my Tory friends to the right still have no answer. They just want a straight condemnation of the government.
During the war most of us felt that we were not only fighting against something but also for something. We were fighting to end for all time those actions of brutality which peoples had taken in order to destroy each other. We felt that we were fighting to do away with such conditions as existed in the Belsen camps and in the ghettos of Poland.
We of the C.C.F. party believe that we must make fundamental changes in the economic system of our country if we are to establish within our own domestic entity a system which can help the people and give world leadership toward the building of lasting peace. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while I say that sins of omission are just as bad as sins of commission, I want to criticize the government as emphatically as I can for their shortcomings since the last session.
I believe that the Liberal government was elected on certain promises made prior to 1945. One of the things they promised was jobs for all. Today we find once again the spectre of unemployment. We find our people being driven from pillar to post, with insecurity facing them on every hand.
There are certain causes for the conditions which prevail in labour ranks today. We have a feeling of insecurity. In some instances we find that already people cannot find jobs. One of the main reasons for this general feeling among our working people in Canada is that even though the government was prompted to plan so that in the post-war period we should have established a national labour code com-

13S
The Address-Mr. McCullough

growing, not only in far distant places but right here in our own country. The government apparently has recognized that cartels and monopolies are dangerous to the welfare of our country, for they have set up a combines investigation branch with a commissioner. So they might be expected to do something about it, but I charge that the government has aided in building up cartels and monopolies in this country.
Let me give an example. During the war the government spent $525,000 of the money of the people at Research Enterprises Limited, where our scientists were producing optical instruments equal in quality to any in the world. After the war this building was turned over to War Assets Corporation and sold to the Corning Glass Company of the United States for $150,000, or 28 per cent of the original price. In the United States the Corning Glass Company was indicted on two counts under the United States anti-trust laws for entering into agreements in restraint of trade; yet in Canada they found an open door, as it were, to start the same thing here. Again, last year Mr. H. R. MacMillan, the big lumber baron, had a net profit of $2,310,865. In 1944 his net profit was $1,213,790.


Mr. FULTON:: What did he pay in taxes?


Edward George McCullough: That is his net profit, after paying taxes. He operates an export lumber company. This man was allowed to ship lumber out of this country in order to make that profit. Is it any wonder, I ask you, that today the veterans and people in general are looking in vain for lumber? As long as we predicate our economy on the profit system and allow these people to control our economy, that will be the situation.
Now I want to refer, before I conclude, to one other person, more or less a tycoon in our country. I refer to Mr. E. P. Taylor, one of our dollar-a-year men during the war. I mention these facts because these cartels are growing and menacing not only our own country but the future welfare of the world; therefore I take this opportunity of reading into the record some of the holdings of this man. In a reprint from the Toronto Star in the Ottawa Journal of October 22, I find:
The Taylor interests, like most industrial empires, are a series of holdings and operating companies. Substantial blocks of stock in many of his companies are held by Argus Corporation, Limited, which might be described as a combination parent holding company and investment trust. Mr. Taylor is president.
Argus holdings, according to the last public statement, include Canadian Breweries. Acadia Atlantic Sugar Refinery, B.C. Forest Products, Canadian Food Products, Dominion Stores,

H. R. MacMillan Export Company Limited, Massey Harris, Orange Crush and Standard Chemical.
Although Argus holdings in these companies are substantial, they do not appear, in each case, to constitute control. If control is exercised. as many people believe it is, it may well be through private holdings in addition to those of the corporation. In each instance, however, a member of the Argus board of directors is represented on the board of directors or management of these companies.
The vastness of the Taylor empire begins to take form with a breakdown of the holdings^ of the individual companies. Canadian Breweries, for example, in addition to being the operating company for nine breweries in Ontario, and a bottling plant in Montreal, controls Brewing Corporation of America -which operates in 22 states in U.S.
I could go on with a whole list, but I do not think I need do so. During the war, when the people were in a state of upheaval, our young people suffered because of our obsolete .and outworn system. We were operating at a time of war in a state of moral instability. Yet those young people were thrown into the war.
During the war the liquor interests of this country had their heyday. Through subtle advertising they have been able to get people to consume more and more liquor, until we have reached a point where, whether an hon. member may or may not want liquor, I believe he would not deny that the drink menace is a real problem in Canada. It is high time that this phase of the liquor question be brought to the attention of the government, and that no time be lost in nationalizing the breweries. I urge this at the present time so as to prevent crime and the break-up of homes, which may go on for years.
In my view the time has come when all hon. members must get together sincerely and plan a national economy which will put humanity first and the dollar in the place where it belongs.


Mr. PARK MANROSS (London):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to start by congratulating anybody, because that horse has been pretty well worn out by now. So I shall wish you, Mr. Speaker, a happy 1948, just so I can be first in something.
The opening paragraph in the speech from the throne says that the Governor General has visited our nine provinces-for which we are glad. We are glad he likes us, because we certainly like him.
One of the opening paragraphs mentions the gradual relaxation of controls and, as my hon. friend to the left has said, we want them off faster. They have been going off gradually,

The Address-Mr. Manross
and I have not seen any skyrocketing of prices, to any extent. We find that where controls have been taken off, prices have bounded up for a few days, and then they have come back down again through the law of supply and demand.
Of course one of the essential things in taking off controls and doing away with regulations and boards is that it cuts down expenses and helps out the taxpayer, because the taxpayer is paying the shot for all these offices. In addition to that, those employees are really producing nothing. They are the drones in the hives, and would be better if they were adding something to the production of the country. They could produce wealth and cut down taxes.
I know in my riding in the city of London there are three warehouse buildings downtown which have been reconverted into office structures, with the installation of expensive elevators and office partitions, and with the necessary office equipment. In addition to government owned buildings, other buildings are crammed full. All offices in the town are rented. A business man cannot get any space at all either to work or to store his merchandise.
I am not condemning the personnel of these offices, the employees. So long as boards are operating, somebody has to do the work. Someone has to unwind the red tape, wind the red tape, and try to pacify the public who come to see them, because there is no one among the higher-ups who can say either yes or no.
These boards are extravagant. I do not mean that they are extravagant because of the way in which the employees handle them, but they are extravagant so far as taxation is concerned.
The speech from the throne mentioned great progress in housing. Of course some will argue with that and say it is wrong, that the progress is not as good as it should be. Planning has been poor in some places, and there has been some bungling. I agree with what was said by the hon, member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) about the homes built under the Veterans' Land Act, There are seventy-two in the constituency of Middlesex East and there are twenty-eight north of London. It is true that the basements of those houses were filled with water, and that city and county engineers said it would take a mile and a quarter of drainage piping to take the water away from those cellars.
That is one example of the way in which those houses were built, and I think the hon. member for Lambton West did a good job in dealing with that situation. My own feeling at the last session-and I still hold it-is that
if we had given the people with the "know how" the green light; if we had let the contractors, tradesmen, carpenters and the like go ahead and not bound them with red tape, and had permitted them to get materials and proper financing we would have had more low-cost homes available for sale and rent, and they would have been in real residential areas, mixed in with the homes of regular citizens. As a result of failing to do this, we have what will become known as soldiers' settlements in clay pits outside the town.
I look now at the lumber supply situation, which is of course the No. 1 material in housing, and I find that in Ontario only
650,000,000 feet of lumber are produced annually, and that 300,000,000 feet of this is exported, leaving only 350,000,000 feet for Ontario's needs. But Ontario's consumption of lumber is a thousand million feet, with the result that they have to bring in 650,000,000 feet from other provinces.
On account of wartime regulations and regulations imposed since the war as well, the western provinces will not ship lumber into Ontario and Quebec because there is a discrimination in price and in export quotas. To remedy this I would suggest, first, that prices of dressed spruce brought from the prairie provinces and the interior of British Columbia be made the same as the price of dressed spruce produced in Ontario and Quebec.
Second, I would suggest that export quotas now in effect be equalized so that the manufacturer shipping to Ontario will receive the same export quota he receives when he ships to the prairie provinces. As it is now, the western lumber manufacturer ships one car to the prairies and receives a quota for one car to export. He has to ship two cars to Ontario to get a quota for one car to export. Because he makes his money by exporting lumber he prefers to ship where he gets the greater quota.
Third. I would recommend that "dressing in transit" privileges now in effect be corrected to permit shippers to dress their lumber near their source.
Fourth, I would recommend that the practice of permitting crown-owned and crown-operated companies to pay over ceiling prices be discontinued, and thereby place all retailers on an equal footing with these companies.
Prices to Ontario lumber dealers, with the new eight per cent advance just allowed to mills, now run from $3.50 to $11 more per thousand on dressed spruce than they do out west. From this I would feel that controls on lumber should be removed, and not extended. In the event they are not to be removed, then I suggest that discrimination should be elimi-
[42

The Address-Mr. Manross
nated. Otherwise the housing situation, especially in industrial areas-and that is where many of our returned boys are getting jobs- will be a great deal worse.
Another control to which I should like to refer is that on service industries, which include laundries and cleaners. These people are not concerned particularly' about prices, but rather about the different ty'pes of service which have to be carried. Before the war, some of these laundries went into wet wash, thrifty wash, large bundle service, commercial work, all-ironed service for homes and all-ironed bachelors' bundles. Because business was slow and labour plentiful they took on these extra services in an effort to build up and to maintain a sufficient volume to keep their routes in operation.
When the war came along labour became scarce and, as a natural result, wages increased. Prices are not the main consideration in the minds of these people. As a matter of fact the other laundry has never been the chief competitor of a laundryman. His chief competition has been the housewife and the domestic washing machine. And housewives will impose a more rigorous control over this than any board can impose.
As I have said, the main point has not been that of price. The industry would like some relaxation in price controls so that they can correct many wrong prices. The main point, however, is that the variety of services which they are obliged to carry on, by regulation, has created a much greater difficulty than has the regulation of prices. Labour rates have increased from forty per cent to fifty per cent in most places and efficiency has decreased. The reason why efficiency has decreased is that female labour has not been going into the laundries. Lush wages have been paid for war work during the war and this industry has not been able to build up any reserve staff to take the place of those who retired after long service. The laundries now find they have not very many skilled employees.
Another thing that affects launderers and dry cleaners is the fact that the double depreciation reconversion tax provision has been denied to service industries, and laundries and cleaners are classified as such. This seems to be unfair since we were told that the purpose of the regulation was to increase employment in industry. This is another industry that needs regulation relief probably more than price relief.
As I said before, I would not attack the personnel whose duty it has been to carry out these wartime regulations. They have been good men, honest men and able men,

but they have been autocrats for six or seven years. They had to be to be any good at their jobs. But now they have reached the point where they honestly feel that if their shepherding of humans and Canadian business is withdrawn calamity will overtake the Canadian people. It has been said that nothing is more dangerous than an honest man with a false philosophy'. I say, let us cut down on this thing as far as we can and get these people into production.
We have been educated to be extravagant through the lush war period. But the gravy train has passed and now is the time to cut down on things that can be done away with in order to reduce the taxpayers' bill. It will be said that I am making double talk because I want to raise some people's w'ages, but the fact is that the increase would be so small compared with what could be saved that it does not amount to much.
I was glad to see an announcement in the paper to the effect that there would be a relaxation of civil service controls. I should like to see our permanent civil servants brought up to their proper levels. As hon. members of the house know, during the war the temporary civil servant fared better than the permanent civil servant. In this regard I am thinking particularly of immigration and customs men. The way the customs staff operates can do a lot to assist industry in industrial centres where goods are cleared through customs.
I should like to say a word about the customs and immigration inspectors at the border, and I might mention I am not making political capital of this because there are none of these men in my riding. The customs and immigration men at the border are the first people the tourists entering our country meet. To the tourist this man is Mr. Canada. He is the first contact with Canada. How much of a salesman is he? Well, he cannot be a good salesman if he is not happy. I submit that these men at the border should be given a little more money and asked to work fewer hours. I do not know whether it is well known but some of these men at Windsor and Niagara Falls have to work twelve and fourteen hours a day'.
Such a man cannot smile and be courteous if he is not happy. He cannot be happy if his family has a lower standard of living than his neighbour who is an industrial worker. Give these men a little more money and then they will be able to smile and be courteous. If they cannot smile and be courteous they cannot sell Canada to the tourist. Let us do our part to make the

The Address-Mr. Manross
tourist glad that he came. Let us give him a welcome that he will remember. Let us send the tourists away with a gracious and thankful au revoir.
Any organization, whether controlled by government or by private enterprise, reaches a point where -the efficiency expert is called in. These men tell us how to run our businesses better than we can run them ourselves. These men get into the accounting departments; they get into the government and they get into private business. There is one discrepancy to which I should like to call attention. I refer to the treatment given to the cleaning staffs in our public buildings. Those women got a cost of living bonus for working five and a half hours a day. They work from about seven to nine o'clock in the morning and from five to eight-thirty o'clock in the evening. For doing this work they received $58.97 a month, which included a cost of living bonus of $8.92. That cost of living bonus has been cancelled in order to save the $8.92 which was being paid to a few cleaning women looking after the dominion public buildings. I think that could easily be picked up in some of these temporary buildings which are now a loss to the government.
All these things are preliminary to the budget. In the first place, I believe that posterity should bear its full burden of the cost of the war. Those who have paid so heavily during the war should have some substantial relief and some of the burden should be stretched out over the years ahead so that those who have not suffered in any way but who will benefit greatly from the preservation of freedom and democracy should pay their fair share. The first step in doing this is to reduce the personal income tax of the lower income groups.
From observations I have made I would say-I know some will quarrel with this-that the excess profits taxes should be removed entirely, because corporation income -tax drains off profit. In saying this I do not speak for the large corporations because the excess profits taxes paid by those corporations are fixed on a standard of profit and they find themselves in a preferred position especially if they have a high standard, as compared with small businesses or new businesses. A small corporation or a small business or a new business is given an arbitrary standard of profit. If that business should expand its volume it cannot have any bigger standard than that. However, the large corporation which h-as been in business for years has a high standard and is in a much better position than the little fellow or the new business.
The consequence of all this is that the small businesses or the new businesses do not expand. They just go along until they get up to the minimum or standard profit and then they stay there because why should they expand and increase employment? Yet what we want them to do is to increase employment, which increases Canada's wealth because it increases production.
Another tax I should like to talk about is discriminatory taxes. Discrimination in taxation should disappear. For instance, there is the jewellery tax of twenty-five per cent, and I am not thinking of items like the glittering adornments we see; I am thinking of knives and forks and items like that. A couple starting out in life can buy furniture. They can rent a house if they can find one but they cannot eat without paying a twenty-five per cent tax on their knives and forks and on their tea service, or on the handbags that they take their honeymoon in. They do not take their honeymoon in them but writh them. Probably this is why there is such an overwhelming supply of whatnots. Did you ever see so many things that you never saw before? You go down the street and you see funny little cabinets in the furniture store; you see funny things in the leather goods store and you see other funny things in the jewellery store. These things are of no use whatsoever; they are made simply to attract the novelty loving public. Then there are these sports shirts.
All these companies are not making essential goods. There are no standard profits that apply to these things; there is no base structure. They go to the wartime prices board and they say, "Here is a new gadget that costs me $8 to make; can I sell it for $9?" "You can sell it for $9.50." Just a plain red shirt.
Then there is the nuisance tax field, about which I think we should say something. What is a nuisance tax? The $2.50 a year we pay on our radios is a nuisance tax.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Who put it on?


Gordon Graydon: Who kept it on; that is the point?


Park Manross: This is a one-ring circus. Let us have one clown at a time.
It costs a lot to collect this radio tax and you cannot see it like you can your motor car licence. I know we pay $2.50 for one every year and then shove the licence down at the back of the radio among the tubes. They stay there until we have a fire four or five years later when the permits bum up.
The Address-Mr. Manross

I think this tax should be removed. At the time the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was established this tax was imposed so that we could get the kind of entertainment the government thought we ought to have, entertainment without advertising. But now the C.B.C. has become a commercial venture and it accepts advertising. It is competing with the independent stations. Surely this money cannot be for that purpose. It is trying to secure the wave lengths of independently owned stations who through their own initiative have built up a listening audience ten times as large as that of the C.B.C. In addition, do you not think, sir, this $2.50 radio tax is a rank injustice to shut-ins, invalids, the blind and pensioners? I do. I know of an arthritis hospital with perhaps sixty or seventy patients. They have to pay a $2.50 licence fee if they have a radio set of their own.
Then there is the discriminatory tax on children's goods, such as soft drinks. Soft drinks sell now for seven cents which formerly sold for five cents. Other items now compete at five cents and six cents. Why? The government's answer in the past has been that there is a two-cent tax on soft drinks and that the manufacturers can sell all they make with this forty per cent boost in price because of the restricted sugar supplies. They said it was not working any hardship on the manufacturer and they did not think it was working any hardship on the children because now their parents were earning more money and getting the family allowance. The government's answer might have had some merit during the war and for a short period thereafter, but sugar and auxiliary sweeteners, plus reduced purchasing power, have already started real competition in this field and we should get these goods back within the reach of children. Let us get these things back to a price of five cents, which is the only figure on which such an industry can survive. This has been urged from several quarters, by teen-age groups, by the Y.W.C.A. and by many others. It is not fair, I think, that beer should be cheaper per ounce than soft drinks. I have nothing against the beer industry, so do not get me wrong. To bring the price back to five cents would also be a great help to small independently owned plants. There are 359 out of a total of 455 of these plants which are small locally owned businesses.
We come out with the family allowance, and I am not against it, not a bit, but to me when you tax children's goods forty per cent and give the parents the family allow-

ance, it looks like giving the kids a nickel to go to sleep and then taking it away from them in the night.
Canada, of course, could be the greatest country in the world if we could do away with income tax and succession duties. People would start flowing here so fast that Canada would grow by leaps and bounds if people only knew they were not going to be penalized for possession, thrift and progress. That can never happen in our time, but the closer we get to it, the nearer we shall come to achieving the greatness that should be Canada's and the more likely we shall be to hold our best, most brilliant and industrious young people from migrating to other countries where these burdens are lighter.
In western Ontario we are close to the sugar and sugar-beet problem. World sugar supplies are still reported short, and part of the world's plan is not a famine-relief plan but a plan to raise the normal consumption of sugar in other countries at the expense and through the sacrifice of the people of the United States and Canada. Yugoslavia, for instance, secured tens of thousands of tons of sugar through UNRRA without a government voice being raised, although I remember that someone was criticized once for shipping scrap iron to a questionable destination.
In Canada our beet sugar factories can produce much more sugar if they can get the beets, but the beets cannot be produced without labour, and the farmers cannot get the labour. In the past two years the P.O.W.'s helped considerably in our district, and I understand that a certain number of displaced Poles will also help this year. But that is not a plan; it is a temporary thing, an alibi for the day. The beet men interviewed the sugar administrator and the government last week and they seemed to be very much discouraged at the prospect of getting help this year. Anything we can do to encourage the production of sugar in this country will be a great thing for Canada because world supplies of sugar for some years are going to be low.
This week in Canada is known as White Cane Week. The purpose is to remind those of us who are so fortunate as to have our sight that there are fellow-citizens of ours who cannot see. At the present time, blind people over forty years of age, secure a pension of $25 a month, 75 per cent of which is paid by the dominion and 25 per cent by the province. In addition, they can earn $200 a year without interfering with their pension. In the entire Dominion of Canada, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, there are

The Address-Mr. Manross
only 9,982 blind, distributed across the nine provinces, there being 3,131 in Ontario and 3,152 in Quebec.
At the present time the pension for the blind is not paid to anyone undeT forty years of age. Anyone over forty and up to sixty-nine comes in a special category, and those who are seventy or over receive, of course, the regular old age pension. The members of this house will realize that blind people from the ages of twenty-one to forty are just as much incapacitated and unable to work as those over forty; in fact, the handicap is perhaps greater because it comes in their educational period when they have to learn Braille. I hope that the government will consider my suggestion favourably and include in the estimates pensions for the blind between the ages of twenty and forty, the total number of whom in the whole Dominion of Canada is only 2,328, and allow them to earn up to $750 a year including pension.
Last year the then Minister of National Health and Welfare advised me as follows:
The position is nowr complicated by the failure to reach agreement with the provinces, and I am not in a position to say what the future course . . . will be.
Was the family allowance-and again I say I am not opposed to that measure-held up pending the conclusion of provincial agreements? No. Yet the cost of the family allowance is now $250,000,000 a year. To do justice to the blind as I have urged would require only three-quarters of a million dollars. We can pass $250,000,000 for the family allowance without any reference to the provinces at all, and therefore I think we should urge from all sides of the house that the government do something for the blind in Canada, in your province and in mine, such as I have suggested. The blind are not concentrated in large individual groups so that they could affect the results of a vote, so that there is no political significance in this suggestion. The blind are scattered pretty evenly from coast to coast and we should all urge the government to grant a pension to the blind between the ages of twenty-one and forty.
The government says it is going to be difficult to continue all its social service programmes without tax agreements being effected with "the" provinces. I suppose that means all the provinces, although I am not sure. But as I said before, the family allowance was granted without any reference to the provinces. Perhaps that paragraph in the speech from the throne which says that these social service programmes cannot be completed without provincial agreements may be
double talk-it may mean "we will give you everything if you effect these agreements." I do not know, but it may be that. If it is, let me say that we should never encourage the people to expect something for nothing. Something for nothing is sucker bait. Before you can have anything, someone has to produce it. Will anyone produce anything for you unless you produce something of equal value to give him in return? You know the answer. He will not. That is why anyone can know that people who promise more pay for less production or more social security benefits for less taxation are only throwing sand in your eyes.
There is not much forecast in the speech from the throne regarding immigration. Do we need more people or not? The government says they know the need and that they have admitted 4,000 Poles. Large groups of Canadians such as the dominion trades and labour council, the Canadian council of churches, the dominion chamber of commerce and miners, farmers and lumbermen say that we need immigration-and now. Some cry out in alarm, "What about housing these immigrants?" Well, agricultural federations and natural resources areas where lumbering and mining is carried on can place in employment and house thousands of immigrants in existing houses. The same is true of the sugar beet industry. Our people do not seem to want to go into certain kinds of employment and therefore we could use thousands of immigrants and give them employment and take care of them so far as housing is concerned. We can select in Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France and other countries, good people with similar viewpoint, and artisans too, who are acclimatized to our kind of conditions and the kind of work we want done. We are at present feeding thousands in Europe free. Why not bring them here and let them earn their living? When they become accustomed to our higher standard of living they will soon become customers.
Regardless of party, Ottawa governments for years past have lacked immigration courage, because they are frightened of political opinions. All objectors to these immigrants will become boosters once we get a few million new Canadians here working, because they can sell the goods they produce to these new Canadians.
This debate is to be shortened or postponed so that we can have essential legislation placed on the order paper. In this connection I hope we do not get a lot of chicken feed on the order paper such as we have had in other years, and because of that have to stand up
1IG
The Address-Mr. Manross

and argue with each other and call each other names. That kind of legislation does not have the urgency attached to it or the relative importance of taxation, housing and so forth. They become contentious. I remember Canada-Dominion day and the new flag. That debate took a long time. A new flag was not necessary, in a hurry, but you must have a flag if you are to be a nation. Everyone understands that, but these matters should not have taken preference over housing, taxes and production.
Of course, when I become prime minister all these things will be taken care of. The first Monday of every month will be a holiday except Christmas. You do not need a name for a holiday because people do not celebrate the name of a holiday. If it is St. Valentine's day they do not celebrate the name of the holiday. They celebrate in their own way. It is either trout day or bass day, golf day and some hon. members just celebrate, period.
So far as the flag issue is concerned it became quite contentious and there was no reason why it should. Everybody agreed pretty well with the principle. I do not think the government intended to have a new flag at the time. As a matter of fact I think I have proof in black and white that we do not intend to have a new flag. I looked through the estimates last night and I did not find an item to pay for a flag. We have to supply the military organizations and public buildings all over the country with flags, and they cannot get them with soap wrappers because there is no soap.
I have just about concluded; I have twelve minutes to go but I doubt whether I can last that long. We were very much disappointed to see that Canada did not have a definite part in the German peace treaty. I know that hon. members on all sides were disappointed, as were the people of Canada, in seeing that our name was left out of the nations to meet to consider the German peace treaty. Every hon. member was certainly carrying out his duty and carrying out the wishes of his constituents by insisting that Canada have as large a part in the peace as she had in the war.
Having spent a considerable part of my life in sales and advertising, I look at these matters from that angle. In this field when a person fails to get an order he goes back and reviews the situation. He looks over his approach and his presentation to see why he failed. He says, "This is the reason", and he. then finds out how he can do a better job the next time. Looking at the situation in this way and possibly from a psychological point of view, I think the withdrawing of our forces into a tiny area in Germany had a bad effect.

Cutting our defence personnel away below the figure which we said we would have after the war, and which was to be the irreducible minimum may have brought about a bad reaction. Other nations may have felt that Canada would not be so hot around the peace table because we cannot get the nine provinces together here. How can we effect peaceful arrangements between nations when we cannot effect peaceful arrangements among ourselves? It reminds me of the people next door coming over and telling you how to live, and at the same time they may be fighting every night.
All during the years Canada has been slow in establishing in the minds of her neighbours, particularly the United States, and indeed the whole world, that she is an independent democratic nation in her own right. Probably it is better to go too slow than too fast. In absorbing the various nationalities in her populations at such a rapid rate the United States has probably gone to the other extreme. What every person wishes to do in the United States is to say: "I am an American." Of course they- think that being an American means a citizen of the United States, which is not necessarily true. You can live anywhere on the American continent and be an American; but that is the term used for1 a United States citizen. They decorate their cars and their verandahs with the stars and stripes and on the least provocation they say: "I am an American." They write songs saying: "I am an American." They are so keen to sing these songs that an Italian immigrant in New York wrote to see if he could get a translation in Italian so that he could sing it. Whether they overdo it I do not know. I do not think they have ever thought of Canada as a country. I am now referring to the rank and file of the United States. They have never looked on Canada as an independent nation. We may be the cause of that. Canadians cross the border and they say: "I am a Scotch-Canadian a French-Canadian, an Irish-Canadian. a;-English-Canadian or some other kind of Canadian. People of the United States then form the opinion that we are citizens of one of these countries merely living here, a sort of lend-lease type of resident. It is due to a lack of education on their part and on our part. I am glad we are now able to say: "I am a Canadian." It may be that mass public opinion in the United States is to the effect that we already have representation because they do not think of us as a nation. Probably their statesmen are guided by mass public opinion.
I was at a convention of our industry which took place in Niagara Falls last week. One of

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
the delegates from the deep south came on to Ottawa. That is the place from which we get some of these essential oils. He said: "What is Canada kicking about?" I said: "We are kicking because we have no representation at the German peace conference." He said: "Neither has Texas, son." He thought Texas was just as independent a nation as Canada.
I should like to remind the house that time after time in the past years this party has urged the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to have a full-time Minister of External Affairs, but the Prime Minister continued to hold the portfolio himself in addition to that of Prime Minister. It may be that we were too late in taking action on this matter. I look on this matter from the sales point of view. Other nations' reaction may be the result of our having only a part-time salesman. We cannot sell goods abroad and at home with the same man at the same time.
Are we discouraged? When a customer says "no", that is not the time to quit. That is the time to renew our efforts with increased energy and all the resources we have to assert Canada's just position and demand equality and proper representation. The crisis in this situation is here now. Let us not go down fighting with each other, but together as a united nation let us fight for Canada's right.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the last war I was called to Ottawa with my hon. friend the present Minister of Health (Mr. Martin) to meet the then Minister of National Defence, the late Hon. Norman Rogers, who had called me three times by long distance from Montreal. He told me that he had already spoken to my hon. colleague. He wanted to form a committee on internal security to replace the subcommittee of the government which had been formed under P.C. 2474 on August 30, just a few days before. The purpose of that committee was to look after food and commodity prices, dominion-provincial relations, anti-air raid precautions and to make a survey of the press and public opinion.
Before going further, I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address and the members who have spoken so well.
It was difficult for me to accept such a position, even with a fine living allowance, because it entailed too much work. At the time Mr. Duplessis was premier of Quebec and Mr. Hepburn was premier of Ontario. One of our duties would have been for my hon. colleague to discuss dominion legislation with Toronto and Toronto legislation with Ottawa. I would have had to do the same thing with Quebec. But under the circumstances it was impossible
to accept, for many reasons. One of them was that it was impossible for us to take a living allowance which would have been passed by order in council under the War Measures Act.
Since it was then the intention of the government to get our services to promote good understanding between Ottawa and the provinces, I intend today to try to act as a peacemaker between Ottawa, Toronto and Quebec, and even Halifax. The party policy of Mr. Drew is Conservative. He does not belong to my party. Mr. Duplessis is the leader of the Union Nationale group in the province of Quebec. I disagreed mostly with the premier of Nova Scotia when he was in Ottawa, but we must admit that each one of these gentlemen is the official spokesman of his province; each one of them represents the majority of the citizens of his province. Therefore they are entitled to their own views because those views are supposed to be those of their respective provinces.
On February 1, 1937, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) moved to set up a parliamentary committee to recommend amendments to the British North America Act for the improvement of social and economic conditions. On February 1, 1937, the member for Temiscouata, who had been the member for this constituency for some time, said, as reported at page 455 of Hansard:
I am in favour of a committee of the House of Commons to study the British North America Act, not with regard to social legislation but with regard to taxation, in order to see how taxation should be divided, in order that each province should be at home in its field of taxation, in its sphere of action, and that the dominion government should be equally at home in its field of taxation and in its sphere of action. It is not to create any kind of trouble between the dominion and the provinces; it is so that we may have order as between the federal government and the provinces, and that order will come when taxation is adjusted, when the provinces spend only the money they get from their own taxation and when Ottawa will not have to distribute to the provinces or municipalities money obtained by federal taxation.
Then a few days afterwards, February 16, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said as reported at page 922 of Hansard-.
In these circumstances, we propose to appoint a royal commission of inquiry to investigate the whole system of taxation in the dominion; to study the division of financial powers and financial responsibilities between the dominion and the provinces, and to make recommendations as to what should be done to secure a more equitable and practical division of the burden to enable all governments to function more effectively-and, I may add-
This is very important.
-more independently-within the spheres of their respective jurisdictions.
The Address-Mr. Povliot

Probably the reason why I had the honour of being asked to work in that capacity, although I could not accept, was that in 1938 I took advantage of one of the most widely circulated newspapers in Canada, La Presse, to explain the constitutional issues in order to familiarize the Canadian people with the problems that we have to discuss here in Ottawa. The first article on February 5, 1938, was on the constitution. Here is a translation of the first paragraph:
Saint Jean Chrysostome was very fond of a verse of Holy Writ which is often found in his homilies, "The wounds of those who love are better than the kisses of those who hate." Since then manners have changed. Today in certain countries friendship is only flattery and loyalty synonymous with blindness. To remain on good terms with a friend, one must open his mouth very wide on his qualities and shut it on his defects. If you dare tell him that in one circumstance, on one occasion, he may have been mistaken, he will accuse you of treason. If you want to be considered as a true friend you will have to treat the most inoffensive of his opponents as your worst enemy. If the statesman were not above such meannesses, the so-called democratic countries whose governments hate equally fascism and communism, would become the hotbed of the most odious despotism. Fortunately, Canada has remained a country for free opinion. Let us take advantage of it."
In that article there were paragraphs under the headings "The Intention of the Legislator", "Exclusive Rights of the Dominion and of the Provinces".
There was another article about the views of the British government as expressed by Lord Carnarvon on February 19, 1867, and I took the trouble to translate most of his speech for the benefit of the readers of La Presse. What he said about the distribution of legislative powers was illuminating. What he wanted and what was the expressed wish of the British government was that Ottawa on the one hand and the provinces on the other should be respectively independent of each other. There was another article on the practical spirit and the wisdom of British statesmen. One paragraph reads in this way:
It is not England that has imposed confederation. It was the Canadian statesmen who insisted on getting that new constitution. However, the British statesmen have insisted that it should be drafted with the greatest care in order to prevent as far as possible a conflict of jurisdiction between the central power and the autonomous legislatures.
The last sentence is:
Macdonald saw; Carnarvon foresaw.
Later on there was one long article about the exclusive jurisdiction of each legislative power. It is enough to read the text of a

couple of sections of the British North America Act to realize the intention of the law makers. Then there was another article about the amendment of the constitution and the constitutions of the other dominions. In my view, sir, we are not the only ones who should be familiar with these problems. They are of immediate importance to the taxpayers, who must know what are the powers of the dominion parliament and what are the powers of the provincial legislatures, so that they may control the spending of the money by each authority.
Then the Rowell commission was appointed. The suggestion was made by the leader of the C.C.F. group that a parliamentary committee should be formed for the purpose of improving the British North America Act in regard to powers having to do with social security. In my opinion something should have come before that; we should have made the necessary distinction between federal and provincial taxation. When I saw the appointment of the commission I was satisfied that it was to study precisely the taxation powers of Ottawa on the one hand and of the provinces on the other, but I was disappointed that it was a royal commission. That should have been done by a committee of the house. I still believe that in a matter of this kind members of parliament, who are in close touch with the people, can do much better than any royal commission. In 1938 in La Presse I mentioned something about the Rowell commission. You know, a man who in a few years has received in legal fees an amount of over $200,000 may be a great man, but I was surprised to learn when I obtained official figures that from 1927 to 1937 the important man on the Rowell commission received from the dominion government the sum of $168,332.51, in addition to $48,841 which he received from November, 1926, to June, 1928, in connection with the customs probe. Men belong to history. I do not say that money was not earned, but it was a tremendous sum of money to be paid to a jurist who was then asked to investigate and express views about a public matter. Of course members of parliament are never paid so much and1 are considered less important, but I still maintain that members of parliament are the ones who should look into the problem of amending the constitution and establishing better relations between the dominion and the provinces. There is no reason why it should be otherwise.
Then I wrote some other articles in La Presse in June, 1938, about the Rowell commission, mentioning all the briefs that had been submitted; and also about the economic council, which was the only one of the social

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
measures proposed by Mr. Bennett that was not submitted to the courts. I moved the repeal of that legislation. That action was symbolic; I wanted parliament to repeal that act, which gave so much importance to bureaucracy and created the first underground government. That bill passed all stages in the house in a very short time and went to the senate, where my dear old friend Sir Allen Aylesworth was kind enough to pilot it through all stages, and it became the law of the land. But as soon as it was passed the situation became worse than ever. We had committees formed of high, important civil servants .belonging to all departments, who were the real government and who drafted the policy later passed upon by this government.
In another article I mentioned three handicaps: first, the cost of the first great war; second, unemployment; third, bureaucracy. In June, 1938, long, before bureaucracy was denounced in this house, I wrote an article about the dictatorship of bureaucracy. We tried to control bureaucracy, but it was impossible. Then the war came on, and we expected that the Rowell-Sirois report would be left on the shelf. To my great surprise, however, in 1940 it was again brought into the limelight. Here may I quote from a speech delivered by one of our best parliamentarians, my very dear friend the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who said on November 20, 1940:
Why is the report of the commission to be considered at this stage? The report was relegated to the archives last session-earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, in sure hope that it would not be resurrected. Why is it being revised now in the darkest hour of the war? Why not postpone consideration of it until after the war? It is a red herring dragged across the track now to hinder our war effort.
This was very aptly said by my hon. friend.
In January, 1941, a cabinet minister was assigned to each premier for purposes of canvassing, in view of the future interprovineial conference which was to take place in January. At that time a leading liberal from Quebec asked me to write some editorials in L'Action Catholique to warn the then premier of Quebec and his cabinet about the coming conference.
While I shall not take time to read all those articles, I would say that in them I insisted on the equal rights of the provinces and the dominion. The conclusion of the first article which appeared in L'Action Catholique of January 9. 1941, at a time when Mr. Godbout was premier of Quebec and Mr. Duplessis was leader of the opposition, is as follows:
We may conclude that the provinces and the dominion are distinct entities and are not subordinate to each other, that it is the same
with the legislatures and parliament, and that in any interprovineial conference each premier of a province has a constitutional and evident right to be considered as equal to the Prime Minister of Canada. Is it not in conformity with the Liberal principle of decentralization and also the unforgettable declaration, which was modest and truly democratic, of Mr. Mackenzie King at the Chateau Frontenae in Quebec city when he left for the imperial conference of 1926, "I am first among equals"?
Then there was another article entitled "The Constitutional Question", in which the same matters were discussed at greater length, and in which some of the views given by the representatives of the provinces during the conference of 1935 were related.
There was a statement by Mr. Roebuck- now Senator Roebuck-who was then attorney general in the Hepburn cabinet. His statement was that it meant marvellous progress in the constitutional history of Canada.
Mr. Taschereau, premier of Quebec at the time, said, "We hope we will have a quick decision", and Mr. Bracken who was then premier of Manitoba, said, "We have made more progress than may have been accomplished in the last thirteen years," Mr. Pat-tullo was sure that it would turn out well.
The conference was a failure, precisely because Ottawa had suggested an invasion of the provincial domain of taxation, and particularly in respect of sales tax, succession duties and some other things. This created friction, and was most unfortunate. May I now be permitted to read part of two sections of the British North America Act, which are illuminating. Those who will not go to the library to read Lord Carnarvon's speech when he moved the British North America Act at Westminster would be satisfied with this. Although it is well known to my colleagues, I shall draw it to their attention. Section 91 states:
It shall be lawful for the queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively-[DOT]
"exclusively"-
-to the legislatures of the provinces, and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms in this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say . . .
And so on. And then:
3. The raising of money by any mode or system of taxation.

The Address-Mr. Pouliot

And farther on:
29. Such classes of subjects as are expressly excepted in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
Again "exclusively." Then the subtitle for the following section is "Exclusive powers of provincial legislatures," and the section is as follows:
92. In each province the legislature may exclusively make law's in relation to matters coming w'ithin the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say . . .
2. Direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes.
It seems to me it was clearly the intention of those British statesmen to tell Ottawa, "Mind your own business when dealing with the provinces," and to tell each of the-provinces, "Mind your own business when dealing with Ottawa." It seems to me clear that was the purpose and intention of the legislators, and unquestionably it was to that effect.
During	the war	Canada was	most
ambitious. She financed the whole sterling area, and it is probably on that account that provincial powers of taxation have been usurped. Now we have such a formidable budget that it might not be as easy to give back to the provinces what was taken away from them surreptitiously during the war. But, sir, the spending of terrific amounts of money in that fashion is no reason for failing to observe the constitution; for those who say they are constitutionalists should see to it that order is maintained in the country, and order cannot be maintained if the constitution, the law of the land, is not respected by any government.
I am sure that if the taxation jurisdiction of the provinces had not been invaded by the dominion government our financial policy during the war would have been much more modest and entirely different, and the taxpayers of Canada would have now much less to pay. However, it was done in that way, with the result that now we have to take care of all the bureaucrats who have invaded Ottawa on account of the Rowell-Sirois Commission report. I have often objected to them, although I shall not name any of those bureaucrats today.
It is the system that must be reformed. We can go ahead only if we are on the right road. It is evident that we are on the wrong road. We must return to the cross-roads and find again the good old road where there was order in government, and from that point proceed farther. To my mind the discussions between Ottawa and the provinces

are a disgrace to our country. Any individual province does not have the population of the country as a whole; it is only part of the whole; but, according to the constitution, each one is sovereign in its jurisdiction. In law everybody is equal. There are no dwarfs before the courts and there are no giants. There are no poor and there are no rich. All courts and tribunals must examine each case simply on its merits and according to the immortal principles of justice. So long as we are	a confederation	and	so long as	theBritish	North America	Act	is in force itshould be respected. I have not changed my views. I am simply repeating today what I said	in 1938 when	Mr.	Duplessis	waspremier	of Quebec. I wrote	this again	and
it appeared in L'Action Catholique in 1941 when Mr. Godbout was premier and I have said it in the house repeatedly to this government. We in this country should give an example of peace, unity and order before trying to teach it to other nations.


James Allison Glen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow the practice which is well observed in the house, namely, to offer praise to the mover (Mr. MacNaught) and the seconder (Mr. Coumoyer) of the address in reply, more especially when the seconder is a new member. This time-honoured custom and practice is something which I think should be maintained in the house. I offer both of these hon. gentlemen my sincere congratulations on a most worthy effort. Perhaps I should single out the mover of the address because he has set an example to the house which has been followed to some extent in that he made his remarks quite short. I am going to follow his example and I shall endeavour to finish by six o'clock.
I did not intend to enter this debate because of the effort that was being made to complete it this week, but I do so now because of the remarks made last night by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) on the question of immigration. I was astounded at the statements that were made. He took upon himself to speak with regard to Ukrainian and Polish citizens who had come to this country and he paid a well deserved tribute to the efforts of these people who had gone into the wilderness and wilds and created places of beauty.
In my constituency there are at least 7,000 Ukrainians and I do not know how many Polish citizens there are. I can speak with knowledge because I have had intimate personal relationship with these citizens over a period of about thirty-five years. I can speak most

The Address-Mr. Glen
definitely with regard to the contribution they have made to Canada. I know in my part of the country they have made a contribution which has been accepted by all and which every one is glad to acknowledge.
When I hear the hon. member state in this house that there is discrimination against these citizens I wonder where he got his information. Such information has never been before me. I was one of those who were instrumental in helping to bring to this country relatives of citizens of Ukrainian or Polish origin. Until I heard the hon. member speak last night I did not know that there was any discrimination against either Ukrainians or Poles. I have never known it and when I inquired of the officers of the department they assured me that there is no such discrimination.
I wish to make this statement because the words of the hon. member will go across the country and people who have relatives in those lands will feel that the government is discriminating against them when there is no such regulation in our immigration law. I am hoping that the words I am now uttering with all the responsibility of a minister will go across the country and that these people will know that under the rules and regulations of the Immigration Act there is no discrimination against them.
I asked the hon. gentleman to give me his authority, but he did not do so. Therefore I am taking this first opportunity to refute what he has said. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that only a short time ago I placed before the house the contents of an order in council which was passed on May 29 last and which opened and widened the doors for immigrants coming to this country? That order in council provided:
(a)	The wife or unmarried child under eighteen years of age of any person legally admitted to and resident in Canada who is in a position to receive and care for his dependents.
Is there any discrimination in such an order which is binding upon the immigration authorities? The order further provides:
(b)	The father or mother, the unmarried son or daughter eighteen years of age or over, the unmarried brother or sister, the orphan nephew or niece under sixteen years of age, of any person legally admitted to and resident in Canada, who is in a position to receive and care for such relatives. The term "orphan" used in this clause means a child bereaved of both parents.
(c)	An agriculturist having sufficient means to farm in Canada.
(d)	The fiancee of any adult male legally admitted to and resident in Canada who is in a position to receive, marry and care for his intended wife.
(e)	A person who, having entered Canada as a non-immigrant, enlisted in the Canadian armed forces and, having served in such forces, has been honourably discharged therefrom.
Those were the provisions of that order in council, and the hon. gentleman can find no basis for his charge of discrimination on reading the provisions of that order. Any person who has been legally admitted into Canada can bring in his relatives under the terms of that order in council. He has the right to make application, and if the landing regular tions are satisfied and his relatives are physically fit they will be admitted without discrimination, no matter whether they are Ukrainians or Poles.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Will tire minister state why he did not refute the charges of discrimination which were made last year before the senate committee on immigration?


James Allison Glen: I did not appear before the senate committee last year. If I have to refute any charges in this connection, I am refuting them now. In the light of what has been said by the hon. member I am pointing out that so far as the question of immigration is concerned we are dealing with the matter continuously; we are dealing with it from a departmental point of view and also from a cabinet point of view.
This is not a matter that can be settled as easily as writers in the newspapers would make out, nor can it be settled as easily as some people in Canada would suggest. It is not as easy of fulfilment as it seems to be in the mind of the hon. member because he himself said that he believed that a survey should be made. I would inform him that survey is being made as meticulously and as fully as it is possible to make it. As a result of that survey, we hope at a date which cannot be named to be able to suggest a policy.
During the course of that survey and from the expressions of opinion that have been given by many citizens of this country we have found that some amendment should be made in certain classes.
Only on Friday last, not in consequence of the hon. member's speech, an order in council was passed, widening the doors to other classes. It is P.C. 371, dated January 30, 1947, and I will quote from it as I think this will answer the hon. gentleman's criticism of the department so far as preferred and non-preferred classes are concerned. We are providing in this order in council that the following have been added to the admissible classes:
1.	The widowed daughter or sister (with or without unmarried children under 18 years of
The Address-Mr. Glen

age) of a legal resident of Canada who is in a position to receive and care for such relatives.
2.	An agriculturist entering Canada to farm when destined to a father, father-in-law, son, son-in-law, brother, brother-in-law, uncle or nephew engaged in agriculture as his principal occupation who is in a position to receive such immigrant and establish him on a farm.
3.	A farm labourer entering Canada to engage in assured farm employment.
4.	A person experienced in mining, lumbering or logging entering Canada to engage in assured employment in any one of such industries.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the inclusion of the four classes that I have just enumerated will meet entirely and competely the strictures that were made by the hon. member when he was referring to preferred and non-preferred jlasses. Any Ukrainian, any Pole coming within these four classes is entitled to come to this country subject to the rules and regulations of the immigration branch, and there is no discrimination and there never was. I repeat emphatically that there is no discrimination against any Ukrainian or any Pole who can satisfy the regulations as I have outlined them.


Percy Chapman Black: May I ask if that order in council would include persons from Czechoslovakia or the Sudetenland with relatives in this country who have made application to come to live on a farm in Canada?


James Allison Glen: Yes. Any legal resident in Canada with relatives in the classes I have enumerated is entitled to make application for their immigration to this country, and if they are suitable and they meet the requirements they will be admitted. This will also permit the admission for farm settlement of agricultural people with very limited capital destined to relatives in Canada who are in a position to establish them on farms. It will also allow the entry into Canada of labour for agriculture and the other basic industries I have named, mining, lumbering and logging. It will also admit orphaned nephews and nieces under eighteen years of age. That makes a change from the previous order which provided for the admission of those under sixteen years of age. We found from the experience of the department and the inquiries that had been made that it sometimes meant in these borderline cases the breaking up of families, and it was therefore thought advisable to change the age to prevent that from happening.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Do 1 understand that a Jewish immigrant might come to this country without a permit on exactly the same basis as any other immigrant?


James Allison Glen: If he has relatives resident in
Canada who wish that Jewish immigrant to come, there is nothing to prevent him from coming if he comes under the classes mentioned and can comply with the regulations.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Very good.


James Allison Glen: I might make a few general
remarks on this subject. All of us know, perhaps not so intimately as those in the department, of the strict frontier controls that are maintained in Europe. People who wish to go to the medical offices that we have established in Europe may find themselves unable to do so because of those very strict frontier controls. Transportation is also very difficult in Europe and there are various national questions that might arise to prevent them from reaching -those medical offices. In consequence they may find themselves unable to get to those offices to be examined physically and from the security point of view. This matter is the subject of investigation and observation by our officers. The hon. member for Winnipeg North said that I made a statement in Winnipeg to the effect that we had done more than any other country in opening our doors to immigration from Europe. Well, Mr. Speaker, we did what no other country has done. We allowed 4,000 Poles to come to this country, and there was no discrimination with regard to them. The whole 4,000 have not yet come but a large number of them have come and are now doing farm labour in Canada.
So far as displaced persons in concentration camps are concerned, our delegation before the united nations security council took the position that they should not be compelled to go to their country of origin. That I think meets with the general approval of all. Today we have officers in Europe who are going among the displaced persons in camps to identify people whose names have been given to them by relatives in Canada, with a view to taking them out of these camps and bringing them to Canada. I know of no other nation which has done that.


Mr. GREEN:: Is that restricted to relatives of Canadians?


James Allison Glen: What is being done there is
to identify the people in camps with relatives who are Canadian subjects who have made

The Address-Mr. Glen
application to the immigration authorities in an endeavour to find their relatives in Europe.


Howard Charles Green: The displaced person must
have a relative in Canada?


James Allison Glen: That is the intention at the
moment.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have this
instance of a Canadian citizen who is in a displaced persons' camp in Germany. He went over there in 1939 with his wife. She was born in Russia but has been in Canada since she was three months old. Her passport showed that she was a Canadian national. Her parents had been naturalized. She and her husband at the moment are refused admission to Canada. I am not saying that critically because there may have been many reasons for it. I wrote the minister's department today about it, to Mr. Jolliffe. I was wondering if I wrote to the right department. Heimers is the name. Should I have written to the department or to the military people?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have been taking the
same case up with the Department of External Affairs.


James Allison Glen: I think the hon. gentleman
wrote to the right department.
I do not know that I have much to add to what I have already said. My officers have asked me to say that they have received from the members of the House of Commons a consideration which they appreciate in that the members have not pressed them unduly in connection with these applications. The house of course realizes the difficulties in connection with frontier controls, identification and security so far as Canada is concerned. Medical facilities are established in Brussels, Paris and The Hague. The medical officers will deal with the medical inspection of the immigrants, and if it is satisfactory a visa will be given there. Visas are also being granted by Canadian missions in Norway, Denmark and Greece, as well as the Canadian consulate general in Lisbon. Portugal; very shortly we hope to make satisfactory arrangements for an extension of these visa facilities. In consequence of the amendment which has been made we expect that there will be a large influx of immigrants to this country; but I wish to point out that, although the shipping situation is much easier than it was, yet it is still difficult to obtain transportation to this country.
In closing-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Before the minister concludes his remarks may I ask him a question?
Canadians or some of these people coming to Canada have to go through the United States port of New York. They have to see the United States authorities before they can proceed to Canada. Is there any way whereby that can be eliminated?


James Allison Glen: That is a matter of
administration.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It holds them up for quite a while before they can get into Canada.


James Allison Glen: I shall be glad to have the hon. member's question discussed further at some other time. I was saying that in regard to the transportation facilities, they are considerably easier, and as the days go on they will become much better.	-


Mr. McMASTER:: The minister has said that there are places of inspection in Brussels, in The Hague and in Paris. Nearly all these displaced persons are in that part of Germany which is held perhaps by Britain, the United States or France. How can they get to these places to be inspected? Is the government establishing inspection areas in these zones?


James Allison Glen: It is not so difficult to get to these places now from some of the countries; it is much more difficult from others. I do not think the house will expect that Canada should go to these countries and provide transportation for immigrants. After all, the willing immigrant coming to this country under his own steam is a much better one than the assisted one, as we have found in days gone by.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I must remind hon. members that we are not in committee.


James Allison Glen: I have nothing further to add to what has been said. I entered into this debate only because of the remark made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I am sure that- in the light of what I have said he will be glad to withdraw the statements he made and not cause the unrest that must be in the minds of many people who have read the remarks he made last night. I wish to assure him and the house that these matters are the subject of the most serious consideration by all who are interested in it, and not the -least by those who are charged with the administration of it.
On motion of Mr. Wright the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Introduction oj Bills
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 6, 1947