Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement that will be of interest to the producers of oats and barley. During the current crop season support prices for both oats and barley are in effect and the government intends to extend these to July 31, 1949, at the same support levels prevailing this crop year. Oats will continue to be supported at levels based on 611 cents for No. 1 feed oats, in store Fort William-Port Arthur, with other grades at appropriate differentials to be fixed from time to time by the wheat board. Barley will also be supported at 90 cents per bushel for No. 1 feed barley, in store Fort William-Port Arthur, with other grades at appropriate differentials to be fixed from time to time by the wheat board.
The purpose in making this announcement at this time is to enable producers of oats and barley to plan their operations for the coming crop year with the assurance that market prices will not decline below the support levels. As in the present crop year, the Canadian wheat board will be directed to implement this policy.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: May I ask a question arising out of the announcement just made by the minister? Is it intended to make that order retroactive to August 1, 1947, so that farmers who disposed of their oats and barley between August 1, 1947, and October 21, 1947, will be compensated for the loss they suffered?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can advise my hon. friend that the same support prices that were in effect for the period he mentions are the support prices to be put into effect for next year. The same support prices covered all the crop year of 1947, and will cover the crop year 1948.
[Later]:


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question? What is the stand taken
by the government in regard to providing compensation for farmers who sold oats and barley prior to October 21?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is my understanding that the firms who bought barley in that period are in process of refunding to the farmers the fortuitous profits that arose out of the lifting of the ceiling. When these payments have been completed the government intends to review the situation and take such action as the circumstances may warrant.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I promised to investigate and report on the Veterans Land Act Braefoot project in British Columbia.
A committee was appointed, comprising Mr. R. W. Wallace, a technical expert in housing values, who was suggested to us by Mr. J. L. E. Price, chairman of the Canadian Legion housing committee. Mr. Wallace was selected because of his knowledge of values set on similar projects throughout the dominion and because of his knowledge of construction standards elsewhere.
The other two members of the committee were selected because of their intimate knowledge of local conditions and prevailing values on Vancouver island. They were Mr. Fred N. Cabeldu, who operates an insurance agency, and Mr. Brooke Stephenson, a member of the firm of Kerr and Stephenson, real estate, mortgage and insurance. Both these two British Columbia gentlemen are veterans.
It was felt that an impartial valuation could be reached by employing a committee of this kind. As a result of their inspection, it was found that in the case of twenty houses a slightly higher valuation was set, whilst with respect to the remaining eight, it was their opinion that a reduction should be made. I can assure this house that the valuation by this committee was absolutely impartial and uninfluenced by my department.
Where higher values were set than the price placed upon the property I do not propose any increase, and where lower values have been set I propose to take the committee's advice and make a reduction accordingly.
Inquiries oj the Ministry
[Stage Direction]
With the consent of the house I propose to resent the full report on this project, as well as progress reports on other similar projects across Canada, to the select committee of the house on veterans affairs as soon as it is set up.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The house will recall tha't the day I was requested to communicate with the British authorities about reconsidering their decision not to allow publication of 'ertain telegrams in the Hong Kong matter, I ^ent a message immediately. I have since received a reply from the British authorities saying that they have reviewed their decision carefully but regret that they are unable to change the decision which they previously made.



QUESTION OF CLOSING OF POST OFFICE ON SUNDAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have a special favour to ask of you. The rural postmasters were permitted last year to close the post offices on Sundays. I dJo not see why members of parliament should have preferential treatment, which is not shared by their electors. Therefore, sir, as the House of Commons post office is a division of the House of Commons service, will you please permit the postmaster to close his office on Sundays, as rural postmasters have been permitted to do?
EASTER RECESS On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. As Good Friday falls on March 26, three weeks from next Friday, will the Prime Minister say whether there are any plans yet for the Easter recess of the House of Commons?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The intention of the government is to ask for an adjournment on the afternoon of Wednesday the 24th at six o'clock until the following Tuesday, the 30th. That will be a short recess.



QUESTIONS AFFECTING MEMBERS' TRANSPORTATION

['This matter is not only important to my constituents but to all Canadian farmers, because, as has been stated previously, small industries of that kind are to be found everywhere in the country.\nI would like to see stock breeding become the basis of our agricultural industry in eastern Canada, as the whole of our grass producing country would benefit. From a logical point of view that is the course we should take. The western provinces can supply us with the grain we need, but on the other hand we must help the western farmers and enable them to sell the surplus of their products on foreign markets, because that surplus would only lower prices and discourage that splendid movement which will not only permit agriculture to subsist, but will make for its progress.\nHarmony between the various branches of agriculture is essential. Dairy farming is the basis of the industry, as it supports the production of hogs and poultry, which are needed to fulfil our agreements with Great Britain.\nNow, Mr. Speaker, would it not be in order to consider how important it is to help those industries whose object is, I believe, to promote the development of basic agricultural production in this country. In fact, powdered milk has the additional advantage of furthering the improvement of hog and poultry breeding and helping supply Canadian consumers with essential commodities such as butter and cheese. Powdered milk also prevents overstocking of the market since it is in great demand abroad. Exports of this commodity therefore help maintain the price levels of our dairy products at home. Thanks to the information supplied by the wonderful organization functioning on behalf of poor children in Europe and to the particulars furnished by an official of this industry in my constituency who has just returned from Europe, we know the needs of the countries that were devastated by war. Would it not be a charitable deed to come to the help of these stricken people? To that end, we must promote exports of this commodity on the largest possible scale.\nIn concluding, may I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of my constituency, as all other farmers who have estal dished this industry in other parts of Canada, have broken\nThe Address-Mr. Boivin', 'new ground in this field not only in their own but in the public interest. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that they deserve our encouragement.\n(Text):\nOn motion of Mr. Blair the debate was adjourned.\nBUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. FOURNIER (Hull) moved the adjournment of the house. He said: Tomorrow we will continue the debate.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.', 'Tuesday, March 2, 1948']
Mr. G. A. CRUIOKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: In view of the announcement of the Prime Minister, shall we be allowed to fly 
home? I do not know how we can go to British Columbia in one week, and if we have not one week, why not allow us to fly home for three days? Will the western members be allowed to fly home?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall have to consult the experts before I give my hon. friend an answer.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I suggest to the Prime Minister not to make it definite now but wait until he has consulted the experts. We like to go home just as well as the members from Quebec and Ontario.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will he give consideration to assisting us under these circumstances? The other day I came from Windsor to Ottawa and got on the train at Toronto with my wife. I know that by statute we' are provided transportation; by courtesy, I gather, we can procure transportation for our families. When I got on the train, however, I found that my wife was not allowed to travel' on that particular one. We rode in the colonist car in any event. We did not have any fancy transportation. It was plainly printed' on the pass. It seems to me that if we are to have that courtesy it might extend to all railroads, so that if I get on one train they will not throw my wife off because I had not got on the right kind of train. Will the minister take that into consideration? It is something that should be remedied.


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: I shall be glad to look into the situation.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): I wish to direct an inquiry to the Minister of Transport. 'Supplementary to my question of last week, which appears on page 1556 of Hansard of Tuesday, February 24, respecting shortage of railway cars to carry coal from the Cape Breton district, will the minister kindly advise as to how the matter now stands?
Lionel Chevrier: With reference to the shortage of railway cars for the Cape Breton area, the position is somewhat improved. When the hon. gentleman asked the question the other day the position was that sixteen cars were available on February 21 last and twenty-three on February 20. For the week February 23-28 the average number of cars

Inquiries of the Ministry
shipped into the area was thirty-one, although the average number of cars required each day is seventy-five. Dosco has sent notices with each of the cars shipped to its consignees asking them to make sure that the cars be returned as promptly as possible. The railways have undertaken to move them into the area and to put on sufficient motive power for the purpose. All I can say is that the situation is improving.


FLAXSEED
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he give us some idea as to when we may expect an announcement in regard to the prices of flax for 1948?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The price of flax for the 1948 crop year is being studied at the moment. The price will be set before seeding time this spring.


INDUSTRIAL DEFENCE BOARD
[Stage Direction]
IN "financial post"
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I wish to address to the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question of which I gave him notice. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the article by Kenneth R. Wilson in the Financial Post of February 28, "How our industry shares in defence"? Will the minister inform the house as to how the government will participate in this program?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that matters of defence are handled by the Minister of National Defence. I will ask the minister to take note of the question.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: The question was passed on to me since I came into the house, but I believe I can answer it sufficiently from the information I have. Some time ago it was announced that it was the intention of the government to set up an industrial defence boat'd for the purpose of advising the government and the Minister of National Defence on matters relating to industrial organization. That board is being set up and I hope to make an announcement about it within a few weeks' time.


VICTORY OF HUMBOLDT RED INDIANS OVER SASKATOON JUNIOR QUAKERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. BURTON (Humboldt):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) and through him to the Minister of Agriculture and the member for Rosthern? Are they aware of the fact that on Saturday night our Humboldt Red Indians took the scalps off the Saskatoon Junior Quakers?


TOURIST INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he will table in the house the reports of the dominion-provincial conferences on tourist traffic, 1946 and 1947?
Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to inquire about such reports, and if there are any I will table them.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Dion 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. W. R. AYLESWORTH (Frontenac-Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for two reasons: first, to ask for a better understanding between the farmer and the consumer, and second, to put the case of the farmer and livestock producer for a better deal in the matter of prices.
The consumer, for the most part, knows very little about the cost of food production. He also thinks that because he pays high prices for food the farmer must be getting rich from the sale of his products. The farmer is not getting much more now than he did in 1940, although the price of most foods has doubled. For instance, in 1940 a can of tomatoes sold for eight and a half cents, from which the grower received two cents per can. Tomatoes now sell at twenty-five cents per can but the grower receives only three and. three-quarter cents per can. In other words, while the price of a can of
The Address

Mr. Aylesworth

tomatoes has risen sixteen and a half cents per tin, the added return to the farmer is only one and three-quarter cents. The overworked farmer, with his long hours, has always given the Canadian people good value for their money, even though by the middle of the war most of the young men from the farms had gone into factories for higher pay and better hours and the farmer had to get more money to buy machines to replace the men and pay very much higher wages. The consumer must also realize that the farmer is suffering under 'the burden of high prices just as much as the city dweller. The prices of his feeds, his seeds, his fertilizer and all those things required to turn out food have gone away up, as well as the clothing and so forth which also he has to buy.
Canadians must be informed that it is not the farmer who is responsible for the increased cost of living; it is the spread between the producer and the consumer over which the farmer has no control that has helped to cause these high prices. Of course the farmer has to have more for his produce in order to meet the higher demands on his purse for that which he must buy, but, as a Canadian farmer, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmer is not looking for more money than will give him a fair living and allow him to maintain his farm and provide for his old age. This is right, for nobody in this country earns his bread in a harder way than does the farmer.
There is a great deal of pressure on the government from certain groups for the return of price control on food. The farmer suffered from controls the most during the war, because food was the first thing on which controls were imposed. As it was his war contribution he dad not complain, but he does not want to see the return of controls now. Following the war we had price control on farm products until very recently. The terms of British food contracts have kept the price of farm products below the world level, so controls are not the answer. In spite of controls, production in Canada is down. During the war the government oversold the value of controls. As soon as controls are applied1 in one place the pressure bursts out somewhere else. In peace you cannot pick out one control, such as price control, and try to enforce it without setting up controls on all things. After every war, prices are at a high level because of war waste, lessening of production in farm products and other things on account of the shortage of manpower, and because of the limited production of consumer goods during the war.

The end of the war brings forth demands for production as great as in war years, but the urge to increase production and stop spending is missing. The Minister of Finance has tried to control our spending by putting a twenty-five per cent tax on a lot of things, although he frankly admitted that the government does not need the money. They tax cars, but they forget that many workers must have cars to get to and from work, because of the housing shortage which forces them to live miles from their place of employment.
The minister warned industry against taking heavy profits while his government is rolling up a three-quarter billion dollar surplus. The government could very well now remove many of the hidden taxes that do so much to keep the cost of food high. For instance, there is the eight per cent sales tax on which the government collected $328 million last year. They could give income tax relief to the small-salaried man and the white collar worker. These people have no bargaining agents and are hit hard by high taxes. Increase the income tax exemptions to $2,500 for married men and $1,500 for single men. I hope the people of Canada realize that when the cost of an article is doubled the cost of their tax on that article is also doubled.
The farmer had a right to expect a fair price for his meat and cheese in the food contracts with Great Britain, but he finds that they are still much below the prices in the open world market, and he knows now that the only reason that any increase was given in the price, 'and perhaps the reason that only wheat was included in the agreements, was that in order to get wheat at a very low price Britain had to agree to take the meat and cheese at a higher figure. The prices provided in the new agreement are just high enough to force prices up on the home market, but in no case are they enough to repay the farmer for the rise in feed, labour and consumer goods costs. It only raised the cost of living for Canadians without giving any assistance to the farmer. During the war we supplied meat and cheese, along with wheat, for the United Kingdom agreements at a price very much below world prices, on the assurance of the Minister of Agriculture that for many years to come we would enjoy this privilege.
On February 28 last year the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as reported at page 933 of Hansard, said:
Naturally I raised the question which is in the mind of ranchers rand others who are producing cattle across Canada. I asked how long were we likely to have a market in Great Britain of the same proportions as we have it

The Address-Mr. Aylesworth
now. The reply I received was that there would be a general shortage for a considerable time. They did mention a term of years. I hesitate to mention a term of years to the committee tonight, because I do not know that it was given to me with the idea of mentioning it or making them responsible for any particular figure; for, just as some say, that I guess wrong sometimes, I suppose ministers and governments elsewhere may also guess wrong sometimes.
I say the minister did guess wrong, and we cannot hope to compete with the low cost countries of South America and Australia. The figures show that in 1947 the Argentine supplied 500,000,000 pounds of choice beef to the United Kingdom at half the price paid under our contract. Large quantities of Australian and New Zealand beef are now supplied at almost the same price as the Argentine received. We must do our share to feed the hungry of Great Britain and Europe, but we should not make the farmers suffer in order to do so. We have been doing our share; on a per capita basis we have supplied twice as much as the United States. We shall continue to do so, for we must not allow the support to come from another direction and have these countries turn to communism.
On one market day in Chicago, Great Britain bought more beef on that market at world prices than she normally buys from Canada in seven months. At page 937 of Hansard for February 28 of last year the Minister of Agriculture admitted that he and the government thought the natural market for Canadian cattle was the United States. During the war I was not against the embargo on our cattle going to the United States, because I felt the feeding of our troops, our own people and our allies came first. Now, however, I suggest to him that if we could again ship our cattle to the United States it would have the effect of driving down American prices and enabling Great Britain to purchase cattle there at a much better price. In this way it would not only help our farmers but would also help Great Britain. The minister said we could only ship our high grade cattle to the United States market, but we will have a large canned meat business with Europe for some time to come. I am sure that as President Truman considers meat rationing again, we could arrange very good terms of entry for our meat.
Then I suggest that we investigate the meat industry from the farmer to the consumer, to bring into the open what the producer, the packer and the retailer do and what they receive for their services. I believe it would
open the eyes of consumers to learn just how much more the producer, that is the farmer, does for his money, and that the real spread comes between the retailer and the consumer in the form of a thirty per cent mark-up. Under controls set up by the government the retailer was allowed a mark-up of thirty per cent, which equals at least nine cents per pound on meat sold over the counter. That situation still prevails and will continue to prevail until they get back into competitive business, free from any government control. It is my belief that when government controls were set the spread allowed the retailer was too great, which has worked to the disadvantage of both the farmer and the consumer.
The house knows how much our hog production has dropped. It has gone from five million hogs in 1943 to less than two million today. Many times in the past I warned the house that this would happen unless the price of feed was controlled together with the price of hogs. I asked the house to arrange that western feed grains be made readily available to stock raisers in eastern Canada, so the farmer would not have to make a trip almost every day to get a couple of hundred pounds of feed. We were then trying to capture the British bacon market, and a good supply of feed was essential. The farmer could not maintain his hog production at the price he was receiving. He lost money, and with the margin of profit on all his products cut so fine he could not afford it. Production is down; the cost of living is up.
The complete answer to the problem of the high cost of living is production and more production of food. Only by keeping the markets fully supplied will the people of Canada be able to buy within their means. In order to keep up the production of food there must be a reward in it for the farmer. There is not now the urge that drove him throughout the war. The desire to do his share in the war effort cannot be carried over into peace. Now he rightly feels that he should receive some reward for his unfailing efforts under ceiling prices. It is only fair that he should now receive prices which will give him a good return on his investment of time and labour. He must be freed of all things that hamper his production. He cannot continue to produce when he knows that though the prices of everything he buys are going up, the government is considering putting back the ceiling on all those things he has to sell. Every effort should be made to take from his shoulders anything that. will keep him from producing to the greatest extent possible.
The Address-Mr. Aylesworth

Here I want to say something about the income tax on farmers and market gardeners. I think I can say, with every rural member of this house, that the greatest threat to increased production on the part of the farmers 'is the income tax. They know that if they increase their production and thus increase their income the government will step in and take away from them the surplus their increased efforts have gained for them. Because of this they are cutting down on their stock, and in some cases reducing their herds to less than one-half the usual number. They have seen their neighbours called before income tax officials who questioned their statements as to how much feed they fed their stock, how much their feed cost them, and so on. They have been questioned by men who are very good at figures but who have not the slightest idea how much feed it takes to raise stock. I say to hon. members that, more than anything else, it is the fear of income tax that keeps the farmer from increasing his production, and therefore this is partly the reason for our high cost of living.
To add to the misery of the farmer the Department of National Revenue, income tax division, is now on his trail with a complicated income tax form which is accompanied by an even more complicated booklet of instruction. I would recommend that all hon. members read an article by "I.N.S." in the Ottawa Journal of January 13, 1948, on the new income tax forms and booklets. It tells of an imagined conversation between a farmer and the Minister of National Revenue on the form and the booklet, and is based on questions and answers contained in the booklet. It shows that in order to complete the forms the farmer must keep a daily journal of all his transactions, andi I am sure that to follow all the instructions each farmer would have to hire a clerk to make the preparations for filing the income tax return. I suggest that income tax forms for farmers be as simple as, or even more simple than, any income tax forms. Those who make their living from the soil are as honest as most Canadian men. They could be asked to compute how much they made during the year, how much they figured for the wear and tear on their farm during the year, and then pay their income tax, if any, from basic tables. When one considers that the average farm income for the United States is $779 per year and1 is probably lower in Canada, and a married man's exemption is greater than that, one will see that not many farmers will have to file income tax forms. But just in case they do, they have to keep records until the end of the year. In 1946, out of 652,928 farmers

only 136,039 filed forms, and only 27,411 paid income tax. How much did it cost to prepare these new forms and new booklets? How much will it cost to collect the income tax due from those, who have to pay? Will the department break even?
I should like also to say a few words on behalf of the market gardeners and vegetable growers. These people do not know just where they stand. If they could receive some assurance from the government as to the length of time the foreign exchange conservation measure will be enforced, they could plan their production so that they could keep the home markets supplied. They do not want to go to the expense of buying seeds, paying high labour costs and producing a good supply of vegetables, only to find that next fall, when their produce is ready for market, they will be faced with a market flooded with produce from the United States. As the house well knows, during the past years the market gardeners have not been producing fully because they could not compete with this flood of United States produce. To bring about an increase in the Canadian production of vegetables, let us make sure that Canadians will have the home market.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the government to follow these suggestions which I have offered1:
1.	Give the farmer relief from income tax and simplify his method of payment.
2.	Make available western feed grains in large quantities.
3.	Open the United States market to Canadian cattle.
4.	Increase production to bring down the high cost of living through giving the farmer something worthwhile for which to work.
5.	Cut out the hidden taxes which do so much to increase the cost of living for everybody, and especially for the low income earner.
6.	Promote a better understanding between the consumer and the producer.
In these ways only can we look in the future to a productive and prosperous Canada.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: for them, and it is also good business for the farmers and producers of beef who desire to sell their beef. No one can blame the packers for wanting to buy that beef, and no one can blame the farmer for desiring to sell it. They want to get all they can get.
I merely mention this situation to show members of the house the position in which the beef feeder finds himself through having to pay higher prices for his feeder steers before putting them in the feed lot. Unless he can sell for a correspondingly high price at the end of his season's operations he is going to face stark disaster. This is free enterprise, and no one will object to free enterprise as far as it goes. Where the difficulty comes is that the government permits free enterprise to be in full operation when it comes to putting feeder steers into the feed lots, but the government interferes and checks private enterprise and free enterprise at the other end of the line. That is where the difficulty lies. The government has put ceilings on but has neglected to take care of floors in the beef feeding industry.
The result of this whole situation is that in 1947-48 the feeders of steers paid between 13 and 15 cents a pound for their beef steers before putting them into the lots. This year costs of feeding are very high. I asked a question the other day concerning the increased costs of feeding, and the minister gave a flippant answer. It may have been technically accurate, because I do not know the figures he had in mind. He did not give them to us but he certainly gave the house and the country a picture which was far from accurate.
I should like to quote some men who are in position to know because they are right there on the firing line.
I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Lethbridge Herald of February 21, 1948, entitled, "Plan cattle sale at Pincher Creek." This article makes reference to the McIntyre Ranching Company, a well known company in my constituency in southern Alberta. It is feeding over 800 head at the Raymond sugar factory. I quote:
J. H. Walker, Raymond representative of the company, states that feeding costs of three-year-old beef cattle have advanced at the following rate: 1942-48, 16 cents; 1943-44, 28 cents; 194445, 35 cents; 1945-46, 36 cents; 1947-48, so far 76 cents per day.
I leave it to hon. members to say whether the minister was quite fair when he gave the answer he did the other day; whether he was fair to the government, fair to the country, fair to himself and fair to those who are

endeavouring to produce the food so sorely needed in this dominion. I quote further from the same article as follows:
The recent sale at Nan ton found prices lower and the Market situation for cattle continues unsettled. Sales planned by Lethbridge Central Feeders were called off on account of the market situation.
Who is responsible for that market situation? There is only one group in the Dominion of Canada responsible for that situation and that is the group of gentlemen who sit in the cabinet benches in this house. The policies which they have followed1 during the last six or eight months have thrown panic into practically every branch of beef production, beef feeding and beef marketing. They have produced a problem and they now laugh at it as though it were a light matter.
I think before I leave this general aspect of the situation I shall quote to hon. members some figures which I received today from the bureau of statistics showing how prices have increased seriously the cost of feeding. The first set of figures shows the wholesale prices of stocker and feeder steers at Winnipeg and Calgary in September, October and November in 1946 and 1947:
Winnipeg Calgary
1946	$ per cwt $ per cwt
iSep tember 	
10.23	10.48October 	
10.14	10.90November 	
10.47	10.651947	.September 	
10.38-	11.18October 	
11.14	12.65November 	
10.80	12.14
Those are the months when feeders usually buy the steers to put into their feed' lots. The 1947 price at Winnipeg for September was $10.38, which is distinctly higher than the corresponding price the year before; October, $11.14, distinctly higher; November, $10.80, distinctly higher again. In. Calgary the figures were as follows: September, 1947, $11.18 as compared with $10.48 the previous year; October, $12.65, almost two cents higher than the previous year; November $12.14, almost two cents higher; and yet the grand sweeping statement of the Minister of Agriculture the other day would indicate that there was no such increased cost in the feeding of beef this year.
Here are some more statistics. The average wages of male farm help were as follows- and this enters into the feeding: When a man is feeding 100 or 800 steers he is unable to do all the work himself; he has to employ help. If the cost of help is higher, then the cost of beef producing is higher. The average wages

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
of male farm help in Alberta and Manitoba as at January 15, 1947 and 1948 were:	In
Manitoba: with board, 1947, per day, $2.82; per month $55.40; 1948, $3.29 a day as compared with $2.82; per month $61.42, a distinct increase over the previous year. Without board, 1947, in Manitoba $3.77 a day, $82.29 a month. In 1948, $4.56 as compared with $3.77, and $93.02 as compared with $82.29. That is the Manitoba picture.
We now come to Alberta. With board, $3.09 a day and $3.41; per month $63.31 and $68.83. Without board, $4.02-


Mr. MITCHELL:: What does the hon. member mean by $3.41 a month?


John Horne Blackmore: 
Joseph William Burton: You have the Minister of Labour on the jump.


John Horne Blackmore: I particularly wanted the Minister of Agriculture in his place, because I wanted to talk to him a little bit.


Mr. LOW:: He did not want to be talked to.


Joseph William Burton: We will get his scalp.


John Horne Blackmore: Suppose you were one of those beef producers and you had a hundred first-class steers in your feed lot and it was costing you 70 cents a day to feed each of those steers, $70 a day for the lot. After you bought the steers and began to feed them the government entered into the picture and took the controls off oats and barley and practically ruined your chances. The government did nothing to take care of the price
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

of hay. The government neglected practically every one of your costs, allowing 'them to go up at will, and then sat right on the lid and refused utterly to do anything to help you out of the difficulty into which their fallacious policy had forced you. That is the situation faced by these feeders, and here we Canadians are, whose welfare depends on beef, along with the other fine things Canada can produce! We have a responsibility to Britain across the water because of the contract to deliver beef, and yet we are supinely disregarding the factors which make for the production of beef. I sometimes wonder how it is with people in western Europe; if they ever get to know about the foolhardy way in which we do things, how they can resist going in with Russia. I do not know whether Russia does things right, but it is a sure thing that the governments in our country do not do things right.
There is no visible limit to the problem which these feeders face. At the present time there is a fall in prices largely because of the uncertainty induced by the removal of ceilings on beef, and then the implication on the part of government agencies that beef controls will be reimposed. But the government have neglected the whole matter so that no beef producer knows where he stands. About five days ago I asked when the government proposed to announce its policy with respect to the reimposition of controls, and I was promised that the government would consider the matter. Apparently they will consider it until some time in May when these men have been forced completely out of business. It seems to me the government should discharge a lot of the boys they have on the job and see if they cannot employ a few men who know something about their business.
Just to show you that what I am saying is based on facts and realities, may I quote again from George Ross's statement in the Lethbridge Herald of February 20, 1948. He tells of his experience with the packers, and indicates the position they are in-and let no one say glibly, "Well, it is private enterprise that is to blame". It is the government that is to blame. Look at this picture:
He was told-
This is Mr. Ross.
-by representatives of the meat packers that their coolers were full of the higher grades of beef which they had bought at prices too high for the meat board to take them for export.
Which means that the packing houses are filled with beef which cannot be exported to Britain under the present agreement without loss, while the feed lots of the beef

feeders are filled with beef of too high a quality to be sold to Britain. The Canadian public will not buy it because it is too high in price, and the government refuses to let the beef go into the United States where the people there would buy it. If you can imagine a situation more nearly bordering on lunacy than that, you have a vivid imagination.
Now there is another aspect to this whole thing. First there is our responsibility to our own people of tomorrow to make sure that enough beef is produced for them, and second there is our responsibility to the countries of western Europe, Britain among them. Let us have a few figures to show how serious that responsibility is and what we have done in the past.
Our first beef agreement with Britain in recent times was from January 1, 1944, to December 31, 1B45. The price which Britain paid was $22.75 for top grade and $21.75 for next grade, and they agreed to take 100 million pounds. During the term we shipped to them 348,500,000 pounds. Those were the days when we were producing beef as Canada can produce beef. We had1 a great number of our finest beef producers overseas, but we were doing fairly well with the old men and the cripples.
From January 1, 1946, to December 31, 1946, we had another agreement with Britain, this time at $22.75 and $21.75. Britain agreed to take 60.000,000 pounds that year and we shipped them roughly 120 million pounds. We had not entirely ceased to produce beef on a free and buoyant basis, and the people still had some confidence in the government's management of beef. Canadians were eating a bit more, but we were getting home a number of men who could produce beef. There was no sufficient reason why we should not have been able to supply all the demands of our own consumers and still ship as much as we did in 1944-45.
From January 1, 1947, to December 31, 1947, we had another agreement. In this agreement the British agreed to pay $24.25 and $23.25. They agreed to take 120 million pounds, and Canada supplied them roughly 36,500,000 pounds. Canadians were eating more. But let us remember once more that there were home now the strong and vigorous boys who had been overseas, and others were back from the munition factories. So there was no good reason why they should not have been producing beef. Why were they mot? Simply because government policy was not such as to encourage them or give them confidence.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
I suppose the Minister of Agriculture will get up and give a talk about how we did not have coarse grains, or something of the sort. Perhaps that entered into it, but it is a strange thing that the coarse grain problem began to trouble us after the war I
From January 1, 1948, we have another agreement up to December 31 of this year, in which the British are to take 45,000,000 pounds. Unless we do something to manage wisely our production in Canada we shall fall far short of supplying even that number of million pounds.
When the Minister of Agriculture was travelling through the west he told the farmers constantly that he could not afford to let beef go to the United States because he needed it for Britain. It does not look as though he is much concerned about Britain for the next year.
In a general way, what is the importance of this little area I represent in this house and for which I have the honour to speak here? It is the Lethbridge federal riding. In that federal riding there are situated two sugar factories. There are 100,000 acres of land for which irrigation is supplied so that the farmers can produce a great quantity of hay as well as a great quantity of beets. There is an enormous amount of feed coming out of the beet sugar factories, and a great deal of feed comes as a result of the canning activities that are taking place in three or four canning factories in operation in that area. It is an excellent area for producing beef, one of the choicest in Canada. All around that fine area, where water is available for the land, there are hills on which ranchers raise beef in abundance and where they can raise it in even greater abundance.
Now they have 40.000 beef in the feed lots this year. And 40,000 beef steers are a lot of steers! But this is the kind of thing that is disregarded by the federal government in my area, not to mention other areas in the country.
What is the remedy? I have hesitated to condemn the policy of the Minister of Agriculture, or whoever sets his policy for him, poor man. I had hesitated to condemn that policy because I was not entirely sure that I had at my disposal all the factors that entered into the situation; but today, I am afraid, I must join those who completely condemn him in respect of his policy. We find, from the evidence that I have today adduced, that the British people cannot buy our high class beef, our red' label and blue label brands, because they cannot pay the price which o-ur feeders must have in order to produce this year those
brands of beef. We have found also that the Canadian people seem to be unwilling to buy the beef because it is too high in price for them. If we continue today to refuse to allow our producers of beef to sell their product across the line in the United States it simply means that we shall force into bankruptcy, perhaps permanently, but at least for a period of years, a fine lot of producers of beef, both stock raisers and feeders, who would be in a position to produce at least 40,000 beef a year for many years to come. It means w'e shall force these feeders into bankruptcy, force them out of business, when by just a slight modification of our policy we could avoid all that. W'hat the beef feeders want is that they be permitted to sell their beef across the line.
I do not go so far at the present time as to advocate that the embargo be lifted completely, thus raising the cost of beef to our Canadian consumers or interfering with our commitments to Britain; but I do suggest this as a solution which is worthy of serious consideration. Why not allow the beef feeders to sell their red label beef, as they come to fitness in the feed lots, across the line in the United States, thereby removing the danger of driving the feeder into bankruptcy? Why not, in a frank and straightforward manner, approach the packers and say to them: "Show us your inventories. Show us the amount of beef you have on hand which you cannot afford to sell under the British agreement or to the Canadian consumer at present prices, and we will agree to allow you to send that beef across the line into the United States market?" In this way we can gain a great many dollars and we can remove the pressure on the beef feeders which is now simply unbearable and which if it is allowed to continue will result in complete disaster.


Joseph William Burton: This is the first opportunity, Mr. Speaker, that I have had to comment on the recent changes in the cabinet.


An hon. MEMBER:: The ministers have all gone out.


Joseph William Burton: First I wish to express my personal regrets that the former genial Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) is no longer at that post. We all realize that the portfolio of fisheries which he is at present occupying is in all probability only a haven where he is riding out the storm before he goes to that place to which all good old-line politicians want to go. While we all miss him in the Department of Trade and Commerce, may I urge him to make use of
The Address-Mr. Burton

his opportunity in his new department to let the world know that in the cold waters of the northern part of the three prairie provinces we have an abundance of the finest fish. He can help, if he will only do so, to provide a steady and appreciative market for them.
To the new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)-who, by the way, is also absent-may I say that in my humble opinion he is much more suited to the other department over which he presides than he is to the Department of Trade and Commerce. Frankly I have always admired that man's ability as a builder. He is a builder, not a trader. We all appreciate the tremendous job he did during the war, and we regret that his organizing ability and driving force are not to be confined solely to the task of reconstruction. Nevertheless I wish him well and urge him to see to it that so long as he presides over the Department of Trade and Commerce a fair amount of wheat shall be exported through the port of Churchill. For this year our minimum objective should be not less than 25,000,000 bushels. Furthermore every effort should be made to establish a shipping route between Churchill and the ports in the maritime provinces. Some day I hope to have the opportunity of taking a day-or a part of a day, I hasten to say before I frighten you, Mr. Speaker-to give you the full story of the Hudson Bay route, and prove to your satisfaction that the proper use of it will be of benefit to all parts of Canada.
The new Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg)-whom I congratulate on being present-has, I am sure, the good wishes of members on all sides of the house. May I urge upon the minister that if we could spend over $25,000 to train a young man for a job of destruction, surely we can give that young man and his comrades in all branches of the armed forces enough on which to live decently while they are preparing themselves for peaceful pursuits. In my opinion the minister should take immediate steps to give further assistance to single as well as married veteran students.
When we were summoned to the other place on December 5 to hear the speech from the throne I had hopes that the government would at last recognize the urgency of the situation and for once give to this country the leadership it so badly needs. But what a hope 1 I should have known from past experience that nothing can be expected from this government except partisan expediency. Just look at the record. Even the little that was done

prior to the Christmas recess must be done all over again because the government refused to listen to the advice from us in this part of the house. Even before the Prime Minister's announcement this afternoon, rumours had been heard that the government was planning to have only a long week-end for the Easter recess. They will realize that this will mean that only the members from Ontario and Quebec will be able to spend Easter at home, whereas the rest of us who come from a great distance will be unable to go home and be back in time.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Let us do something about it.


Joseph William Burton: We will.


John Lambert Gibson: I am with you.


Joseph William Burton: We will put this government out and put in a good one in its place.


John Lambert Gibson: That is a little bit drastic.


Joseph William Burton: On February 20 the Prime Minister informed the house that he was considering another recess in July and August.


Mr. KNIGHT:: What is that for?


Joseph William Burton: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. As far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister is welcome to his anniversary parties and to his Liberal conventions. No doubt his anniversaries come all too frequently, while his Liberal conventions are too few and far between. But he should not make it impossible for members who come from great distances to be with their families at Christmas or Easter, the two days of the year above all when every family man should be at home with his family. I join with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) in the hope that all possible pressure will be put upon the Prime Minister and the government to have these points taken into consideration. And at this time may I offer the suggestion that in future we assemble early in November, complete the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and initiate as much legislation as possible before the holiday season. That would give us a chance to dispose of the budget before the end of the fiscal year, thereby avoiding the necessity of voting interim supply, and in most years we would be able to prorogue by mid-spring. In all seriousness I urge this suggestion upon the government, not merely for due consideration but for favourable consideration.
Had this debate been dealt with in the proper way in all probability I would not

The Address-Mr. Burton
have taken part in it; but since so little has been done on behalf of the people I have the honour to represent I must protest, otherwise the government might come to the conclusion that my people were satisfied. The people of my constituency came from almost every state of the union to the south, from almost every country in continental Europe, from the British isles, and from almost every province in this dominion. We, or our fathers before us, carved our homes out of the wilderness. We have lived there in peace and harmony as good neighbours, and with very few exceptions my people would not want to live anywhere else. To all of us Canada is tops. We all know that at present we are, so to speak, sitting on top of the world. But the majority of the people in my constituency feel that this is because of the efforts of the people of this country, and in spite of the lack of vision on the part of this government. In their opinion this government has failed; therefore I have no hesitation in supporting the want of confidence motion contained in the amendment moved by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) on December 9, in these words:
Tbat this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to use the powers provided by parliament to control prices, and by their actions have caused alarming increases in the cost of living and a dangerous lowering of the living standards of the Canadian people.
The people of my constituency believe that if we could plan for war and destruction, surely we can also plan for peace and construction. I would list their main complaints as follows: first, the government's ill-advised policy of decontrol, which has caused the cost of living of every person to go up, as well as the farmer's cost of production; second, removal of the subsidies on feed grains and other commodities. By the way, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) failed to accept the invitation I extended to them to come to Humboldt during the Christmas recess and explain the policy of the government in this respect. I did hear that the minister went to Lethbridge, however, to meet the cattle raisers. From the speech of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) this afternoon I gathered that the minister did not learn very much there, and I suggest that in all probability they should not have had the sign I was told they had at their meeting place: "All stockmen check their guns here before going in."
On behalf of the people I represent I call upon the government, and particularly on these two hon. gentlemen, to quit their play-acting and put all coarse grains marketed in the prairie provinces under the control of the
wheat board, also to come to a settlement with the farmers who delivered their oats and barley in the early part of the present crop year. While as yet I have not had an opportunity of studying the announcement made this afternoon by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I am satisfied from the little I could hear of it that the plan will be far from satisfactory. Furthermore, regardless of the announcement, having in mind the suggestion made by the Minister of Agriculture on different occasions that the elevator companies should make this adjustment, I say that would be most unfair to both the farmers and the elevator companies concerned. Those who had delivered their feed in regular volume would be penalized, while those who aggravated the shortage of feed by withholding delivery could make good fellows of themselves under this plan. This muddle was caused by the government's ill-advised policy, and the government should clear it up. They have the power, if only they will use it, to deal with those who made undue profits.
We in the C.C.F. group during the past several years have endeavoured to bring home to the Minister of Agriculture the urgent need of a sensible, stable livestock program. Here I should like to quote from a letter I received from one of my constituents, and it is only one of many. He says:
Now the farmers will not raise as many pigs and cattle as they did before. I for one will not raise any more than for my own use, and the big majority of farmers that I meet say the same thing. I know a man that used to raise as much as two hundred hogs, and today he has not one pig on the place. Then there are others that used to have ten and eleven milk cows, and now they have only one or two. So you can see that the Liberals are going to ruin the country if they stay in power much longer.
The third complaint of my constituents is that they do not like the government's excessive taxation policy, especially the unconstitutional imposition of the excise tax; nor do they approve of the "turnip nibbling" austerity program of the Minister of Finance.
Their fourth complaint is that they do not like the new income tax forms. For several years we were promised a sensible simplified form for farmers. Look at what we get now. When I first saw that form from a distance and noticed the dark edge I thought it was black. It reminded me of when I was a youngster, when operations for appendicitis were just beginning to be performed. They were something to be dreaded, and we saw many obituary notices which read something like this: "John Doe was stricken with appendicitis. The operation was successful but the patient died." In that connection I should like to quote from another letter I received
The Address-Mr. Burton

from one of my constituents, where he said, 'I'll bet the man who drafted these forms never made his living on a farm". I could quote from a number of other letters, but I am afraid the language used in most of them would be unparliamentary.
Then, fifth, the people of my constituency do not like this government's immigration policy. What burns them up most is that in spite of official and semi-official announcements which pretend to give priority to people's relatives, the relatives of good citizens of this country wanting to come to Canada, the officials of this department seem to be able to find ways and means of preventing them from coming here. They are preventing these people wdio have made good in the past from helping their destitute relatives in the old countries, who wish to come here to start life anew.
This is the first day of March. We have made very little progress since the speecn from the throne was read on December 5. Any one of the legislatures of the three prairie provinces would have done twice as much in half the time. The Saskatchewan house opened on February 5. They had debated and disposed of the speech from the throne by February 20, besides advancing a great deal of other business in preparation for committee work. You will realize of course, Mr. Speaker, that most of its members are farmers and, as you know, we farmers pride ourselves on cutting a straight furrow. And in addition to that, once having put our hands to the plow, we know from experience that the only way to finish a field is to stick to the job and to do it in a systematic fashion.
I still recall the ridicule of our opponents when they asked the people to stop and to think before allowing a group of farmers, preachers and teachers to carry on their business for them in Regina. Well, I still have circulars in my files from the bond dealers quoting prices of 80 to 85 cents on the dollar, and in some cases even less than that, for Saskatchewan government bonds in 1943. Those same bonds are now changing hands from time to time at prices from twelve to fifteen cents above par.
One of the first measures to be put on the statute books by the present provincial government in Saskatchewan was an act to give security to the farmers on their farms. We of the C.C.F. have constantly adhered to the policy we adopted in the very beginning of our organization, namely that if the family farm is to survive, then the farmer must have security of tenure on that farm. But as property rights come under provincial juris-
diction the details of the method of doing that were of necessity left to the respective provinces.
Prior to the organization of the C.C.F. in the early thirties over 12,000,000 acres of the best land in Saskatchewan were under the control of the mortgage companies. In many instances a farmer was only a tenant on land which used to belong to him; he was a tenant under the most vicious form of absentee ownership. Farmers in their own conventions decided to advocate a system of use-lease titles whereby the provincial government only at the request of the farmer was to Obtain an adjustment on the debt, pay off the balance of the mortgage and then obtain title. In turn it would issue a use-lease to the farmer and his heirs.
The farmer-labour group in their first provincial gathering adopted that idea. Later, at our first convention, this was changed to a use-hold title which would have given the holder all the rights and privileges of a Torrens title, except the right to mortgage. This became the most controversial issue of the provincial election of 1934; and our opponents were successful in leading the majority of farmers to love their mortgages to such an extent that they hated to give them up. At our next annual convention, attended by delegates from all parts of the province, we reaffirmed our belief in the fundamental principle of security of tenure to the farmer on his own farm, but decided by an almost unanimous vote to change the details as to how that was to be done. Then a policy was worked out with respect to a crop failure clause to be incorporated in all mortgages and agreements of sale of farm lands.
As I said before, the placing of this provision on the statute books of the province was one of the first acts of the present provincial administration. But owing to the fact that some of these clauses have been challenged, I shall say nothing further about the matter except this: that if unfortunately we are preve'nted from giving protection in this manner, we shall not rest. Rather we shall continue our efforts to provide that security to the farmers, when they are faced with crop failures and low prices, both of which are beyond their control.
Let me repeat that we shall also continue to adhere to the fundamental principle of the farmer having security on his own farm. This brings me to a question which is often asked, and is even asked in this house on occasions. In the majority of cases I believe the question is asked honestly, although in others I have

The Address-Mr. Burton
my suspicions as to the motives behind the asking of it. The question, regardless of the motive, is this: Why does the C.C.F. advocate socialization of other people's property, but not that of our own farms? The answer to the question is this: that we do not advocate the socialization of any property, be it a farm .or otherwise, unless it comes within the category of a monopoly, or otherwise gives to an individual or to a small group of individuals, the opportunity to dominate and exploit their fellow men. There are of course other measures which provide for expropriation for the common good. The ownership of a farm by the individual farmer does not give that power of domination and exploitation; but when our grains and livestock enter the channels of domestic and export markets they are very often then manipulated in a fashion contrary to the well-being of the community at large. For that reason we support the co-operatives on the one hand and government agencies such as the wheat board on the other, and are constantly urging the extension of these and other socially owned undertakings.
Our government in Saskatchewan has made a good start along these lines. In a number of instances they are operating industries about which the so-called1 free enterprisers never concerned themselves. In addition they have set up a department of co-operatives to assist in the development of co-operative enterprises. They have given special aid to the organization and operation of a horse meat packing plant, a flax crushing plant, and have given special consideration to a group of veterans who have begun operations on a co-operative farm.
In addition, they have set up sixteen crown corporations which are engaged in the industrial development of the province. These consist of a woollen mill, a shoe factory, a modern tannery, a brick plant and other clay mining for the production of pottery; a sodium sulphate plant, a timber marketing board and a box factory; a fish marketing board and filleting plants; a fur marketing service, and a bus service which is being extended to all parts of the province as rapidly as new vehicles can be obtained. I may say that arrangements have been made so that long distance interprovincial bus services can be carried on by the firms that have given good service in the past.
The government established an air service for the northern areas and have three other planes that are used in the air ambulance service whereby emergency cases are taken to hospital for a nominal fee of $25. This has
proven to be of great value in areas far from other means of transportation. The power commission which the previous administration always operated in the red has expanded its services, reduced the rates three times and for the past two years or more has returned a substantial net surplus. The government telephone system, while showing a surplus under the previous administration, also extended its services and increased its net surplus.
The government insurance office has done better than the most optimistic of our supporters ever expected. In connection with automobile accident insurance the car owner as well as the pedestrian has protection that cannot be equalled elsewhere, at a fee which is much less than the ordinary protection cost. The government is co-operating with private interests in the exploration and development of our oil, gas and salt resources. While a number of the government-operated ventures are still in their trial period, and others are handicapped by being unable to secure sufficient equipment, the fact is that during the last fiscal year they brought in a net return of over $2,250,000. For the first nine months of the present fiscal year they boosted the net returns to over $2,600,000. In the meantime more private corporations and companies were registered than in any previous year.
Great progress has been made in extending social services, of which the provincial-wide hospitalization plan tops the list. The next is the free medical service provided for all old age pensioners, blind pensioners and those on mother's allowance, et cetera. Free cancer treatment is provided, and the province has assumed full responsibility for the care and treatment of the mentally ill. Tuberculosis patients were previously taken care of by the anti-tuberculosis league. The government has increased the assistance given to this noble work.
In the educational field the government has increased grants, provided free textbooks and to a greater extent than ever before is endeavouring to provide equal educational opportunity and the spreading of costs. The larger unit of administration act was placed on the statute books by the previous administration, but it was done in such a way that not even its most ardent supporters felt safe in making use of it. The present government amended the act and now over two-thirds of the schools of the province are operated under the larger units of administration. Aid to agriculture has been increased and the highlights of this are the establishment of feed
The Address-Mr. Burton

banks, the extension of services rendered by agricultural representatives, and the encouragement of veterinary services for livestock.
During the first two years most of the highway department's appropriation had to be spent on the maintaining and reconstruction of highways which had been allowed to deteriorate under the previous administration. During the past two years they have embarked on the largest program of up-to-date highway construction ever undertaken in the province out of current revenue.
I should like to impress upon the federal government the urgency and necessity of undertaking the construction of an all-weather paved highway from coast to coast. This not only would be an asset to the nation but in my opinion could properly be listed as a defence project. Had the governments of the past in times of wide unemployment undertaken the construction of a paved Trans-Canada highway, besides giving useful employment we would have had the use of the highway throughout those years. The need for the highway is there. Even when it is possible to motor under the best of circumstances in certain times of the year we still cannot go to the western provinces by an all-Canada route. This is something that we should have. The highway could be constructed so cheaply in the three prairie provinces you could well afford to have both a north and south branch.
In addition the federal government could give assistance in the construction of allweather highways running north and south in the province. We hear a great deal from time to time about the desirability of providing accommodation for United States tourists. I think it is also the responsibility of the federal government to assist provincial governments in building some of these main arterial highways.
Although our government in Saskatchewan is supported mainly by farmers it has placed on the statute books some of the best labour legislation in existence. In addition our government practises what it preaches by encouraging the members of its civil service to bargain with them collectively through their union.
I appreciate having had the opportunity this afternoon to lay before the government some of the problems that confront the people of my constituency. I appreciate also having had the opportunity of placing before the house details of what ordinary common folk, farmers, preachers and teachers, have done about things which come under their jurisdiction in the government of Saskatchewan.
I ask every hon. member to realize that if we are to get through this period of recon-

struction without undue hardship it is up to all of us to bend our efforts to such an extent that never again shall we have in this country exploitation by monopoly and at the same time poverty facing our people.


Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the address ill reply to the speech from the throne the choice of subject is left wide open, and during this debate hon. members who have taken part therein have covered a great range of subjects. I propose to discuss some factors of human relationships in our national economy and to warn against the growth of communism in Canada. I intend to be explicit in certain things so that no one will have room to twist my words and give a wrong interpretation of my attitude toward any sector of the population.
I am a firm believer in trade unions and the -right of collective bargaining, which communism destroys. I believe that through organization the position of labour has vastly improved in recent years. I believe in giving to every person a fair, but not an unfair, opportunity of improving his or her position through personal initiative. I recognize that public utilities constitute a field for government or municipal ownership, and that other public services are adaptable to -co-operative ownership and operation. Otherwise I support private enterprise with safeguards against practices that unduly increase prices to the consumer. With this limitation I believe that Canadian business and industry should be organized, financed, developed and managed by Canadians, individually or in groups.
Agriculture is our No. 1 basic industiy, and I regard profitable farming as an indispensable requirement for full employment in our urban centres and for industrial prosperity. I favour generous assistance, as -I am sure all hon. members do, to veterans and their dependents and to all who, through incapacity or age, cannot earn for themselves. One additional assistance is imperative in my opinion, namely, provision for medical and hospital treatment.
I oppose government control by special interest groups. I believe parliament should be representative of all vocations. Our population divides itself largely into two main groups: one, those who -work close to nature in developing and preparing resources of the farm, the forest, the sea and the mines from which come food, clothing and shelter for all; two, those who work these products further through stages of processing and distribution by means of labour, professional and clerical services, education, science, invention and manufacture. It is

The Address-Mr. Gladstone
largely between the first and last of this second group, labour and manufacturing, that our antagonism, arises, and where sometimes inequality of opportunity exists under the terms of the laws set down by parliament. I wish to deal with these two groups, industry and labour, associating therewith considerations of the theoretical versus the practical in our national economy.
First of all, I will consider industry. In my opinion it is grossly unfair to stigmatize industrialists as profiteers because some may have taken advantage of circumstances to amass fortunes. We ought to strengthen our legislation against the greedy and unscrupulous. Studies should be made to further preventive measures such as may be possible through dominion-provincial co-operation to deal with combines, mergers and the regulation of powers granted under the Companies Act.
The burden of debt places a limit on the undertakings of governments and municipalities. Home owners are ambitious to see their homes free of debt. War added enormously to the debt of Canada. Like home owners, our government should strive to reduce debt to some extent each year, especially during prosperous years. The main source of funds for the reduction of debt must come from profits earned. If we destroy the opportunity of business to earn profits where will be the opportunity to reduce our debt? It is imperative that industry should contribute generously toward the reduction of our national debt after providing a reasonable return on the money invested1. But, first of all, in any industry there should be ample provision for plant modernization and for reserves of working capital whereby industry can carry on through any period of recession, in the interests of highest employment and a minimum lay-off of employees.
Changes in industry through research and invention may see one product replaced by a new product in a very short time. These and other hazards are a constant menace to the continued production of many lines. Speaking of hazards, let us take as an example the former silk manufacturer. He finds today that his product has been replaced largely through plastics, nylons, mercerized cottons and so forth. The same is true of aluminum. This product is finding new competition in magnesium, which is twenty-five per cent lighter and seventy-five per cent stronger than steel. The iceman no longer cuts ice on the rivers and lakes since refrigeration was developed. Take the hazards that the telephone
and telegraph companies have in sleet storms which are so common in this country, requiring the expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars to replace poles and wires.
No industry can survive without machinery as modern as that of its competitors either at home or abroad. Costly laboratories are a necessity of the major industries. New products are developed through research by skilled engineers and scientists. Provision for the continuance of an industry is a justifiable charge against profits earned, and it is vital to continued employment. Expenditures for research would not be available either in time or in amount if approval rested with the government at Ottawa. Disregarding costs, in wartime great organizations of experts can be employed by a government, but not in peacetime.
Let me turn, Mr. Speaker, to some of the considerations that are involved in the successful operation of industries. Mention has been made of some steps taken toward the socialization of industry by the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan. I would remind you that this experiment commenced during a period of prosperity when goods were in short supply. There is nothing creative in taking over an established industry. I am told that the losses of some industries are pooled with the profits of others so that all may be kept going. Management in industry has to reckon with possible losses as well as with profits. The thing that matters is the progressive development of the industry and its continuance during bad years as well as during good years.
It will be realized that I am a supporter of the right of every person to improve his or her opportunities through the exercise of initiative and by hard work. Let me give an example of the benefaction that came from the inventiveness of one man. That man worked at an idea after his day's work was done and he developed an engine of simple design that could be made cheaply. That man was Henry Ford. The Ford may have been a Tin Lizzie, but it brought the pleasures and health stimulation of nature's farms, forests and lakes to millions of city dwellers.
Henry Ford had a heart for his employees. Nearly thirty years ago, when wages were low, he established a minimum of $5 a day for even the humble sweepers in his plant. The Henry Ford attitude toward employees prevails in many industries today and should be encouraged.
The London chamber of commerce had a survey made of some nine industries in the
The Address-Mr. Gladstone

city of London where the manufacture is carried on of such goods as plumbers' and steamfitters' supplies, threshing machines, hosiery, refrigerators, concrete machinery, doors, cranes, shoes, radios and home appliances. The survey showed total sales of $16,921,375 for those nine industries. Total costs of everything, except wages, salaries and taxes, including materials, outside services, light and power, freight, printing, advertising, insurance, interest and depreciation amounted to $9,529,055. Taxes, including sales tax, amounted to $1,951,052. The remainder was divided as follows: paid 'to workers, $4,612,834; paid to shareholders, $292,166; the remainder being reinvested in buildings, machinery, and working capital in the amount of $536,268. The division of the sales dollar was 56J cents for materials; 11J cents for taxes; 271 cents for workers; \\ cents to the shareholders; 31 cents for new buildings, machinery, inventory, working capital and reserves.
Out of the $5,441,268 that remained after deduction of total cost of materials, et cetera, the workers received 85 per cent, and the shareholders, 15 per cent.
One cannot over-emphasize the importance of an industry being strong to provide good working conditions, latest machinery for economic production, and to meet competition, and with ample financing to give freedom of development. This is all in the interests of employment and a high standard of living.
I will turn now from the management side of industry to the part of labour in processing the natural resources. I think it may be well to divide the consideration of the labour element into two parts relating to the past and the future.
Too much credit cannot be given the great masses of the people for their faithful contribution to the war effort, both on the farm and in 'the factory and elsewhere. The government set an example to the world in the methods they employed in keeping our economy well balanced. Some regulations hurt in places; but, all in all, our people responded cheerfully and made sacrifices where necessary to assist in winning the war.
When the war ended we set our sights toward the restoration of what might be regarded as a new normal. Calculations had been much upset through conditions in Europe and' elsewhere which were beyond our control. The import and export trade has not been as anticipated, and we have experienced difficulty in finding dollars to meet our payments to the United States. The United Kingdom is no longer in a position to make payments to us which will offset our requirements for United States dollars.

Labour has been able to retain and increase the scale of wages paid during the war, but these higher wages have been offset by rising prices of most of the necessities of life. The downward trend of commodity prices in the United States gives hope that the peak in prices may have been reached. There is a great backlog of construction need in Canada which we hope can and will be called upon for continued employment at our present higher scale of wages for the maintenance of our high standard of living in Canada.
The situation has compelled the government to take emergency measures to eliminate our purchases from the United States. We dislike these reductions pertaining to fruits and vegetables which are a more considerable item requiring United, States dollars than we may have realized. For instance, according to the Montreal Standard, in normal times sixty-five carloads of oranges and twenty-five carloads of grapefruit come into Montreal every week. Since November last when quotas were established that quantity has been cut in half.
We become ashamed of our complaining when we recall that for six years or more the people of Britain seldom saw an orange or a grapefruit. Advantage of scarcity was being taken in some places and so control prices of citrus fruits have been re-established. Inflated prices were being asked for cabbage, celery and the like, and measures were taken to correct this. The protest of the housewives was justified and timely.
I do not know whether or not it will be regarded as good politics, but I do not hesitate, to give credit to members of parliament in the C.C.F. group for their efforts in parliament in many circumstances for the maintenance of our high standard of living, a sentence which should not be quoted apart from some things I might mention contra. Solvency of Canada must be maintained. I do think they advocate expenditure of money with little consideration as to where the money will come from.	The C.C.F., in
advocating government ownership, point to hydro and to various public utilities as examples of success in public ownership. In Guelph we own and operate our gas and waterworks, transportation system and hydro electric power and1 light distribution most satisfactorily through commissions named annually by the city of Guelph. The control is not in Ottawa; it lies with the electors who pay. Possibly there may be other spheres of public service to which public ownership might well be extended. As a Liberal I can

The Address-Mr. Gladstone
support and promote co-operation in localities where it would seem that the public interest will be served better than through private ownership. But always I would keep the control and direction near to the people %vho pay.
The C.C.F. would nationalize the banks. I disapprove. The people of Canada own the Bank of Canada and thereby exercise certain controls over the privately owned banks. There is no doubt our banks are well managed. It would be disastrous to place discretion as to size of loans in the hands of some government official.
Criticism of industry in Canada comes largely from the C.C.F. party. They give examples of excess profits in some industries and imply that the same may be true in industry generally. I again give members of that group credit for their earnestness and for their contribution toward improvement of social conditions in Canada. They have done well relatively to the things within their own experience, but in relation to industry I fear they frequently expound theories rather than observe practical considerations. The group, having regard to its becoming any considerable factor in government, has a doubtful future. It came into being in Saskatchewan largely through drought conditions and crop failure. Their membership today is generally from Saskatchewan, a few from British Columbia and Manitoba, with but one member in all of Canada east of the great lakes. It cannot be said that experience gives them practical knowledge of the operation of many of the component factors of our economy.
I should like to refer briefly to the picture of the situation in Europe commencing with the early part of this century. We had a prosperous Britain, highly industrialized, and the focal point for the distribution of goods from all corners of the world. We had a Germany that was strong and prosperous through science and invention; but the ambition of the Kaiser for world domination brought on the war of 1914, so disastrous in many respects to the allies and throwing upon Germany a burden of debt against which she struggled for many years. The result was that in desperation a radical party obtained control and, under the dictatorship of Hitler, a new effort through arms came about in 1939, We see the picture of distress today in Europe whereby our empire is in such desperate straits financial and, where the industries of Germany are destroyed and the country dismembered. There came a change in the political alignments in that country and the forcing upon small nations of ideologies that 5849-111
are not a part of democracy. There is surely a lesson there for us in the trend that things may take, where we may be led unwittingly and unsuspectingly from stage to stage into changes in our system of government. I think it is exceedingly desirable that we in Canada, through this period of prosperity, exercise every care and see to it that influences do not undermine the loyalty of many of our people to our democratic form of life. This will come about only through hard times, and I say respectfully to my C.C.F. friends that their chief hope of success in the future may be the result of bard times.
The high cost of living is a matter of concern for all of us in Canada today and means must be found to stop soaring prices and even to roll back prices to some extent. Sir Stafford Cripps, the socialist chancellor of the exchequer in the United Kingdom, has stated that prices cannot be controlled without wages being also controlled. Our hope in Canada is that present scales of wages may be continued while prices in certain places are reduced moderately. There has been demand for rolling back prices to the 1946 level. I would warn that farmers cannot be expected to produce butter at forty-four cents a pound. The ceiling of seventy-three cents may be too high, but it stands there as a barrier against prices soaring to ninety cents and $1 a pound, as in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, our friends in the C.C.F. party-and I am on most friendly terms with all of them-are at the crossroads of their existence as a group of any dimensions in parliament. If conditions deteriorate they may make some gains, but if times are good they are pretty much through. They are good members, so good that if their contribution has pretty much ended, as now constituted, I hope the electors may deal kindly with them by returning many of them to continue their crusading within the ranks of two-party government.
The danger time for Canada is before us. Labour organizers see more difficult times ahead for their unions. If the peak in wage scales has been reached the monthly dues from workers are bound to fall off. The organizers have recognized this danger and hope to meet it by swinging labour into politics as supporters of the C.C.F. This will not succeed, for the reason that very many workers own their own homes. My factory people in Wellington county are solid and sound in their thinking. They fear the extreme in any such movement. The other day I read of a worker who developed a great interest in the socialist party. It went well
The Address-Mr. McLure


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I must call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the Speaker should not be questioned from the floor of the house.


Mr. McLURE:: Then I withdraw that
question and just ask that you give it your careful consideration. On different occasions I have endeavoured to speak in this house on matters concerning my province. When the Prime Minister had to search for cabinet ministers, thinking he did not have cabinet material in his own ranks; when he had to go abroad with coalition ideas, since Prince Edward Island was not represented in the cabinet I do think he might have extended to members from that province the opportunity to become part and parcel of the government by being included ini the cabinet. However, they do not recognize our province. It always seems to me that there is either discrimination or forgetfulness; and the rights we had prior to 1873 are gradually being taken away from us.
Let me cite one instance. We always had a savings bank in our province. Then this was swallowed up by the Bank of Canada

The Address-Mr. McLure
and we had a branch of that bank in Charlottetown. We were pleased with that until, in the fall of 1947, our branch bank mysteriously disappeared. It was taken, as it were, by thieves in the night, and was gone from us. That branch was something which should have been retained for us.
. It will be clear that this came as a surprise to the people of the province when I say that there was not one manager of a chartered bank, of the five great chartered banks in Charlottetown, who knew anything about the taking away or transfer of the branch of the Bank of Canada from that city.
We made representations to have it remain. Those representations were made to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). At that time, however, very few ministers were in Ottawa; I believe the Minister of Finance was somewhere in Europe-probably in gay Paree-and we did not get any satisfaction whatsoever. That branch of the Bank of Canada was taken from us. 'Under present circumstances, all the business which our chartered banks have to do with the Bank of Canada must be done through Saint John and Halifax. This procedure is not always in the best interests of banking or bankers in Prince Edward Island.
Similar treatment was meted out to us in connection with our postal service. Again Prince Edward Island has been ignored as a province, and in connection with this work we have been attached to one of the other provinces. I mention these matters because, if there is one thing near and dear to us in Prince Edward Island, certainly it is our rights as a province of the dominion. We were the cradle of confederation, and we resent these practices, small as they may seem to other provinces. We have our rights and we intend to try to hold them, no matter what odds we may come up against.
Having made these few observations respecting discrimination, let me say that we are now dealing with the speech from the throne. I was not in the house when it was read, but after having read it I have come to the conclusion that it was written in a great hurry for that short session. The purpose of the calling of the short session no one has yet been able to understand; unless it was, of course, that the house might be in session during the birthday festivities of the Prime Minister.
We of the maritime provinces, and particularly those of us from Prince Edward Island, had anticipated that the speech from the throne would contain something new and constructive for the maritime provinces. In 5849-111|
order that we might be maintained in our proper sphere we had entertained the hope that some real suggestions on our behalf would be set forth in the speech from the throne. However, it contains nothing more than phraseology which does not mean very much, and certainly does not mean anything to the marrtimes.
For a few moments I shall deal particularly with Prince Edward Island. My province is what might be described as an agricultural province, statistics showing that about sixty-five per cent of the people depend upon farming of different kinds. Next to agriculture come the fisheries. AVe have very few manufacturing plants. As I have said, farming is the great basic industry of our province, and we are proud of the agricultural activities in it, and of its productive soil. We are proud, too, of our industrious and productive farmers who operate the farms in our province. I say without fear of successful contradiction that they have no equal as farmers in any of the other provinces of this whole dominion.
As a province the enterprise of which is almost entirely agricultural, and as one with still greater possibilities ahead, we must look for certain things. We are able to provide the best of foodstuffs for exports, in addition to supplying all the requirements for our own population. Our butter, cheese, potatoes and furs, as well as sundry other products stand ace-high on the markets of the world. As an agricultural province, we must look for assistance along agricultural lines. To be most effective, we must have the best possible forms of transportation. Our transportation facilities must be up to date. We must have better facilities for the cold storage of farm products. We must have better connection with the mainland. Further, let me repeat that we must have proper freight rates for the shipments we have to make.
Speaking of farmers and the agricultural work being done throughout Canada, and particularly in the maritime provinces, I would remind hon. members of what was said by a great biblical writer who, upon looking at the production of food and those who produced it, made this memorable comment:
Moreover the profit of the earth is for all. The king himself is served by the field.
As agricultural members, we must always look to those things which will favour agricultural interests in our provinces. As I said a minute ago, we in Prince Edward Island are producers of foodstuffs, and have always made the complaint that we have not had proper transportation facilities. To a certain extent this condition has been remedied. Since
The Address-Mr. McLure

1912 transportation has greatly improved; yet a great deal more could be done in the interest of the farmers of that province.
As I said, we must have lower freight rates, particularly in connection with the connecting links between the province and the mainland. We have been promised by the different parties that the charges on our ferries would be based upon what it would cost to carry the freight the same distance over a highway. These promises have been partly implemented in connection with certain agricultural products, but if they were fully implemented it would mean that we could transport our surplus foodstuffs to the other maritime provinces where we could find a real market.
If the bridging of the strait of Canso is completed, as surely it must be at an early day, what a market for foodstuffs would be opened up. Our farmers could transport the products of their farms by motor truck direct to Cape Breton island, and on the return trip they could bring back coal, lime or other commodities. Today we have part of that market, but it is under adverse conditions. I understand that the miners, workers and labourers in the great industries on Cape Breton island receive over 830,000,000 in wages annually. This new bridge would certainly provide a new market for a large number of our agricultural products.
There is another matter in connection with my province "which I should like to mention. When victory for the allied forces was in sight a great program of demobilization, reconstruction, et cetera, was announced. The maritime provinces were asked to place their problems before the federal government and Prince Edward Island set up a reconstruction committee as suggested by the federal government. I do not know what treatment was given to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; but, if it was any shabbier than that given to Prince Edward Island, then I pity those provinces. We have not received anything under that extensive program which was talked about and advertised for years previous.
During the war years of 1939 to 1945 the maritime provinces were neglected. They did not share in the great increase in manufacturing for war purposes. In the case of Prince Edward Island it was practically nil. During those years the government poured out $790 million of the taxpayers' money to build or construct new factories and to expand or rebuild old ones. I do not object to that expenditure because it was for war purposes, but I do object to the way in which it was spent. It should have been divided among

the provinces so that they could all have had a share in manufacturing certain types of goods.
The maritime provinces represented one-tenth of the population of Canada, and yet New Brunswick and Nova Scotia received less than three per cent of this expenditure. Surely they were entitled to at least ten per cent. But Prince Edward Island did not receive even three per cent; we received one one-thousandth of one per cent or the fancy, tiny sum of $1,277. This was to complete a small expansion of a factory which was manufacturing some war materials.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Just before the house took recess I was speaking of the large expenditures during wartime and the injustice done to the maritime provinces with respect to these expenditures. For instance, I mentioned that $790 million had been spent to rebuild factories and to construct new ones for war purposes. I said I took no objection to that because it was for war; but let us look for a moment at what happened. According to statistics tabled in this house with reference to the contracts which had been awarded to these firms which had been set up in business, and some created as crown companies, and so forth, the total expenditure was almost $12 billion from 1939 to 1945, or, to be exact, $11,979,200,000. As I said, I am not objecting to these enormous expenditures; they were for war purposes. The objection I take is this, and I think I take it on good grounds. I contend that there should have been a fair distribution of this amount in the maritime provinces. Out of this immense sum of nearly $12 billion, my province received an expense account for the repairs of two or three corvettes and a minesweeper, a paltry sum indeed when compared with the $12 billion that was spent. It is not much wonder that in the maritimes today we have unemployment. I say this to labour and to the labour department, do not take away our labour from the maritime provinces. Do justice to the maritime provinces by building the constructive works which have been promised to us, such as the Canso bridge, the Ohignecto canal on the mainland and so forth. In Prince Edward Island we were promised improved highways and the construction of a highway from Borden to Charlottetown. We were promised a

The Address-Mr. McLure
marine slip and the Brighton bridge. These things were all promised and were held out to the people in the last election on December 11 of last year. Both parties are committed to them.
I wish to speak for a moment with reference to one of these projects that should be built. In my province an essential work could be built which would give employment to from 150 to 200 people annually. I refer to the building of the marine railway slip. When we started to get the ferry system in 1913 that was part of the program. It was included to such an extent that the. government of that day purchased a property on Southport road across from Charlottetown for the building of a drydock. The war of 1914 put an end to the project for the time being. The property is still there. I might say that today they are recommending the building of the marine railway slip at Charlottetown harbour to take care of the repair work of our own steamers and our own ferry boats, and also the different boats that are in the marine service, such as barges and tugboats. All this work has to leave the province annually. It goes to Pictou, Halifax, Saint John and Quebec, and our own people are left unemployed. If this marine slip were built at Charlottetown-and it has been definitely promised to us-we would have employment, the year round for some 150 to 200 men, in the summertime our big ferry ships could be repaired there or have their annual overhaul there, and the other marine boats, tugs, and so forth could be repaired there when they are laid up in the wintertime. If these things were done and if Prince Edward Island were to receive assistance in comparison with what the other provinces are receiving we would have better times in the maritime provinces and no unemployment. Our men would not have to be taken away from those provinces to other places to seek work.
Because these repairs all go to Pictou, Halifax, Saint John and Quebec, our ships are delayed in getting there. Most of these places have so much work on hand that the delay is continued and we are months without our ships back in the regular service. Charlottetown has an excellent harbour; and if we had this marine railway slip I am sure that the steamers making it a port of call, bringing in and taking away freight, would not have to leave for a slight overhaul. The overhaul could take place right in Charlottetown while they are unloading and loading.
I should now like to refer to the building of the Brighton bridge. As I said, these things
were promised by -both parties during the last election, and they were pretty well threshed out not only here but down there during the election.
Another matter to which I wish to refer for a few moments is the tourist trade. As we have all said and keep repeating, Canada has wonderful possibilities in the tourist trade. It is a grand thing to see the provinces interested in that trade. Like the maritimes generally, my province is a real vacation spot. There, where much of the dominion's history originated you will find a tourist's paradise. No place offers more to the real tourist than the Island. There you will find a real climate, not too hot. Even if it is a hot day the gentle sea breezes will temper it nicely to the tourist. There you can see the most beautiful farms and farm scenery, scenery which will bring pleasure to any tourist who travels around.
A few years ago, in co-operation with the provincial government, the Dominion of Canada gave us a national park beginning at Tracadie, or, as we say, Dalvay by the sea. That took in the coastline of Dalvay, Tracadie, Brackley Point, Stanhope, Rustico (not Russia) and Cavendish out to Stanley bridge.
The minister himself said that this national park was an ideal spot. In connection with it we have what is known as the Green Gables golf course. Those who play golf can find no finer golf course than Green Gables, in the land made famous by Canada's greatest writer, the late Lucy Maud Montgomeiy MacDonald. On the sandy beaches of this beautiful national park you will find the best bathing grounds that are to be found anywhere. I might say, however, that the worst feature since we received this park is in the highways that we have by which to reach the park; and I hope that the government, in conjunction with the provincial government, will see to it this year that we have proper approaches leading to our park.
It would take only ten miles to reach the beautiful playgrounds and vacation grounds of Brackley, Stanhope and Dalvay. Then, from Rustico it would take only seven miles, and from New Glasgow a distance of six miles. I am glad to learn that the Department of Mines and- Resources is considering building one of these highways this year. The other day I asked the minister a question regarding which there was a little misunderstanding, a typographical error having occurred. My question had reference to the road from Rustico to Cavendish, to the national park, and I wanted to know when it would be built. I had understood it was to be built on a sixty-forty basis between the two governments. If we had
The Address-Mr. McLure

these roads constructed as they should be, leading to our national park, it would do a great deal for the tourist industry of our province.
There is one thing you can be assured of, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the people engaged in the tourist business in Prince Edward Island are making a real industry out of it. They are endeavouring, to the best of their ability, to cater to the people who come to our shores; and we hope that in years to come, with the assistance of the federal government in the way of good roads, our tourist trade will be materially advanced so that we may have this wonderful vacation spot thronged with visitors during the summer months.
Another matter on which I wish to speak for a few minutes is in reference to social security. You, Mr. Speaker, as well as the members of this house have listened to many excellent appeals on behalf of the aged, the blind, and the veterans of both wars. You have heard about the rehabilitation of these men and you have heard proposals for giving them security in their old age.
I often think there is one class of people who have been greatly neglected, more so in our province than in any other, and for a few minutes I wish to discuss the low-wage bracket earner of the Canadian National Railways when he is put on retirement. There are in my constituency a number of these men who were retired a few years ago and some who have been recently retired, and the amount of their retirement is $25 to $27 a month. That retirement allowance might have been good enough a few years ago; but today it is not sufficient, and I for one would like to see these faithful employees of the Canadian National Railways, retired some years ago, and especially the men receiving less than $150 and down to the lowest, brought up to where they can have a decent living allowance for the rest of their days. Those in the higher brackets who have had higher salaries need not be taken into consideration to the same extent as those in the lower brackets.
There is another class of people to whom I would refer. We have given aid to the blind and the aged; we have provided children's allowances and so on; but in every constituency across Canada we find today people who are crippled, some crippled by severe accidents when they were young, some as they have grown a little older, and some crippled and handicapped from birth. There seems to be no social security for any of these, and I know that in my own constituency there are several of them.
[Hr. McLure.J
I have taken this matter up with the minister of health and welfare, but the answer always comes back that it is a provincial matter. When you go to the provincial house there is always a dispute between city and country, with the consequence that very few of those people are securing anything to help them with the great handicap they have. I hope this government will consider the matter to see that these people have some compensation for themselves.
Another matter I wish to touch upon, and one that is of importance to us, is the question of freight rates.


James Horace King: I am soriy to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I wish to say a few words with reference to freight rates. One of the great problems in Canada today is that of freight rates. It touches everybody in every part of the country. Here we are faced in Canada with a government-owned railway system, the Canadian National Railways, one of the greatest railway systems, if not the greatest, in the whole world. This company, after due consideration regarding its expenses and operating income, has applied to the government for a 30 per cent increase in freight rates.
We all know that conditions have changed and that greater demands are being made in every direction, and I may say that if the railways are expected to give the service which is demanded of them, both by the government and by the people of Canada, and if at the same time the demand is made that they pay their own way and make a surplus instead of a deficit, then the task is an impossible one for them.
If the government demand of the railways that they give perfect satisfaction they must also say to the railways, "If you have a deficit we will take care of it," if they are not going to allow them to increase their rates.
In connection with freights, I believe that in the very near future the railway systems of Canada will make a study of what is termed stamp freight rates. What I mean is this. If a man in Halifax writes a letter to a friend outside that city a mile or so and writes a letter to one in British Columbia, four cents will carry each letter, though one of them has to go thousands of miles. I believe the railways will discuss in the future this idea of the stamp freight rate whereby all freight will be put on a par to all geographical centres across Canada and to all business houses.
Centralization has taken the big factories to the larger places. Why should we who are

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
a long distance from these factories be penalized? I am going to mention only one or two cases in particular. We have no objection to the great automobile works, we will say, in Oshawa. We in the maritimes and the people all over Canada to the extreme limits of the country support that factory. The farmers around Oshawa support it by buying automobiles, but they also receive a great deal of support by growing food to feed the employees of those factories. We in the maritimes are in a different situation, and the same thing applies farther west. If one of our farmers buys an automobile at Oshawa, what happens? He is immediately penalized to the extent of anywhere from $75 to $118, because he must pay the freight from Oshawa; whereas the farmer who lives around Oshawa get his car for that much less. I mention this in my argument that if a stamp freight rate act were in existence in this country, which it will be in the near future just as sure as we are sitting here tonight, that difference would be equalized. When the cost of that car was made known at the works, what would happen? They would say, "We are sending so many of these to the maritimes and so many to the west." They know the distance; they know the freight rates; and the freight would be added to the cost of the car. Hence, a farmer in Oshawa who gets the benefits in every way of the automobile factory there would have to pay the same price for his car as the man in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, would have to pay for his. That is giving fair and equal rights to all.
I might mention one other case, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to do so, and it is this. There is in Canada one industry, and I think it is the rubber industry, that prepays the freight. I have not been engaged in that industry for a few years, but when I was in the rubber industry they prepaid their goods to all parts of Canada. I think there was one place as to which they made a little difference, and that was away out in the Alaska territory. What was the consequence of that? Because of their stamp freight rate system, a merchant in Charlottetown could buy $100 worth of footwear at the same price in Kitchener, Ontario, as the merchant living next door to the factory.
Those are things which will have to be considered. In justice to the rest of Canada we should have this matter brought up and a study made of it by our railway system.
I am sorry that I have not time to deal with the fisheries of Canada because the fishing industry is second only to our agricultural
industry. A little later on I hope to have an opportunity to do justice to it, if I can.
One other matter I should like to mention is in connection with the mail couriers in our province, and their problems. But, since there is an item coming up in the estimates under which it can be discussed, I will postpone discussion of it till then.
May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the overtime.


Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: I should like to devote some little time, Mr. Speaker, to a discussion of the economic situation of those who have been and are now public servants of the Dominion of Canada. We have a civil service, which is yet young and perhaps in some ways immature but potentially one of 'the best, and I am convinced that we have among the higher reaches of it public servants who are second to none in any nation of the world. Yet in the public service of Canada there is an element of unrest which is noticeable all across the dominion, particularly amongst those in the lower paid groups. So far as the public service goes, they are the ones who have been most badly hit by the drastic increase in the cost of living. From October last until now I believe there has been an increase of another ten points in the cost of living of Canadians. As I say, that an element of unrest prevails is obvious, and we can see that from the resolutions which have been sent to us from meetings of civil servants in every large city in the dominion.
Just here I should like to give a little advice which may be considered by the civil service to be gratuitous; nevertheless it might be well worth considering. They have between sixty or seventy organizations, all of which are to some extent frittering away their energies in an attempt to protect and help sipgll segments of the civil service. I think they would be far better off if they had one large organization which could conduct negotiations for collective agreements as an organization with the other organization, which, of course, is the Dominion of Canada. Because they do not have that one large organization, the smaller groups are weak and we see a situation such as that which prevails in the city of Winnipeg, where in quite a number of classifications the civil servants of our city have higher salaries than the civil servants of the Dominion of Canada.
Here are some instances. These would be corresponding jobs with the city and with the dominion. A clerk, grade I, in the city of Winnipeg, has a salary range from $1,020 to
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart

$1,560, while in the dominion civil service the range is from $1,020 to $1,380. A clerk, grade
II,	in the city of Winnipeg ranges from $1,620 to $1,980; in the dominion civil service the range is from $1,440 to $1,860. A clerk, grade
III,	in the city of Winnipeg, gets $2,040 to $2,220, while the federal government pays a person in a similar job $1,860 to $2,100. A senior clerk in the city of Winnipeg gets $2,280 to $2,460; in the federal civil service he gets $2,100 to $2,400. A principal clerk in the city of Winnipeg gets $2,520 to $2,820, while a person in a similar job in the dominion civil service gets $2,400 to $2,880. The city of Winnipeg is not notoriously rich, as those who live there realize, but it is sufficiently progressive to pay its own servants salaries which are considerably larger in many cases than those paid for similar jobs by the federal government. I think the government of Canada could well afford to take a leaf out of the book of Winnipeg and examine more closely the range of salaries paid, with the intention of raising them.
As I have said, the situation which we have today, where the policy of the dominion government has been to raise prices all across the board in Canada, has created unrest; and I am dealing solely with the unrest in the civil service. If the cost of living continues to go up, then undoubtedly the salary increase which was granted recently will be completely nullified. The suggestion I have to offer is this, and I think it is worthy of consideration. The amended salary rates as they existed at October of last year should be accepted as basic salaries. The increase in the cost of living should be compensated for by giving the civil servants a bonus to some extent commensurate with that increase. If put into effect, I believe such a plan would remove some of the unrest which now prevails and would undoubtedly be fairer to those people who are giving the best days of their lives to the Dominion of Canada.
There is one other group about which I should say something too; that is, those classified as temporary employees. Across Canada we must have thousands of civil servants who come within this category. It is unfair to those who have been working for six or seven years, or more, to find that they have no permanency at all. Indeed there are some employees of this house, I am told, who have been on a temporary basis for at least six or seven years. That is wrong. If a person is employed in the civil service I have no objection to his being given a probationary period, which I do not think should exceed one year; but, after that period, he should 
undoubtedly be given the security that comes with permanent employment. There is also one other group who work for us,-namely the sessional staff, who as yet have received no increase to compensate for the increased cost of living. I hope that very shortly increases will be announced for these loyal and faithful workers in this house.
However, there is another group, who were also civil servants at one time, whose plight I wish to draw to the attention of parliament. I refer to the superannuated civil servants who gave most of their working days to the jobs which were theirs, and who are now retired. I have in my hand sessional paper No. 22, which is a report on the operations of the Civil Service Superannuation Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1947. An analysis of this document is interesting. I find that, in the year it covers, some 1,100 civil servants were retired because they had reached the age limit of sixty-five. Of those 1,100, some 442 were retired on a pension of $43 a month. We have to remember that those retired on such a small pension must have been working on a small salary; and during these days small-salaried people are not able to save any money for their old age. They have to use every cent they get in the struggle to live, and they have nothing left in the form of savings to augment whatever pension they are given. How two people over sixty-five years of age can possibly hope to exist today on $43 a month is something only treasury board can tell us. I am convinced that no one else can do so.
But included in the 1,100 are 103 who have been retired on a pension of less than $17 a month. In that respect I should like to quote part of a letter which was addressed to Mr. E. E. D. Wilson, secretary of the superannuated civil servants, whose office is here in Ottawa. It concerns a lady, who for obvious reasons I shall call Mrs. X, though her name is available to anyone who would like to know it. She is a superannuated civil servant who landed in hospital in Toronto with pneumonia, of course under the care of a doctor. A friend of Mrs. X wrote the letter, part of which I am going to quote:
I might also advise you that the same doctor tells me it is from the type and kind of living Mrs. X has been trying to exist on and from what her meagre monthly superannuation cheque could provide that has brought her to the state of malnutrition and this illness; that the monthly amount she now receives of $28.87 had not provided for the necessary things of life, and this is all she has in the world-so by the time_ she paid room rent there wasn't much left for food or anything else.

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
Some may say, well, why did she not pocket her pride and go to her friends and beg or borrow from them in order to live a little better? Those who ask that question have very little regard for the pride many people have when it comes to borrowing from one's friends or relatives or neighbours. Here is an elderly woman, over sixty-five years of age, with this meagre, pitiful pittance of $28 a month, whose doctor has diagnosed her trouble, apart from its being pneumonia, as malnutrition. And if that happened to a person receiving 828, what about those 103 civil servants who are in receipt of something less than the meagre sum of $17 a month? But I believe some 156 or 157 civil servants died while still in the service, and they left behind widows and children. One hundred of those widows average as a pension less than $30 a month from a grateful state, while the average child gets about $6. One can imagine the plight of a woman getting on in years, with a child perhaps at school and an income of $36 a month, trying to educate, clothe and feed that child as well as keep a roof over its head. It is a manifest impossibility with prices as they are just now.
Then last year some civil servants died after retirement. They left 179 widows; and of those relicts of superannuated civil servants some 121 today receive an average of about $30 a month from a grateful nation. I have a reasonable command of the English language, Mr. Speaker, but I find it very difficult to put into parliamentary language what I think of conduct such as this. However, I shall read extracts from two other letters which perhaps will point up the situation better than I can do myself. These letters also were addressed1 to the superannuated civil servants' association. Here is part of one:
My husband's pension was thirty-nine dollars and some odd cents, he barely lived three years after pension was granted and after his death, as you know, gave me half, which is $19.58, and I was more in need of if 'after his death than before.
The letter spoke of a cost-of-living bonus, and being under the doctor's care now for two years I find I cannot meet the expenses-doctor's bills, fuel for the coming winter and living expenses.
We should remember that elderly people are going to spend more money per capita for medical care than those who are younger and still working. Elderly people need more help than, they are getting today, if for no 5849-112
other reason than to provide medical care. Here is still another letter addressed to Mr. Wilson:
Dear Sir:
How that high cost of living is steadily going upward we just can't cope with my pension of $38.75 per month.
One can of vegetable soup has to be enough for the whole day. If you say that this is a living, I would rather want to be dead than alive.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that here I am dealing with only one small group in Canada, the superannuated civil servants, not with that vast mass of elderly people who have very little to live on. I am referring to just one group in particular, but what I have to say applies to all of them. When we think of what they have to exist on we must realize at once that their conditions are absolutely and utterly intolerable.
What has been the reaction of the government? Well, a statement was made some weeks ago by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on behalf of the government, in which at one point he said in effect that, in comparison with industrial pension payments, the superannuated civil servants were not too badly off. The fact that industrial pension schemes are inadequate is no reason for the federal government saying that that is good enough for us, and following blindly along the way generally accepted by industry. One would hope that in the matter of employment the federal government would give a lead and not follow quite so sheep-like in the footsteps of others.
Another statement which was made was that there had been a considerable contribution by the government to the pension scheme, and that therefore it was impossible to consider giving any additional money to help these people. I cannot agree with that statement. I do not believe any contribution has been made by the federal government. I think that when the federal government paid money into this fund it was, in effect, paying part of the wages which civil servants would have got, had there been no fund. And on the basis of that argument there has been no contribution of any kind, let alone what the Minister of Finance called a considerable contribution.
It has been argued that the agreement between the superannuated civil servants and the federal government is a matter of contract. It may well be; I do not know. But I doubt it. In any event, I am prepared to argue on the basis of a contract-a contract entered into, let us say, by civil servants years
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart

ago when the general standard of pay was not nearly as great as it is today. For a certain sum of money they could buy a certain quantity of goods. But obviously the dollar of today cannot buy even seventy per cent of the goods it would buy in 1938. The government, by its own deliberate policy in taking off price ceilings, has so increased prices for the people of Canada, including superannuated civil servants, that their dollar is now vorth practically half what it was before the var. This policy has been entered into deliberately by the government, and by entering into it they have caused great harm to those who live on fixed pensions in this country.
The government's answer has been No, that it would not consider a cost of living bonus for these civil servants who are now superannuated and who have received no help whatsoever through the years of the war. The government's "no" seems to be dogmatic and categorical. Nevertheless I hope the government wall reconsider its policy. After all, we shall end this budgetary or fiscal year with a surplus gi-eater than we have ever before known. There are many over there who may take pride in accumulating as surplus hundreds of millions of dollars. They would be better advised to take pride in using that surplus to improve the conditions of people in Canada, and especially the conditions of their own servants.
There is one other matter which I wish to draw to the attention of certain ministers, principally the Minister of Trade and Commerce. These matters deal with housing in various parts of the country. I intend to read extracts from certain letters, and I shall do so in good faith, though I have not been able to investigate these conditions, myself.
I have here a letter from Mrs. E. Sutherland of Fort William, Ontario, who writes on behalf of tenants of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. She states that last July those tenants were led to believe that the government houses they occupied were for sale, but that nevertheless it would be reasonable for them to expect to continue to live in these homes on a rental basis. Then, within the last few weeks those tenants have been suddenly asked either to buy or to get out. They are to be moved somewhere else, and they have not been told where they are to be moved to. I am informed by Mrs. Sutherland that the agents of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are using methods which

she says are creating a campaign of fear. These are her words:
These methods are . . . directed especially against the women of the household, so upsetting and terrifying them that they in turn force their husbands to buy against their will.
I do not say that is true, nor do I say it is false. It is an allegation which is made, and if it is true it is shameful. Therefore I would ask the government immediately to investigate the facts of the situation in Fort William. In some instances I am told tenants are being given from three to ten days to make up their minds as to whether or not they intend to buy these homes. I think most people who *buy houses these days are being rather reckless, not to say stupid, because value is not in the homes which are being built. Furthermore for the average worker the cost of a home today is such that he will be mortgaged for the rest of his life in attempting to secure ownership of the home. Houses are too dear. And, what is even worse, there is this dreadful insecurity on the part of tenants who feel that their present jobs may not last. Yet they are being forced by a government agency either to buy or to get out. I suggest that the situation needs immediate examination.
Then, I have some letters in connection with Wartime Housing Limited. We know that this company entered into contracts with municipalities throughout Canada. I thought, at the time those contracts were entered into, that perhaps those municipalities had put their names to improvident contracts. The municipalities would get only about S24 to $30 a year in taxes.
Now these same municipalities find that they have to supply lighting and educational as well as other facilities to the tenants of these houses. Naturally they want additional taxes. In a statement in the house a little more than a year and a half ago the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) said that the municipalities would get another $2 a month per house. Unfortunately it does not seem to have stopped at $2. After all, it is not the fault of the tenants if the municipalities have entered into what conceivably in law may be an improvident contract.
Surely it is not right that this creature of the government should turn around and compel tenants to pay increased taxes which the various cities and municipalities want, At this point I quote part of a letter from St. Catharines, Ontario, stating in part:
You are aware no doubt that these homes are temporary dwellings falling rapidly into deterioration for the following reasons:	They are
built on cedar posts with no foundation; they

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
are built of unseasoned lumber; they are built on the outskirts of the city -without proper drainage facilities.
I do not know what the facts are in St. Catharines, but I have suspected in other areas that these Wartime Housing homes were of a very temporary nature and that they might eventually become slums. Then, the letter contains the following suggestions:
Our appeal is based on the following headings:
1.	Tenants are not liable for taxes;
2.	The assessment of these properties is too high;
3.	The present rental is adequate to meet all tax requirements.
I believe that third statement is pretty accurate, and I can see no reason why the government should compel tenants to pay increases in taxes when probably sufficient rental accrues to the government to absorb the increased overhead.
Then we have a case in which the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) may be interested. This, too, is a Wartime Housing scheme in Vancouver. In this scheme the tenants pay about $225,000 a year in rent. Of this sum, $18,750 goes to the city in taxes. Then, $126,000 a year is allotted for administration and maintenance, and $81,000 for credit on capital account. I am told that these houses have at least had one exterior paint job and that most of them have had two interior jobs of redeeoration. Nevertheless we are faced with the fact that $126,000 for five years adds up to $630,000. And, if we assume the cost of painting and decorating to be the fanciful figure of $230,000, there is still $400,000 left, or an average of $80,000 a year to look after administration of this project. It is difficult to believe that this $80,000 a year is entirely swallowed up in administration costs. If such is the case, then obviously the administration had better be cleaned up rapidly, for it must be incompetent. But I doubt if there is such incompetence, and so it is out of the surplus which the tenants give that I think Wartime Housing Limited ought to pay the increased taxes which are asked by the city of Vancouver.
Here again I quote from a letter from Mr. J. Nuttall, secretary, wartime housing tenants committee, in which he says:
This proposed increase means hardship to many people in these homes. We can cite instances of burned-out pensioners living on $65 per month. A man (veteran of both wars) and his wife and daughter living on the daughter's earnings of $28 per week. Widows with small children receiving $50 monthly. War veterans
comprise over half of those living in these wartime homes. Names and details of these cases can be supplied on request. These people now are being presented with a new lease which states "$5 per month more to meet municipal costs" and are being forced to sign on pain of eviction from the premises. This, in our opinion, is one of the most glaring cases of callous disregard of the administration to the interests of the people.
Those may be strong words, but I rather suspect that they are well merited.
I have still another case having to do with the workers at Kenora. The information about this case was provided by the reeve of the municipality of Jaffray and Melick, who states that the workers at a local airport have been required to pay a 100 per cent increase in their rents. The matter was taken up with the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), who answered in part:
There was an upward revision of the salaries of radio operators at that time, and provision was made that these men would not suffer any reduction in "take-home pay" as a result of the increased rent, other than through deductions for income tax .and contributions to the superannuation fund.
I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman realizes how supremely cynical such a . statement is. In effect it boils down to this: The workers there were given an increase in pay so that they could pay increased rents which in turn would go back to the federal treasury. On the other hand, it is possible that the increase in pay was given to provide for the general increase in the cost of living which has been inflicted on all of us. If such is the case, then obviously it is iniquitous literally to tax all the increase out of the workers in the form of increased rent.
There are one or two more things I should like- to say on housing, particularly with reference to a speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) before the politics club of McMaster university. This is a very revealing speech indeed. The minister made clear his views on housing when he said:
I'm against subsidized housing because it would be available to a few privileged ones.
I do not know how the right hon. gentleman arrived at such a conclusion. If he has aspirations such as have been suggested in the public press I think he should become rather more familiar with the ramifications of housing in this country. Subsidized housing is designed to help underprivileged people, not the privileged ones. The submerged third of our people earn less than $1,400 a year. Those who earn such an amount of money obviously are not in a
5849-112J
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart

position, to pay the inflated prices which are asked today for new homes, neither are they in a position to pay more than $20 or, at the outside, S25 a month in rental for their families. Private enterprise today cannot and will not build houses which will renit for $25 a month. Therefore, if we are to give the submerged third of our population a chance to live in dignity and decency; if we are to get them out of the slums, obviously we have to subsidize the cost of the homes which they will inhabit. I think that is a matter which the ninister of external Effairs ought to study more dosely. Still speaking on this matter of subsi-iized housing, he goes on to say:
It would be risking temptation to put into the hands of politicians a few thousand houses which could be given to certain persons. It would be a temptation to buy votes.
I think that question comes perilously close to being a question of privilege. Of course the right lion, gentleman may know his colleagues better than I do, but I cannot think of any. member of parliament using the provision of homes merely for the purpose of buying votes. I am going to repeat what the C.C.F. has suggested with regard to a housing scheme. Having heard this, I am sure the minister of external affairs will realize that it would be impossible for a politician to give away houses as he envisages.
We suggest that there should be a housing department set up by the federal government-and that similar housing departments should be set up by the nine provinces, the federal department and the provincial departments working closely together. Working with the provincial departments there would be the municipalities and the larger zones. The municipality would- decide what homes were needed and the matter would be cleared eventually with the provincial authorities. Then the federal government would be asked to supply the money necessary to build low-cost homes all across Canada. I do not see how possibly the pork barrel which the right hon. gentleman fears could enter into such a scheme.
I am not going to discuss housing further at this moment because we shall be given an opportunity later on in the session to debate the obvious inadequacies of the government in providing homes for the people. All I say now is that I have brought certain glaring injustices to the attention of the House of Commons, particularly to the attention of the ministers concerned. I hope these injustices will be investigated and, if what I have said is true, as I believe it is, that they will be immediately rectified.

(Translation):


Mr. J. G. LEOPOLD LANGLOIS (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, along with my fellow members who have spoken in this debate, I hasten to offer my heartiest congratulations to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Lake St. John-Roberval (Mr. Dion) has shown once again how clearly and accurately he can state his views in this house.
(Text):
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) upon the overwhelming victory in the last by-election and upon the splendid contribution he has made to this debate. His maiden speech augurs well for a long and fruitful political career. I think it is proper also at this stage to say a few words about the changes which took place recently in the cabinet.
It was with deep sorrow that we witnessed the departure of the Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie. As a member of this house, I thank him most sincerely for the marvellous task he accomplished 'as the minister in charge of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and on behalf of the veterans of my riding and speaking for myself as well I wish him every success in his new political functions.
The new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) also retains the portfolio of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. Canada is fortunate indeed to have his remarkable capacities at its disposal in the present crisis. His numerous and brilliant achievements during the war as Minister of Munitions and Supply are guarantees of success for the future.
Some of our colleagues have seen fit to voice criticism of the appointment of the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) to the portfolio of fisheries. Representing as I do a riding where fisheries is one of the main industries, I say now sincerely that this appointment put the right man in the right place. The main, and most important, problem of our fishermen today is the difficulty in obtaining markets for their production. The minister has acquired valuable experience in this field as Minister of Trade and Commerce, which experience can do no less than benefit the industry as a whole. I assure the minister in the name of the fishermen of my riding that we are pleased to see him at the head of this department, and that he will have our unfailing co-operation.
We look also to the new Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) to carry out the good work of his predecessor, and I pray him to accept our best wishes in this new field.

(Translation):
In a recent debate in the Quebec legislature, certain statements were made that I wish to comment on as briefly as possible.
The first was made by the Quebec premier, during the debate on the legislation introduced by his government with a view to remedying the present housing shortage in the province of Quebec. As you are aware, ever since the right hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs, (Mr. St. Laurent), in a lecture he gave at McGill on October 27, 1947, pointed out to the Quebec premier where his duty lay in so far as that important problem was concerned, Mr. Duplessis hastened to prepare legislation which, on his own admission, is inefficient, and did so in order to satisfy public opinion aroused by the statement from the right hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
According to the press, the premier stated in the debate that Ottawa should attend to this problem because Ottawa, he claims, exports our building materials abroad. I contend that this statement is absolutely wrong and that if the Quebec premier has no better excuse to shirk his duty, he ought to look for another.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I have drawn up a list based on statistics issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, showing our exports and imports of staple building materials for 1945, 1946 and 1947. Here is the list:
Cement	Exports	Imports
Barrels (000 omitted)		
1945 	. 282-5	32-71946 	. 114-4	350-11947 	. 88-0	1248-6484-9	1631-4Surplus of imports	over exports:	1146-05Building bricks	Exports	Imports(000 omitted)	1945 	3,708-0	1,387-21946 	6,114-0	1,131-61947 	4,186-0	8,929-514.008-0	11,448-3Surplus of exports	over imports:	(000 omitted) .	... 2.559-7It should be noted that during	this period
we produced more than enough brick to
The Address-Mr. Langlois
supply all our building requirements; that explains why exports are in excess of imports. Rock wool:
(in thousands		
of squares) Exports		Imports
1945 	nil	5,993-31946 	nil	7,822-31947 	nil	5,775-419,591-0It should be noted that we have not exported any quantity of this product in 1945,	1946 and 1947.	Gypsum:	(tons)	Exports	Imports1945 	447	2.8841946 	969	7.6331947 	1,423	10,0712,839	20,5SSThis shows a surplus in- tons, 17,749.	of imports	over exportsAsphalt shingles	(in thousand units	or squares)	Exports	Imports1945 	nil	nil1946 	4-5	10-11947 	8-9	nil13-4	10-1
Here is a surplus of exports over imports of 3-3 thousand units. Domestic production was
again more	than equal to our needs.	
Radiators	(cast iron) Exports (thousand square feet)	Imports1945 	
nil	0-31946 	7-61947 	43-8nil	51-7
Let us note that there has been no export of this article during 1945, 1946 and 1947.
Glass panes (colourless)
Exports	Imports
1945	
15-3	39,803-81946	
4-3	43,724-31947	
93-1	70,227-4112-7	153,755-5Surplus of imports over exports (in thousands of square feet)	
153,642-8
The Address-Mr. Langlois

It should be noted that our exports of this item were taken exclusively from our imported	Wire nails, etc. (tons)	Exports	Importsstock.	1945 	. 814	71Paints, varnishes, etc.	1946 	. 1,270	680Exports	Imports	1947 	. 32	4,1471945	
$3,973-2 1946	
4,406-7	$8,661-8 9,436-5	2,116	4,8981947 	
7,346-2	13,441-5	Excess of imports over	exports )in thousands	$15,726-1	$31,539-8	of dollars) 15,813-7. The following is a comparison between pre-	Excess of imports over exports (in thousand	war exports and exports for 1945,	1946 anddollars) 15,813-7. Nails (tons) 	1947 of certain items: 1939 1945 8,054 814	1946 1,270	1947 32Flooring material (in thousand feet)	9,981 554	106	50Wood lath (in thousand units) 	179.060 25,981	26,193	41,700Wood shingles (units or squares) ...	2,935,349 1,651,081	1,775,216	2,050,889Wooden doors 	491,628 2,115	642	5,805
*N.B. Production of this item is more than sufficient to meet local demand.
It should be mentioned here that the bulk of exports tabulated above goes to the United States. Mr. Speaker, I must also bring to the attention of this house that our exports of structural lumber are still closely controlled by the government, so much so that our foreign trade of this commodity is practically nonexistent. For instance, to this date, Great Britain has stated her intention of purchasing, during 1948, only about one-sixth of her 1947 purchases.
Lumber (billions of bd. ft.)	
Hot-air furnaces (Units)	
Soil pipes and joints (tons)	
Cement (barrels)	
Steel pipe (tons) App	
Bricks (millions)	
Glass (thousands of sq. ft.)	
Nails (thousands of tons)	
Asphalt shingles (thousands of sq. bundles)	
But to dispose fully of the claims of the premier of the province of Quebec, I must point out here that in addition to applying a strict control on our exports of building materials, the federal government has always encouraged our producers and building materials manufacturers to increase their production. The government has even granted bonuses to manufacturers for this purpose. Statistics show that production of the chief building materials has increased considerably. Following are the figures covering the main items:
1939	1945
4	41
25,000	35,000
18,000	22,000
4,900,000	6,900,000
90,000	135,000
160	190
49	40
64	66
500	1,500
1946	1947
41	5
43,000	56,000
26,000	33,000
10,300,000	12,100,000
98,000	93,000
275	290
44	70
60	78
2,100	2,100
These figures are self-explanatory and I suggest that the premier of Quebec ponder them before making more statements such as I mentioned a few moments ago. fMr. Langlois.]
Another of the premier's claims is that during the war the federal government neglected housing. This statement is as false as the previous one. Our exports of building

The Address-Mr. Langlois
materials were then and still are strictly controlled.
Moreover the number of new houses built during the war reached the following figures:
1941		 1942			. 48,000 . 40.000
1943 		. 36.000
1944 		. 39,000
That is a total for that period -of approxi-	
mately 162,000.	
On the other hand the post-war	home-building figures are the following:
1945	
app.	48,0001946	
app.	67,0001947	
app.	78,000
(and quite possibly 80,000)
Which gives us a total figure for that period of approximately 163,000.
Between 1941 and 1947, Wartime Housing alone, a dominion government company, has built a total of 31,192 houses.
Let Mr. Duplessis do but a third of what the dominion government has done to meet the housing problem and it will no longer be a problem in our province.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: It appears that in that same debate the hon. the minister of youth and social welfare in the Quebec cabinet, realizing that his leader was on rather weak ground, rushed to the rescue with the following statement, which I quote from the newspaper Le Soleil of February 25, 1948:
The leader of the opposition then spoke of our country's wiar effort, said Mr. iSauve, and he maintained that this effort had been considerable. I will go further 'and claim thait this effort has been "appalling." Those who at the time sounded the alarm were branded' as traitors. But at Washington and in, other countries, it is now said that our war effort has been irrational. For my part, I would say that in men -and blood, our contribution to the war effort has been criminal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame!


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The press has it that, following this contribution by Mr. Sauve, Mr. Chaloult, member for Quebec county, rose to congratulate him for showing such courage in making that statement. What a compliment! What a - wonderful example of bravery!
Mr. Speaker, I knew Mr. Sauve from having heard him praised as a veteran and especially as a major in the Canadian army and as second in command of the Fusiliers Mont Royal with whom he landed in France to join the Canadian armed forces after the battle of Caen. I must say, however, that since he made that statement last week, I know him a great deal better. I have, however, a few questions to put to him.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is not here.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Could you, Mr. Sauve, have summoned enough courage to make that same statement to your men before they landed in France, especially before they took part in the glorious battle of Falaise? Would you have had the courage to tell your soldiers before the French campaign in which they took so valiant a part, that the help they were receiving from their country in that bloody conflict, was, in your estimation, irrational and even criminal?
Would you have had enough courage to tell them that you were prepared to send them into action without first making sure there were sufficient reinforcements to fill the ga-ps in their ranks.
I must stress at this point that the hon. Air. Sauve is also brigadier and commanding officer of the 10th Canadian reserve brigade and I am wondering whether he is not assuming the role of a new Dr. Jelcyll and Mr. Hyde. If he can indulge in the antics of a dual personality, one as brigadier in the Canadian army and the other as follower of the Union Nationale, for my part I have no objections. However, if his personal convictions conflict with the obligations consequent upon either of these duties, there is but one course open to him, and I should not have to tell him what to do. The people he serves have a right to expect him to take a stand one way or the other.
It is most unpleasant to -refer to the Hon. Mr. Sauve in such fashion but in view of his statement, it must be pointed out to him that our veterans and the people in general impatiently await the explanation or gesture that they expect of him, and rightly so.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Hear, hear.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, viewing the matter from another standpoint. I would ask
The Address-Mr. Langlois

the Hon. Mr. Sauve to compare his statement with the words which were spoken by his leader, Hon. Mr. Duplessis, on October 28, 1944, and reported in L'Action Catholique of the same date. At the time, the Hon. Mr. Duplessis was campaigning for the 7th victory loan, and the Quebec paper L'Action Catholique quotes him as follows:
Once again, said Mr. Duplessis, I am asking civil servants to subscribe freely and generously in order to top, as far as possible, the target set for them. To all intents and purposes, theirs is a good investment. Under the present circumstances, continued Mr. Duplessis, were it necessary for me to borrow money so that I might lend iit to my country, I would gladly do so.
Logically, Mr. Sauve should now blame his leader for having, in the words I have just quoted, encouraged such an irrational and criminal war effort. Mr. Speaker, I pointed out a moment ago that Mr. Rene Chaloult, on that occasion, had spoken in praise of Mr. Sauve's brave and even heroic attitude.
Mr. Chaloult's statement was no doubt meant to prime his own courage for the next day's debate on his motion regarding immigration. It has to be granted that it called for exceptional courage to criticize a great Canadian who has been dead for nearly thirty years.
In answer to Mr. Chaloult's remarks, I shall quote from a report of his own speech as it appeared in Le Devoir of February 26. I am forced to quote from a newspaper because the Quebec legislature has no Hansard and only Mr. Chaloult's new leader is fortunate enough to have a dictaphone in his desk to record his speeches.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The records are not yet on the market but it is said that in the near future they will be a serious threat to our best producers of popular music and boogie-woogie.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: And Frank Sinatra.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I will mention only a few of Mr. Chaloult's statements to show that telling the truth, the whole truth, is the least of his worries.


Benoît Michaud: Hear, hearl


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Here is the first of these statements on which I want to comment. I quote textually from Le Devoir:
I note with sadness, says Mr. Chaloult, that the strongest immigration movements took place

while' a French Canadian guided the destinies of our country.
That statement is absolutely false, and I shall prove it. Mass immigration to Canada did not begin in 1896 during the Laurier regime, as Mr. Chaloult contends, but in 1871 as shown by the following statistics:
From 1871 to 1881, 362,893 immigrants entered Canada, or 90,233 more than the natural increase in population during that decade. From 1881 to 1891, 920,351 immigrants settled in Canada, that is 179,351 more than the natural increase in population during the same period.
It should be noted that in this period of twenty years, the number of immigrants admitted to Canada exceeded by 279,584 the normal increase in our population. Mr. Chaloult, however, does not mention that period, because he is well aware that a Conservative administration was in power throughout those 20 years except when the Liberals took over between 1873 and 1878 under Prime Minister A. MacKenzie.
Turning to the 1891-1911 period covering the next two decades, during which Sir Wilfrid Laurier held the post of prime minister for 15 years, we find that contrary to Mr. Chaloult's claims, our increase in population exceeded by 314,970 the number of immigrants admitted to Canada throughout those years. In the light of these figures, will Mr. Chaloult still try to claim that under the Laurier administration, immigration was carried out on a larger scale than under earlier or later governments? ,
Furthermore, I shall shortly quote figures that will show Mr. Chaloult that even in the midst of war, the number of immigrants admitted to Canada between 1911 and 1921 under a Tory administration exceeded by 396.694 the normal increase in our population. Here are the figures: immigrants, 1,472,694; natural increase, 1,076,000.
If we consider this 1911 to 1921 period, under a Conservative government, as against the 1921 to 1931 period, under a Liberal administration, with a few months interruption, we find that under the latter government, the number of immigrants was 195,710 less than the natural increase. Mr. Chaloult has thus deliberately altered the facts and I believe I have demonstrated it adequately.

The Address-Mr. Lcmglois
The second excerpt I wish to quote from Mr. Chaloult's speech is the following and again it is taken from Le Devoir. Referring still to the allegedly nefarious Laurier government, the newspaper quotes Mr. Chaloult as follows:
The scum and riff-raff from the London dockside, men with criminal records and Douk-hobors were brought to Canada at great expense, while great care was taken to eliminate any French or even Latin immigration.
If only Mr. Chaloult were concerned with telling the truth, he would have added that the Doukhobors came to Canada in 1900, it is true, but only after a precedent had been set in 1873, under a Tory government. The Doukhobors were in fact preceded by the Mennonites. Some of these had already come from Pennsylvania to settle in Ontario at the beginning of 1800, but the real immigration of Mennonites from Southern Russia began in 1873 in the west, mainly in Manitoba. The Conservative government of the day, Sir John A. Macdonald being premier, passed an order in council, P.C. 957, dated August 13, 1873, authorizing the entry of Mennonites under very special conditions. They were, among other things, exempted from military service and allowed to create their own educational system. That order in council, kept secret until 1940, created the precedent whereby order in council P.C. 2747 was passed on December 6, 1898, permitting the entry of Doukhobors under conditions practically similar. Therefore, if Mr. Chaloult can blame Sir Wilfrid Laurier for having brought Doukhobors here, he must, in fairness, add that such entry had been permitted by a former Tory government which created a precedent in favour of the Mennonites. Mr. Chaloult quoted a little later some figures relating to immigration since the end of the last conflict, mentioning, for instance, that in 1947, out of 64,000 immigrants who entered Canada, 38,000 were from the British isles. I do not know where Mr. Chaloult has taken his information, but I can say that it is absolutely inaccurate and does not tell the whole' story. To substantiate this latter assertion, I need only say that since the end of the war we have granted entry in Canada, from the British isles, to 43,447 war brides and 20,992 children born of marriages between our Canadian soldiers and British girls, or a total of 64,439. Mr. Chaloult also forgets to mention that among these wives and children there
were a good many whose husbands or fathers were French Canadians from our regiments in the province of Quebec.
Continuing his argument against the dominion government about immigration, Mr. Chaloult stated that this government had even placed planes at the disposal of Ontario's premier to speed up British immigration in this country.
This statement is absolutely false, and he knows it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Drew had chartered foreign planes to carry those immigrants to Canada. However, when told that the planes could not land on Canadian territory as a result of previous agreements, he was forced to make new arrangements through Trans-Canada Air Lines for the transport of only one-third of the immigrants he was bringing into Canada. I may add that Mr. Drew paid out of his own pocket for both the foreign planes and those supplied by Trans-Canada Air Lines. The dominion government therefore did not incur any expenses for the transportation of these immigrants.
Mr. Chaloult then blamed the dominion government for placing all sorts of obstacles in the way of French immigrants to Canada. I challenge Mr. Chaloult to quote any section of our immigration act or any departmental regulation preventing Frenchmen from coming to Canada as immigrants. Our immigration act does not discriminate either in favour of some privileged class of immigrants, or against immigrants from France or Belgium.
Moreover, immigration offices are maintained by our dominion in Paris, Brussels, The Hague and Rome for the nationals of those different countries. Mr. Chaloult would promote French immigration into Canada but remarks such as he made in 1947 when he denounced what he described as French interference with education in the province of Quebec are hardly conducive to bringing more French immigrants into this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I now quote two Quebec daily newspapers on Mr. Chaloult's statement. Here is Le Soleil of April 10, 1947, and this is what I find in a letter to the editor written by Mr. Vincent Brosseau:
Unwittingly, Mr. Chaloult is playing into the hands of the promoters of the disparaging campaign against France which started a few months ago and has gained new momentum
The Address-Mr. Langlois

since the Fourth Republic signed with the British the entente cordiale of Dunkirk. How s'ad it is that French Canadians should belittle the country of their forebears.
The next quotation comes from Le Canada, and is dated April 12 of the same year. Here is an excerpt from a Paris dispatch written by Mr. Raymond Grenier and bearing the heading: "Canadian students in Paris denounce Mr. R. Chaloult's attitude towards France".
The recent peculiar attacks against France by Mr. Rene Chaloult, nationalist representative in the Quebec legislature, have been a great shock to Canadians living in Paris. In a statement to the French press, a large number of university students, -writers and artists from Canada have stated that they were left dumbfounded by such a diatribe, because they are well placed to ascertain its extraordinarily rank stupidity, although they could scarcely expect anything better from its 'author.
What publicity for a man who wishes to bring French immigrants into Canada.


Benoît Michaud: Hear! Hear!


J. G. Léopold Langlois: To come back to Mr. Chaloult, the latter has further suggested that the proposal of La Chambre de Commerce de Montreal to organize French immigration into the country be considered. Mr. Chaloult, however, hastened to add that he did not want to commit himself on the matter. This is quite typical of his unproductive and vociferous patriotism, proving once more that he is unable to live up to his responsibilities. Rather than assuming this negative stand, Mr. Chaloult would be better advised to accept the conclusions of an editorial in L'Action Calholique of October 24, 1946, under the signature of Mr. Georges-Henri Daigneau. I shall quote only the last paragraph of this editorial entitled: "Call to the Rescue".
In any event, the only conclusion one may draw from all this is that the province of Quebec should organize its own immigration in order to bring to Canada Europeans who are c-apable of becoming French-speaking Canadians and of offsetting the flow of AngloJSaxons which the English provinces have called in to their rescue.
Mr. Chaloult turns next to the proposed admission of displaced persons, which he objects to. In reply I could say that, in allowing this type of immigration, Canada is only doing its duty. The following quotation is proof enough of that.
L'Action Catholique of November 6, His Excellency Archbishop Joseph Charbonneau,

speaking as guest speaker of the Chambre de Commerce de Montreal as follows:
Bis Excellency Archbishop Joseph Charbonneau, who was guest speaker yesterday at the midday meeting of the chamber of commerce of Montreal in the Windsor hotel, gave his support to a policy of selective immigration, which -would enable thousands of unfortunate Europeans, now without shelter and living in miserable conditions, to associate themselves with us in order further to develop our ancestral heritage, without, in so doing, endangering our traditions or institutions. In taking this stand, -the Archbishop of Montreal was expressing an opinion expressed by His Holiness Pope Rius XII in -a recent speech, in which he said that because of its vastness and immense resources America was capable of providing a haven for great numbers of Europeans.


James Horace King: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that he has used up his time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Mr. CAOUETTE:: Continue to read.


James Horace King: If the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


David Réal Caouette: Who prepared that speech?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I would rather read my speech than talk nonsense as does my hon. friend in this house.


David Réal Caouette: Who prepared that
speech?
An. hon. MEMBER: Who prepares the letters that you people sign?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is reading his speech word for word; it is not very interesting.


Mr. LESAGE:: No, he does not read, he merely follows his notes.


David Réal Caouette: He has read his speech from the very beginning.
(Text) [DOT]


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I am quoting figures and statistics. I hope my hon. friends will be generous and give me a chance to complete what I am saying. I have been quoting quite a few paragraphs from newspapers also.


James Horace King: I would suggest that the hon. member now conclude his remarks. (Translation) [DOT]


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to conclude but before doing so I wish to quote

The Address-Mr. Langlois
from L'Action Catholique which stated further in the same report:
What should we do to fulfil our paramount duty of Christian hospitality, asks the Archbishop of Montreal. We should imitate the Good Samaritan and welcome those who are hungry, who are cold, in a word, those who are shelterless. And the archbishop added: Our country is so rich, so grand. For the development of our heritage those friendly people could help us, without any threat to our institutions and our traditions being thereby involved.
One last quotation which I take from the Canadian Register of January 18, 1947, gives the opinion of His Eminence James Cardinal McGuigan, on this important subject. He
said:
(Text):
I warmly welcome Mi's. Roosevelt's plea that freedom-loving countries should do their share in affording sanctuary to those whose forced repatriation would mean their victimization for political and even for religious views.
During many centuries when the administration of justice was harsh .and uncertain the Catholic church permitted her now sacred buildings to be used for sanctuary, even sometimes by the guilty. Today it is not only the sentiments of mercy, but the obligations of justice and humanity that compel us, following the example of our Holy Father the Pope to lift up our voices in favour of a policy of international co-operation and1 hospitality to meet the urgent needs of many thousands of displaced persons whose plight is desperate.
The Canadian Register adds:
This statement of Cardinal McGuigan echoed and endorsed by seven archbishops across Canada should end once and for all the mistaken impression that the Catholics of this country are opposed to immigration. The truth is the opposite, for the very principles and doctrines of Christianity impel Catholics to desire that their country shall do its full share in offering sanctuary to those who are homeless and countryless. All men are brothers in Christ .and sons of God. and the hearts of all true Christians will go out toward their destitute and despairing brethren of no matter what race or church affiliation.
(Translation) [DOT]
Mr. Speaker, I wish to add only a few words. With your consent and that of the hon. members, I should like to go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Needless to say I prefer the attitude taken by the religious leaders whom I have just quoted to that of our blatant patriot from Quebec.
Mr. Chaloult ended his long list of alleged injustices by the dominion government against French Canadians by stating that we had only one deputy minister in the whole federal
administration. Mr. Chaloult is unaware or forgets that there are French Canadians with the title of deputy minister or the equivalent at the head of the following departments or departmental branches in Ottawa:
Transport, Mr. Brassard; Agriculture, Mr. Bouchard; Justice, Mr. Stein; National Defence, Mr. C. Mathieu; External Affairs, Mr. Beaudry; Labour, Mr. Ranger; Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Castonguay; King's Printer, Mr. Cloutier; Clerk of the House, Dr. Beauchesne; Librarian, Mr. Desrochers; Archives, Mr. Lanctot; Civil Service Commission, Mr. Thivierge. Others could be added.
Moreover, Mr. Chaloult is quite unaware that we also have in the diplomatic service the following French Canadians with the title of ambassadors or ministers:
The Honourable Victor Dore, Brussels; Chas. Hebert, Havana; Laureys, Denmark; Maurice Pope, Berlin; LaFleche, Athens; Turgeon, Dublin; Desy, Rome; Dupuy, Holland; Vaillancourt, Yugoslavia, and finally, as consul general in Chicago, Mr. Turcotte.
Mr. Chaloult forgets also that we have in the government of our country three parliamentary assistants out of a total of nine, that is in the departments of Labour, National Defence and Finance.
Finally, he forgets that out of eighteen members of the cabinet, six are French Canadians, namely the ministers of External Affairs and Public Works, the Postmaster General, the Minister of Transport, the Solicitor General and the minister of National Health and Welfare.
Mr. Chaloult therefore does not tell the truth and I see no reason to bring evidence in order to prove that the rest of his statement is not according to facts.
As to his insults against Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I shall not dwell upon them. Suffice it to say that they come from a man who, a certain day, has tried to blacken his own constituents. I have nothing to add to the judgment passed by history on Sir Wilfrid Laurier but I may say to the man who has tried to tarnish his memory that he has nothing to fear from history. His name will not be mentioned.
Mr. Chaloult concluded his remarks by an appeal to members of the Union Nationale, of the Bloc Populaire and Social Creditors to join their forces against the Liberals in the province of Quebec. The same appeal had come a few days before from a too well known Ontario pastor, in the Gospel Witness of February 19.
Obviously they both have a common objective. They wish to cripple a man who brought
The Address-Mr. Langlois

so much credit upon us all since he began his political career, the right hon. minister of External Affairs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Thus by pure accident, the Quebec pastor and the Ontario pastor found an identical providential mission.


James Horace King: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he has already spoken forty minutes and the house graciously granted him a few additional minutes to conclude his speech. Although the hon. member has been speaking for ten minutes since, he is still bringing forth new arguments.
'Text):


J. G. Léopold Langlois: If hon. members will allow me, I shall finish in two minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.
( Translation):


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I must, however, assure my English speaking friends that the second has no more importance than the first in his province. Mr. Chaloult and Mr. Duplessis are therefore organizing another masquerade for for the coming elections.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


J. G. Léopold Langlois: We will surely see all hues and colours, because it must be recalled that Mr. Chaloult's appeal for the formation of a new kind of Quebec underground came but a few days after the visit to Quebec of the Premier of Ontario, Mr. Drew. It will undoubtedly be said that Mr. Drew's visit and Mr. Chaloult's subsequent statement have no connection, but the people will soon find out differently. It is my duty to uncover the plot that is being hatched in my province and to point out the object of Mr. Drew's visit to Quebec. The trip was obviously timed a few days before Mr. Chaloult's statement so that the representative of the nation's big financial interests could make the petty arrangements required to cover the expenses entailed by this masquerade. Mr. Chaloult therefore blundered as did a Conservative party organizer during the last dominion election campaign when the latter unmasked the independent candidates by informing the press that they were really Conservative nominees. Once again, Mr. Chaloult and his leader, Mr. Duplessis, have shown that they truly fear the enormous ascendancy the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs is gaining not only over the people of his own province but over the

population of the whole of Canada. They fear this man whom one of our distinguished bishops of the Province of Quebec recently cited as an example to the youth of his diocese and of the whole province.
I am speaking on behalf of all my colleagues from Quebec on this side of the house when I say that we do not fear any attacks from the Drew-Duplessis-Chaloult organization against the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have no hesitation in telling these gentlemen, on behalf of my colleagues, that if they want a fight, we are ready for them, either in the federal or the provincial field.
I must assure the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he may rely on the full co-operation of all Quebec members. May I say to him in their name: We Canadians from Quebec are proud to have you as our leader, we are proud to fight by your side and we are sure of victory because we know that our province needs you, that our country needs you, that the whole world needs you.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
(Text):


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, although I must admit that I did not follow much of what was said by the hon. member who preceded me, I promise you that I shall not impose on your good nature, or upon the good nature of members of the house, as he has done.
Speaking as the representative of Yukon Territory, I would remind the house that Yukon is the only federal territory that has a representative in parliament. The government of Yukon is administered by a controller. He is not an elected officer; he is appointed by the governor in council of the dominion or, in other words, by the dominion government. The controller operates directly under the authority of the Department of Mines and Resources; his minister is the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen).
Yukon was originally part of the Northwest Territories; but in 1896, because of the importance of that part of the Northwest Territories and the great wealth that was coming out from the gold mines, this parliament by an act called the Yukon Act, created Yukon Territory. That Yukon Act is the constitution of Yukon. Among other things that constitution provides for a local legislature known as the Yukon council which has relatively the same powers as the legislature of a province. It can legislate with respect to all

The Address-Mr. G. Blajck
matters concerning property and civil rights, and anyone who knows anything of law knows the wide range of subjects those words cover.
In Yukon, as in the provinces and as here in the dominion, legislation can become law only with the assent of the controller in the case of Yukon, of the lieutenant-governor in the case of a province and of the governor general in the case of the dominion. This assent is seldom withheld, but to the disappointment of the electors and people of Yukon the assent of the controller was withheld in connection with legislation passed in recent years. That assent was withheld not because the legislation was ultra vires or beyond the powers of the council to enact; it was withheld simply because it did not suit the wishes of the controller or conform to his whims. He reserved his assent to legislation which was intended to break the bonds of dictatorship and loosen the stranglehold which an official of the federal government had on the public of that territory. Rather than see that power reduced, rather than see that power controlled, assent was withheld and the governor in council promptly disallowed the legislation.
Yukon has had a representative in parliament for forty-six years, and I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that in forty-two years out of those forty-six Yukon has been represented by a supporter of the Conservative party. Two Liberal members represented the territory for two years each, or a total of four years. Why have the people of Yukon for the most part supported members of the opposition? It is not because the great majority were supporters of the Conservative party. Conservative candidates in Yukon, including myself, would not have been elected) had it not been for the support received from supporters of the Liberal party.
Why have the Liberals not supported their own party? It is because they resent the type of government which that party has given the territory. The two elections which Liberal candidates did win were won only by gross fraud, by the padding of voters' lists and the stuffing of ballot boxes. I know that happened, because I was there. Any oldtimer will agree with me that that is one of the reasons they have never been able to elect a member.
In those days the mining laws of Yukon were enacted by orders in council passed here in Ottawa by people who were thousands of miles away from the mines and w'ho knew nothing about mining. Those laws were subject to secret changes overnight. The mining law would be something today and something else tomorrow, and the miners up there would
not know what it was. I have seen miles of valuable mining claims banned from staking or recording by orders in council passed here in Ottawa. Then another order in council would be passed throwing the land open for locating at midnight of a certain day. That tvord would get up there to the supporters of the government, but the general public would not know anything about it until all the valuable mining property had been staked.
That is one reason why they do not send Liberal members to parliament. You would think that experience would teach the government that if they want the support, the respect and the friendship of the people of Yukon they would mend their ways. But what happened only at the last session of this parliament? At that time a grievous wrong was done to the people of Yukon and the people of the adjoining Mackenzie district. By fhe Redistribution Act the district of Mackenzie was added to Yukon, notwithstanding the unanimous protests by the people of that district. They did not want it.
How did it start? I have my own idea and I shall be glad to be corrected if I am wrong. However, I know I am not. The Minister of Mines and Resources went up to Yellowknife, that important mining camp in the district of Mackenzie, along with some of his officials. The people there told him that they had not sufficient population to have a representative in parliament, but they claimed also that Yukon Territory had never had sufficient population to entitle it to representation in parliament, that it w'as only because of its importance as a producer of wealth that representation was given. The people of Yellowknife said, "Why not give us similar representation?" They were encouraged by the Minister of Mines and Resources to expect that.
But what did they get? They got tied onto Yukon, something which they did not want. They petitioned parliament and they wrote and telegraphed the minister to stop it. They told him that they would rather remain without representation that be tied onto Yukon, an impossible combination. They asked the Minister of Mines and Resources for bread and he gave them a stone. Those people resent that. This government and the minister will find how they resent it at the next general election. The government will not get support for their party by adopting tactics like that. You cannot expect people to be grateful after that kind of treatment.
That wrong could be righted if the government wished to do it. The Minister of Mines and Resources could say to his colleagues in the cabinet, "We had better amend the act
The Address-Mr. G. Black

and do away with the addition of Mackenzie to Yukon". They could put that amendment through parliament and give those people what they want and what they should have. It is not too late to right the wrong that has been done.
What treatment have the veterans in Yukon had? It is nothing for any government to be proud of. This is the third session since the war in which I have called the attention of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the government and this house to the shabby treatment the veterans of Yukon are getting. For some reason or another the officials charged with the administration of the Veterans Land Act ruled that that act does not apply to Yukon. In the debate on the Veterans Land Act on August 1, 1946,1 quoted section 7 of the act, which can be found at page 4214 of Hansard:
The director may, for the purposes of this act,
(a)	purchase by agreement, at prices which to him shall seem reasonable, or
(b)	in any other manner acquire by consent or agreement from His Majesty in the right of Canada or from any province or municipal authority, or from any person, firm or corporation, such lands and buildings situate in any part of Canada and such other property including building materials, live stock, farm equipment and commercial fishing equipment as the director may deem necessary.
Surely that is broad enough language and wide enough wording to include Yukon when it says, "any part of Canada." You cannot imagine any informed official so ignorant as to know so little geography as not to know that Yukon is in Canada. The act says "any part of Canada", and yet they do not apply it to the Yukon. They will not apply it. In order that all doubt might be removed and the act applied to Yukon I then moved this amendment; before coming into the house that afternoon I submitted it to the minister at the head of the department and he agreed to accept it. This is the amendment:
That there be added to section 35 the following:
"The director with the approval of the minister may acquire, convey, transfer, agree to acquire, convey, transfer land in Yukon territory including land within Dawson, Whitehorse and Mayo and subject to the provisions of this act and regulations made under this act may grant to veterans residing in Yukon amounts not exceeding the amount stated in subsection
3	of section 35 of this act, such grants to be used only for the purposes enumerated in subsection
4	of section 35 of this act."

I said:
I think that will set at rest any doubts which the administrators of the act, and perhaps the minister, may have.
Then the minister, now gone to that other place for his long rest, in his own polite way said:
May I thank the hon. member for Yukon for his customary courteous presentation of his argument. He was kind enough to send me notice of his amendment late this afternoon. It is quite true that the department has been giving extensive study to the situation in Yukon. I-think, however, it is only fair to the administration that my colleagues should have an opportunity for further study of the situation. I promise the hon. member that if he will be kind enough not to press the amendment tonight we will go most carefully into the situation which he has so clearly and, to my mind, convincingly presented. It does mean, though, a departure in principle from the Veterans Land Act. It means that the grant of $2,320 is made available for urban housing in Yukon where, as my hon. friend and I know, there are not extensive tracts of land available for settlement.
As a matter of fact, that would not be a departure in principle from the act; it would be a departure from the method of administration. Yukon is not urban. The whole of Yukon and all the settlements in it are rural, and it is a rural constituency in the election. The minister then said:
As my hon. friend and I know, there are not extensive tracts of land available for settlement-
In Yukon. I say there are extensive tracts of land on which to build dwellings in which to house all Yukon veterans who wish to take advantage of the act.
The minister said further:
If the house is so minded, we had hoped to get third reading of the bill tonight. I would give my hon. friend and his constituents through him the assurance that the suggestion he lias made tonight will be given most careful consideration during the recess.
Well, he considered it until he ceased to be a member of the house. I brought it up again on March 10, 1947, and I shall not repeat it except to quote my closing remarks. Having quoted the act and advanced the rights of the veterans in Yukon, these were my last words at that session, as reported at page 1210 of Hansard:
I would regret to have to conclude that the reason why nothing has been done for the veterans in Yukon is the lack of interest on *the part of the minister, notwithstanding his promised consideration.
Lack of interest is the whole thing. They are too far away from the government. They

The Address-Mr. G. Black
have only one member to come here to bother them. There is no war on. These men are not so important to the government as they were a few years ago, and that brings to mind this rhyme of Kipling, in which he said:
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, and "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please:
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool-you bet that Tommy sees!
The Tommies up in Yukon see this government; they see the unjust treatment or lack of treatment that they are getting from it, and they resent the studied callous neglect of their problems. They do not ask this government or any minister of the government for favours; they ask only what the law allows them and the same treatment that veterans in other parts of Canada get. I say it is outrageous that they do not get it.
For the moment I shall refer to the Post Office Department. In the post office at Dawson the staff consists of three men, the postmaster and two assistants. They are all war veterans, splendid men, industrious and have always the best interests of the public at heart, no matter how inconvenient it may be to serve them. Of the government employees in Yukon the employees of the Post Office Department are the most poorly paid. Why that should be I do not know. The officials in other departments of the dominion government in Yukon are paid appropriate salaries and wages. It is reported to me that some of them are even over-staffed, but the employees of the Post Office Department are certainly underpaid. Take the post office building in the towm of Whitehorse in Yukon. It is a disgrace to any government; it is properly described as a shack, almost tumbling down. The people of the town are ashamed to have visitors see it as the federal building in that town.
A couple of years ago the Postmaster General had blueprints prepared showing a magnificent structure which was to be the federal building and house the post office. At this session I asked him when the building was to erected. He said, "Oh, not for some time to come, not until labour and building materials are available." Every hon. member knows that labour and- building materials are available if they want them. Buildings are going up in- that town by private enterprise. What is the reason this building is not being erected? This may not be an election year. If it turns out to be
one they will probably start to erect the buildings, hoping to get votes in that way, but they cannot dangle a bait such as that before .the people of Yukon; they are not for sale.
Another wrong that rankles and annoys the people of that territory is the administration of the Civil Service Superannuation Act. That is the act under which contributions are made by federal government employees to a fund to which the government also contributes to build up a pension fund, a superannuation fund. The act reads:
Every person to whom this part applies-
And it applies to all the federal employees in Yukon.
-shall by reservation from his salary contribute five pe-r cent of such salary to -the consolidated revenue fund.
What is "salary" as interpreted by the act? "The salary of a contributor means regular salary paid in respect of his services, together with the value of living and residential allowance." Both these items compose his salary or remuneration. When that act came into effect as long ago as 1924 it was put up to the Department of Justice to give an interpretation and to say whether a man getting a salary of, say $1,000, plus a living allowance of $1,600, must-regard that $2,500 as his salary, as defined by the act, and pay five per cent on the $2,500 or only on the $1,000. The Department of Justice said that he must pay on the $2,500, and- he paid it and was glad to pay.
Then the time came when a little group or coterie of employees left Yukon and went where they did not get a living allowance but a straight .salary. They conceived the cunning idea of getting back the money that had gone into that superannuation fund; and-can you imagine this?-the Department of Justice swallowed itself, reversed its decision, and said that the living allowance was no part of the salary, and gave them back their five per cent from a fund they had no right to touch. After that they did not assess the continuing employees on anything but that part of their remuneration -termed "salaries," and when those employees retired and were superannuated they received a much smaller pension than they would otherwise have got and which they would have gladly bought for themselves.
That is the interpretation put on that act by the department which has the administration of retiring salaries. -But what interpretation does the Department of National Revenue put on it, where they reach out and take income tax? The whole sum of this man's pay is $1,000,
The Address-Mr. G. Black

his salary, and his living allowance is $1,500. The total is properly and correctly, by that department, termed "income," and he pays income tax on it, whereas next door the other department says it is not income at all. Can you imagine such inconsistency between two departments of government working together? It is not salary for superannuation but it is salary for the collection of income tax. And then you wonder why this government is not popular with the people of Yukon, when it uses its own employees in that way.
That is not a worn-out grievance. It is true the act was passed in 1924; but it will be a wound, an unhealed sore, as long as the government has a federal employee in Yukon Territory. As I said before, one would think the government and the ministers would learn from experience. But wffiat is happening now?
Here is one of the Yukon mining acts, an act that regulates the mining of lode gold, and it contains this provision:
7S. The recorded owner of a mineral claim shall have a survey thereof made at his own expense by a duly qualified dominion land surveyor under instructions from the surveyor general within one year from the date upon which notification by the minister to do so may be sent to him.
2.	Such notification shall not be given until the expiration of at least one year from the date upon which the claim was recorded.
3.	If the survey is not made, and if the returns of such survey are not received and approved by the surveyor general within one year from the date of notification, the entry granted for the mineral claim shall be subject to immediate cancellation in the discretion of the minister.
That section is there in the act, passed by this parliament, but it was never intended that any minister should use it in that dictatorial way. There has not been a dominion land surveyor resident or practising in Yukon for the past ten years, and I doubt -whether in the whole dominion there are 100 dominion land surveyors. The provinces own their own lands and have their own provincial surveyors, but a provincial land.1 surveyor would not have authority in that territory. It would have to be done by a dominion land surveyor, and the minister has caused these notices to be sent to these claim owners under the threat that if they do not do as the notice requires then their claims are liable to cancellation at his whim.
Take the case of a claim where the prospective purchaser can come and say to the claim owner, "Have that claim surveyed, or we will drop the option, or you will lose the claim, and if you cannot afford to survey it we will have it surveyed and cut the price in half to you."

This is the weapon which the ill-advised policy of the minister has put in the hands of the big fellow, to bully and bludgeon the little fellow, perhaps to break him, perhaps to ruin him. It should not be done, and I hope the * minister will wake up to the wrong he is doing these people and call it off. That is another reason why the government is not popular in Yukon, and I think hon. members will agree that the government should not be popular under tb.ese circumstances.
Before I leave that, I do not want hon. members to think the people of Yukon are not alarmed at this latest manoeuvre of the minister of mines. Here is a telegram that has come to me from the telegraph office of Carmacks, Yukon Territory, under date of February 18:
We the undersigned prospectors are the original discoverers of -all gold lode deposits found to date within the Mount Freegohl -and Nansen areas of Carmacks district. We hereby vigorously protest the authorization by the minister of mines of the issuing of notices to the recorded owners of quartz mining claims making imperative a survey by dominion land surveyor within one year from date of notification. -Since 1940 in spite of depression, war -and lack of governmental assistance of any nature whatsoever we have continued to develop our properties and we have collectively paid into -the recorder's office in excess of $10,000 in recording and renewal fees -alone. Placing of the Canadian dollar on a parity basis h-as put gold mining across Canada in the doldrums and has pu-t the undersigned on the rocks. This action of *the minister means certain- -ruin and irreparable loss to all the undersigned. Repeated -appeals for improvement of the glorified moose trails called roads have been met with bureaucratic -indifference and -appeals for assistance in other ways have been answered by an eloquent silence. No surer method could be devised- to drive the pioneer Yukon prospectors from the field than to enforce this ruling of the minister. Point out one single mining field in Yukon located by representatives of any mining or exploration company. Frequent requests have been made by pioneer prospectors -that there be made available copper plaques to be -affixed to claim stakes e-ach pl-aque bearing a number, etc., duly recorded in the -recorder's records thus providing a permanent -reference for all. The action secured from the territorial government on these requests h-as been nil. The undersigned feel that a true expression of the opinion of all owners of mining claims should be -arrived at through a plebiscite in Yukon before this rilling of the ministers is made effective thereby -affording an example of democracy in -action. Petitions of protest -are being prepared through Yukon. iSgd. W. J. Langh-am, E. J. Forrest, George Fairclough, P. F. Ruber, Angus McLeod, Wm. Forbes. Jack Carpenter, George McDad-a, Alf Brown. O-rloff King, John C-arlson, Frank Goul-ter, William Te-are, Karl Paulsen, Gordon Dixon.
A plebiscite! They do not realize that the minister and- the government apparently care

The Address-Mr. G. Blajzk
nothing at all for public opinion. To show that the minister knows, and his department knows, how difficult and, in fact, impossible it would be to have these surveys maide within the time limit stipulated in these notices, I will turn to a pamphlet which his department has- just issued on, the Alaska highway, giving information, and very good information, as to the situation there. Listen to this section:
Normally, public or crown lands in Yukon territory are disposed of by sale or by lease.
At the present time, however, on account of lack of surveys, only "permission to occupy'' is being given in the case of lands situated along the Alaska highway on which buildings are to be erected . . .
They cannot even get surveyors to survey their own property. How do they expect that to be done by these miners who are notified and threatened that if they do not do it within a year and have the survey accepted by the surveyor general, their claims will be cancelled?
Yukon is strictly a mining country. Gold was found there first in quantity on August 17. 1896, fifty-two years ago, and millions are still being produced. To date the production of minerals has been approximately as follow's:
Gold	 $300,000,000
Silver	 25,000,000
Lead	 a,000,000
Copper	 3,000,000

Silver mining is just getting into its stride, and, in addition to that, $30,000,000 million of silver and lead produced, within the next few years production will be trebled and quadrupled. Yukon has valuable deposits of coal, but up to date coal has not been properly mined. Realizing the shortage of fuel there, one of the mining companies put up a proposition to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), who. from my experience of him, is a man of vision and of action, pointing out that they might not have funds enough to develop that coal commercially. The minister obtained particulars. He had his engineer go and look at the property. He discussed the matter with other ministers; he discussed it with me as the member representing Yukon, and he agreed to support that company with government funds until the mine came into production. I am happy to say that it is now in production and that the support which the minister offered will not be needed. They can get along under their own steam. But that incident showed vision and action on the part of the minister, and ,1 only wish that another department I know of were under his management.
Yukon imports practically everything the people use. It produces such minerals as gold, silver, lead, copper and zinc. It imports food, clothing, tools, lumber, oil and gasoline. For over fifty years Yukon has been a splendid market for Canadian goods, and it will be for untold years to come. This dominion government gets a revenue on nearly every transaction that takes place in Yukon. It collects customs dues, excise tax, sales tax and income tax. In regard to many goods imported into Yukon on which duty and tax are paid, the taxes are paid outside Yukon, for which Yukon gets no credit. Ever since gold has been mined there, this government has collected a royalty on gold, not on the net output but on the gross output; to begin with, it was ten per cent of the gross output, then five per cent and now it is two and a half per cent. No matter how much a man loses in mining his gold, he pays the government a royalty on what he takes out. In mining other minerals he pays a tax on profits; but not so on gold. Gold pays whether it wins or loses.
During the war Yukon surrendered to the dominion government, as did the provinces, the right to collect income tax; and in compensation for that, the government made grants to the provinces and for a few years made a grant to Yukon. But after two or three years they discontinued this grant. I asked them why. Just listen to the answer! Because Yukon made a profit on selling government liquor. But the profit for the territorial government was not as much as for the federal government; where Yukon made a few thousands of dollars the provinces made millions, and the federal grants to the provinces were not discontinued. Under an act passed last session the provinces get fifty per cent of the income tax collected from companies that generate electricity for sale. We have two companies generating electrical power for sale in Yukon, and Yukon does not get one cent of their income tax. It all goes to the dominion government. Those matters mount up, I think, to convincing reasons for resentment on the part of those people in the far north.
Yukon gets no adequate return for the revenue reaped from it by the dominion government. Yukon's greatest need today is roads by means of which to develop that vast country. Dawson City is probably the oldest producing placer gold mining camp in the world, and it is not by any means a ghost town. Gold is being taken out of there by the millions every year and will be for years to come, long after we have gone. In winter the town of Dawson is isolated from the rest of the
The Address-Mr. Boivin

world, except for aeroplane travel. There was a road, but the government abandoned it and let it go back to bush; I do not know why. In the winter, vegetables and fruit, and all perishables that cannot be kept in storage throughout the winter, have to be taken in to these people at Dawson by air express and at an enormous cost for transportation. A road that is needed-and I hope the government will see its way clear to have items in the estimates this year for it-is a road from the silver camp at Mayo to the port of Minto on Yukon river, so that supplies can go into these silver mining camps at all seasons of the year and so that their ore and concentrates can go out to the smelters. The reason I say that is that the only means of transportation into that camp -and you cannot haul in ore and all the supplies that are needed in mining by means of aeroplane-is by river in the summer; and it is a temperamental river that sometimes goes almost dry. As everyone knows, you cannot run a boat on dry land; you must have water. So the government should put in this road which would give transportation at all seasons of the year. Their revenue from these mines and the importance of the mining are sufficient to justify the expenditure.
The deputy minister of mines and resources honoured Yukon with a visit last summer. He looked into the problems of the people. He discussed them with the controller; he discussed them with members of Yukon council, and he agreed that there should be a firm agreement between Yukon Territory and the dominion government for a period of years providing a fixed revenue so that the territory might plan its expenditures, in the way of developments, and know it would have the money to carry them out.
I hope that visit of the deputy minister who, I am happy to say, shows an active interest in the affairs of the territory and its development, and the work he is doing on behalf of that territory will result in such an agreement being arrived at, and that Yukon will not have to come to Ottawa year after year as a mendicant begging alms, which is the position today and always has been, but that it will receive a fair return for the revenue it provides to the federal government.
(Translation):
Mr. MARCEL BOIVIN (SheffordO: Mr. Speaker, many hon. members, during the current session, have taken the opportunity afforded by the debate on the address to express their views relative to the welfare of the country and at the same time they have submitted pressing requirements of their constituencies.

I will admit I have a similar purpose in mind. However, before I deal with these two points, I wish to abide by the old parliamentary tradition and offer my sincere congratulations to the mover of the address. I will only say this: he is a master and as such he has acted in a masterly manner. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague and friend, my neighbour in this house, the hon, member for Lake St. John-Roberval (Mr. Dion) has given such a good historical outline of his constituency and present circumstances relevant thereto, he has made us so eager to see it that man}' from his group in the far right of this house are already planning to visit his district in the near future.
To the seconder, I offer my sincere congratulations, first, on account of his brilliant victory' in the Halifax by-election and then on the manner in which he discharged his duty. We all agree, I am sure, that it was for him a delicate task to address himself to this house such a short while after his arrival. I may add that the tact he showed in thanking the proposer in his own tongue pleased all the French-speaking members of this house. He may be sure that those sentiments he expressed are reciprocated by all of us. Let us hope that they are shared by everyone here, so that we may, in this way, achieve that unity which has so long been wished for.
I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the name of those whom I represent, and in my own, on the great honour conferred upon him by His Majesty in granting him the Order of Merit, on his recent visit to England. Let us hope that the wish expressed on January 29 by the hon. member from Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) may be fulfilled and that the Prime Minister may achieve this "honour which would fittingly crown his career" and of which every Canadian, regardless of political affiliation, would certainly be proud.
Mr. Speaker, I could also sketch the history of my constituency and of its county seat, Waterloo, or of its chief industrial centre, Granby. If I were to choose to recount the history of the latter I would1 have to go back to the political history of 16th centurj! England. We would find there that the origin of the name "Granby" is linked with that of a noble family, the Manners. Subsequently, as we would see, George III, ordered by a royal decree, in 1801, that the then township be known as Granby. It became a village in 1859 and a city in 1916. The present session, however, threatens to be quite long. I will leave this work of historical research to a historical society which has just recently been

The Address-Mr. Boivin
formed in that city and which may in due course publish the history of what has beoome one of the most prosperous industrial centres of Canada.
At the beginning of this session, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) said:
We are now meeting at a. time when this country is going through a critical period of her economic history.
You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that every country, after a war, finds itself in such a situation. That was the chief reason why immediately after victory in Europe, the Canadian people again placed their confidence in the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. That is all the more remarkable if we consider that after both wars, the first as well as the second, the most powerful and strongest statesmen who had succeeded in leading their nation to victory, for instance in England Lloyd George and later Churchill and in this country the leader of the Conservative party, in 1921, could not hold power in spite of all the prestige they had gained.
Moreover the Canadian people wanted thereby to express in a tangible way their admiration for the prime minister's intelligent and skilful leadership shown during the war to annihilate the subversive principles of nazism and fascism. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people did want to be led, in these difficult years, by a government gifted with foresight which, despite criticisms, would put Canada in a better position than any other country in the world. I hope the hon. members opposite will not forget their leader's quotation and will thus co-operate in a constructive way towards Canada's progress. I also hope that some of them will bear in mind that a member does not enhance his prestige by playing party politics and repeatedly uttering non-essential statements in this house, when such utterances entail expenses to the state.
Many hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!


Mr. BOIVIN:: To follow up the remarks I made at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Right Hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) for his co-operation at the time house building was requested for veterans in Granby. There was a rumour to the effect that we, in Ottawa, had stalled the project. May I quote, however, from an open letter forwarded by the Canadian Legion, housing division, and published
on March 30, 1947, in a weekly newspaper of my constituency, The Granby Leader Mail. The letter was entitled "Open Letter re Veterans Housing Shows lack of Co-operation here" and I quote:
(Text):
"The city council passed a resolution on August 19 asking the federal government for houses for veterans. When the federal government offered to build at least 50 houses, the city refused to co-operate."
(Translation):
The letter, Mr. Speaker, was signed by the Canadian Legion of Granby.
I wish also to thank him for having dispatched an engineer to revise and inspect our aqueduct system. Through his action, Granby will receive a 2,000,000-gallon pump within the next few days.
It might be well to add that this pump had been purchased by the city of Granby upon being assured delivery within 16 or 20 weeks. The new apparatus will automatically protect us from the immediate danger of fire and will, for the present at least, ease the water supply situation.
I would like to repeat a request I had made to the them minister of finance in 1946 and which I now make to his successor (Mr. Abbott). Since, at that time, we had just emerged from a world war and the repatriation of our soldiers had just begun, I understood that the then minister of finance was in a rather difficult position and could hardly be expected to change his budget. Last year I repeated my request, asking for a tax exemption of 81,200 for a single man and 82,000 for a married man. At that time I stated figures in support of my argument, in the form of a budget for each of them, proving that even assuming that these exemptions were granted, both the single and the married man, the cost of living being what it was then, would be unable to live within their means.
Since the budgets of married and single men which I quoted last year are already recorded in Hansard I shall merely remind you of what I said last year, namely that the deficits which were 899 and $215 respectively will be much greater this year. I therefore ask the hon. Minister of Finance, before he introduces his budget, to grant an exemption of $1,200 to single and $2,000 to married men, and also, if possible, a basic tax reduction as considerable as the one given last year.
You will perhaps think, Mr. Speaker, that I am asking much for wage-earners, but in view of the financial surplus rf the current year, I am convinced that this is feasible.
The Address-Mr. Boivin

I should like now to thank this same minister for having maintained rent controls up to March 1949, and I hope the order in council to this effect will not be amended, because the fate of thousands of tenants would be lamentable, as they are, for the most part, wage-earners. We have deprived them - of their money in order to maintain peace and harmony. In return, it is only fair and -reasonable that we leave them their housing accommodation, at least until a more favourable date, so that they may, when this order in council is repealed, find suitable quarters at a moderate price.
I should also like to call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a question which is being much discussed throughout the country right now, -I mean immigration. No doubt, because of the great number of unemployed, there is a disposition to talk all the more about it. I am willing to admit -that this country comprises fairly large unsettled areas which could accommodate several thousand immigrants and that an excellent way to increase our population would be to entrust them with the development of our natural resources. We therefore have an excellent opportunity to increase our population by giving them an interest in the development of our national resources. But what means have we to say that these new citizens brought in from outside are going to stay in the employment assigned to them? None whatever. I sincerely believe that they will avail themselves of the first opportunity to move into industrial centres, following the example set in the past by our own fellow citizens. Already, too many of our cities and towns are overcrowded and the coming of these immigrants will inevitably add to the unemployment and the hardships of our own people. It would be too long for me to discuss the international situation. Hon. members will admit, however, that it is none too bright. The inspection of immigrants in peace time, no matter how careful it may be, never affords complete protection, as was evidenced last year. It is up to us to take the necessary precautions and it is far better not to go too fast on a road strewn with unknown obstacles.
Mr. Speaker, the constituency I have the honour to represent in this house is just about equally divided among farmers and industrial workers. Out of a population of some 38,000 people, we have 16,059 farmers.
In previous speeches, I had the honour of informing you of the development of some of our towns. Since then, even in the smallest municipalities, prosperous industries have loomed up and continue to expand, but that

does not prevent us from noting the increasing importance of agriculture in our constituency. Before resuming my seat, I wish to say a few words on that subject.
On account of its geographical position, its climate and the nature of its soil, Shefford county is well suited to mixed farming, and stock raising, the basis of the industry, is successful due to those most favourable conditions. Just a glance at statistics, which would be too long to quote here in detail, will convince hon. members. In my constituency, there are 2.386 farms, where breeders raise 48,000 head of cattle, including 30,000 milch cows.
According to official figures, in 1946, the
stock breeders as a subsidiary undertaking produced 42,000 hogs and over 260,000 fowl. Stock raising occupies an important place in our county because conditions are ideal for that venture.
Incidentally, I might add that the recent price increase authorized with respect, to pork helped our farmers who were producing at a loss. Now, if only the price of mash were slightly reduced, production would forge ahead to the benefit of breeders and consumers.
Shefford also boasts of wide stretches of pasture ground which frequently cover anywhere from 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the serviceable area of our farms. These conditions prompted our farmers to develop the dairy industry which has become the main agricultural interest in my constituency. I do not hesitate to add that milk and butter from Shefford rank among the most important in the province as far as quantity is concerned.
Frankly, I was not surprised to learn, a few years ago, that farmers of my constituency had sought and found the best means of making this industry as profitable as possible. Thanks to their initiative, we now find in Granby an organization with a membership of some 1,200 farmers who launched a specialized industry, that of powdered milk. I know that this industry and others of the same type throughout the country depend on the shipping of at least a part of their production. They need help. I hope that they may count, as a result, on the co-operation of the department concerned in securing permits from Ottawa.
I am in complete agreement with the farmers of Shefford, Mr. Speaker, as to the necessity of supplying our domestic market first. Nobody in my county would like to see

The Address-Mr. Boivin
the workers of our towns or any other class of citizens suffer from the lack of bread or butter. But you will admit nevertheless that it is our duty to maintain a good market for our farm products. While we must strive to meet local demand, it is most important that we do not allow this market to reach the saturation point.
Under normal conditions, our dairy production has been equal to our needs for many years, and in order to increase it, the establishment I have just mentioned has secured the services of an expert who has the confidence of the farmers and has justified that confidence by increasing that industry's production within a very short period. That industry therefore took on added importance. Hon. members will admit that due to a late season and a most unusual drought during the summer, our 1947 crop has been a failure. Yet, we experienced no milk or butter shortage.
Incidentally, may I say that I would be sorry should the production of margarine be allowed in Canada. I intend to prove that we have in this country enough butterfat to satisfy national demand. Shefford county alone produced in 1947 an estimated quantity of 125 million pounds of milk. The powdered milk industry has used only 36 million of these and even in 1948 when it will need 50 million pounds there will be left a balance of 75 million pounds, without taking into account the already noticeable increase in production. Because of these factors, the farmers of my constituency in their own interest, of course, but also in the general interest of our Canadian economy have decided to fulfil a patriotic duty by varying their production in order to stabilize the market and avoid surplus production.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that it was for the common good that the farmers acted that way. We should congratulate them and help them. I urge the government to revise the matter of export permits, which is most important to agriculture. Such a step would be in the general interest, because the farmer's prosperity is the merchant's wealth, according to an old saying.


Pierre Gauthier: Hear, hear.


Marcel Boivin: This matter is not only important to my constituents but to all Canadian farmers, because, as has been stated previously, small industries of that kind are to be found everywhere in the country.
I would like to see stock breeding become the basis of our agricultural industry in eastern Canada, as the whole of our grass producing country would benefit. From a logical point of view that is the course we should take. The western provinces can supply us with the grain we need, but on the other hand we must help the western farmers and enable them to sell the surplus of their products on foreign markets, because that surplus would only lower prices and discourage that splendid movement which will not only permit agriculture to subsist, but will make for its progress.
Harmony between the various branches of agriculture is essential. Dairy farming is the basis of the industry, as it supports the production of hogs and poultry, which are needed to fulfil our agreements with Great Britain.
Now, Mr. Speaker, would it not be in order to consider how important it is to help those industries whose object is, I believe, to promote the development of basic agricultural production in this country. In fact, powdered milk has the additional advantage of furthering the improvement of hog and poultry breeding and helping supply Canadian consumers with essential commodities such as butter and cheese. Powdered milk also prevents overstocking of the market since it is in great demand abroad. Exports of this commodity therefore help maintain the price levels of our dairy products at home. Thanks to the information supplied by the wonderful organization functioning on behalf of poor children in Europe and to the particulars furnished by an official of this industry in my constituency who has just returned from Europe, we know the needs of the countries that were devastated by war. Would it not be a charitable deed to come to the help of these stricken people? To that end, we must promote exports of this commodity on the largest possible scale.
In concluding, may I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of my constituency, as all other farmers who have estal dished this industry in other parts of Canada, have broken
The Address-Mr. Boivin

new ground in this field not only in their own but in the public interest. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that they deserve our encouragement.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Blair the debate was adjourned.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. FOURNIER (Hull) moved the adjournment of the house. He said: Tomorrow we will continue the debate.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Tuesday, March 2, 1948