BARBARA ANN SCOTT


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has been keeping an eagle and admiring eye upon the leading lady athlete of the whole world who is now representing Canada at the Olympics, the champion woman figure skater of the world?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I would say to my hon. friend that I have been keeping an eye on that young lady for the past fifteen years. This morning I sent a cable to Miss Barbara Ann Scott in which I said that all Canada was delighted at her having won the Olympic championship, that from one end of the country to the other it was felt that she had done honour not only to herself but to her country, and that the government joined with the people in extending to her the warmest congratulations.



HONG KONG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister that has to do with one which I asked a few days ago but which at that time he did not feel in position to answer. Some days ago I asked the Prime Minister if in view of the war office release regarding the Hong Kong incident he would table the Drew correspondence with respect to it. He later intimated that he would take up the matter with the United Kingdom government. My question is: Has the Prime Minister any reply and, if so, will he now table the correspondence?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did take up the matter immediately with the United Kingdom
government at the time my hon. friend spoke about it in the house, but I have not as yet received a reply.


Mr. ROWE:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister another question. Why should we now, two years after the war, have to listen to "his master's voice" in Great Britain to tell us what to do here in Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that it is not a question of the master's voice at all; it is a question of what is the proper thing to do about correspondence between governments which are mutually concerned. It would be a great breach of what is right and proper to say nothing of courtesy, not to have communicated with the British government in regard to the tabling of correspondence which they might have some objection to having tabled.


William Earl Rowe: I should like to ask another question. Did the British government ask this government if General Maltby could make the statement which was published over there?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The British government had no communication with us with regard to General Maltby's report. I do not regard General Maltby's report as covering the request of my own friend the hon. leader of the opposition. The British government almost invariably asks us in advance in regard1 to correspondence in which both our governments are concerned if there is any objection to tabling it before they take action.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs? Could 'he let me have an answer to the question I asked on January 27 regarding the appointment of a committee to investigate the Braefoot project?
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I am at present looking into that.
938
Inquiries oj the Ministry



FLOOD CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) the other day asked a question as to the responsibility of the federal government in reference to flood control of the Bow river at Calgary. I have this reply for 'him.
In 1930 the natural resources of the province were transferred by the dominion government to Alberta, and the province since that time has administered1 the water power licences. There are some power plants above Calgary operated by the Calgary Power Company, but there is no information to indicate whether these power plants are responsible for the flooding. The Department of Public Works has done some work on the Bow river as a navigable water, but as the Departments of Public Works and Mines and Resources have answered the hon, member's question of January 28 in the negative, it would seem to me that the dominion government has no responsibility with reference to his question, and certainly the Department of Transport has none.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. FERGUSON (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if it is true that a veteran who served in the last war can be rejected for service with the peacetime forces of Canada on the ground that his educational qualifications are not up to the standards required by the present-day army?
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): That question should be directed to my colleague the Minister of National Defence.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of Natienal Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question should be directed to me. The answer is that that may be quite so in certain cases.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, January 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Dion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at
TMr. Gregg.]
the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago yesterday I adjourned this debate. There are one or two further matters with which I should like to deal in the few moments at my disposal.
First, I wish to refer to the question raised by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) in regard to war disability pensions, and in particular to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make provision immediately whereby war disability pensions will be increased over and above the recent increase of ten dollars a month, which is totally inadequate. I am not going to repeat the arguments my hon. friend advanced; for in his address he dealt with this and other problems connected with the war veterans across our country. I agree, too, that the war veterans allowance should and must be increased immediately.
There is one further matter, and that is that the war veterans of world war I who have been receiving a pension over the years should not now, having regard to their age, be required to accept a reduction in the pension. They are now coming to an age when they cannot hope to compete against those younger in years. According to the records, during the first ten months of 1947, 8,011 war disability pensions were decreased, and of that number 111 were pensions granted to veterans of world war I. That cannot be justified today. The other 7.900 were veterans of world war II.
Further, I believe that widows' pensions must be materially increased. Today we find that every other group, with one exception to which I intend to make reference this afternoon, has received increases, either in the rate of pay or by way of cost of living bonus. But so far as the widows are concerned the present basic pension is totally inadequate and does not carry into effect the promise which every member of the house wishes to see implemented, namely, that those who survive shall not be obliged to live on a lower standard than would have been the case had their husbands continued to live.
I intend to devote my time this afternoon mainly to a matter to which I made reference last year. I direct the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to this matter; I brought it to his attention last year, and he promised when the estimates were before the house that he would bring it to the attention of the Canadian National Railways. On July 2, 1947, I discussed the question of

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker
the Canadian National Railways pension fund, and that is the matter with which I intend to deal particularly today.
The Canadian National Railways pension fund, as Your Honour knows, is provided for in the rules and regulations. It makes provision for the retirement of Canadian National Railways employees on a pension fixed by law at a basic $25 per month. The section of the rules and regulations is No. 12, which provides: .
Every employee who joins the service of the company hereafter before attaining the age of 45 years shall, if he remains continuously in the company's service to age 65, be entitled to receive upon his retirement a basic pension of $300 per annum, which amount shall be provided at the sole expense of the company.
There is a further provision in section 14 of the same regulations for alteration in that regard. When I spoke on this matter in July last I brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport the position of many thousands of employees of the Canadian National Railways in the lower income brackets, those who work on railway construction, those in office positions in a junior capacity, those in the running trades who receive a comparatively low rate of wages, and yet when they retire at the age of 65 or earlier they receive the lowest pension paid to Canada's employees, namely, a basic pension of $25 a month. I asked the minister when I spoke on that occasion to tell me what the attitude of the railway was in regard to this matter. I said at page 4986 of Hansard:
Having regard to the rates of present-day pensions, the representations made to me on the part of many who are eligible for pension . is that consideration should be given to an increase in the amount of the basic pensions; secondly, that the provisions applicable today respecting the awarding of pensions are determined in large measure upon continuity of service.
That in too many cases has resulted in injustice to employees on severance from the company. I pointed out a moment ago that the Minister of Transport promised to bring that matter to the attention of the Canadian National Railways, and in fact, did so. He gave me a letter on the subject, to which I shall not make reference, but which does give the answer of the department in that connection. The time has come when the employees of the Canadian National Railways, particularly those in the lower income brackets, should be given an increase in their pension of $25 a month, which is totally inadequate to provide for them or their families.
When the history of the last war is written, the magnificent contribution of railway 5849-60J
employees, both of the Canadian National and of the privately owned railways, such as the Canadian Pacific, will occupy a large place. With depleted staffs the Canadian National Railways employees performed gigantic tasks.
I have already referred to the pension which today remains the same as it was in 1935-
Mr. CHEVRIER; May I interrupt the hon. gentleman?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon, gentleman
says the pension remains the same as it was in 1935. I presume that that is what I pointed out in my letter to him.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman is certainly aware that the services of the railways of Canada, including the Canadian National Railways, have been frozen and have remined the same over a long period of years.


John George Diefenbaker: I am perfectly aware of that, and I was aware of it last July when I brought this matter to the attention of the minister. Nothing has been done since, and that is why I bring it to the attention of the house and the country. I am perfectly willing to answer questions, but I hope the minister will take advantage of the opportunity that is his in this debate to tell the Canadian National Railways employees why it has been found impossible to give them any consideration in this regard.
Those in the lower income brackets are having great difficulty in carrying on. Thousands of devoted and efficient workers and employees in these brackets are now approaching retirement. They are looking forward to retirement with fear and trepidation because during their period of service their earnings have been such as to make it impossible to put aside anything to meet their needs. I point out too that the $25 pension which on the basis of purchasing power was believed fair in 1935 is not worth much more than $10 today.
I suggest, sir, and I shall conclude when I deal with this matter, that the time has come for the government to give consideration to a permanent upward revision of the basic pension, with a view to a material increase therein, and in the meantime while consideration is being given to that a cost of living bonus ought to be provided for. The basic pension rate today is woefully inadequate. Equity demands its revision. An increase would be a gesture of public appreciation of the magnificent service rendered by the Canadian National Railways employees during the war.
The Address-Mr. Dorion

The question of expense may be raised. Let me point out that the total amount paid by the Canadian National Railways out of its revenues in respect of pensions is only 2'6 per cent. I make this appeal to the minister. I ask him to give consideration to assuring the railway employees of the Canadian National Railways that degree of security after retirement which other classes in this country are receiving today.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: I should like to take advantage of this debate to express my personal views on a matter which is of very great importance to the people of this country, and especially to the province of Quebec, namely, the question of the ownership of the Labrador territory. I have given some study to that question; I was particularly interested in it because I have the honour to represent the only constituency in the dominion that is bounded by the Labrador territory.
When the delegates of Newfoundland came to Ottawa last summer and met the representatives of the Canadian government to study the possibility of Newfoundland entering into the Canadian confederation, I endeavoured to follow as closely as possible the discussion which took place at the time. The reports given us by the newspapers failed to give us a full account of the discussions, and when we were called for the present session I was glad to have the opportunity of reading the report which was published by the government in two volumes entitled: "Report of meetings between delegates from the national convention of _ Newfoundland and representatives of the government of Canada."
I was also much interested in reading the letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on October 29, 1947, to the governor of Newfoundland, together with the "proposed arrangements for the entry of Newfoundland into confederation" which was annexed to the letter, and printed in a separate pamphlet, under the caption: "Terms believed to constitute a fair and equitable basis for union of Newfoundland with Canada should the people of Newfoundland desire to enter into confederation."
Notwithstanding the vote which was taken in the national convention of Newfoundland some days ago, I am sure that the question involved is not disposed of, and we may well rest assured that in the near future the question of the entry of Newfoundland into our confederation will be the subject of further discussions. That is the reason why I feel it is our duty to study as closely as possible the

conditions under which the Canadian government would see fit to accept this new province in our confederation.
We must not forget either that our neighbour to the south seems to be very much interested in the settlement of that matter. Not later than last Thursday, January 29, we could read in the newspapers a dispatch from Washington as follows:
An unofficial, tentative proposal from Newfoundland for "closer association" with the United States is receiving scant, attention here this morning. It would call for interference by the United States before the approaching plebisicite in the colony to the extent of a daelaration promising support for an independent government and for help in developing a steel industry in Newfoundland and Labrador which, it claims, would save the United States from becoming dependent on Canada for iron or steel.
Everyone knows that when we speak of developing a steel or iron industry in that part of the continent we have in mind the territmy known as Labrador on the mainland, much more than the island of Newfoundland itself. That is the reason why it is of the utmost importance to ascertain whether that territory belongs really to Newfoundland. In the course of my remarks I will endeavour to show, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding the report of the judicial committee of the privy council made in March, 1927, that territory still belongs to the province of Quebec. Mark you, sir, it must be noted that the privy council did not render a judgment, a judicial decision; it was no more than a report on a reference which, as I will show later on, was badly drafted, incomplete, not properly presented, and proper action on it has never been taken.
In reading the report of the conference which took place last summer, I noticed that quite a number of questions were asked by the Newfoundland delegation for the purpose of establishing the position of the parties in regard to the matters involved in the questions. I was quite surprised to read at page 158 of volume 2 of the report the following question regarding Labrador:
Question:	If Newfoundland joined Canada,
would Labrador remain a part of the province of Newfoundland?
Answer:	The Canadian government has
always felt that it is bound by the award made by the^ judicial committee of the privy council in 192/ with respect to the Labrador boundary. The Canadian government assumes that, if Newfoundland became a province of Canada, Newfoundland Labrador would be a part of that province. Section 3 of the British North America Act of 1871 might also be consulted. It is clear from this section that the parliament of Canada cannot alter the boundaries of a province without the consent of the legislature of the province concerned.

The Address-Mr. Dorion
In reading that question it came to my mind that if the delegates of Newfoundland thought it advisable to ask it, it was surely because they were far from being convinced that the matter bad been finally settled by the report of the privy council; otherwise I cannot imagine that they would have asked such a question.
I was also very much surprised to read in the proposed arrangements submitted to the government of Newfoundland by the Prime Minister the following paragraph, page 5 of the pamphlet, section 2:
The province of Newfoundland will include the territory of Labrador defined by the award of the judicial committee of the privy council in 1927 as Newfoundland territory.
And' one may further notice that such statement comes right at the beginning of the proposed arrangements, as if it was one of the most important questions to be decided. We can surely infer, from the special care and the particular consideration given to that matter relating to the boundary between the province of Quebec and Newfoundland, that it has never been settled before, and that the interested parties are willing to take advantage of the entry into confederation of Newfoundland to settle the matter finally. But my contention is that the Canadian government has not the right, has not the legal power, to dispose of a territory belonging to the province of Quebec; and I will go as far as to say that even if there was an agreement between Newfoundland and Canada to that effect, it would be ultra vires of the powers of the government, and the problem itself would not be solved.
Since the Canadian government rely upon what they call the award of the judicial committee of the privy council for the purpose of admitting the rights of Newfoundland over the Labrador territory, I will endeavour, Mr. Speaker, to explain and to prove that nothing whatsoever has been finally decided by this report and that the province of Quebec still has jurisdiction over that territory.
To enable us to understand as clearly as possible this important problem, we must go back as far as 1763 and see what were the different measures which were passed by the imperial government as well as by the Canadian government in relation to that matter.
Everyone knows that in 1763, by the treaty of Paris, the French government ceded to His Majesty the King of England all the territories on the North American continent. In the same year a commission was issued under the great seal of His Majesty, by which
Captain Graves was appointed as "Governor and commissioner in chief of the island of Newfoundland and all the coasts of Labrador from Hudson strait to river St. John". This gave jurisdiction to the governor of Newfoundland over Labrador coast itself, and also over a part of the coast in the gulf of St. Lawrence as far as Anticosti island.
In October of the same year, 1763, the British government decided to form four separate governments in North America- Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Granada.
The government of Quebec had jurisdiction over the territory adjoining the St. Lawrence river starting from river St. John. But in 1774, by the Quebec Act, it was enacted that all the territories on the mainland would form part of the government of Quebec. Therefore, in virtue of that act, the governor of Newfoundland lost his jurisdiction over all the territories included in the Labrador peninsula.
Later on, in 1809, the Newfoundland Act was passed by the British government, and then all the territories that were given to the government of Newfoundland in 1763 were restored to the same government.
Finally, in 1825, by an act called "The British North America Act of 1825", it was decided that the part of the coast of the gulf of St. Lawrence from river St. John to Anse Sablon in Belle-Isle strait would form part of the province of Quebec.
One may observe that in each of these acts we find no mention of the inland territories; they all deal with the coast itself.
We now come to 1871, when the British North America Act of 1871 was passed1 by the British government. We find it in chapter 28, 34 Victoria, and it is entitled, "An act respecting the establishment of provinces in the Dominion of Canada". Section 3 of that act enacts:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
I should like here to draw the attention of the government to the principle clearly established by that statute, to the effect that the parliament of Canada cannot do anything regarding the boundaries of a province without first obtaining the consent of the province concerned. The government of today should
The Address-Mr. Dorion

take note that in virtue of that statute there are provincial governments and that in many matters these provincial governments must have their say before the parliament of Canada takes any decision.
In virtue of that same principle, the statement I read a few minutes ago, made by the Prime Minister in connection with the proposed arrangements concerning the territory of Labrador, should not have been made without the consent of the province of Quebec. Furthermore, the same principle is in accordance with the British North America Act of 1867, section 92, paragraph 5.
Not only do we find the enactment I have just mentioned in the British North America Act of 1871, but we see that in 1898 this principle, regarding the consent of the province concerned in all matters pertaining to the alteration of its boundaries, was applied when an act respecting the northwestern, northern, and northeastern boundaries of the province of Quebec was passed by Chapter 3 of 61 Victoria, statutes of Canada.
A similar act was passed by the Quebec legislature in the same year 1898, and therefore, in accordance with the principle enacted in the British North America Act of 1871, the Canadian government, with the consent of the Quebec legislature, decided that the boundaries of the province of Quebec should be extended to James bay, and then to the east Main river and further to the Hamilton river, as far as Hamilton inlet, on the Atlantic coast. By this statute, the northern boundaries of the province of Quebec were limited to the Hamilton river, which, as everyone is aware, is within the territory known as Labrador.
In the year 1912, by chapter 45 of 2 George V, the parliament of Canada decided to extend once more the territory of the province of Quebec together with the territories of Manitoba and Ontario. By section 2 of chapter 45 it was enacted that the new boundaries of the province of Quebec would include what was called at the time Ungava territory; and it was clearly established that the new boundaries would include the territory north of Hamilton river, that is to say all the Labrador territory.
As we have just seen, the two Canadian statutes giving expressly to the province of Quebec the territory claimed by Newfoundland were passed in 1898 and 1912, that is to say, at a time when the imperial government had the right to disallow any act passed by the Canadian government. Therefore, these two statutes, having never been disallowed, must have their full force and value. It has been contended that they were ultra vires,

but if such had been the case, why is it that the government of Newfoundland did not ask the British government to disallow them? We must therefore conclude that they were tacitly confirmed by the British government and tacitly accepted by the Newfoundland government. That is the reason why I said at the outset that the territory known as Labrador peninsula belongs to the province of Quebec.
In 1920, after discussions had been started between the government of Newfoundland and the government of the province of Quebec regarding the issue by the government of Newfoundland of a licence for cutting timber in the neighbourhood of Hamilton river, the Canadian government decided to refer to the privy council the question of the boundaries between Quebec and Newfoundland.
A first memorandum of agreement between Canada and Newfoundland was signed on November 11, 1920, but it was later amended and replaced by a new agreement dated November 20, 1922. We must notice here that by this agreement the two political parties which existed at the time-the Conservative and Liberal parties-did not hesitate to violate, one after the other, the principle enacted in the British North America Act of 1871. Everyone is aware that in 1920 we had a Conservative government here in Ottawa, and that in 1922 we had a Liberal government. In fact on behalf of the Canadian government the first .agreement was signed in 1920 by Mr. Charles J. Doherty, and the second one in 1922, on behalf of the same government, was signed by Sir Lomer Gouin.
It is worth reading the main part of that agreement, which is as follows:
In the matter of the boundary between the dominion of Canada and the colony of Newfoundland in the Labrador peninsula:
The government of the dominion of Canada and the government of the colony of Newfoundland having mutually agreed to submit for reference by His Majesty to the judicial committee of His Majesty's Privy Council, for their decision, the following question, viz.:
"What is the location and definition of the boundary as between Canada and Newfoundland in the Labrador peninsula under the statutes, orders in council and proclamations?"
And it is signed by the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Newfoundland.
However, we must take note that the real dispute was not between the Canadian government and the Newfoundland government, but between the latter and the government of the province of Quebec. How is it that the province of Quebec was not a party to the reference made to the privy council? We see that the proceedings for the Canadian gov-

The Address-Mr. Dorion
eminent were signed by four attorneys general, one of them being Charles Lanctot, then attorney general of the province of Quebec; but officially and legally the province of Quebec was out of the case. The least that could have been done would be for the Canadian government to submit the proposed agreement to the Quebec legislature in accordance with the British North America Act of 1871, and obtain the consent of that legislature.
I must add that in signing such an agreement in 1922 the Liberal government discarded an engagement that had been taken in 1908 by their leader, the then prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In fact, on July 13, 1908, in introducing in this house a motion for the bill that was passed in 1912 regarding the extension of boundaries of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, we find, at column 12,789 of the Hansard of that year, a statement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Speaking of the dispute which had arisen between Newfoundland and Quebec, he said:
We have taken the precaution to ask the province of Quebec to be a party to that arbitration because it is interested in the boundary where-ever it may ultimately be decided to be.
And further on he says:
In 1881, when the act was passed extending the boundary of Manitoba to the frontier of Ontario, the contest was removed from Canada to Ontario and Manitoba; they were the parties who fought the issue. In the same way, if we allow this territory to go to Quebec, Quebec will become interested in the question; then, though we retain our sovereignty, I think they should have a say and become a party to the question.
Notwithstanding that engagement, as I said a few minutes ago, when the second agreement was signed in 1922 by the Liberal government it does not appear anywhere that it had been signed with the consent of the Quebec legislature. And today the present government goes much further in putting aside the directions given by its ex-leader, and does not hesitate to dispose finally of the same territory without consulting the province of Quebec. That is the reason why I contend that this offer by the Canadian government to the government of Newfoundland is not worth the paper on which it is written, and I am sure that the province of Quebec will never assent to such an agreement. That is also why the present government should refrain from offering to Newfoundland a territory over which it has no jurisdiction, so as to prevent a regrettable misunderstanding which would result in a real conflict between the Canadian government and one of the provinces.	.
Let us now make an analysis of the value of the report of the privy council and see if
we can find in it some final solution to the problem. It is interesting to note in the reading of the report itself that Their Lordships clearly show that the question submitted to them was not properly and completely presented. If we refer to page 2 of their report we read:
But the duty of the board is not to consider where the boundary in question might wisely and conveniently be drawn, but only to determine where, under the documents of title which have been brought to their notice, that boundary is actually to be found.
Further at page 11 of the same report, the Lord Chancellor states:
In these circumstances the question to be determined is not whether Newfoundland possesses territory upon the peninsula of Labrador, but what is the inland boundary of that territory. Is it to be defined by a line following the sinuosities of the shore at a distance of one mile or thereabouts from high-water mark, or is it to be found at the watershed of the rivers falling into the sea on that shore? No third alternative has been suggested by any person.
And at page 14:
The case for Canada admits that it may be found impracticable to lay down such a line upon the land, and suggests that, in order that neither party may suffer by reason of this difficulty, the boundary should be drawn along the coast at a distance of one mile from high-water mark; but Their Lordships cannot think that in adopting such a proposal they would be performing the duty cast upon them by the terms of reference to determine the boundary "under the statutes, orders in council and proclamations."
Then we come to the conclusion of the report, which we find at page 23, the last words of which are: "and they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly." Therefore that report shows not only that the question was not properly submitted to the privy council, but that there was no binding decision rendered. In fact we must ask ourselves what was done after and as a consequence of that report. Was there any legislation by the Imperial, the Canadian or the Newfoundland government? There was none. Was there any treaty or any agreement embodying the findings of the privy council? There was none either. Then I believe I am right in contending that the whole matter still stands as it was decided by the Canadian statutes of 1898 and 1912.
Furthermore I contend that this matter should never have been submitted to the privy council because it was a tribunal of one of the parties. I must however emphatically declare that I would not for a moment cast any reflection on the integrity and honesty of the members of the privy council; but as a matter of fact I do not think we ever saw in the history of the world a case of delimitation of boundaries being submitted to the tribunal of
The Address-Mr. Hazen

one of the interested parties. My contention is that the question should have been submitted to an international arbitration in which all the parties, and especially the province of Quebec, was represented. There is no doubt that the whole matter is still wide open, and I hope that someone will find some way of arriving at a final settlement of the question.


Mr. D. K. HAZEN (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, this debate affords me an opportunity for which I have waited some time, to bring to the attention of the house a matter which concerns the maritime provinces. I refer to the shipping of Canadian goods through Canadian ports. I believe I would be remiss in my duty as the representative in this house of the seaport of Saint John if I did not say something about that matter at this time, as certain acts of the Canadian government railways in recent months have been detrimental to the development of Canadian trade through Canadian ports and the cause of deep resentment in the maritimes.
To give the story from the beginning I want to refer to an Associated Press dispatch from Portland, Maine, dated July 23 last, which quoted Mr. R. C. Vaughan, president of the Canadian National Railways, as saying in an interview that the C.N.R. has "a big stake" in Portland, and that "we're going to do everything we can for the port of Portland."
This statement did not pass unnoticed in the maritime provinces. It was regarded there as a reversal of government policy and a betrayal of maritime workers and maritime interests.
The Canadian ports of Saint John and Halifax, which are washed by the waters of the Atlantic ocean, and are open both summer and winter, look to the officials of the Canadian government railways to use their utmost endeavours to promote the use of those ports in the national interest and in furtherance of government policy, or what has been government policy in the past.
The workers of the ports of Saint John and Halifax, who rendered great service during the war years and who are harassed now by a steadily increasing cost of living, look to the Canadian National Railways to provide them, as far as it is possible, with continuous employment. They know that everything the C.N.R. does for the port of Portland is done at their expense, and that the trade sent through Portland takes dollars from their pockets.
In an editorial on July 25 last the Saint John Tele graph-Journal said that Mr. Vaughan's statement-
-is a clear threat to Saint John and Halifax, for whatever is done for Portland by the nationally-owned railway system will be done at our expense.

Continuing, the editorial said Mr. Vaughan's statement was-[DOT]

an open admission that the objective of the C.N.R. was to build up ports of the United States, even though it means destroying the business of the national ports of Canada.
The press of Halifax was also quite outspoken in condemning Mr. Vaughan's alleged remarks.
On July 25 of last year Mr. J. D. McKenna, mayor of the city of Saint John, wired the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) protesting Mr. Vaughan's alleged statement. After quoting it he said:
I hesitate to believe that Mr. Vaughan was guilty of any such indiscretion-If Mr. Vaughan made the remark credited to him I think he displayed bad judgment, and I am quite sure he cannot be voicing your views or those of the government. To suggest that the money of the people of Canada be used to develop Portland, at a time when Saint John and Halifax are in dire need of additional port tonnage, is suggesting a policy which, it was generally understood, ended in Canada over twenty years ago. I know that no member of the government is more interested than you in maintaining the earnings of Canadian ports. Just how this can be done by sending this business to United States ports is beyond my comprehension, and the understanding of any real Canadian. If Mr. Vaughan made the suggestion, I think that some announcement should be made at once to assure Canadian ports that their interests will be safeguarded and at the same time disillusion the people of Portland as to any such promise.
In reply to the mayor's telegram the minister wired as follows:
I have your telegram referring to statement alleged to have been made by R. C. Vaughan, president of Canadian National Railways, which I have not seen. Please let me assure you that statements of policy always emanate from the government or one of its ministers. The policy of the government is to encourage and assist its national ports to the fullest extent, further, to use the facilities of our national ports to the maximum and to increase those facilities when required. In evidence of this the government has spent from 1936 to 1946, for capital and reconstruction of our national [DOT]ports, approximately $18,000,000. This year's estimate for the port of Saint John contains initial appropriations which will mean eventual expenditure within a year or two of approximately $3,000,000. National harbours board informs me surveys are under way for further expansion. All of which is an indication that government has very much in mind the development and expansion of facilities at the port of Saint John.
The mayor of Saint John replied to this wire as follows:
Thanks for your telegram of the 26th instant. Interpret it to mean first that even if Mr. Vaughan made the alleged statement it carries no weight; second, that your answer is a definite contradiction that Portland will be developed and it is also an assurance that Canadian

The Address-Mr. Hazen
ports will be still further equipped to enable them to satisfactorily handle ocean-going traffic.
On August 5, after the minister had seen Mr. Vaughan, he wrote the mayor of Saint John. I have not time to quote the letter in full, but in it he said he had had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the president of the C.N.R.; that Mr. Vaughan positively denied the statement referred to; that no mention was made by him or any other party about diverting business to Portland. Continuing, he said, the president stated-
-that neither he nor the railways at any time have had the slightest intention of diverting business away from the ports of Halifax and Saint John, but on the contrary have done all in their power to assist the maritime ports.
In view of the statement contained in the minister's wire to the mayor of Saint John that the policy of the government was to encourage and assist its national ports to the fullest extent, and in view of the letter the minister sent to the mayor in which he quoted Mr. Vaughan as saying that neither he nor the railways at any time had the slightest intention of diverting business from the ports of Saint John and Halifax but on the contrary had done all in their power to assist the maritime ports, the city of Saint John felt xi.at its interests were protected, and no further steps were taken in the matter.
However, the citizens of Saint John realize now that they were lulled into a sense of false security, that they had the wool pulled over their eyes, that they had been tricked; for it is apparent that officials of the Canadian National Railways at this very time were carrying on negotiations with interested parties, big interests, to ship Canadian goods through American ports, when Canadian maritime ports were available, in violation of what has been government policy in the past and at the expense of the maritime ports and maritime workmen.
This came to light on November 22 last when Mr. R. H. Matheson, manager of the maritime transportation commission, wired the Saint John board of trade as follows:
Effective on the I7th November export rates on various commodities, including newsprint, lumber and pulp, were reduced from Canadian originating points to Portland, Maine, to equalize rates to Halifax and Saint John. I am informed that the reduction was effected to attract traffic to a steamship line calling at Portland.
This wire was followed by a Canadian Press dispatch from Halifax which stated that Moore-McCormack Incorporated, the steamship line referred to, had shifted its export business from Halifax to Portland, Maine. A press dispatch from Portland, Maine, on the same date stated
that the change in rail rates gave the city an opportunity to compete for Canadian traffic when Montreal was closed by ice. Mr. J. J. Campbell, president of the Halifax longshoremen's association, was reported as saying:
We might as well close up down here and apply for American citizenship papers. Seventy-five per cent of our men have not drawn a pay for five weeks.
The Saint John and district trades and labour council, of which A. E. Skaling is president, and which represents forty unions with a combined membership of thousands of workers, about 6,000 of whom are employed on the waterfront, sent a strongly worded protest to the Minister of Transport. Other protests followed from other labour organizations. Resolutions of protest were forwarded from Halifax.
The mayor of Saint John made no public statement when the news was received. He must have been amazed at the information that had been furnished by the manager of the maritime transportation commission. He must have found it very difficult to believe, in view of the wire he had received on July 26 from the Minister of Transport in which he said that statements of policy always emanated1 from the government and that the policy of the government was to encourage and assist national ports to the fullest extent, and in view of the letter he had received on August 5 from the Minister of Transport in which he said that Mr. Vaughan had stated that neither he, that is. Mr. Vaughan, nor the railway, at any time had the slightest intention of diverting business from the ports of Halifax and Saint John but on the contrary had done all in their power to assist maritime ports.
No doubt the mayor of Saint John wanted to be sure of his facts before he made any statement, and so he at once sent a wire to the Minister of Transport in which he asked two questions. The first question was: Have you authorized freight rate reductions from Canada to Portland, Maine, enabling Moore-McCormack Incorporated to announce monthly sailings from Portland. Maine, to east coast South America and Scandinavian Baltic ports due to freight rate cuts? The next question was: Will you please advise on whose recommendation your department has consented to the traffic reductions and the diversion of freight to United States ports?
In his reply the Minister of Transport did not give a direct answer to either of those questions. They are pertinent questions that ought to be answered and not evaded. I ask the minister to answer them when he gets an opportunity to reply.
The Address-Mr. Hazen

Although it will take some time, I think it is only fair that I should place on the record the telegram sent by the mayor of Saint John and the minister's reply. Mayor McKenna wired as follows:
In August last you announced in reply to a communication from me that you and the government alone are entitled to announce policies for the Canadian National Railways. Mindful of this assurance, have you authorized freight reductions from Canada to Portland, Maine, enabling Moore-McCormack, Incorporated, to announce monthly sailings from Portland-east coast South American and Scandinavian Baltic ports due to freight rate cut? For years certain Canadian National officials have been working to divert Canadian freight to American ports, notably an effort at one time to establish New London, Connecticut, as permanent Canadian National traffic port. Will you please advise on whose recommendation your department has consented to the traffic reductions and diversion of freight to United States ports. All recommendations made by the government appointed commission in years past have been against diversion of traffic to United States ports. I am particularly anxious to ascertain the names of persons who have continuously interested themselves in Portland while Canadians pay their salaries. Do not propose to make any public statement until I hear from you.
The minister's reply reads as follows:
Your telegram protesting reduction in freight rates to Portland, Maine, by Canadian National Railway received. In the first place let me correct you on statement alleged to have been made by me last August. I then stated and now repeat that questions of policy always emanate from the government and that the policy of the government is to encourage and assist its national harbours to the fullest extent. Statements of policy concerning the Canadian National Railway are announced by the president or officers of the railway and not by the government. This you will agree is quite a different thing.
The Canadian National authorities to whom I have communicated the purport of your message inform me that since 1905 rates on all commodities moving through Portland and Halifax and Saint John are on a parity. In 1938 the interstate commerce commission of the United States authorized an increase of ten per cent on export rates through Portland. Maine. Later, on application made to the board of transport commissioners for Canada on goods moving out of Saint John and Halifax, the board concurred and granted the ten per cent increase in order to maintain the parity among the three ports. In the same year because of representations made to the Canadian National Railway, it decided to forgo the ten per cent on a few specific commodities to Halifax and Saint John. The remaining rates representing by far the majority were increased and maintained on a basis of parity between Halifax and Saint John and Portland. Please let me advise you that no one in this department fixes freight rates. Freight rates are fixed by the board of transport commissioners for Canada. Let me further point out that there is in Canada today an extremely acute shortage of railway rolling stock and equipment. Canadian National Raihvays, by moving its rolling

stock over its own line to Portland, is in a position to earmark that stock for return movement to Canada. Canadian National authorities further advise me that diversion of traffic from Canadian ports is not expected to result from the equalization of the very few rates in question, neither will it disturb traffic of United States origin now being handled through Halifax and Saint John.
The mayor's wire and the minister's reply were read to the common council of Saint John when it met on November 22. Commenting on the minister's statement:
Canadian National authorities further advise me that diversion of traffic from Canadian ports is not expected to result from the equalization of the very few rates in question.
The mayor is reported to have said at that meeting:
What would you say when he tells me it would not affect Canadian ports when a steamship company has already moved to Portland before the statement was made? I think he insults our intelligence.
The steamship line the mayor referred to is Moore-McCormack Incorporated, which had shifted its sailings from Halifax to Portland as a consequence of the action of the Canadian National Railways in reducing freight rates over its lines. It has been estimated that the change will result in a loss of $400,000 in wages and supplies during the shipping season of 1947-48 at the ports of Saint John and Halifax.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Douglas King Hazen: I want to get through.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman is making assertions of facts and he is quoting someone else.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: I am asking the hon. gentleman if he will grant me the courtesy of a question.


Douglas King Hazen: If it is not going to take too long, and if the Speaker will grant me time to complete what I have to say.


Lionel Chevrier: My question will be
short and to the point. The hon. gentleman has made certain affirmations with reference to statements made not by myself but by the mayor. The hon. gentleman was present when the delegation waited on me with the mayor. Did either he or the mayor repeat any of those accusations there? That is my question.


Douglas King Hazen: How much time had1 we there? You said you were in a hurry, that you had another delegation waiting to see you. I ask that representatives of labour

The Address-Mr. Hazen
from Saint John be heard. We had not time to go into this. I am making statements here now, and I am going to back them up.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. It is in order for an hon. member to rise on a question of privilege at any time, but it is not in order to interrupt a speaker without his permission.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising for permission to ask a question but solely on a question of privilege. It is this. The hon. gentleman said that when the dela-gation waited on me I was in a hurry, and he left the inference that I did not have time to deal with the matter which the delegation wanted to put before me. I state here and now that the delegation remained in my room from one and a half to one and three-quarter hours.


Douglas King Hazen: Did you not say that you had another delegation waiting for you and your time was limited?
To digress for a moment, a by-election was held in the city of Halifax last summer with results that must have been highly satisfactory to the government of the day. But the voters of Halifax will have received a very poor return for the confidence they placed in the government at that time if the government permits officials of the government-owned railways to deprive the port of Halifax of a line of steamships and takes no steps to rectify the wrong that has been done.
The mayor, when he addressed the council, continued:
Let us go back to confederation. We were brought in on the assurance that the maritime ports would be made other Liverpools, that the Intercolonial railway would be built and used for the advantage of these ports. We all know Canada over-expanded in railroads and the government took them over to operate them. In 1925, the Canadian National Railways opened up New London, Connecticut, as the terminal to handle the automobile traffic and made a contract with General Motors and Ford Motor Company of Canada to deliver their contracts. The Telegraph-Journal sent two representatives to the west and Ontario on a mission to induce Canadian shippers to use Canadian ports. Mr. Wallace Campbell, president of the Ford Motor Company, was seen and he stated that it was the policy of the company to use Canadian ports. "It may be the policy but it is not the practice," he was told. He called in his traffic manager and found that this was true. The traffic manager said the Canadian National Railways told him they could move his stuff faster to New London than they could to the maritimes. It was pointed out that this was not true and Mr. Campbell immediately wrote to the president of the Canadian National Railways informing him if
the Canadian National Railways could not use Canadian ports, he would find another railway that could. New London was then closed. The Canadian National Railways has tried this several times. This time they have induced the shipping line away before they even announced the terms.
I digress here for a moment to say that Sir Henry Thornton, when he was president of the Canadian National Railways, congratulated the late Wallace Campbell on what he called "the splendid Canadianism" which he had shown by insisting that the goods his company produced for export 'be shipped through Canadian ports.
Continuing, the mayor said that the steps taken to divert exports through Portland would result in the needless spending of United States dollars. A dispatch from Ottawa a day or two later said that this was admitted by officials of the foreign exchange control board.
Freights routed through Portland are carried from the Canadian border by the Grand Trunk, a Canadian National Railway subsidiary which operates as a separate entity. For its proportion of the haulage the Grand Trunk is paid in United States dollars by the Canadian National Railways. At Portland there is a further disbursement of United States dollars by the Canadian National Railways for freight handling charges. Why the government would permit this when it is taking such drastic measures to prevent the spending of United States dollars is difficult to understand. It will have to be explained by the minister.
In answer to a question I put on the order paper I was informed that the operating expenses of that branch of the railway in the United States which runs to Portland in 1946 amounted in United States funds to $2,348,482. I also asked how much of the gross earnings were paid in United States dollars, but I am unable to understand the answer furnished.
It does seem extraordinary that at the very time the Canadian National Railways is applying for an increase of thirty per cent in freight rates it should lower export freight rates over its line to Portland. Commenting on this the mayor said:
In the face of the railways' application for a thirty per cent freight rate increase-and don't forget there is a report they may ask for even a higher increase-make no mistake there are going to be a. lot more people out of the maritimes. I want to say deliberately that since the time in 1925-and they have tried often-this is the first time they have had the audacity to fly in the face of the people of the maritimes and do this thing they have not before dared to do. I want you to back this thing up. If you put up writh it there is going to be trouble. This is :he thin edge of
The Address-Mr. Hazen

the wedge. We should tell Mr. Chevrier that if it is not his practice to handle these matters it is time he made it his practice.
I quote these remarks by the mayor of Saint John with some comments of my own because I believe they are pertinent to the issue and show the storm of resentment that has been raised. I quote them also because I approve of them and support them.
I would say further that the minister's statement in his wire that there is an extremely acute shortage of railway rolling stock and that the Canadian National Railways by moving its rolling stock over its own line to Portland is in a position to earmark it for return movement to Canada is open to criticism. Why is it necessary, I ask, to let the rolling stock go out of Canada at all, when it could be used by the railway to haul goods for export to Canadian ports?


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask my hon. friend what he is reading from?


Douglas King Hazen: I am reading from my own notes.


Mr. GREEN:: A very cheap interruption.


Lionel Chevrier: Not any cheaper than the kind we get from the hon. member.


Douglas King Hazen: In the maritimes we have heavy consignments of potatoes and other commodities waiting to be shipped to the west. These box cars could be used to carry these goods back after unloading their export freight at these ports of Saint John and Halifax.
I would point out also, and I think it is important, that there is no authority binding on the Canadian National Railways that obliged it to reduce rates to Portland. It was not compelled to reduce these rates; it was a voluntary act on the part of the officials of the railway. Why, I ask, was it done The answer given on December 18 last, in reply to a question I put on the order paper, reads as follows:
To re-establish rates on recognized basis to Portland, Maine, consequent upon the resumption of steamship service through that port.
That answer is not satisfactory. I question its accuracy. I do not accept it. There is a question of government policy here that has to be faced, not evaded. To say that it was in consequence of the resumption of steamship service to Portland, Maine, is putting the cart before the horse. The fact is that the steamship service was resumed through Portland because the rates were reduced.
In 1931 Sir Alexander Gibb, a famous port authority, was retained by the federal government to survey Canadian national ports. He

found that Saint John and Halifax had suffered heavily from "the actual diversion of great quantities of Canadian grain to United States ports." He said in his report:
Apart from sentiment and patriotism, there are moral and national, as well as sound business grounds for the maritimes' claim that the grain trade, which is already in many ways subsidized by dominion funds, should utilize to a greater extent the facilities which have been established for it at a considerable expenditure of dominion money.
I quote this part of his report to refresh the mind of the government, and more particularly that of the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that after Mr. Vaughan's announcement it came to light last autumn that 1,000,000 bushels of Canadian rye destined for France had been routed through Portland instead of through Saint John and Halifax. When Secretary-General Hommey of the French supply council was asked why this had been done, he is reported to have answered that his understanding was that the British were using flat-tops or aircraft carriers to transport grain, and that facilities at Saint John and Halifax had been changed to handle this particular type of ship, which made it difficult for them to accommodate ordinary freighters. This information, if it was furnished the secretary-general, was false; for although flat-tops had carried grain from Montreal and Halifax, the berths at which they were loaded had no trouble loading freighters. Saint John had never put grain on a flat-top, and the grain conveyer system at that port has not been changed.
Mr. Hommey is reported to have said also that he understood that (1) the elevators at Saint John and Halifax were full of grain for the United Kingdom, which would have held up loading of the rye for France even had the "technical conditions", as he described them, been satisfactory-the truth is that Saint John's elevators, with a storage capacity of 3.000.000 bushels, contained only 635.000 bushels at the time, while those of Halifax, with a capacity of 2,250,000 bushels, contained only
60,000	bushels; (2) that Portland "is just another Canadian port anyway because the Canadian National Railways runs there"; (3) it is "shorter for us to ship grain through Portland-one-third less distance".
It is true that the distance is somewhat shorter, but the freight rates on grain are the same. Shipping men in Saint John say that the rye for France could have been delivered to ships there just as quickly as at Portland. Since the ships on which the rye is to be carried were built in Canada it was expected that a Canadian port would be given the pre-

The Address-Mr. Hazen
ference in handling the rye. And I have no hesitation in saying that Canadian ports should have been given the preference.
I say further that the government should have this matter fully investigated for the purpose of finding o-iit who gave the secretary-general of the French supply mission this false and misleading information. If this information was furnished bj^ Canadian National Railways officials-and who else could have furnished it?-they were violating government policy, or what has been government policy in the past; and steps should be taken to prevent false information being given in the future. I call upon the government to conduct this investigation and let us have its findings.
What is the government policy? In view of what has happened, the people of the mari-times are disturbed, and not without reason. They want to know if the government has abandoned the policy of shipping Canadian goods through Canadian ports and adopted another policy; or if it has failed to see that the policy is lived up to, either through neglect or through placing too great reliance in Canadian National Railways officials.
I do not propose to go into the negotiations which led to confederation, but I would point out that it was Quebec and Ontario that wanted such a union and approached the maritimes and asked for such a union. It was not the maritimes that approached Quebec and Ontario; and one of the chief reasons they wanted a union was that they were compelled to depend upon the ports of a foreign nation for about half the year when the St. Lawrence river was frozen.
The people of the maritimes were given the assurance at that time that if they would come into a union their ports would be used and developed. It was promised, to quote the words of the Hon. Peter J. Veniot, as reported at page 2985 of Hansard of March 14, 1933 :
That the commerce going through the ports of the maritimes would bring prosperity to those provinces such as they never had before.
In return for the benefits which the maritimes would bring to confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald offered a railway which "must be a national work." It was made clear by him and others at that time that the whole country would stand behind the operation of the railway so as to overcome the geographical disadvantages of the maritimes in the union and thus place them upon a transportation footing to compete with Montreal and New York for the trade of the great west. As a result he said the maritime ports would take their place among "the great emporiums of the world" and "all the resources of the west would flow to the bosoms of their harbours."
Sir George Etienne Cartier, speaking in Montreal, said:
During six months of the year we (Quebec and Ontario) have to knock at the door of our neighbours in order to carry on our trade. Tbis cannot be tolerated. This confederation must be carried out. We are enriching the American states whereas we ought to be enriching such harbours as Saint John and Halifax.
Let me pause here to say that is exactly what the government railways are doing today by voluntarily lowering freight rates to Portland, Maine.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking in the city of Saint John in 1897, said he would never be satisfied until every pound of Canadian freight was carried through Canadian ports.
It was about five years later in November 1902, that the government of which Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the head was petitioned by the Grand Trunk Railway for assistance in the construction of a railway of 2,500 miles, running from North Bay to the Pacific coast. The proposal was turned down, and one of the reasons for turning it down was-and my authority is "Skelton's Life of Sir Wilfrid"- that the plan-[DOT]
... would mean that the existing terminal of the Grand Trunk, Portland, or one of the southern New England ports, towards which Hays was .feeling, rather than a Canadian port would be built up by the traffic of the Canadian west.
A new proposal was made by the promoters, and when on July 30, 1903, Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced- a bill to provide for the construction of the National Transcontinental railway, he" said

I am not quoting his exact words-that a commercial route wholly within Canadian territory to Canadian seaports must be secured.
Trade, the people of the maritimes were told then, was to flow east and west, like water through a millrace, when the road was constructed.
The National Transcontinental Act of 1903, which was passed for the constructing of a new railway "across the dominion of Canada from ocean to ocean, and wholly within Canadian territory", confirmed an agreement the government had made with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The preamble of that agreement, which forms part of the act, contains these words:
... it is in the interest of Canada that a line of railway designed ... to promote the internal and foreign trade of Canada and to develop commerce through Canadian ports should be constructed.
Section 42 of the agreement, which is embodied in the act, reads in part as follows:
The company agrees . . . that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin
The Address-Mr. Hazen

to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
Section 43 reads:
The company further agrees that it shall not, in any matter within its power, directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall, in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public add is granted, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels and through Canadian ocean ports.
Section 45 reads in part as follows:
The company shall arrange for and provide . . . shipping connections upon both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans sufficient in tonnage and in number of sailings 'to take care of and transport all its traffic, both inward and outward. at such ocean ports within Canada, . . . and the company shall not divert or, so far as it can lawfully prevent, permit to be diverted, to ports outside of Canada, any traffic which it can lawfully influence or control, upon the grounds that there is not a sufficient amount of shipping to transport such traffic from or to such Canadian ocean ports.
These sections. I submit, outline the policy of the Liberal government under Sir Wilfrid Laurier's leadership. The policy was violated when the government-controlled railways diverted traffic to Portland by a voluntary reduction of freight rates. This policy was violated, I submit, when influences were brought to bear that resulted in 1,000,000 bushels of rye being shipped through that port last autumn instead of through Canadian ports.
In the Canadian Northern Railway Act of 1911 the policy of the government is set out in section 13. The aid provided is for the express purpose of encouraging the transportation of goods through Canadian ports. The company must agree (1) that all freight originating on its lines, not specifically routed otherwise, shall when destined for points in Canada be carried1 over the railways within Canada; (2) that the through rates on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports; (3) that all such traffic not specifically routed otherwise 'by the shipper shall be carried to Canadian ports; and (4) that the companies shall not in any matter within their powers directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall in all respects, in good faith, use their utmost endeavours to fulfil its conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.

The policy of the Conservative government in 1914 as to the shipping of Canadian goods through Canadian ports, is found in "An act respecting the Canadian Northern Railway system" passed that year. Section 6 i(a) of schedule 3 of that act follows along the lines of the act of 1911, which I have just referred to, but goes further in its provisions in that it states, without qualifications, that all inward and outward ocean traffic shall be carried through Canadian ports.
The Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act of 1933, section 14 (2), reads:
The trustees-
That is, of the Canadian National Railways.
-shall so direct, provide and procure that all freight destined for export by sea which is consigned within Canada for carriage on National Kail ways either at point of origin or between that and the sea shall, unless it has been by its shippers specifically routed otherwise, be exported through Canadian seaports.
This, with slight amendments, was continued in- the act of 1936. When this bill was being discussed in the house on March 9, 1933, the present Minister of Justice said, at page 2868:
Let me say that as far -as the maritime provinces as a unit are concerned, their rights in respect to the Canadian National Railways centre around two points, and I think two only, the first of which is the preservation of the status of the Intercolonial railway. That is provided for in the British North America Act, and cannot be reasserted too often, particularly in view of the fact that our population is dwindling, in proportion to that of the rest of Canada. The second point is the recognition of Canadian ports, which is implicit in the confederation agreement, has been recognized by statute since that time, and constitutes a moral obligation upon the whole nation.
In conclusion, I would ask the government and the Minister of Transport these questions:
1.	Is it the policy of the present government to have Canadian goods shipped through Canadian ports?
2.	If this is the policy, what steps does it propose to take to have this policy lived up to?
3.	If this is its policy, does it propose to rescind the action taken by Canadian National railway officials in reducing rates to Portland, Maine, which resulted in loss of business to maritime ports?
4.	Who were the officials of the railway who reduced the rates to Portland?
5.	Will the government hold an investigation for the purpose of ascertaining whether false information was given by Canadian National railway officials to the French supply
* mission, which resulted in 1,000,000 bushels of rye being shipped through Portland last autumn?

The Address-Mr. Knight
May I add this for the information of the minister. After the delegates from Halifax and Saint John, on December 12 last, appeared before the minister and presented a brief-or about that time-the mayor of Saint John saw Mr. Vaughan, the president of the Canadian National Railways, and had an interview with him. I am anxious to bring this to the ministers attention before I conclude. In the course of the mayor's report to the common council, the report he made subsequently in the city of Saint John, he said that he had met Mr. Vaughan who told him that he, Mr. Vaughan, knew nothing whatsoever about the transaction. Mr. Vaughan told him he knew nothing whatever, that it was done during his absence. Mr. Vaughan, according to the mayor, said that the whole affair had been badly handled. He promised that never, while he was president of the railway, would there be a repetition of this secret activity. The mayor also stated that as far as he could ascertain-[DOT] and he made inquiries-the reduction of rates and the proposal to reopen the port of Portland were matters which were never placed before the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways; and he said this was supported by the president's admission of ignorance as to what had taken place.
I bring these statements to the attention of the minister in the hope that, when he gets to his feet, he will not blindly rush to the defence of the officials of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: It was my misfortune, Mr. Speaker, rather than my fault that I was unable to take part in the debate on price controls which took place in this house in the early part of the session. I think a member who represents, as I do, the constituency of Saskatoon in this house should have a word to say, along with the others upon that subject. The people of Saskatoon are saying just what the other people in this country are saying because, after all, people eveiywhere are much the same.
I am often amused, if I may say so, at the habit of some members in this house, particularly in this debate, of referring to and praising their own constituencies. Some assert that their constituencies grow the finest berries or that their hens produce the largest eggs in the whole wide world. Personally, I do not much favour, nor do I often practice, that particular type of local patriotism. I believe patriotism is all right, provided that it takes in enough scope. As I have said, the people in the constituencies across Canada are similar
and are, I would say, generally speaking, the products of the environment which has produced them.
I have mentioned my constituency of Saskatoon, and I am thinking of it now as an environment which produces people and one in which people find themselves. I like to think of it as a centre of culture and of education in the midst of a great prairie land. I like to think of its university, of its colleges and of its schools, all of them disseminating education just as its businessmen, who are largely engaged in the wholesaling of commodities, disseminate their goods throughout the prairie lands contiguous to it. The extension department of the university has a great hand in that dissemination of education. The university itself has a great expansion program for this year. The provincial government has a great program. It is building a great medical school and a hospital in conjunction with it. I think of my native city also as a convention city to which people flock to discuss the affairs which concern them and their neighbours, and to take advantage of the educational facilities which the city has to offer. We have a daily newspaper, the Star-Phoenix and radio station CFQC; and I think without flattery I may say that both of them play some part as links in that educational chain.
When speaking of communications I might mention that we have the two great railroads, and it is with particular pleasure that I can report this session that we are now on the main line of Trans-Canada Air Lines from Winnipeg to Edmonton.
I could say something of the progress of the city in business and industry. One thing that is noticeable is the great increase of cooperative enterprise not only in the province but in the city during the last year. The wheat pool is building a great flour mill there to join those of Quaker Oats and Robin Hood which have been long in operation. There is in operation too a new venture, namely, an oil mill which extracts linseed oil from the flax which is grown on the prairies. One would, of course, expect to find industry based on grain and cattle in that particular region. Thus it is that our industries are founded upon those products. There is a great packing plant there too.
From official documents I see that my constituency is officially referred to as Saskatoon City, but I do not think that title is comprehensive enough. Saskatoon City constituency has always included some farm lands and some rural people. The recent electoral redistribution has not altered that fact; it has rather emphasized it. It is true that much of the

The Address-Mr. Knight
rural part has been clipped off the northern side and the western side of the constituency, and I think wrongly so. But in compensation the redistribution has given to the constituency a wide strip of rural territory going down to and including the town of Hanley. I should not wonder if there are over 500 square miles of farm lands now on the south side of the constituency. Thus it is that Saskatoon speaks with a voice not only urban but rural. Even if it were a purely city constituency, its people would still be interested in farm problems, in farm products and in prices, because the city largely exists to service-nay, exists by servicing- the great farm territory upon all sides of it.
If one may judge from the letters and resolutions which I have received, the thing which is disturbing my constituents at the moment more than anything else is the increased cost of the necessities of life and the consequent lowering in their standard of living over a period. These protests have been coming along steadily, but were particularly vociferous at certain times. One was when farm implement prices were allowed to go up by twelve and half per cent; another was when the milk subsidy was withdrawn, and another was when coarse grains were thrown upon the open market. All the time that the government were following this policy, in accordance with the advice of the Conservative party and in spite of the advice of the C.C.F. party, this murmur of protest throughout my constituency, as in other constituencies, was developing into a roar which is now evidently penetrating even to government ears which were previously impervious to it.
Members of the government have been wont to boast about the state of things in Canada following the last war: how the price line had been held, how the cost of living was much more reasonable in Canada than, for instance, in the United States. Well, up to a point- a point in time-I could agree with that; but the time came when the government-and deliberately, apparently-sabotaged and undermined the whole structure which they had built up, and destroyed their own handiwork by a series of actions, of which I have mentioned a few and perhaps the most heinous. Since then, the retreat has developed into a debacle; prices go up and up; and the worst feature is that there is no certainty in anyone's mind that they will cease to do so until there comes the inevitable crash.
I cannot help recalling now some of the naive statements of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), for instance, and some other

government members, when they were cutting one by one the ropes which held the balloon of prices to the stability of earth. Increased production, due to higher prices, they said, would cause a levelling off of those prices, forgetting that there were a dozen exterior elements or factors to prevent the working of that natural law. I remember the Minister of Finance pleading almost tearfully *with business interests not to take advantage of the favourable position in which they found themselves. What a hope! In our system good business is profitable business. If it is good business to extract eight per cent from the pockets of t'he people, surely it is equally good business, if not better, to take sixteen per cent, or 100 per cent. After all, from a legal point of view the sky is the limit. Well, the sky is where the price balloon is now soaring. Were I a cartoonist I could do justice to that picture; it is a bit pathetic. As the balloon disappears above the clouds, the government, realizing the calamity of the situation, comes rushing to the rescue shouting, "It has tom loose. Too much inflation. What shall w-e do? How shall we get it down?" I said the picture was a bit pathetic. The figure leading the government group turns around and says, "Well, boj^s, let's appoint a committee to find out why the darned thing went up."
I now return to where I started. I wanted to express here in this house, where it should be done, the ideas of my constituents as to prices and controls, as stated to me in their letters and telegrams. They all endorse, as I do, the stand taken by the C.C.F. party on price ceilings and controls, as expressed in the speeches made during the debate prior to Christmas and in the current debate on the setting up of the prices committee. I shall be quite fair and honest, and say that I had one letter protesting against controls. That was easily understandable, because it came from a man who was unable to get possession of his own house because of rental regulations. Other than that, every letter and every telegram I have received have been in favour of the restoration of price ceilings upon the necessities of life.
I am not going into that argument again today. This matter has been debated more or less continuously in this house since December 5 of last year, and I think everything that could possibly be said has been said. The position of our party has been made abundantly clear and has been consistent throughout. No one, not even our worst enemies, can accuse us of inconsistency on that question. I believe the government was mistaken and ill-advised in its policy of decontrol, and I

The Address

Mr. Knight
believe the government now realizes that. I wish to add my voice to those of others in this group in opposition to that policy.
Before resuming my seat I should like to say how disappointed I was at an answer I received from the government the other day in response to a question I asked concerning UNESCO, the united nations educational, scientific and cultural organization. Since I have not seen any mention in the local press of this matter, I want to draw to the attention of the house and of educational, artistic and scientific societies in the country just what the attitude of the government has been and is with respect to UNESCO. You know, sir, that when the preparatory commission on UNESCO met it recommended that the signatory countries should form national commissions. I need not at this time go into the arguments in favour of that particular course of action, but it was approved by nearly all the educational bodies in this country, and for the last two years they have been looking forward with great expectation to the creation of such a commission. The government has received many recommendations from such educational, artistic and scientific bodies, as to how this commission should be set up and as to who should form its personnel. I have pursued the matter in this House of Commons. Every session since 1945 I have asked a question or questions in regard to it, and I must say most of the answers I received were very encouraging. The educational bodies were anxious that some of their number should be part of the personnel of the commission. We thought things were going along very nicely and a national commission would be set up. I now direct attention to page 850 of Hansard for Wednesday, February 4. where my question appears, as follows:
1.	Has the Canadian government made any progress since last session in the matter of setting up a national commission of UNESCO?
2.	What steps have been taken by the government to set up such a commission?
Both questions are bulked together, and the answer, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), is simply and categorically, "No". Then, in explanation of that answer he said:
It has been decided not to proceed at the present time with the establishment of a national commission for UNESCO.
I went on to query the government as to the personnel of the delegation to the conference now meeting in Mexico. As hon. members know, the educational bodies of this country thought the purpose of a commission such as this could have been better served
if some of their number had been appointed as members, so I asked this question:
3.	Who were the personnel of the recent delegation to the UNESCO conference in Mexico, and what is the occupation of each?
And note this:
4.	Did the members of that delegation represent directly any organization devoted to education, science or the arts?
The answer was "No". The next question was:
5.	Did the government consult such organizations before naming the members of the delegation ?
Again the answer was "No". Well, Mr. Speaker, from this government we are getting pretty well accustomed to that answer, without very much explanation appended to it, in regard to almost any matter. I believe I am speaking for educational organizations throughout the country when I say I am deeply disappointed at the final result.
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, two individuals are absent from this chamber, and until they take their places we are just wasting our time, as we have been doing for many decades past. One of your many duties, sir, is to keep hon. members who are speaking from straying away from the subject matter under discussion; in other words, to keep them on the track,; but there is no one here, nor is there any symbol, to indicate when we are on the wrong track. Ninety times out of a hundred when hon. members of this house rise in their places to speak, they are on the wrong track, as we shall find out within the next-


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Few minutes.


Mr. ASHBY:: -twelve months or so. If two years from now Canada exists as an independent nation it wall be because of the hard work of a few, a very few, individuals; otherwise by that time it will cease to exist as an independent country. Of that I feel certain. Watch Britain. Should Britain fall within a few months, as it may, our turn will be next; make no mistake about it.
I said two individuals were missing from the floor of this chamber, Mr. Speaker. If I had my way about the matter I would have another chair, similar to the one in which you sit, placed to your right. In that seat I would place an individual who would represent the philosophy of life toward which we should aim. I would call him the lord spiritual representing the Christian philosophy of life. He would give us some goal toward which we might work.
The Address-Mr. Ashby

As the people are not represented in this chamber, because only party politics are represented here to a great extent, I would have another chair erected on your left in which would be seated an individual representing the people of this country and not party politics. He might be called the lord temporal.
We have no individuals or symbols representing these things. When I walked around the building at noon I looked at the statues of the politicians which surround us here. I thought that in the centre of the Clerk's table immediately before you we might erect a small statue of none other than Christopher Columbus. We have all heard of Christopher Columbus. Ask any child in school; ask any university student; ask any man on the street; ask any hon. member of this house or of the other place what Christopher Columbus is noted for, and you will get the same answer- Christopher Columbus discovered America. When he started out he started out similarly to the way in which we started out, because we do not know where we are going or where we shall land.
But there are others who do know and they are guiding us into totalitarianism. I would never suggest that a statue of Christopher Columbus be placed in this chamber merely because he discovered America. The thought flashes into my mind that people really do not know what Christopher Columbus really discovered. Christopher Columbus discovered a philosophy of life, a way of life that was as nearly perfect as is possible to be reached by any human beings on this earth. He discovered it actually in operation for these people had brought it to a state of perfection.
As soon as Christopher Columbus stepped on to the shores of the West Indies he walked up those silvery sands, thumped himself on the chest a couple of times and took in a good deep breath. It was a mighty good thing he had taken a good deep breath, because the next moment it was nearly knocked out of him, for he was met by a delegation of some of the most beautiful damsels he had1 ever seen in his life who approached! to welcome him to that wonderful country. In fact they made poor Chris fee! all of a tizzwazz. Never in his life had he seen such beauties. Their hair; their clear bright twinkling eyes, their wonderful' smiles, their pearl-like sparkling teeth, their skin as smooth as the softest velvet-there was not a blemish on a thousand of them.
All this made Chris think of home and he sat right down and wrote, "Dear Nellie. I have discovered Utopia". To Queen Isabella

he wrote, "Dear Bellie", and he got half way down the page before he noticed what he had written. Then he had to screw up the sheet and throw it away and be more formal. Here is the record as it was put down by the man who made this great discovery, and I . quote from the letter he sent to Queen Isabella. Listen:
So loving, so tractable, so peaceable are these people, that I swear to Your Majesties, there is not in ithe world a better nation, nor a better land. They love their neighbours as themselves, and their discourse is ever sweet and gentle, and accompanied with a smile, and although it is true they are naked, yet their manners are decorous and praiseworthy.
What explorer could write that of us here in Canada?


Mr. KNOWLES:: It is too cold.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: This is serious, Mr. Preacher. Look at our schools; look at our colleges; look at our universities; look at our beer halls; look at our penitentaries; look at our jails, and look at our religious organizations which are nothing more or less than the party politics of Christianity, with pulpit orators spouting their stuff, professing Christianity but practising the philosophy of demons, the totalitarian, or police state. That is what we are facing now and will face within the next few months right here in this fair home land of ours, Canada.
No sooner did covetous individuals, similar to those who are now coveting this homeland of ours, hear about these wonderful people and this wonderful land than they set full sail for it. Arriving there thejr swarmed over this country; and, calling together these people who had solved their problems, who were living so happily and contentedly and peaceably together, clambered up on their packing cases and harangued the crowd and told them that, they had forgotten to put their pants on.
They then broke open their packing cases, for they were experts at exports, and began to sell these trusting souls everything from cheap cotton panties to hard liquor. They distributed among these people everything from the measles to religious tracts and smallpox. Finally they enslaved the men and ravaged the wonderful women and left ruin and desolation in its stead. They completely annihilated them. They are no more.
What a terrible history will some day be written of those men who had no colour in their skin! I sometimes feel ashamed to think that my ancestors may have taken part in that terrible work. What we must learn is that we also have a philosophy of life to aim at. Where is our lord spiritual in this chamber?

The Address-Mr. Ashby
Of course we have not come near to reaching that stage accomplished by the original inhabitants of the West Indies, but in reading through some old papers I came across some prices which, I am sure, will interest hon. members and the people of this country. In the days of old Nova Scotia over 100 years ago, in fact in 1827, certain prices prevailed which, I am sure, will interest the house. In those days people did not know how to produce as efficiently as we can produce today, nor did they know how to produce as cheaply; but listen to these prices: best beef, cut from front quarters, 6 cents; cut from hind quarters, 8 cents; salt pork, 12 cents a pound; potatoes, 60 cents a bushel; good Nova Scotia apples, $2.40 a barrel; Nova Scotia prime butter. 18 cents a pound, and this advertiser had fifty'- firkins on hand; white cotton cloth, 9 cents a yard; printed cotton cloth, 10 cents; white flannel, 12 cents.
He had also received one and a half tons of fine cheese, just as mellow as old Uncle Sylvester, and as nippy as an old maiden aunt who had just cracked her upper plate. He also advertised Yorkshire and west of England cloths at SI.20 a yard. He said he had fifty barrels of Irish salt pork on hand, twenty boxes of sperm candles, ten boxes of tallow candles and ten bales of tobacco. He said said he had thirty puncheons of high-proof rum-come and get it-at 54 cents a gallon.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is that?


Patrick Harvey Ashby: And he had Jamaica highproof rum, SI a gallon, fifteen hogsheads of Cognac brandy, and six hogsheads of best Cork Irish whisky at $1.75 a gallon; twenty-two quarter casks of Teneriffe wine; three pipes, five hogsheads of port wine and six hogsheads of Holland gin, all for sale at a reduced price. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that there were no government bootleggers in those days. There was no government monopoly of the blackmarketing of liquor, vending the vilest alcohol imaginable, and watered at that, at ten times its value, if it has any value, the drinking of which would give anybody stomach ulcers. Bureaucracy is the greatest monopoly the world has ever known-this bureaucratic government monopoly. Talk about profiteering! They are the profiteers, not those engaged in free enterprise, in private business.
Here are a few prices of fifty years ago. Oranges were advertised at one hundred for 85 cents. Today they are five cents a piece, $5 a hundred. Fifty years ago cheese, advertised as "Good nippy Cheddar", was selling at five cents a pound. I telephoned a grocer in Ottawa to find out what the price of cheese was today. I asked him, "What is the price
of good nippy cheese, Ontario Cheddar?" He said, "If you can get it." I said, "You have none?" "No", he said, "I cannot get it." I asked him what the price would be if he could get it. He looked it up, telephoned me latei on and said, "45 to 47 cents a pound."
Fifty years ago bacon was selling at five cents a pound. Today, tough old sow belly sells at from 73 to 89 cents a pound. There are no good pork products on the market in Canada today. Our primest meat is exported. The Canadian people are not fit to consume the best they can produce, but must eat culls. We are fed Spam and Spork and such offal as that, instead of the fine hams and bacons we can produce.
Fifty years ago, Indian rugs, six feet by three feet, were selling at $2.15 each, suede gloves at 48 cents a pair. In 1819, wheat was selling at $2.40 a bushel and you could buy a three and a half pound loaf of bread for eight cents. Have we learned nothing since those days? Are we not able to produce far more abundantly today than ever before and far more cheaply? I can answer that question as a practical farmer. Leave us farmers alone and we will flood this country with so much food that it would be an utter impossibility for the people to consume it. Production is being deliberately sabotaged in Canada today. Let us take a look and see. Here is the record. Listen to it.
According to the Canada Year Book we had on our farms in Canada in 1943, 8,148,000 swine. Last year, 1947, we had 5,473,000, or a loss of 2,675,000 breeding animals. Our foundation stock is going. Last year we marketed 300,000 brood sows, No. 1 and No. 2, the foundation stock.
The output and slaughter of hogs in 1944 amounted to 11,431,000, and in 1947, 4,500,000, or a loss of some 7,000,000 hogs. This does not include the losses for 1946 and 1945 which would bring the total loss to 14,000,000 hogs for the three years. And remember we were producing those hogs at a time when our sons were away, when most of the able-bodied manpower of this country was overseas fighting a fallacious war, and the rest of the ablebodied men and women were in our factories producing munitions and war supplies, which left the work of production on the farms to our farmers, their wives, and their little children of school age. So what could we produce if help was available today? Help is available but, owing to factors which I shall mention later, our production is being ruthlessly restricted.
Let us take a look at lard. In 1944 we produced 140,753,000 pounds of lard. In 1947
The Address-Mr. Ashby

our production dropped to 65,761,000 pounds, or a loss of 75,000,000 pounds. Imagine that in a country such as this!


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Under a Liberal
government.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: That is true, and I will come to that in a minute. Talk about oleomargarine! If people only knew it, lard is just as good as oleomargarine. Put a little salt in it; add a little colouring, and I will guarantee it is a mighty fine spread. The people of Britain used it for hundreds of years.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: That was a long time ago.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: And it is just as digestible as butter, every bit of it. I know the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) does not know much about lard. He may be an authority on apples, but I am an authority on lard, and we used to use a lot of it. In fact, if you do not believe it, look at me now. I am in very good condition, even if I do lose fifteen to twenty pounds while I am here during the six months of the session.
In 1945 we had 6,760,000 cattle on our farms; in 1947 the number dropped to 6,020,700, or a loss of 739,300 breeding animals. We slaughtered 2,606,650 cattle in 1945, and in 1947 only 1,283,034. or a loss of 1,323,616 beef carcases. And people wonder why they cannot get the meat they want.
In 1944 we had on our farms 3,726,000 sheep. In 1947 this number had dropped to 2,706,900, or a loss of approximately 1,019,100 breeding animals. Imagine that! In 1945 we slaughtered 1,159,962 sheep. In 1947 the number had dropped to 892,655, or a loss of approximately
250,000	sheep and lambs. Dairy cattle on our farms in 1945 amounted to 4,000,000. In 1947 they had dropped to 3,697,400, or a loss of 302,600 milk cows.
Let us now turn to butter. In 1943 we produced1 311,709,000 pounds. We have dropped in 1946 to 271,366,000, or a loss of 40,343,000 pounds of butter. I could not get the 1947 figures. In 1945 we produced 1,762.677,000 gallons of milk. I can hardily run through these figures, but I shall give them. In 1946 we produced 1,693,700,000 gallons, or a loss of 69,000,000 gallons of milk.
During the past three years as a practical farmer, I estimate our losses in livestock and livestock products to be fully $2 billion. Over $2 billion worth of livestock and livestock products have been sabotaged from the people of Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: You cannot blame war-worn Europe for that.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: But do not think for one moment Canada is the only nation that is under attack. The whole of the British empire is now being undermined in the most ruthless manner imaginable. We are at war, and those who are fighting us are using the most despicable methods imaginable, and are apparently getting plenty of support. Here are the facts from Australia. I will not go into the situation in other countries because the time goes so fast, unfortunately. I shall quote from the federal house of representatives Hansard to show what the Hon. Arthur Fadden said on September 20 last. This is what he said:
A steady decrease of 500,000 hogs a year since 1044. In beef cattle a loss of half a million since 1945; 400.000 less dairy cows than in 1943; 112,000,000' gallons of milk have been lost; 53,000 tons of butter less than in pre-war years; a decline of 47.300,000 pounds of wool; a decrease of 13,000,090 bushels of wheat.
I telephoned the librarian in the Confederation building and asked her for certain figures. Later she obtained them for me and telephoned them back to me, and she made a most significant statement. This woman had never been outside the library. She did not know I was a farmer; she thought I was just a common member of parliament. She said, "These losses are due to lack of feed." I laughed. I said, "1 am a farmer. We have an abundance of feed and could produce more in abundance." We could double the output of food from our farms at any time the farmers are given the freedom to go ahead and produce it.
Others will tell you that the loss is due to disease. They will tell you that this tremendous loss in hogs is due to bullnose or rhinitis which has given us some extra work. In cattle, others will tell you it is due to haemorrhagic septicaemia or some such disease as that. An hon. member from northern Ontario was telling me the other day that wolves were harassing the flocks of sheep up there, and the worst of them was a cross between stray dogs and wolves. As a practical farmer, Mr. Speaker, I have discovered the animals that are causing these terrific losses I have placed on record, and that is a breed of creatures, the most despicable wretches the devil ever hovered. They are what are collectively known as DDOT's. AVe all know what a DOT is. A dot is a period; and a period is the end, and the end is death. Whenever these DDOT's get going it means death. That is why agriculture is being destroyed. These DDOT's are closely associated with other similar species of predators known as DDA's. The DDOT's are all those employed in the Dominion Department

The Address-Mr. Ashby
of Taxation. I do not see why UNRRA, UNESCO and all these organizations should have a monopoly on such words. Those known as DDA's are employed by the Dominion Department of Agriculture. I know many of them. Do not think for one moment that all of these are guilty. They are not. I would discharge, I should say, about seventy-five per cent of them; as regards the remainder I would double their salaries, because they deserve it, if they serve the people honestly and well as experts appointed. They then should be the highest paid of any individuals in our land.
There are other associated creatures, despicable things, known as PPOOP's. That is, People Preying On Other People, and there are thousands of them today. They live off the products of the toil of others. The united nations, UNRRA, UNESCO and all these other associations are claiming that there are food shortages; but they give no remedies at all. The remedy is to give these DDOT's one tremendous dose of D.D.T. and clean them right out. In fact, if this house would just make the transportation facilities available to me I would guarantee to have in Ottawa within thirty days five full battalions of fighting farm men and women and other workers armed with pitchforks and meat cleavers who would clean these bureaucrats out of these offices in no time at all. We would drive them out like rats out of a sinking ship, and hon. members could clamber to the top of the tower here and look at them as they fled across the river and up into the bush in the north country, because we do not want them on our farms.
As I said before, we are just wasting our time merely talking. We must do something, and do it mighty quickly before it is too late. When I speak to these civil servants, mind you, they tell me that they are carrying out the policy of the government in office.


John Horne Blackmore: Page the treasury
board.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: I hold in my hand one of the most ruthless, cunning and dishonest pieces of work that I have ever seen. It is called, "The Prairie Farmers Income Tax Guide and Farm Account Book". The name on the bottom is, "Dr. James J. McCann".
We are told that this is issued by the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue, which is not true. The taxation division never issued anything. An individual issues something. These DDOT'S always hide behind institutions. Go to any of them and they will tell you to write to such and
such a department. Imagine people saying that several hundred years ago! People would wonder, "Who is he? Is he married?" Individuals are responsible and we have to pin this responsibility upon individuals. And we have to do it now. Look at some of the things it says here: "This is intended to help you fill out your income tax". It is not my income tax. I do not want to fill out any income tax. This is Doctor McCann's income tax. Why not insert the name of the individual? I am told that Doctor McCann is a mighty fine fellow. That may be so. I believe, however, he is too busy with his departmental business and has not had time to scan this book thoroughly.
If it is true, as these bureaucrats tell me, that this is the policy of this government, then this government will leave it as it is. They will not withdraw these state police-for that is all they are-who are ravaging agriculture from one end of Canada to the other. These tax collectors are a bureaucratic gestapo or state police employed for no other purpose than to rob and plunder agriculture,, because it is agriculture that is under attack. They feel they have big business under their thumbs.
It is the most terrible state of affairs that Canada has ever known. Listen to this for an insult. They tell the people, "If you have any special problems about income tax," ignore your member of parliament. He does not amount to anything. We will get rid of this parliament; just give us a little more time. Ignore him and "write to the district income tax office". There you are-office again.
I received a letter from one of these individuals who said. "This office wrote to you	Well, now', the writer might as
well have said that the spittoon wrote to me, or the ashtray, or any other piece of equipment that went to furnish the office. That is what the poor fellow really said, although I do not know that I should call them poor. I believe they know better, but they always shirk personal responsibility and place it on institutions. That is where we have to strike and strike hard.
This is really humorous, but unfortunately I have not the time to go into it. Listen to this:
The Department of Agriculture, w'hich has sponsored and administered . . .
Mind you, no individuals are mentioned; it is just an institution.
The Department of Agriculture, which has sponsored and administered many laws directly helpful to the farming community, and which has always watched over the farmer's best interests ....
The Address-Mr. Ashby

Can you imagine that? I have quoted statistics showing how they are plundering and destroying agriculture. Is that in our best interests? Is that in the interests of the people of Canada? Then they go on to speak of the Department of Trade and1 Commerce, whichever seeks to extend1 the market for Canadian products. Think of the thousands of poor old ladies who, when it is fifty degrees below zero, have to bundle up and1 scamper through the snow to an outhouse and scamper back again as fast as they can, because we have not made available to our own people the facilities that should be theirs. What better market is there than the people of Canada?
This is old stuff. As I said1 before, I have here a copy of the British Hansard of over 100 years ago, and' I can quote almost identically the same things I have been speaking about. Here, for instance, taken from the debates of March 17, 1834, as they appear in Hansard of the British House of Commons, we find this observation:
But, no there was another tax to be levied on him-
The man that works.
-which was that tax resulting from monopoly. Monopoly demanded 2s 41 d. more. And so it would ever be; and thus the poor man must pay 300 per cent upon the real value of the article he used as a necessary for the purpose of supporting a false and a fallacious system of finance.
That was over 100 years ago. It is useless to debate. We have to do something, and here is a man who tells us what to do. I do not know whether I need mention his name-


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead1.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to finish my remarks. I quote again from the same volume of the British Hansard:
He said to them, "Don't go to the landlords to aslc for cheap bread, because they cannot give it you. Go to the government, and tell them to take off the taxes, that the baker may be enabled to give you cheap bread.
And again, at page 539 of the same volume:
It was the monopoly of the monied interest which had scattered so much ruin amongst the agricultural, commercial and manufacturing classes of the country; but the day was approaching when that system would fall under the pressure of the ruin it caused.
What more can be said? And as for the rise in prices, I quote again:
Gentlemen must remember there were two ways of keeping up prices; one was by dimin-

ishing production, and the other by increasing consumption. Doing the latter. Increased the comforts and gratifications of the mass of the people, and allowed them to multiply indefinitely; but to cause a rise of prices by means of an artificial famine-such as we are experiencing today.
Such as we are experiencing today.
-was only to scatter misery and discord through the nation, at the same time it dug the ground from under its own feet.


Mr. H. W. TIMMINS (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, some little time has elapsed1 since the speech from the throne was read on December 5 last, but that speech is very much in our minds and, joining with those who have preceded) me in this debate, I wish to compliment both the mover and1 the seconder of the address.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the speech from the throne, and I desire particularly to refer to one paragraph in it in which I think we Canadians are vitally interested. The paragraph reads:
Despite the continuing scarcity of certain supplies and high building costs, a greater number of houses are being completed this year than in any previous year. You will be asked to consider plans for a low rental housing project for veterans.
That is set out in the speech from the throne, and I should like, during the few minutes at my disposal, to develop the matter, if I can, with hon. members who are here. I consider this to be a matter of the first importance to the people of Canada, and particularly to our veterans. I am a little bit suspicious of the wording, which is:
You will be asked to consider plans for a low rental housing project for veterans.
I do not know whether that word "plans" means that we are to have some discussion about the matter, whether it means that at this session of parliament a veterans committee is to be set up in which we shall consider these plans, or whether it means that we are to have some legislation brought down in regard to the matter. In any event, my desire this afternoon to "smoke out" the government in respect of what its plan may be. In other words, we have heard a great deal, both during the war and) since, about housing for veterans. We have now come to the time when we must deal with the matter at first hand.
It is about time the government came to grips with this housing problem. Three things emerge from the building records of 1947. First, the government has had little to do with anything but a small number of housing units constructed in that year. Second, the Secretary of State for External

The Address-Mr. Timmins
Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) set his face, and presumably that of the government which he may sometime lead, stiffly against subsidized housing. I do not intend to comment on the minister's discussion of subsidized housing, but the fact of the matter is, that if we are not to have a veterans housing problem in this year of 1948, some sort of subsidy may have to be used, and if not a subsidy, then some other unorthodox method of producing houses-because we must provide houses this year for the veterans.
Third, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) notified this house in July, and rather mystified us when he did so, that with the exception of the veterans, the government owed no responsibility to the people of Canada in connection with housing. That, of course, was a right-about-face from the previous policy of the government, because in every year prior to that the government had been talking about a housing program. Actually, of course, there is not any government housing program and there has not been one in the past.
The official estimate on housing for 1947- and it is only an estimate-has suggested that about 75,000 housing units were erected last year. As a matter of fact, according to the parliamentary return filed on January 26 of this year, it would appear that housing starts will total approximately 75,000 units. That is quite a different thing from 75,000 houses built. I do not know what the number is; nevertheless the government says that 75,000 housing units were started.
I should like to take a minute to look at the score with regard to housing in 1947. According to the return to which I have just referred, as of December 1, 1947, Wartime Housing Limited are said to have built 5,031 units. December is another month, and one-twelfth of 5,499 units which were under construction on December 1, would give 610 units more. As of December 1, under integrated housing 2,069 units were built; and in the same way, one-twelfth of 4,293 units which were under construction on December 1, 1947, gives us another 515 units which would be completed in the year 1947. Housing Enterprises Limited completed 2,788 units, and another 63 units may be said to have been completed in that year. Under the Veterans Land Act, apparently about 1,806 units were completed. That makes in all 12,882 housing units; and those were all the housing units the government even touched on in 1947, so far as the government is concerned. That means, of course, that 62,000 houses were built by the private, individual builder, if these government figures are to be accepted. Housing Enterprises Limited is now out of existence, so that there will be no further production from that source this year.
On the other hand, the veterans of Canada have been crying loudly for a housing plan to protect them. When the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply made his announcement in Vancouver in October of last year, that he was arranging to provide for the veterans in Canada some 12,000 low-rental housing units, at rentals between $27 and $37 a month, I suspect he was acting under pressure exerted at that time by the angry veterans. I can assure the minister that the outraged cries of the veterans are still ringing. Last Monday night I was at a meeting of veterans in my own community, and they told me in no uncertain terms of their plight. They asked that this program which the government had been talking about for such a long time should actually be brought into force, and it must actually be brought into force this year. As hon. members know, the legion met here in Ottawa in September last, and they made their demands known. It may be that the suggestions which they delivered to the government are not acceptable to the government. Nevertheless the matter must be dealt with; and it is up to the government to find ways and means of fulfilling their commitments in that respect.
Some factors with regard to housing in Canada at the beginning of 1948 should be considered. First of all, we come back to the subject of nails. Although we are in the month of February, and at the present time nails are not noticeably in short supply, they will be in short supply -within another month or so. Although our production is well up, it is not nearly up to the demands of 1948. Then there is the matter of plumbing supplies. At the present time they are in short supply, and will probably continue to be in short supply during the year unless the government does something to give some sort of bonus to ensure that plumbing equipment, particularly bathtubs, is put into higher production. In addition to that, brick is in short supply. Some incentive will have to be given in order to assure that we shall have sufficient brick to carry on with in 1948. Nails, plumbing supplies and brick are really the only building materials still subject to the priority system in Canada. With respect to all other building materials, with perhaps one exception, priorities do not mean a thing any longer. The whole system of priorities has broken dow-n. That was the situation at the beginning of this year.
The Address-Mr. Timmins

The Minister of Reconstruction is also the new Minister of Trade and Commerce, and is responsible for the administration of schedule III under the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act, which is before us at this session. In schedule III we note that a great many building materials will be rigidly screened under the permit system. These include marble, building stone, bars and rods of iron and steel, iron and steel angles, and in fact almost all the things that go into the construction of a large industrial building. If Bill No. 3 means anything, and if it is enforced rigidly in order to save United- States dollars, then the deathknell of industrial building in Canada has been sounded for this and perhaps next year, because the material will not be available. Hon. members are aware that, while industrial building went up more than 100 per cent last year as compared with the previous year's record, residential building went up only a matter of something over eight per cent. So that now we have reached the point where the government must make up its mind- to do something in respect of residential building. At this time the government must give some leadership in regard to home building throughout the dominion because, after all, this is the opportunity it has been waiting for. From time to time some of us have told the government that if it intends to continue in the housing field it must make up its mind to tell the people who are in that business just what is essential building and what is non-essential, so that residential building may not be placed in an inferior position. However, the Minister of Reconstruction has paid no attention to our demands in that regard. The situation is now reversed. Industrial building is at an end for the time being. Those in charge of large projects in the big cities have been warned not to proceed because they will not be able to get the necessary materials to complete their work, so that in the large cities we see these building projects standing idle.
I just read a quotation from the speech from the throne in reference to plans for a low-rental housing project for veterans for 1948. I take it that some new legislation is to be brought forward, though, on the other hand, it may be only the afterbeat of the pronouncement by the Minister of Reconstruction in Vancouver last October. Then, only last month in Toronto the minister announced that his department was prepared to start a 4,000 unit low-rental housing program in and about the greater Toronto area, on the understanding that building sites were provided by the province and the necessary municipal services were supplied. The minister

knew perfectly well that his pronouncement could not be taken seriously, and that he was simply trying to throw the responsibility on someone else. He knows perfectly well, and has so expressed himself, that in the city of Toronto there are no building lots left. He also knows the problems of the surrounding townships, which have found that when wartime housing came into their communities, with fixed taxes, those taxes were not sufficient to pay for the education, costs of the normal families occupying those homes, and for the ordinary municipal services which must be provided. He knows, and he knew, of that problem. Actually the minister of planning for Ontario answered the Minister of Reconstruction at once, pointing out that in October, 1944, the province had offered to put up fifty per cent of the equity for low-rental housing financed under the National Housing Act, and that Ottawa had declined. I know that to be so, because at that time I was serving on the municipal council and the matter came before us. After a good deal of discussion and consideration we had to drop the matter, and the plan was not proceeded with.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: There ought not to be any cleavage between the federal government and the provinces with respect to providing houses. Each level of government has a responsibility. We do not want the several levels of government in Canada quarreling among themselves; we want houses, thousands of them.
I presume that all houses being erected by Central Mortgage and Housing will come under the control of Wartime Housing Limited. I assume that the 12,000 houses which the minister of reconstruction stated in Vancouver last October would be built will come within that category. I notice that when the minister was in Vancouver he stated that ordinary Wartime Housing required serviced land before embarking on a housing scheme, but they had agreed to forgo those requirements in an effort to keep taxes low for the service man. That is all very well, but when the minister of reconstruction was talking last month that is not what he told the people of Toronto or the people of Ontario. He said that he wanted the province to provide the lands and that they were to be serviced.
I do not know whether the plan referred to in the speech from the throne is the same plan

The Address-Mr. Timmins
of 12,000 houses that the minister is talking about, and that is something we want to find out, and find out soon.
According to a return which I received on January 26, only four cities or municipalities had commitments for 1948 from Wartime Housing. Penticton, British Columbia, has commitments for fifty houses; Vancouver for 6C0 houses; Vernon for 100 and Windsor for 500. That makes a total of 1,250 out of 12.000. Then we have a press report of February 4 which states that seventy-nine municipalities have "active" applications in connection with the federal government 1948 program of 12,000 low-rental housing units for war veterans. I do not know what is meant by "active applications", but it certainly does not mean that they have commitments. If those seventy-nine municipalities have made some contact with the department it denotes two things; first, that there is a tremendous lack of housing in the country and, second, that there is a great lack of progress in providing houses in this country.
Nothing ought to be allowed to stand in the way of the veterans housing plan for 1948, whatever it is. The government has a responsibility with respect to that, but we want to know what the plan is. The government has another responsibility which arises out of immigration which, despite the hit-or-miss policy of the government, is on the upgrade. Immigrants are entering Canada in great numbers. Many are able to bring in money with them and pay spot cash for houses right under the noses of our Canadian people. This further aggravates the housing problem and constitutes another responsibility which the government must assume.
I do not accept the pronouncement last July of the minister of reconstruction when he said that the federal government had no responsibility with respect to housing except veterans housing. The federal government took over that responsibility in wartime and reserved it to themselves. They were very zealous of the manner in which they carried on the w'ork and they told the municipalities and the provinces to get out of the way. That created many of the conditions which we have today. I am not going to blame the government entirely for that, because it is part of the price we paid in our determination to win the war, but the federal government cannot now shrug off that responsibility.
Last year an important amendment to the housing act was passed, which is now section 11B of the act. This amendment provides that lending institutions may go into the business of purchasing. and improving land for
residential housing developments. I think that is necessary, sensible and useful. I have not been able to learn how many projects have been brought into being under that section, but I do not believe there are very many. Under that section a lending institution is able to go into a district on the outskirts of a city or manufacturing community, buy land at a reasonable price and proceed to develop it by providing streets, water, sewers and all the amenities of ordinary, decent living. In addition, the problem of schools must be taken care of and that is a most necessary factor. After all, the builder has enough problems in trying to build the houses without having to go around looking for land as well. We must not provide land for veterans which is too far from their work. I have been in some cities where the veterans have been shunted out to districts away off from their work. It is not a fair proposition for the veteran. I am directing most of my remarks tonight to the plan mentioned in the speech from the throne for veterans housing in 1948, and if I am not able to raise any other issue than that I want to raise it as emphatically as I can.
I do not think adequate use of the project for the development of land under section 11B of the National Housing Act has been made at the present time. That project should be pushed. Canada is not going to stand still in population. Land suitable for building purposes is desperately needed, and this is a challenge to the government. When the government put this section on the statute books I have no doubt that they consulted with those who might be taking advantage of the plan. The challenge to the government is to see that the plan works, and that those for whom the plan was provided accept their share of responsibility with respect to assisting housing.
I am satisfied that immediate progress in housing can be made if the government takes heed of the factors which confront us at the present time. The winding up of Housing Enterprises last year was a clear admission that large building corporations and institutions of that kind cannot begin to compete with the ordinary private individual builder. In my opinion, low-cost housing in Canada can be provided only by the private individual. I think that is fundamental, and I believe that the officials of Central Mortgage understand that. Housing Enterprises Limited had to give up the ghost because costs had run out of sight. They had such a tremendous overhead which the private builder does not have. Neither can large general construction firms compete with the private builder. That is one of the big les-
962
The Address-Mr. Timmins

sons to be learned from 1947. If we want to make any progress in building in this country, and if the government want to keep out of subsidized housing, as they say they do, they must provide an incentive to the private builder to get going.
I have spoken of the land on the outskirts of municipalities and the necessity for the development of that land. Obviously the provinces must take some responsibility for housing, and there is not the slightest doubt that they are willing to accept their share of responsibility. I do not think the minister of reconstruction can sidestep the issue by placing the blame on a province. The leadership should come from the minister. He is capable, and he should arrange a conference of the various levels of government which are responsible for providing housing.
I believe that the government could succeed with respect to housing if they had a mind to act. I have a clipping here from the Toronto Globe and Mail of August 6, last, which states:
Canada's top housing official said today he thought the federal government was involved deeply enough in home construction. He added that he knew of no consideration being given further state commitments to attack a situation which he admitted was dangerous.
That indicates the mentality of the department. Apparently they feel that the government has gone into housing just as deeply as it should1 go. They have up to the present time used the machinery of legislation to further housing and have made some progress. Nevertheless, when we come back to the plans for veterans housing in 1948, the fact is that we have received no plan yet and we want to know what that plan is.
Last year the legion was here asking that something be done to provide veterans housing. The Canadian Federation of Mayors also cam* here and' asked for the providing of veterans houses. The people of Canada, too, in no uncertain terms are asking for the building of houses for veterans in this year 1948.
What about the small builder? I am not here to hold a brief for the independent builder. He can stand on his own feet. But if we want to make any progress we have to do'something by way of an incentive bonus to put the private builder back into business. Perhaps the minister of reconstruction will pardon me for covering some of the ground I covered this afternoon when he was not in the chamber. I had this to say, that by reason of the legislation for the conservation of exchange resources it is pretty clear that industrial building in Canada will receive its deathknell for the time being. Therefore I

said there is an added responsibility on the minister and his department, since ordinary residential housing has not made too much progress during the last year or so, to see that any drop in respect of industrial building is picked up and an impetus given to house building. There are a great number of building projects which are stopped right now. The minister knows best whether or not these building projects can be gone ahead with within the next few months or next year. Having regard to the severity of the dollar program, I believe that the minister is going to crack down solidly against steel and iron importations for industrial construction purposes. Therefore it 'behooves the minister and the department to see that an impetus is put behind residential building at this time so that we may have houses built in this country. All it requires is leadership and a small portion of that huge surplus which we piled up in the year 1947.
What can you do to put the small builder back in business? He has been elbowed1 out by the industrial builder. He has not been able to get supplies. The government helped soil pipe production last year or the year before by an incentive bonus. It helped nail production by an incentive to the producers of nails. It helped bathtub production by an incentive bonus. We are living in unusual times. We need houses in this country perhaps more than anything else, and perhaps we shall have to resort to some unorthodox method to produce those houses.
There are two or three things which you can do for the private builder to give him an incentive to go ahead and build this year. They may be unorthodox. Perhaps we should get all these small builders in under the integrated housing plan where their profit is known. If the builder could be sure that the little bit of profit which he would make on a house, perhaps $500, could be exempted from income tax or something of that sort it might make it worth his while to proceed and build houses. A profit of 8500 on a small house is not very much money even in ordinary days, and it certainly does not amount to much at all in these days. On the other hand, since we know that his profit under the integrated plan is fixed, he might be allowed to buy, with that bit of profit, succession-duty-free bonds to make it worth his while to build houses. These methods are quite unorthodox; nevertheless so is subsidized housing; but in one sense of the word the government repudiates subsidized housing, but actually subsidizes it in another way. I am putting it to the government that, even if unorthodox
FEBRUARY 6, 194S	963
The Address

Mr. D. Gourd
methods have to be adopted, some progress will have to be made this year for the veteran.
The veteran is under a disability in respect of acquiring a house for himself. First of all, today his army credit is not sufficient as a down payment on that little five-room or six-room house that he might want to buy. It may have been sufficient last year or the year before, but those in the department, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, know just as well as the rest of us do that the down payment a veteran has to make today is beyond his reach. I mentioned a veterans' meeting that I attended last wTeek, and that was the cry of four or five young men there who had a credit coming to them of about SI,500, but it was not sufficient to enable them to buy a house.
The next thing is that the costs are too high. That is where some of these unorthodox methods come in. After all, the veteran has to be housed. In addition to that, some of the houses have been built too far distant from the veteran's place of employment, and the community developments have been too far away. Because of that, the young man is under the necessity of paying two fares, or he has to buy a run-down secondhand motorcar, and many hon. members know just what veterans have had to pay out in that respect in order to get some conveyance back and forth to work for himself and his family.
Under the land development plan of the National Housing Act a good deal of leadership can be given by the government to the lending institutions in the development of land which would be near enough to the city to enable the veteran to get back and forth comfortably to his work.
In the past the amortized payments have been too high. I believe that the proposition which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made to the veterans in Vancouver last October gave them a good deal more latitude than had ever been given before. I think the plan was to be financed over forty years which, of course, was just about as far as the minister could go in that respect.
We are right back, Mr. Speaker, to the speech from the throne which says:
You will be asked to consider plans for a low-rental housing project for veterans.
I do not know whether the plan which is referred to there is the plan for 12,000 houses in 1948. If it is, then it is quite inadequate. Not only ought we to have these rental houses that have been suggested by the minister, but we should also give the veteran an opportunity to buy his own home, because that is 5849-614
what he wants. He wants a place of his own that he can call his own in which he may five. I do not think there should be any limitation to the extent to which the government ought to be willing to go to give leadership with respect to the provision of houses for veterans in 1948. My challenge to the minister is to let us know what this plan is; whether it is legislation, or whether it is just discussion. I think the least our objective should be in 1948 is 50,000 houses for veterans and nothing less than that. I do not think anything less than that would be adequate.
(Translation):


Mr. DAVID GOURD (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, every hon. member will recall, I am sure, the splendid impression made upon all groups in this house by the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply. I congratulate them both on their excellent speeches.
Mr. Speaker, I propose to discuss taxation, in order to stress certain views of particular interest to the people of my constituency of Ohapleau, a farming, mining and lumbering community of northwestern Quebec.
In a previous speech, .1 dwelt on the importance of the mining industry for my constituency, stressing not only the interest of the mines themselves but also the value to my constituency of a permanent mining industry, and the importance for it and for the country at large of mining company payrolls and purchases. May I also emphasize in a special way the importance of the mining and lumber industries to farmers who supply them and their employees with their products.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government and particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on the legislation enacted recently to encourage marginal mines.
The passing of those measures enabled us to find out how hostile the attitude of the Opposition can be towards these matters. It also brought to light the attitude of certain associations and newspapers serving the Opposition and which claim to speak on behalf of the mining industry; yet, instead of recognizing their value, they tried to convince us that such measures would bring absolutely no relief to the gold-mining industry. Thus they have placed the mining companies in a still more difficult situation, by increasing the fears of the public and reducing its confidence in mining companies at a time when everyone admits that our gold mines are in a difficult position and must have the cooperation of the Dominion Government. That situation was not brought about by
The Address-Mr. D. Gourd

improper legislation, but by various causes of a general nature which affect not only the Canadian gold industry but all gold mines, including those in the United States whose difficulties are equally acute.
The main cause of those difficulties results from the fact that the costs of labour, materials, equipment and machinery are steadily increasing, while the price of gold remains at a stationary level, both in Canada and the United States.
We could advocate drastic measures to help the mining industry, but they would necessarily bring about inflation in the country and result in price increases which would directly affect the population and those with small savings. Such measures would be short-sighted and I ask the government not to enact legislation which would be detrimental to the majority of our people. I would like to make a recommendation in that respect, on behalf of my constituents and especially of the farmers who, through the sale of their products, profit by the prosperity of mining companies. I will therefore recommend that the government increase from 33J to 50 per cent the allowance based on the costs of production as authorized by recent legislative measures, that is to say that the proposed allowance be paid when production exceeds one-half rather than two thirds of the basic year's output.
I note that farmers of my constituency have many difficulties. Their costs are too high compared to the price they obtain for their products. Recent export contracts have improved their situation, by slightly increasing the price of their products, but I favour any step that would assure reasonable profits to the farmers. Among other things, we should facilitate the purchase of grain and mash for their livestock at more reasonable prices, by ensuring better distribution of those products from western Canada and by making it impossible for profiteers to increase prices through unwarranted speculation.
In view of the farmer's plight, I suggest that Tie government lower the taxes and levies that affect them, and particularly stress the proposals of my colleague, the hon. member for Ivamouraska (Mr. Marquis).


Mr. DECHENE:: Hear, hear!


David Gourd: As I pointed out in a former speech, varied sources of revenue are essential to an area such as the Abitibi

district. It is also all-important that these be of a permanent nature. Such is our agricultural industry, and our mining operations, though still in the initial stage, have uncovered mineral reserves that should prove profitable for many years. In fact, the natural resources of which we seem to have taken the least advantage are our forests.
It is essential to provide the district with a pulp and paper mill that would use our natural resources on the spot and help more people increase their earnings of a permanent nature while securing to farmers and settlers lasting markets for their products.
Had such a mill been made possible, all the wood, millions of cords, in fact, exported elsewhere could have been used to manufacture pulp and paper, thus increasing the population of the district as well as its earnings. This would also have been to the good of our farmers and settlers. Further, water power required for the operation of such a mill is available, at Senneterre and at Kiask Falls, for instance, and around lakes Mata-gami and Mistassini.
When I first came to the shores of the Harricana, in 1912, the district was absolutely bare, but I remember that all settlers, like myself, felt sure that the development along the railway was but the initial stage of a further northward expansion that has spread over an area of some 100 miles to the very shores of lake Matagami.
The railway that stretches as far as Kiask Falls, for which we have to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and thank his Department, promotes the development of this northern area; at this point, I should like to recommend that the railway run along the Bell river as far as the Chibou-gamau district to the northeast and be extended as far as lake Matagami to the northwest.
As I pointed out on a former occasion at the very beginning of 1947, the Dominion Department of Transport started building that railway line with a view to fostering the development not only of the mining but also of the lumber industry, and to opening up new areas for settlement. Seven townships have been opened to settlers, where it is hoped to establish 1,700 families on good land. Estimates show that a population of 15,000 can live on these 275,000 acres.

The Address-Mr. Campbell
Since the opening of that district, I have repeatedly tried to bring home to government officials the possibilities of those lands and the necessity for developing the resources. I am grateful for this opportunity to renew this suggestion.
(Text):


Mr. MAX CAMPBELL (The Battlefords):: This evening I wish to speak first for a few minutes on some of the matters affecting the people of my constituency, and then I wish to discuss a bank, a reserve bank for the people of eastern Canada.
In the first place, I am glad to see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is in the chamber, because a large part of my constituency has witnessed an almost complete failure, and these people are wondering just what the government is going to do in connection with wheat payments for past deliveries.
A great, many statements have come out in the papers and many of them are very conflicting. For instance, in the Saskatchewan Farmer of December 13 and 14 this statement appears:
Agricultural officials estimated last week that a sum approaching the $200 million mark would find its way into the pockets of western wheat farmers, over and above the current initial payment of $1.35 a bushel soon after parliament passes legislation boosting the initial price of wheat to $1.55.
I do not think that statement is correct, if I understood the minister correctly in his past announcements. I wish to impress upon the minister the fact that a great many of our farmers in these districts who have had no crop need that money, whatever payments are to be made, and they need it in time for their spring operations. Therefore I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to see to it that, whatever the government plans in the way of payments for past deliveries, that legislation shall be brought forward at the earliest possible day.
I am receiving a good deal of correspondence from people who are very much interested in the committee that was set up last year to bring forward a bill of rights. I do not intend to go into that again, but I think the government would be wise to set up that committee at once and let them get to work so that we may have some action on that particular matter.


Mr. GARDINER:: If my hon. friend is
going to leave that question, may I suggest
that we should not leave the impression that S600 million is going out. Did I understand the statement to say that $600 million was going out?


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I said I did not think it was right.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would think it would be less than a third of that.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: There have been so many conflicting statements in the papers that I wanted the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement as soon as possible so that our farmers might have an idea as to what they might expect in the coming legislation.
With regard to the bill of rights, I shall not go into that matter beyond asking that the government take action right away.
Another matter brought to my attention, as it is brought to the attention of other members of the house every day, is the high cost of living. I have received representations from organizations of all kinds, church organ izations, social and welfare organizations, every organization in my constituency. They have all written to me in regard to this matter, which has been very fully discussed in the house. I shall not go into the arguments in that regard except to say that I stand by what the members of this group have said in that connection.
During the past fall there have been two actions of the government that have caused a good deal of resentment among our farmers, and that was when the subsidies were taken off coarse grains and these commodities were put back on the speculative market. Our farmers do not want speculative marketing of their farm produce. I think the minister knows that as well as I do and I do not intend to go into that question further.
I want to be brief because what I wish to discuss is along the lines of the banking question to which I have referred. The other matter which caused a good deal of concern has to do with the postponed marketing of certain years' grain which will make it possible for the farmer not to have that money put into his account in any particular year for income tax purposes. A directive went out from the Department of National Revenue in 1946 to the elevator companies, and farmers were told in that directive:
A producer who does not wish to inci ease his income for taxation purposes in 1946 but who
The Address-Mr. Campbell

wishes to assist in alleviating hunger by delivery of his wheat now, may do so and defer receiving the initial payment until 1947 or 1948.
I have here a letter from a farmer in my constituency in regard to this matter. I do not think the government has been altogether fair in the action it took on October 3 in cancelling that arrangement. This is what this farmer says:
Rutland, Saskatchewan, October 11, 1947
Dear Mr. Campbell:
I am enclosing two circulars from wheat pools regarding deferred payment on grain. A circular came out to all agents telling us we could deliver grain and take payment the following year and this would not go on this year's business for income tax.
There has been between ten and fifteen thousand bushels delivered to Rutland under this plan and I expect that thousands of elevators both in this province, Manitoba and Alberta have had farmers doing the same. Then in one day, October 3, as per circular, we are told that at the close of business of that day was the last day they could accept grain under the plan. Our agent, I suppose with thousands of other ones had no word of it until the time was past. (The circular gives you all this information) . . .
Most people, like myself, had grain graded or special binned and would naturally take settlement when the last load was in. This order came so suddenly that comparatively everyone was left napping. I do not know who all are responsible for this but I do know it has left a nasty taste in more than one mouth.
The circular which came out, dated October 3, had in it this telegram:
Greatly regret necessity for withdrawing a ruling given on thirtieth November 1946 to our Calgary district office under which farmers shipping grain one year and taking a post-dated grain ticket or a credit on books of purchaser w'ere entitled to treat proceeds as income in [DOT]taxation year in which they actually received the money up to thirty-first December, 1948. This ruling was erroneous and legal authorities at Ottawa agree that it is contrary both to income tax law and Canada Grain Act. Notwithstanding this we are prepared to live up to our commitments with respect to transactions between thirtieth November, 1946 and today's date but not hereafter.
I think that was an arbitrary action. Some warning should have been given that that action would come, because these farmers will now have to pay storage until after the new year on that particular grain.
So much for that. I am hurrying through what I wish to say, because I do not want to go into a great deal of detail. When I spoke on February 7, 1947, I had something to say about Indian problems in my constituency, and I spoke of a good many of the needs we had out there, I also spoke of a school at Delmas. I warned the government that that school was a firetrap. The other day I received

a clipping from a local paper; and, according to it, I find that that school has now been destroyed by fire. In my area we had three residential Indian schools which have been burned within the last few years. I suppose the causes of those fires are all different. In this particular article the conjecture is made that the fire may have been started through old-style knob and tube electric wiring. I do not know whether that was the cause of the fire, but we are having altogether too many fires in the institutions which house our Indians, our young people and our aged. It is time that action is taken to ensure that proper inspection is made, periodically, of these buildings; and, if there is this old type of knob and tube wiring that is dangerous, it should be looked into.
I now come to what I wanted to say about a reserve bank for farmers. It has been drawn to my attention, and more so since I came to this House of Commons, that farmers in eastern Canada are dependent to a large extent upon western Canada for their feed grains. Last fall the price of this coarse grain has mounted, largely because the government withdrew the subsidies. The price has gone almost out of reach; at least the farmers thought it was out of reach until changes were made by the administration. Not only that, but the farmers found great difficulty in getting their supplies of grain when they needed them, owing to shortage of cars and one thing and another. It has been suggested in the past- it is not a new idea-that farmers who have stock to feed should see to it that there is always a good reserve of feed. The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) said that the head of the Quebec department of agriculture had made a suggestion, as follows:
. . . Mr. J. S. Chagnon asked that consideration be given to a program enabling Quebec farmers to obtain at all times of the year whatever products from the west they needed.
They helped the western farmers during the years when they needed help out there, and they are now asking the western farmers to help them in this matter of storage. The suggestion was made that storage space should be built along the banks of the St. Lawrence river, and some of the ports for the purpose of storing grain. I think that is an idea worthy of a good deal of consideration, for this reason. Because the eastern farmers need grain from western Canada, I think they should know something about conditions in western Canada with regard to the growing of grain. In western Canada we have the finest soil there is anywhere. I do not think it can be beaten anywhere in the world. But there are years

The Address-Mr. Gagnon
when we do not get enough rain; and when we do not get enough rain, we do not get the crops. Some years we shall have 100 or 125 bushels to the acre. Last year we had all the way from nothing to twenty bushels to the acre, which was about the best we had. Perhaps there are a few favoured districts that had a little more than that.
An. hon. MEMBER: That is oats.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: It is oats I am talking about. That being the case, in the past I have seen oats going out of our district by the carload-many carloads-for as low as five cents a bushel. Of course that is a price which would not begin to give the farmers their cost of production. I do not say that this government should build elevators or that government should build elevators, but I think the farmers themselves should get together and decide whether they want the provincial government or the federal government to do it, whether they want to form a co-operative or whether they want a combination of provincial and federal aid. They would be well advised to start making a study of this proposition of building storage space for their grain. If they do that they will be assured at all times of a bountiful supply of feed. Every stockman knows that to be successful he must be assured of an abundant supply of feed at all times, at reasonable prices. If he buys on a hand-to-mouth basis it means that in a year of short crops he will have to pay high prices. In a year of abundant crops it will work to his advantage, but it will work to the disadvantage of the farmers who grow the grain. I like the idea of more co-operation between the farmers of western Canada and the farmers of the east. If I were to offer advice to the farmers in Quebec and the maritimes, especially, I would suggest that they send more farmers to the House of Commons. Since I have been in this house I have not heard very much about the needs of farmers in Quebec.
To support this idea of a reserve bank for feed. I want to tell a story about one of the most successful stock raisers I know in western Canada. He was a man along in middle years, who came up from the United States. I went to his ranch soon after he got started, and he had granaries full of grain and large stacks of hay. He had one of the finest herds of cattle I have ever seen, and he told me the reason he was so successful was that he always had a bank. He said, "Here is my bank; here is my reserve. I aim to have two years' supply of feed ahead, so that in the event of a dry year I will be able to carry my stock through and finish it". I think that is a good idea, not only for an individual but for a province or a country.
With regard to transportation, it may be that some day we shall have a government- perhaps it may be this government-that will stop paying freight subsidies on this feed grain. I like the idea of having grain stored in ports along the St. Lawrence, and possibly along the great lakes as well, to take advantage of a cheaper means of transportation. Last year I had the privilege of going to the port of Churchill, in northern Manitoba, one of the finest ports in the world. Coarse grains could be loaded on boats there, brought around and up the St. Lawrence and the great lakes, and the grain placed in these storage houses. That could be done in the maritimes as well, with grain being unloaded at Halifax for distribution.
I believe this matter should receive the consideration not only of members of this house but also of the people of eastern Canada. As to operating this storage space, I do not know to what extent co-operatives are built up in these provinces. Both Ontario and Quebec have large numbers of co-operatives, but I do not know whether they would be large enough to handle this business. We in western Canada like co-operation. We like to run our own business as far as possible. I should like to see the people set up their own co-operatives, perhaps with government financial assistance to set them in motion.
(Translation):


Mr. PAUL EDMOND GAGNON (Chicoutimi) :: The hon. member for Lake St. John-Roberval (Mr. Dion) to whom fell the duty of moving the Address in reply to the speech from the throne has acquitted himself of his task in a most felicitous way. May I extend to him my sincere congratulations and my thanks for having emphasized, among other historical facts concerning our district, the important contribution of Chicoutimi to the development of our natural resources.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Hear, hear.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, there may well be in Canada places more famed and better known than the constituency I am pleased and honoured to represent in this house, but I submit that, nowhere else in this country, is there one more picturesque, more beautiful, and with greater possibilities for economic development. May I add that, apart from its tremendous water-power resources, the kingdom of Saguenay, with Chicoutimi its most precious gem, ranks second in Canada in gross value of industrial products, cost of materials used and power supply needed. We rank third for the number of people employed and the salaries paid by over 400 concerns with a yearly production of $200 million.
The Address-Mr. Gagnon

The paper mills at Port-Alfred, Jonquiere, Kenogami, Riverbend, Desbiens and Dolbeau -the last three in the Lake St. John constituency-employ close to 5,000 people, turn out more than 2,200 tons of paper a day and have a yearly payroll of about $10 million.
In the Saguenay district alone, the aluminum industry, whose Arvida plant is the world's largest, employs more than 6,500 people with a yearly payroll of nearly $11 million. Returns to contractors, lumbermen and others is almost $11 million, while the income of medium and small industries, services and trade totals a further $10 million.
In fact our agricultural industry is the second largest, in the province. Farms of the Saguenay district, with a total cultivated area of 327,000 acres and a total value of $30 million, have a total yield of approximately $11 million. A promising field, the use of mining by-products, is as yet untouched. It will be seen then, that there is still room in our demesne for a great many new industries.
Some sixty members of the Toronto Stock Exchange, recent visitors in my constituency, were surprised at the abundance of our wealth and amazed at the initiative and success of our businessmen, as well as at the skill and ability of our workers.
Light issues forth from the North, and, as was said in 1867 by Arthur Buies, one of our foremost writers, the North will be the strength and the splendour of our country and the firm and inexpugnable bulwark of the French race in America.
However, to ensure the success of our undertakings, and the stability of the productiveness of our district as well as the physical, moral and spiritual health of our people, we are relying, as do other areas of Canada, upon the cooperation of government authorities, knowing as we do that their chief duty is to look after the welfare of those under their jurisdiction. The first requisite is that workers be guaranteed an income commensurate with the needs of their families, and that they, whether old or young, should be able to derive the full benefit of the pay-cheque they bring back from the factory or elsewhere. With Their Lordships the bishops of my province, I therefore request that income tax exemption be granted on all incomes lower than $3,000 for married people and $1,500 for unmarried persons. In view of the fantastic level which the taxes and the cost of living have now reached, the labouring class, now in the grip of inflation, finds it impossible to make both ends meet, and still

less to put something aside for a rainy day. The social legislation passed by governments during the last few years no doubt have some usefulness but their benefit should not be destroyed by the levying of unduly heavy taxes on those who come under such legislation.
Do not think that you can enrich a man by taking away with the left hand what you gave him with the right hand. Our government has been mortgaging for too long, at the source, the labour and toil of our poor classes. The time has come when this taxing of the very blood' of our people must come to an end. When that is done and when, through adequate legislation, the gangsters and1 profiteers will have been deprived of their means of making excessive profits and exploiting the public, our labouring classes will be in a position to face and overcome all difficulties andi to meet the requirements of their daily lives.
As for the farmers, the only reason why, in these times of emergency, they reduce and slaughter their stock is that they can no longer afford to pay their life annuities.
The high increases in the price of middlings and in the cost of other feeds, which followed the repeal of the subsidies and speculation on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange have doomed the dairy and hog-raising industries in the province of Quebec. The same condition applies to poultry. The government must now remedy this condition of its own making, and enable the farmer to gain new confidence in the future. We have had enough of this unplanned governmental interference inspired only by the requirements of certain groups. This state of affairs has only added to the seriousness of present conditions. By their hesitations, their half-measures, their fumbling and opportune policies, the government have wrought confusion and chaos upon our Canadian economy. The people are now worrying about. tomorrow, about what will be the ceiling on the goods they have to buy, about what will be the price of bread, milk and butter over the weekend, about what controls are to be removed and what others are to be re-imposed.
In the meantime, the ministers responsible for such a state of confusion are making speeches in different parts of the country, threatening this or that one, repeating their former promises, hesitating upon what course to follow, lending a sympathetic ear to socialists and even adopting their policies while censuring them. They promise to hold enquiries, form committees, and at the same time ignore the findings of earlier enquiries and commitees; they dio nothing but talk

The Address-Mr. Gagnon
while the house is on fire.
What is needed today is action, not words, clear-cut decisions and not vague and tottering propositions. We need men who can foresee circumstances instead' of being their victims; able leaders who know where they are going and where they are leading the people. We need also a sound, clear-cut policy conceived for the sole welfare of our country. The Canadian people is much more interested in knowing what the future holds in store than to know who will be the next leader of the Liberal party.
The government is responsible for the difficult situation against which the people are now struggling and should find means of remedying it. The government has the power and indeed the imperious duty of fulfiling the promises they made to the electors of Canada, and guaranteeing our citizens freedom from want and unemployment, by providing for their security through the re-establishment of our economic structure on a solid basis.
The state's responsibilities regarding security may be compared to that of the educator towards the child; each must point the way, while giving full play to individual initiative. The state must see that human goods are fairly distributed, so that society may function smoothly, yet should not distribute those goods directly since it cannot do so without controlling the individual and disrupting the normal functioning of social life. On the other hand, when the state fulfils its responsibilities intelligently and firmly, the social problem easily solves itself, writes Mr. Esdras Minville. director of the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales de Montreal.
The failure of the short-sighted policy of the present administration has destroyed the confidence which the electors had placed in our politicians who, after dragging us into the war in 1939, promised peace and heaven on earth to the people in 1945. They now ask the people to tighten their belts, make sacrifices and refrain from eating fruits and vegetables, and from buying cabbages at 16 cents a pound and lettuce at 75 cents a head, in order to conserve American dollars, after having foolishly spent one billion dollars for Britain. As was pointed out by the seconder of the motion (Mr. Dickey) whom I should like to congratulate on his first speech in parliament.
Canadians had reason to hope that exchange restrictions were a thing of the past. Excise taxes and restriction of imports to limit consumption were very far from our minds.
Last September the minister of finance (Mr. Abbott) stated that we were able to help Great Britain because of our imports from the United 5849-62
States. In order to further the economic reestablishment of European countries, Canada has had to make large scale purchases in the United States, but digging into its supply of American dollars has only led the country to dependency and to the humiliating results now being felt. Our neighbours to the south hold our national economy in tow. Unfortunately, we receive political and economic guidance or direction either from Great Britain or the United States.
Mr. Abbott added;
A substantial part of Canada's exports must always be paid for in cash or convertible exchange. otherwise we would not continue to pay for the U.S. imports on which our economy depends.
According to Mr. Minville:
Canada's highest interests, our normal development towards freedom, require a policy stressing appropriate diversification and the expansion of foreign markets.
We should trade with all countries which are prepared to trade with us as free countries dealing with another of the same status, in a spirit of world co-operation, diversify our markets so as to balance their fluctuations one against the other, stabilize the situation as a whole and avoid becoming too dependent on any one country.
The price we have paid as a result of our sentimental and economic attachment for Great Britain should be high enough to open the government's eyes.
While lending support to the establishment of international societies capable of preserving us from the scourge of war, let us build in this country such institutions as may ward off the repetition of depressions of the kind we have known in the past. Capitalism as it operates today under government sponsorship is gradually paving the way to socialism and its train of disaster.
If for instance the federal government were to reduce operating expenses to a minimum and eliminate useless outlays, the Post Office Department could most certainly give my constituents the services they claim and provide adequate remuneration for rural mail-carriers. It is unfair to deprive part of the population of an absolutely essential service on the grounds that $800 is too much pay for carriers who each year travel 3,328 miles with horse and buggy. It is ridiculous to fix a uniform rate for mail delivery or transport throughout the country, irrespective of which part of it you are in. Every case should be decided on its own merits. The hon. minister (Mr. Bertrand) did state, in fact, in this house, that his "was not a revenue department, but a service department". I therefore trust that, with his usual kindness, he will work out a solution consonant with the wishes and the needs of the localities of my
The Address-Mr. Gagnon

district and I thank him for what he has done for us in the past. I am also grateful to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) for the improvements carried out by his department at various points in the Chicoutimi district and I ask him not to forget in his estimates the people of Petit Saguenay who ask, quite legitimately, that urgent repair work be done to the wharf of their village; he should also remember the people of Grande Baie, who are in the same situation. The erection of public buildings, such as post offices and customs offices should be undertaken without delay.
As regards the hon. the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), he would be well-advised to rouse the apathy of the C.N.R. authorities and remind them, for one thing, that Quebec not only has never been pampered as far as railway lines are concerned but even has not now and never has had her fair share. To be convinced of that, we merely have to glance at the area of each province compared with the total area of Canada, and to compute the percentage of population as well as the railroad mileage now in operation.
The figures, compiled in 1943 by the chamber of commerce of Charlevoix East, gave us a fairly accurate idea of the poor treatment meted out to us. Since that time, the situation has become still worse.
Alberta, with an area of 6 08 per cent and a population of 6-9 per cent, owns 13 per cent of the railway lines.
British Columbia, with an area of 9-05 per cent and a population of 7-09 per cent, owns 9 per cent of the railway lines.
Manitoba, with an area of 6-08 per cent and a population of 6-33 per cent, owns 11 per cent of the railway lines.
New Brunswick, with an area of 0-8 per cent and a population of 3-97 per cent, owns 4 per cent of the railway lines.
Nova Scotia, with an area of 0-6 per cent and a population of 502 per cent, owns 3 per cent of the railway lines.
Ontario, with an area of 1T0 per cent and a population of 32-9 per cent, owns 25 per cent of the railway lines.
Prince Edward Island, with an area of 0-05 per cent and a population of 0-82 per cent, owns 0-7 per cent of the railway lines.
Quebec, with an area of 19-0 per cent and a population of 29-07 per cent, owns 12 per cent of the railway lines.
Saskatchewan, with an area of 19-0 per cent and a population of 7-77 per cent, owns 20 per cent of the railway lines.
Yukon and Northwest Territories, with an area of 39 per cent and a population of 0-13 per cent, owns 0-13 per cent of the railway lines.
Thus it may be seen that Quebec, with 29-07 per cent of the total population of the country and 19 per cent of its area, enjoys only 12 per cent of the Canadian railway lines. We surely are not imposing upon anyone when we ask for an improvement of our situation in this regard. It is not an overstatement to say that the Kingdom of Saguenay, which includes Charlevoix, Chicoutimi, Lake St. John and Roberval counties, has the poorest railway service in the province of Quebec. Only one single track line connects this whole district with the rest of the country. This is clearly inadequate.
The present railroad, Jmilt in 1887, no longer meets the district's needs. The curves are too sharp and the slopes too steep. The journey is too slow and too long. To mention but one case, the night train between Quebec and Chicoutimi takes 9 hours and 25 minutes to cover 227-4 miles, which is an average speed of less than 25 miles per hour.
Moreover, despite the goodwill, the competence and ability of Canadian National Railways employees in this sector, passenger trains are nearly always late and accommodation is often very hard to get.
Among urgently needed improvements are the elimination of crossings, the rebuilding of certain stations and reorganized yards. The electrification of our trains, by reason of the abundance of water-powers in our district, is a project which should be considered. We cannot obtain from the Canadian National Railways detailed figures about its operations, but judging by the heavy traffic carried on in our midst we may well believe that the government railway, particularly during the war years, made thousands of dollars of profit in our district.
The bright economic prospects which the Chicoutimi district is now facing justify every confidence in the future. They will ensure to our railway an ever increasing income and a still greater prosperity. Therefore it is in the interests of the company that it should operate a service ensuring substantial dividends, and our district cannot, without running the risk of seeing its progress opportunities jeopardized, tolerate that the present high-handed treatment be longer meted out to it.
I wish to congratulate the Saguenay Economic Planning Council as well as all the public bodies of my constituency, on the

The Address-Mr. Church
splendid efforts they have so far accomplished with a view to obtaining justice from the C.N.R. I thank the Board of Transport Commissioners for having, last fall, sent its vicechairman, Mr. Sylvestre, to our district in order to hear our claims, and I hope the steps we have taken will not be of no avail.
Once again, I wish the Government may give to this problem the attention it deserves and that they will work out a solution equitable to all concerned.
In closing, I wish to pay a last tribute to my distinguished predecessor in this house, Mr. J. E. A. Dubuc, who died in October last. Mr. Dubuc, who sat in the house for twenty years, was one of the ablest business men of his generation. Through his death, the county of Chicoutimi has lost one of those who have contributed most in bringing lustre on the name of Saguenay in financial and industrial circles; the French-Canadian race loses a son who was a credit to it and Canada, one of her most eminent citizens.
(Text):


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the address affords an opportunity for private members to bring before the house the redress of grievances. But first there is one matter to which I wish to refer. There were dark days in Britain last fall, when the Big Four were meeting in Paris, and there was the threat of war. with bankruptcy, hunger and all that kind of thing facing the mother country. But there was one thing to cause rejoicing, and that was the happy event of the marriage of Princess Elizabeth. It was of great interest not only to the people of Great Britain but to every dominion in the empire and to, every province in Canada. It showed that the heart of the mother country was strong and that she would weather the storm.
That great soldier, patriot and statesman, who is now the Governor General, Viscount Alexander of Tunis, has been received with acclaim all across this country. Not only has he been received with acclaim and great affection by those who served in the forces under him, but he has been acclaimed for what he did for the country and the empire as a whole. He is one of the greatest soldiers of all times. Away back in 1943 I urged upon the government, when our late governor general, the Earl of Athlone, was leaving, that they should follow the practice of the United States after the war between the north and the south when former soldiers became presidents of the republic. I believe that is a good practice.
The speech from the throne offers an opportunity to lay before the house four of the
5849-82J
greatest needs we have in this country, namely, parliamentary, constitutional, cabinet and law reform. I have referred to these matters before. The tax collections in the Toronto district are the highest in the country; yet in the present government we have no cabinet representation from the Toronto district since 1935. We used to have four or five ministers from this largest tax-paying city in the Dominion of Canada. It is one of the largest we have in the overseas dominions, but we have never had a representative in the cabinet since 1935 when the former government was defeated.
Parliamentary reform is one of the most important matters we have at the present time. An effort to reorganize the business of the house has been before the house for a long time. Surely better methods could be adopted to look after it.
Law reform is also one of the most important matters confronting the dominion today. We have made very little progress, but they have made progress in the old country. Why are the jails filled at the present time? We have a new type of magistrate, a remand type of magistrate- unlike Colonel Denison-who wants to wait a week to think things over, to get reports and all that sort of thing. In a bill I introduced last session I urged an amendment of the criminal code, as they have had it for years in England, to provide under the Summary Offenders Act that these people be not put in jail. In the old country they do not put them in jail; they are allowed time to pay their fines. We should have that system here. Last session my bill proposed that the criminal code should be consolidated. That should have been done long ago. It is a relic of forty years ago, long 'before the first world war. There should be a committee of judges such as the Hon. Mr. Justice Mackay, to go over the act and present a report to a legal committee of the House of Commons. Long ago we should have had what they have in the provinces, namely, a legal committee here to consider legal bills. That would save a lot of time.
Another matter is the hit-and-run driver. The toll of life in fatal accidents in this country is appalling, and parliament is doing nothing at all about it. Children are being left alone in homes at night and are being burned to death. Many of them are living in hovels which are just firetraps. The first duty of the government is to look after the health, wealth, peace, happiness and prosperity of its citizens. Why is something not done to remedy the situation accordingly?
The Address-Mr. Church

Take our jails. Many of them were built before confederation against all known laws of public hygiene. We have one in the constituency I represent. The late Doctor Hastings, the health officer and I, said it was not fit for human habitation, ft has an efficient staff, good men, every one of them, but they are working under intolerable conditions. We built two farms, one for men and the other for women, ft was intended that the old Toronto jail should be closed, but it is still open and packed to the doors, and a lot of them are sleeping on the floors. That should not be. Many of them are first offenders, f urged upon the government that the criminal code should be amended to require magistrates to give bail and time to pay fines in many of. these cases under the Summary Offenders Act, as they have done in Great Britain for about ten years so that these things would not occur, because they should not be. The net result of law reform in Great Britain is that half the jails are closed up.
Another matter to be dealt with is the clarification of some of the statutes, in view of the decisions of the court of appeal regarding "voluntary statements" by prisoners to police, and many other matters such as that. Certainly with the disasters that are going on at level crossings, fires, hit-and-run drivers, road accidents from motor cars, thought should be devoted to this work for a day or more, morning, afternoon and evening to see if parliament cannot do something about it. t had a resolution on it debated every year before the last war.
Another matter is institutions under federal control. No one ever goes inside them. A committee of the House of Commons ought to be appointed to visit these institutions near this city at once to see what is going on, because the staff is headed by those who are just learning from experience, and are appointed with no knowledge of the work and take a year to look things over. Many of them come from other vocations. Some have had no experience and they are installed as heads of the department and deputy heads of the department. All they do is learn by experience. They know nothing about the work at all. We should have some other better system.
Last year a return was brought down in answer to a question of mine which showed that prosecutions laid in the Toronto district in respect of those who have no radio licences were much greater than those in Ottawa or the neighbouring city. As a matter of fact, they were nearly all in Ontario. That may or may not mean anything. A radio licence is

not worth $2.50 when one considers the class of radio programs we are getting. It is one of the most mischievous institutions we have in this country; it is just an adjunct of the government of the day.
I could refer to many other matters such as fines for breaches of the wartime prices and trade board regulations and so on. Fines collected in the Toronto district have been very high compared with some of the minor ones in other cities. There should be some uniformity.
Since the lights went out in Europe in 1914 we have had pretty nearly thirty-five years of war and fear. The people have been haunted with fear, restraint and discipline. Fear is filling our cemeteries. We have a tendency to over-organize. We are living in an age of fear. Labour is taught to fear capital; communism is taught to fear free enterprise; Europe fears hunger. The United States of America fears the boom and bust; the world fears the atomic bomb; everyone fears somebody or something, and liberty is nowhere. What we want in Canada today is freedom and less of these restraints and fears that interfere with the liberty of the subject.
One could suggest remedies for some of these controls. One of the worst things we have is the high sales tax. Mr. Fielding said that the six per cent sales tax was the maximum. In some cases it has gone up to twelve and a fraction per cent. I believe it should be reduced to about one-third or one-fourth of that. No doubt revenue is wanted.
Coming back to subsidies, last June I said we should adopt some kind of subsidy for milk, bread and coal up to March 31 next, because I knew then that suffering was coming. Nothing was done about it. I believe that supply and demand and production would be better, because subsidies have to come to an end sooner or later.
There are other matters to which I should like to refer. One is the matter of education and social services. Why should a municipality have to pay taxes for those whom they are compelled to take into their hospitals? Many of them are coming to Canada; they are new arrivals. The hospitals are filled and there is no further hospital accommodation. The federal authority should take some interest in that. The first duty of the government is to look after the health, wealth, peace, happiness and prosperity of the citizens. These are federal matters because they are federal matters in other countries. They are federal matters in the old country. There should have been concurrent jurisdiction on education with the provinces the same as in agriculture and

The Address-Mr. Church
immigration. There should be concurrent jurisdiction regarding hospitals, sickness, and all that kind of thing, and relief also and federal aid to municipalities, for all this, and not a burden on real estate as now. Up until a few years ago we had only a skeleton federal department of health. Something should be done with regard to that and also nursing. I can remember the great scarcity from which we suffered in this regard during the war. At that time not a nurse could be procured when one was needed.
In the Toronto district the postal receipts amount to 815.140,078.06. Probably the six cents was used for dead letter postage stamps. In Montreal, on the other hand, the receipts amount to $10,258,000. In other words, we have $5,000,000 more in the city of Toronto than in Montreal, and yet we cannot get some improvement in our residential service or our business service, and reduced postal rates. Something should be done to improve present conditions. The post office should be brought up to date. It should be made a progressive public utility. In Great Britain they have taken over many allied services. For instance, they have control over the telephone system. I have heard many complaints, and the suggestion has been made in many quarters that it is high time something was done to improve this great public utility, give better working conditions and pay for labour, and bring it up to a standard that will bear favourable comparison with the Bell Telephone Company and the Consumers' Gas Company, not to mention other concerns that render efficient service to the people. The Post Office Department does nothing of the sort.
There are able and loyal men in this postal and customs service, however; men who are a credit to the department, but they are working under intolerable conditions. I do not see why the city of Toronto cannot get some adequate return for this $15,000,000 which the government receives from our people. We are getting hardly anything. In fact, they will not give us even a minister, though we have many able ministers in our churches from Toronto the good, as some people like to describe it.
Take the harbour situation. Nothing is being done to develop our harbours further. Again, so far as the removal of level crossings is concerned, the people are 'waiting for some definite action on the part of the government. The sum of only $140,000 for all Canada was spent in 1947 on level crossings, but that can do nothing at all to meet the demand for improvement in connection with this menace to public life, with people killed in the Toronto district. Again, we are waiting for something really worthwhile in connection with our lifesaving stations on the harbour. Toronto city has to do the work of life-saving all over Ontario. We have a boat that was brought up from the maritimes, the old Northumberland, and I am afraid it will founder one of these days. Apparently the government thinks any old cast-off is good enough for us.
What is certainly badly needed in the province of Ontario is some system of linking up our parks. In the Trent district, the lake Simcoe district, Georgian bay, Parry Sound, and that whole country right up to the head of the lakes, we have a most attractive territory-and it is all government property-that could all be linked up into one great national Ontario park which would bring in tourists winter and summer.
The situation in the city of Ottawa, so far as the accommodation at the union station is concerned, is disgraceful. We should have had a decent station built long ago. When the bridge across the river to Hull was almost completely destroyed there was only one entrance into the city. Conditions at the union station are simply deplorable; it is a wonder to me that many people have not been killed, and but for the zeal, hard work and efficiency of the station employees this would have happened.
All our employees on both railways, without exception, from Vancouver to Halifax, should, in my opinion, be given a war bonus for the admirable service they rendered in connection with demobilization as well as in the movement of troops during the war. They did splendid work, moving hundreds of trains every week. These men, engineers, conductors, and others, worked sixteen and seventeen hours a day and they have never received a copper in recognition of the work they put in. The government can afford to compensate for war many others, and I think they should compensate the employees on the government railways-and the same applies to the employees on the other two systems as well-for the services they rendered the country in the greatest war in history.
And now a word about the cost of government. This, Mr. Speaker, is phenomenal. I suggest that the auditor general should be given more power over expenditure. There should be a check and veto on this sink-hole of money that is being spent in various directions, on trips out of town, not only to the United States, but to the seven seas. Something should be done about it. The auditor general cannot do it all. We have independent auditors for the Canadian National Railways, but I still think the auditor general could audit all outside boards also.
The Address-Mr. Church

May I say just a word about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In my opinion, it is the most mischievous institution on the North American continent. I say that in the light of the experience I have had with them. Toronto is the happy hunting ground for these people. Indeed, they come to the Toronto district from all over the country, from Halifax to Vancouver, and they even take part in elections. They are spending money like water and we are getting very little return for it. Here again, the auditor general should be given power to scrutinize many of these radio expenditures.
There are many other matters that I should like to refer to, but time does not permit. One highly important subject, however, is a national fuel supply. Nothing has been done about this since the policy was first advocated by me in March, 1923. The government strenuously opposed it for ten years and finally adopted it. All the coal we need in Canada could, in my opinion, be mined within the British empire, whether in Wales or in Nova Scotia or in Alberta. There is no reason why we should not also have a really efficient policy with regard to oil and pipelines. I see no reason, as in the 1923 debate, why our tar sands could not be successfully developed. Many of these things could be done if only we had the will to do them. For instance, I remember my late leader, Sir Adam Beck, with me, urging the government to take over the railways comprising the Canadian National and that was ridiculed at the time when we spoke all over Canada on it, but it proved a magnificent purchase for the country.
We have today in the Toronto Transportation Commission as fine a system as there is on the continent, run at cost from the commercial aspect. I know the agreement in the olden days, prepared by Hon. Samuel Blake, away back in 1891, and we had I do not know how many suits on it before the privy council and could get no relief at all. But we got relief in taking over the railways in 1921 at the end of that improvident franchise. In connection with the Ottawa Electric Railway Company, I have nothing to do with it, because I am not a ratepayer. I notice, though, that the government of Canada is being consulted regarding this Ottawa civic purchase, to see on what terms the government can help on it for the proposed federal area plan. I think it is the duty of the government of the day to lay the papers, if any, on the table of the house before the vote on February 15 as it relates to the federal end of it. I am not a ratepayer. I have nothing to do with it, and I have no wish to interfere, but I think this should be done

because one of the things to be avoided1 in such a contract in the system of municipal ownership is over capitalization, which is a serious thing in any proposed purchase of physical assets. But I am not here to criticize what is being done, because it is none of my business. But I remember the proposal to sell the old Toronto Railway in 1913 and 1914 for $32,000,000 with the Toronto electric light plant, which five of the six Toronto papers supported, all but the Evening Telegram and in the fight over it, it was almost carried.
There are some other matters in this connection that I should) like to mention. I remember away back before the war, between 1935 and 1938, when the young people in the high schools were riding the rods all over this country. I proposed in the house here in 1937-1938 that we should have an apprenticeship system for them, so that for two or three years they could get clothing, pocket money, housing, deferred pay and direct financial aid. In Canada a billion dollars was spent on the dole by federal, provincial and municipal authorities, and no economic value was received for the whole thing. I proposed they should1 have had what they had in England, namely, a national apprenticeship system for three years, with a system adapted to our circumstances by which youth could sign up for three years' apprenticeship, learn a trade in several key industries, receive actual pocket money, clothing, food, lodging and deferred pay, and at the end become air mechanics, pilots or journeymen in national key industries. The government refused all this plan for three years. If they had had it for those three years they would have had 1,500 skilled pilots ready for this magnificent air plan in 1939, a scheme that when war came, did so much for the country. I want to say that the Conservative party has not only been the party of public ownership but it has been a party that has done a great deal for the country in a social way. I remember away back in 1937 when this was going on, with people out of work and so on, and I should like to remind the house of what I said, as reported at page 973 of Hansard of February 17, 1937:
I would like to say a word or two in relation to industrial employment, because I want to contrast with the precepts of Christianity the way the industrial workers are used. Contrast our professions with the ruthless competition, the cruelty and vice of present day business and industry. Here personality counts as nothing, the dollar is all supreme. Modern life is machine life, soulless, a life of standardization, high speed production, a highly efficient organization for the making of profit. Everything is done in the mass, an 1 life is made

The Address-Mr. Church
uniform, monotonous and artificial. Dividends are the chief objective; to get dividends human beings are sacrificed. Wages are shockingly low. often below the level of mere subsistence, so that people are forced into immoral and criminal ways of life to eke out a precarious livelihood. The maximum in hours of work is exacted in return for the minimum in wages. Senior employees, w'hose lifeblood has been drawn from them by long years of faithful service. are in many cases cast out without retiring allowances to make room for younger and cheaper people. It matters not what suffering is entailed for human beings so long as the stockholders are paid their dividends. this amazing selfishness and short-sightedness ot the modern industrial system is creating a progressively lower standard of living and a vicious struggle for existence philosophy on the part of the people, increasingly serious social problems which must find their tragic solution either in war or in revolution. In the face of modern methods of competitive living the royal law ot love, bear ye one anothers burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ, is a hollow mockery m Canada, presumably a Christian country. This is the contradiction of modern life; a truly wonderful appreciation of the value of the single soul in some quarters, but an absolute denial of any such values in others.
The Stevens inquiry did a great deal to clear up that situation. Mr. Stevens was a most efficient chairman of the price spreads and mass buying committee in 1934, and for the employees in industries and white-collar workers, in the large departmental stores and large and small industries he obtained better conditions. He deserves a great deal of credit for that, and so do the Conservative party of Mr. Bennett's day as head here.
I should like to say a few words about external affairs. We should have had a Kipling. It would have been a good thing for this country. He wrote a poem at the time of the Diamond Jubilee when representatives came from Canada in 1897. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier went to the Diamond Jubilee he was
first in the Diamond Jubilee procession.
Kipling wrote:
A nation spoke to a nation,
A Queen sent word to a Throne; ''Daughter am I in my mother's house, But mistress in my own.
The gates are mine to open As the gates are mine to close,; And I set my bouse in order," Said our Lady of the Snows.
That was written at the time of the Diamond Jubilee. If Britain had called in, at the time of the last war and after it, the empire and *commonwealth, she would have escaped the great crisis she is now in and she would have Keen able to expand her exports and markets and this would have enabled her industries to Tecover. Canada should have stayed in the sterling area, as did New Zealand and Australia, to enable Britain to recover her industry
within the empire by preferential trade, first, last, and all the time. This could have been done and that was the greatest way of trading. There would have been once again, as after 1933, prosperity for all. Only in this way could it have been done. We threw ourselves into this jam by Bretton Woods and the United States loan to Britain, refusing an empire trade conference before the Geneva trade tower of Babel. We preferred internationalism and totalitarianism to preferential trade, when we should have told them at Geneva and the United States that preferential trade is a family matter and should not be subject to discussion at all at Geneva. As I said in an article, a symposium in the Monetary Times of September, 1943:
The proposal for political amalgamation between Canada and the United States will find little or no response in Canada while we are a unit in our admiration for the people of our devoted ally in this war and have the same common views on the war and the new world to come. Canada will continue forever on her destiny, yesterday, today and forever in a union of hearts and hands with the mother country and her dominions for all time.
We are not an independent nation. Such castles in the clouds had a rude awakening when this war began. We are a link in a chain of free dominions and colonies within and making up the British empire. Talk about annexation with the United States? No. There is no feeling whatever in favour of it. Nor of independence, either. This war showed the folly of small independent nations. Canada was the chief drifter from the mother country for the twenty years between the two wars-the most disastrous years which almost finished freedom, liberty and even civilization itself. Canada's dream of status isolation and separatism exploded and never again will she depend on such folly as pacifism and isolation.
In future, linked with Britain, our policy should be might plus right, and the time has come for Canada to cease whining about status. Status and autonomy and that empire-wrecking Statute of Westminster helped cause this war.
This is from the Monetary Times also of September, 1943.
What Canada has done the past forty-four years she has done of her own volition and she will do the same again gladly, namely, to come to the aid of the mother country in her hour of peril . . .
I believe in what Mr. Churchill said, that he "would not preside over the liquidation of the British empire." Certainly Canadians will not let it go by default. Canada is not going to be talked out of the British empire. Canada will have to be fought out of the British empire. If Canada could have been talked out of it long ago this would have been done . . .
I believe that is correct. Those who are attacking the Progressive Conservative party fail to point out that in both the federal and provincial spheres this party has been the pioneer of nearly all the social legislation the
The Address-Mr. Church

country has. It was the first party to promote on a gigantic scale public ownership of the resources of the country in light, power and transportation. It pioneered in taking over the Canadian National railway and in the important development of preserving the water powers for the people of this country. It also gave the province of Ontario the workmen's compensation act. In federal affairs it was the Conservatives who first proposed, in 1921, a national system of unemployment insurance, prison reform, health and hospital insurance and other social measures. It cannot be denied, says the National Review, that Conservatism has given to the country a long line of great statesmen, in this country as in Britain, who have known how to tread the middle path of ordered progress, and to sow a political harvest which subsequent generations have reaped a thousandfold. It was Clarendon who restored church and king on the basis of "those admirable and incomparable laws of government"; Danby who founded1 the party system; Edward Seymour who, by sponsoring the act of settlement, paved the way for the Protestant succession; Harley whose practice led to the adoption of the principles that the crown acts through responsible ministers; William Pitt, the younger, who revived the idea of the strength of parliamentary government when compared with the rule of the terrorist mob and who gave the world and his country a priceless legacy of British opposition to arbitrary government and dictatorship; Peel who brought free trade to his country and converted the middle classes to Conservatism; Shaftesbury who stirred the conscience of his party on the urgent need for social reform; Disraeli who linked imperialism with democracy and issued his resounding appeal for the "two nations" of rich and poor to unite; Randolph Churchill, who in a brief life of intense activity gave colour and direction to the policy of Conservative democracy; Joseph Chamberlain who fought for imperial trusteeship and brought idealism into imperialist economics; Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain whose industrial revolution gave new life to British industry in the thirties and unconsciously paved the way in no small measure for the mighty war effort of the forties; Winston Churchill who led the country in "their finest hour." It is an impressive record of great names, despite the tarnishing that each has known in his day. I say it is an imperishable record.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I believe this country is all wrong in its conduct of foreign affairs. Certainly we were all wrong about India. There should have been a debate allowed on 
that question. The situation in India is intolerable. Britain was in charge there for over 200 years, and now all that work is undone in two months. Neither India nor Pakistan is able to deal with the situation. All the members of the Indian civil service have been scattered, says the Review, and there is no one to replace them. Half - a million people have been murdered; five million are homeless wanderers. Hundreds of villages have been burned; roads, bridges, hospitals, railways and canals have been destroyed. Cultivation has ceased over a wide area, and no Indian is safe. In my opinion, that certainly beats anything Hitler did, and I believe our policy has been all wrong. India and Pakistan will not be ready for dominion status for another thirty years, either in regard to education or in any other way, and both countries are facing disaster and ruin and hunger.
I do not wish to detain the house longer; no doubt I shall have a chance later on to deal further with these matters. But I want to say we must do something, Britain, Canada and the other dominions, to stand up to the disaster which is surely facing us in regard to Russia. It is difficult to understand the attitude of some of our leaders toward foreign or imperial affairs. No one can foretell what the future has in store for us, for no one can predict what will be the outcome of the conflict between communism and the western way of life. But appeasement is not a policy, nor vacillation a source of strength. Foreign policy conducted on such lines merely emboldens our enemies and perplexes our friends. Yet it is upon these lines that successive foreign secretaries have proceeded for at least the last forty years.
No one doubts Mr. Bevin's sincerity or that he has displayed great resilience and energy, but has he really stood up to Russia? What has been the result of his policy? Has it prevented the complete incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union? I say no. Did it save Mihailovitch or the Poles? I say no. Has it kept Egypt or Palestine or India or Burma within the ambit of British influence? No. Has it prevented Austria or Hungary or Bulgaria or Roumania or \ ugoslavia or Czechoslovakia or eastern Germany from becoming the satellites of Russia? No. How far has it succeeded in enabling Great Britain or the sister nations of the commonwealth to play a part in the settlement of far eastern problems? In what quarter of the globe has it succeeded in winning a single victory for British diplomacy? It has not; and the reason is that it has not had the support of the dominions. If we had

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
been a united empire it would have been different, because a united empire of Britain is stronger in natural resources than either Russia or the United States. If we do not hang together as dominions with the mother country we are going to hang separately, because none of the dominions is able to go it alone.
No doubt later on there will be another opportunity to discuss these matters, but I thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government for having given this period of time to the private members, who are the connecting link between the government of the day and the electorate. When they cease to function, all parliamentary government will be at an end. I believe this house should devote more time to these very important questions. I am one of those who hold the view that the opposition should give the government substantial support, not only in time of war but in the troublesome program that is facing us at the present time. I believe the government can always count on the support of this opposition when they are right, though not when they are wrong; and, after all is said and done, I believe on some things, such as Geneva, Bretton Woods and exchange, they have
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if hon. members would permit me to state a few facts which are pertinent to the question of the effect of the decision of the privy council in 1927 on the Labrador boundary. When the matter of union between Newfoundland and Canada was being discussed in Newfoundland, some question arose there as to the possibility of union depriving Newfoundland of the rights which had been recognized by the privy council in the decision of 1927, and there seems to be some confusion as to what were the facts and what is the nature and effect of the decision rendered at that time. This afternoon the hon. member for Charlevoix-Sague-nay (Mr. Dorion) cast some doubts in this house as to the effect of the decision of 1927, and I believe it would not be in the public interest if something were not said at this time to put the facts before the public so they may realize that in the terms of union which were proposed, or which were at least stated by the government of Canada as-being terms it would regard as fair, there was no offer to make a contract about that but merely a statement of something which was regarded as a fact at that time. In the negotiations between the representatives of the Newfoundland national advisory council and a committee of cabinet appointed here
in Canada the question was raised as to what would be the effect of Newfoundland joining Canada, with respect to Labrador. The question was in the following form:
If Newfoundland joined Canada, would Labrador remain a part of the province of Newfoundland ?
The answer given, not as an offer or as a statement of something we would contract about, but as a statement of fact, was this:
The Canadian government has accepted the award made by the judicial committee of the privy council in 1927 with respect to the Labrador boundary. The Canadian government assumes that, if Newfoundland became a province of Canada, Newfoundland Labrador would be a part of that province. It may be noted that the British North America Act provides that the boundary of a province may be altered only with the consent of the legislature of the province.
When the formal terms were submitted by the Prime Minister to the governor of Newfoundland, the first term stated was that if Newfoundland joined Canada it would have, as from the date of union, the status of a province of Canada, with all the rights, powers, privileges and responsibilities of a province and, as number two, that the province would include the territory of Labrador defined by the award of the judicial committee of the privy council in 1927 as Newfoundland territory.
There seems to be some misunderstanding or misapprehension as to how that award came about. The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay seemed to suggest this afternoon that both a Conservative government in 1920 and a Liberal government in 1922 had gone ahead without any reference to the province of Quebec within whose territorial boundaries the disputed area was to be found. That is quite wrong.
The matter arose out of a communication in December, 1902, from the lieutenant governor of Quebec to the secretary of state of Canada. On that date a memorandum of Hon.
S.	N. Parent, minister of lands, mines and fisheries, which appears as Quebec P.C. 1369, in which the province of Quebec disputed the right of Newfoundland to grant certain timber cutting licences, was forwarded to Ottawa. That was submitted to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice came to the conclusion that the complaint raised by the government of Quebec appeared to it to be well founded. Thereupon there was passed an order in council asking the governor general to communicate that complaint to the government of Newfoundland. The governor general. Lord Minto. on March 18. 1903, transmitted that complaint to the colonial secre-
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent

tary. The colonial secretary communicated it to the government of Newfoundland. The government of Newfoundland disputed the opinion expressed by the government of Quebec and by the government of Canada. The secretary of state for the colonies, having received this answer from the government of Newfoundland, communicated it to the governor general of Canada by a letter dated August 21, 1903. In that letter he informed the government of Canada of the attitude of the government of Newfoundland and stated:
If your ministers are not satisfied with the reply' of the Newfoundland government they will doubtless take the necessary steps to obtain a legal decision on the matter.
That answer was communicated to the government of Quebec and the government of Quebec on February 25. 1904 passed an order in council or approved a memorandum from the same Hon. S. N. Parent asking the government of Canada to take the proper steps to have a decision rendered under the terms of the imperial statute 3 and 4 William IV, chapter 41. section 4. That memorandum was submitted to the government of Canada. Thereupon an order in council was passed by the government of Canada authorizing its communication to the secretary of state for the colonies, and that was done.
The secretary of state for the colonies submitted it by official channels to the government of Newfoundand. The government of Newfoundand stated in an official communication which went the round about way and which came back to the Governor General of Canada that it was agreeable to having the matter decided by the privy council under the statute I have just mentioned. That took until December 3, 1907, when there was passed a federal order in council reciting the facts and requesting that the government of Newfoundland appoint a representative to enter into an agreement for the reference to the judicial committee of the privy council. That order in council went through the ordinary diplomatic channels, and it was not until 1920 that the parties came together and signed an agreement requesting His Majesty to submit the matter to the privy council for decision.
That agreement was first made by Canada and Newfoundland when the Canadian government was, as the hon. member said, a Conservative government. It was signed by Hon. C. J. Doherty, then Attorney General of Canada and by Mr. W. R. Warren, attorney general of Newfoundland. Subsequently it was found that in order to get the matter into proper shape there had to be further provisions agreed to and a modifying agreement was

signed by Sir Lomer Gouin and Mr. Warren, respectively the attorneys general on November 20, 1922.
Thereafter the case was inscribed on the roll of the privy council and cases were submitted by both parties. Mr. Doherty had ceased to be Minister of Justice, but he vras retained by the government of Canada as one of its counsel. Mr. Geoffrion and Mr. Lanctot were designated by the government of Quebec and were retained as joint counsel. They jointly submitted a case over their signatures in 1907, which stated:
In 1907, on the advice of the colonial secretary it was agreed by the two governments to submit the question of the boundary to the judicial committee of His Majesty's privy council for decision under the provisions of section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 3 and 4 William IV, chapter 41.
When Mr. Geoffrion came before the privy council to argue the case he stated in his opening remarks:
. . . because I was retained by Quebec specially . . .
And again:
If your lordship pleases, I will cover whatever there is to be said both as junior for Canada and in the name of Quebec; and therefore I am instructed on behalf of Quebec to waive any privilege in that respect.
He made an argument which covers several pages of this very interesting document.


Frédéric Dorion: Was the province of Quebec a party to the case?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have stated the facts and the hon. gentleman can draw his own conclusions. In international affairs the provinces are not recognized; the dominion has to act on their behalf. Mr. Geoffrion was appearing in this case at the request of the province of Quebec and it was known by everyone. It was known to the privy council, through the declaration made to it by Mr. Geoffrion, that it was a Quebec case which was being espoused by the dominion government and which was being submitted by counsel, one chosen by the dominion government and two chosen by the government of Quebec.


Frédéric Dorion: That does not appear in the case.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It does appear in the case which my hon. friend has had an opportunity of consulting and which I borrowed from him since he made his speech. The facts I am stating are facts that I found in the document which he was using and from which he was taking his information. If the hon. member wishes to verify them I shall be very glad to send this volume over to him.

The Address-Mr. Pearkes
It is volume XI of the oral proceedings, and I was quoting from page 660, the first part I cited being at line 11 and the second part at line 20.
The case was argued, and it was very disappointing both to the dominion government and to the government of Quebec that their lordships should make the decision- which under the contract they were requested by the two parties to make-ini the form in which they did make it. They did decide, and I am now reading from the Times Law Reports, volume XLIII, 1926-27, at page 299:
For the above reasons their lordships are of opinion that, according to the true construction of the statutes, orders in council and proclamations referred to in the order of reference, the boundary between Canada and Newfoundland in the Labrador peninsula is a line drawn due north from the eastern boundary of the bay or harbour of Anse Sablon as far as the fifty-second degree of north latitude, and from thence westward along that parallel until it reaches the Romaine river, and then northward along the left or east bank of that river and its head waters to their source, and from thence due north to the crest of the [DOT]watershed or height of land there, and from thence westward and northward along the crest of the watershed of the rivers flowing into the Atlantic ocean until it reaches cape Chidley.
The government of Canada felt that it had submitted1 a reference to the judicial committee of the privy council for a decision and that though, unfortunately, that decision had not been the one hoped for, it was bound by its contract to treat it as a decision, and is treating it as such, and that is all that was stated in the terms which were suggested as being terms believed to constitute a fair and equitable basis for union of Newfoundland with Canada.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, when the leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Bracken) was speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne he cited, as one of the reasons why confidence was being lost in the present government, the plight of the veterans in Canada. I do not suggest that that plight is unique so far as the veterans are concerned or that they can be separated from the general conditions of the country as a whole, but there are certain trends which have emphasized the difficult situation in which veterans find themselves today.
One of those trends is the tendency of industry and of government and of crown corporations to place the emphasis upon youth and to employ in their organizations younger men. There are many reasons for that. One might cite, as a habit which has sprung up in recent years, that of appointing personnel agents. These are young college
men and naturally they place great emphasis on the importance of youth. Then there are such agencies as retirement schemes, group insurance and so forth. The sum total of all this is that a man who is now over forty is having great difficulty in finding employment. Some officials in this country have been doing excellent work in trying to stimulate public opinion to realize this situation, and I would refer to Mr. MacNamara, deputy minister of labour, and Colonel Philpott of the Department of Veterans Affairs, both of whom have done excellent work in drawing this situation to the attention of the nation as a whole. But it does emphasize the fact that the elderly man, the veteran of world war I, or the veteran of world war II who is a little bit up in years, is having to rely more and more on his pension, if he draws a pension, or upon his allowance if he draws an allowance under the War Veterans' Allowances Act.
We heard just before Christmas the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announcing an increase of S10 a month as far as the 100 per cent pensioner was concerned. When that announcement was made I was shocked by the meagreness of the increase and spoke out of turn, and for that I apologize to you, sir, for having spoken when I was out of order. I spoke in haste, stung by disappointment. I have had eight weeks in which to think over the remarks that I then made, in which I said that the increase in the pensions was inadequate. I repeat now, after careful consideration, that the increase in the pensions are totally inadequate, and there is no doubt today that that announcement came as a cruel and tragic let-down to the veterans of this country.
If in the middle of December I claimed that the pension increase was inadequate, inadequate because I believe all pension and pension increases have been based on the general cost of living, and it has been many years since an adjustment was made, it is certainly more inadequate today when we find that the cost of living has even increased since that statement of mine was made. Only this week have the official figures been published, showing that since the first of December the index has jumped from 146 to 148-3 on January 2, 1948, and that there has been a rise of 21-3 in the last twelve months from January 2, 1947, to January 2, 1948. The same figures as published indicate that the food rating has gone up nearly 40 points in the last twelve months, having risen to 182-2 from 145-5. Those upward trends are continuing, because those figures have not taken into consideration the effect of the new food contracts which have been made with Great Britain, and we all
The Address-Mr. Pearkes

know there have been increases in the cost of bacon, beef and other commodities as a result of those contracts. Therefore I cannot help repeating that if I considered the increases inadequate in the middle of December, I have still more right to claim that those increases are inadequate now in the middle of February.
Mind you, this increase of $10 a month is the .increase for a pensioner who has 100 per cent disability. That is a man who is considered incapable of sustaining himself on account of war disabilities he has suffered. That scale decreases according to the lesser disability which he may suffer. Men with the loss of limbs do not get 100 per cent disability, although they are severely handicapped in their struggle for existence. Many of these men who are in the higher brackets of disability, although they have not reached 100 per cent disability, are finding it exceedingly difficult to find employment, and are relying more and more upon the pension which they receive, even though it is not 100 per cent.
This $10 increase a month made in December-a Christmas present? no-has not yet been paid to the men. We do not know when they will receive it. It is true that they are to have it made retroactive to October 1, but we are now in the middle of winter. The men are in urgent need of receiving assistance now. This $10 would have been most useful during these hard winter months. Oh, we are told that it cannot be done; that we shall have to wait until amendments are made to the legislation; that bills will have to be brought down and considered and>
perhaps even referred to some committee which has not yet been set up. When this government is in need of money or is anxious to stop spending, or is anxious perhaps to increase the cost of living it has no difficulty whatever in putting on taxes overnight. Only last fall we had the unheard of thing of the Abbott austerity program being introduced by a radio budget, put into effect overnight. I cannot believe that there is not some government machinery which can be found in .order to give veterans their increase now, instead of their having to wait perhaps until late spring or next summer.
I want to suggest to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg), when he starts considering this problem that in regard to those men who are unemployable, although they may be receiving 100 per cent disability or not, either case, who cannot get a job on account of a disability that they 'have suffered, some supplementary unemployable increase should be made. I do not know what to call it; an unemployable supplement I should

think would be a good term. All these men are not eligible for the war veteran's allowance. A man may be a pensioner and he may also draw the war veteran's allowance if he is over a certain age; but many of the men who are unemployable because of war disabilities are not entitled, because of their age or for other reasons, to the war veteran's allowance. Therefore I suggest that careful consideration should be given to an unemployable supplement to the pensions.
Another point which I should like to mention while I am on the question of pension is the inordinate delay that there is between the -time the man applies for a pension and the time his first pension cheque arrives. Months invariably elapse. I do not think I should be exaggerating in the least to say that a minimum of three months usually elapses, and these are three very difficult months. I believe the machinery of the department could be speeded up, so that as soon as a veteran has been passed by the pension commission he should be able, the very next month, to receive the pension cheque to which he is entitled.
I have been speaking regarding the veterans. There are also the families of the veterans; perhaps the widows and children of deceased veterans, and they are in a very similar position to the position I have outlined regarding the veterans who are in receipt of pension. If a man has given his life for his country, surely the least that the country can do is to accept the wardship of his children. I commend most seriously to the Minister of Veterans Affairs to consider increases in the pensions which are awarded to widows and the allowances which are provided for the children. I woidd suggest that he should not stop at anything short of the same pension, which is awarded to a 100 per cent disability case, to a widow who has children, during the period that those children are receiving their education. If not, I feel that the child's allowances should at least be double the allowance it receives at the present time.
I wish to refer to another class, namely, those veterans who are in receipt of the war veterans' allowance, sometimes referred to as the burnt-out pension. That allowance was $30 a month and, according to the Prime Minister's statement, it is to be increased to $40 a month, or it may be increased to $40 a month, provided that the war veteran's allowances board considers that the veteran is needy. I suggest that that is nothing more than an extension of the means test, because surely it must be realized that every veteran who draws the war veteran's allowance has received a thorough and searching examination

The Address-Mr. Pearkes
of his financial position, and unless he is in dire need he does not draw that war veteran's allowance. Why subject that man to the further humiliation of having to explain his financial situation? Why all this delay? It has to be referred back again to the board for the board to consider whether a man who was needy when he drew $30 a month is still needy when he makes application for an extra $10 a month. There is neither rhyme nor reason in that. It is piling not only inevitable delays but a financial burden on this country because, instead of cutting down the personnel which are now in the Department of Veterans Affairs, something which the late Minister of Veterans Affairs promised, the minister will have to keep on all the additional personnel in his department; and on very good authority I believe it will take at least three years for the whole office staff of the war veteran's allowances board to review all the cases they now have before them. Therefore I feel that from the point of view of efficiency, from the point of view of doing the right thing by the veteran, that $10 increase should be made automatic, and that, without any further means test, the veteran who is now drawing his allowance should be entitled to the increase which would bring him up to $40 a month.
It may be suggested that $40 a month is a great deal of money; that it is only an allowance to help the veteran to live. But what are the conditions of this means test? How much is he allowed to earn? He may receive, by casual earnings as a single man, $125 a year in addition to his $30 a month. That is net casual earnings. Then, under "other income" he may earn a total of $125, if he is a single man, or $250 if he is married. Then there is another item, "unearned income", of $25 for the single or the married man. That makes a total for the single man of $275 per annum which he may earn if he qualifies under all the different restrictions there are for these different items. He may earn that total of $275 in addition to the $30 a month.
I suggest to the Minister of Veterans Affairs that not only should he consider making that meagre increase automatic, but that he should also consider making these exemptions more simple. It is very difficult for even an official of the department to draw the line between casual earnings, other income and unearned income. Why not lump them all together and accept a man, provided that he does not earn more than a certain amount? Leave it at $275 a year if you like, and let him have that exemption, no matter whether it is by casual earnings, or other income or unearned
income. No man can tell the difference. I hope the minister will see his way to increase the amount of exemption, because we do not want to encourage even middle-aged men to rely entirely on their pensions or their allowances. Surely it is in the interests of the economy of the country that we should keep in employment and encourage men to earn all they can by useful employment, even though they are forty or fifty years of age.
I wish to refer to another group of veterans, namely, the veterans who were not domiciled in Canada when the war broke out, men who did not serve in the Canadian forces but in His Majesty's army, navy or air force of Great Britain, commonly referred to as imperials. After world war I, ex-soldiers of the imperial forces were encouraged to come to this country, with the result, I believe, that some 80,000 ex-imperials from the British army or the British navy or air force or from the Indian army came to this country, and they have resided here.
I know this question has been discussed before, but I suggest that there is new light being thrown on it by virtue of the fact that a few sessions ago we passed a Canadian Citizenship Act. Surely, if a man is a Canadian citizen; if he has lived in this country for twenty years or more, we can forget whether he wore the maple leaf or whether it was Britannia or some other regimental badge on his collar. These were the men who made it possible for the Canadian expeditionary force to fight at the second battle of Ypres, gaining immortal glory when they resisted the first gas attack; because these men who are living in this country were the veterans of Mons, Le Cateau and Ypres. They gained time by drawing the fiercest onslaughts of the enemy upon themselves. They gave Canada time to train her forces and put the Canadian expeditionary force into the field to win the crowning victories of the war, which many of these men who fought as old contemptibles were unable to see because of disabilities they had suffered.
These men have come here and raised families, and their sons and daughters in many cases served Canada nobly in this war. What is the situation of these men? Here you have a Canadian pensioner drawing 100 per cent pension, which until recently was $75 a month, and now there is to be a $10 increase, making it $85.
These old contemptibles, these men who have lived in this country for a quarter of a century, serving as good Canadian citizens, had taken out their citizenship papers, and they received from the imperial government
The Address-Mr. Pearkes

the sum of forty-five shillings a week, which, translated into terms of dollars, amounts to $36 a month.
These are the men I am pleading for. These are the type of men, the old imperial soldiers, who have nobly served the country through twenty years of residence. They have only $36 a month if they are 100 per cent pensioners; but the scale decreases as the disability decreases, in very much the same way as the pension scale decreases for the Canadian veteran. But where the Canadian veteran draws a pension for a five per cent disability, the pension for the imperial is cut off at 20 per cent of his disability.
There are other difficulties under which these men are working. They are not entitled to any veteran's allowance, and I am asking now that they be granted that allowance because they have lived here so long. Furthermore, they are handicapped in their hospitalization. A Canadian is admitted into any veterans hospital across the country, where I believe it is generally accepted that he receives the finest treatment that can be given to him by any hospital service in the land. An imperial veteran cannot be admitted into a Canadian Veterans hospital unless his ailment is directly attributable to his pension disability, and then only can he be admitted on the consent of the British ministry here in Ottawa. Permission has to be obtained for him to be admitted into that hospital, because it is the British government and not the Canadian government which pays for his hospitalization while he is in the veterans hospital.
I should like to ask also that the hospitals under the Department of Veterans Affairs be utilized to the fullest possible extent and that the privilege of entering a hospital be extended to more veterans than it is today. There is what is known as the class 6 type of veteran who may be admitted into ft hospital if he has reached a terminal illness and if he has not the means to pay for going into a general hospital in the country.
Can we not allow more veterans who have reached their terminal illness to enter our veterans hospital, so that they may spend their last days with their old comrades, not only those without funds but the man who is quite prepared to pay his own expenses in the veterans hospitals, provided that there are beds available.
I had a sad case brought to my attention this past Christmas. An old veteran, in comfortable means, reached his terminal illness. There wras no doubt that his days

were numbered. He applied to be allowed to go into the veterans hospital. The hospital in Victoria was not more than one-third full at that time. But no; because he was not in financial straits, he had to go into another hospital run by a group of well-meaning people of a religious sect whose diet regulations did not allow inmates to smoke or to have any rvine or spirits. That old soldier spent his last Christmas on this earth without having a drink or a cigarette. I feel that there is an opportunity to open up the class 6 group, so that any veteran may spend his last days in a veterans hospital.
There are various other points that I should like to have referred to, but I wish to deal with one local question. I want to commend most seriously to the Minister of Veterans Affairs the desirability of reconsidering the treatment which is given to the men of the ferry command, also the men of the veterans guard who served in British Guiana during this war and 'were not entitled to the same allowances as others. There were also the Red Cross girls and various groups like that. That all needs to be explored. But in the few remaining minutes that I have I wish to refer to a situation which has arisen in my constituency in connection with the Veterans Land Act administration.
In 1946, some twenty-eight houses for veterans were built in what is known as the Brae-foot estate, in the county of Saanich, which is outside Victoria. There were the usual conditions. It was not known exactly how much would be charged for those houses. There were the usual delays in getting them built; but eventually the veterans moved in, only to find that conditions were most unsatisfactory. It was found that the houses were in a bad state of repair, that construction work had not been well done, and it appeared that the cost of the houses were greatly in excess of what had been expected. The result was that on December 3, 1946, a meeting was held at which were present local representatives, and representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It was suggested that a committee be set up to inquire into the cost of these houses and to submit a report to the government. The then minister of veterans affairs agreed to the setting up of this committee and nominated a gentleman to act as chairman. The legion nominated another man and the citizens rehabilitation committee nominated a third. These men went through the project thoroughly and turned in their report. The final sentence of the report reeds in part as follows:
. . . and we recommend that the house cost be reduced by twenty per cent throughout the twenty-eight houses.

The Address-Mr. Gillis
The veterans themselves thought that would be final. There was a report submitted; there was a recommendation of a twenty per cent reduction; and they all believed that this would be a reduction to the veteran of the cost of the house. Later on in the year the then minister of veterans affairs tabled a report of a committe which he had sent out to investigate this committee. He had sent the deputy minister of veterans affairs, the director of the Veterans Land Act and another adviser. They turned in a lengthy report which was tabled, I think, on March 21, 1947; and they quoted parts of the report which had been handed in by the first committee. They quote the final sentence very much as I have read it. It is in inverted commas and is in part as follows:
. . . and we recommend that the house cost

And then these words are added:
[DOT]-to the director . . .
Those words do not appear in the report which was handed in by those independent gentlemen who first investigated this project. The sentence reads:
. . . and we recommend that the house cost (to the director) be reduced by twenty per cent throughout the twenty-eight houses.
I have letters from those gentlemen who were there, who say most emphatically that they were under the impression that the cost of these houses could be reduced to the veteran. I hold in my hand one of the letters signed by one of that original board'. It reads in part:
... it was thoroughly understood by our committee that a 20 per cent reduction would be made to the veterans.
In my estimation any reduction to the government would be a matter solely between the contractor and the government.
The other one says in part:
. . . we unanimously agreed that a 20 per cent reduction be made to the veteran and further that all necessary repairs be made to houses . . .
Matters dragged: on all during the summer. The houses needed more repairs. Some of the veterans became disgusted., and seven of them left that project and went to live in emergency shelter. Then on December 10 I asked the then minister of veterans affairs whether any adjustments had been made to the veterans who have occupied these houses on the Braefoot project. I sent him notice of my question, and he replied that there had been downward adjustment and that there would be further adjustments by way of write-off. Then he uses these words:
This includes the cost of remedial repairs to the houses, a revised selling price.
Mind you, I had asked him about any adjustment made to the veteran. What happens then? Well, I do not know. Very shortly after that he went to the senate. But before doing so, he sent me a letter in which he completely changed' around, and he says that this write-off which he refers to now as being
824,000	"will not mean a downward revision in the sale price already quoted to the veterans. It means that the write-off in the cost of these houses, inclusive of repairs will have to be borne by the taxpayer." That is, you are simply transferring it into the red. That is discouraging to the veterans. I do not understand it. This would seem to be a complete change-around. Only the other day the present Minister of Veterans Affairs announced in the house that a committee had been appointed and had carried out an investigation into the project close to Windsor, and that the government was prepared to accept the recommendations of that committee. Why is there such discrimination when an independent committee reviews the project at Braefoot? Why is its report discarded and a special committee sent out, headed by the deputy minister, to rewrite the report? What is fair for the veterans of Windsor is fair for the veterans of Braefoot. I do not think it is necessary to appoint another committee. The files of the Department of Veterans Affairs have been loaded down with reports and statements regarding the Braefoot project. Let the minister go through those, and let him now give a fair deal to the veterans at Braefoot in the same way as he has given a fair deal to the veterans at Windsor.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Clarence Gillis: No, it is still five minutes to eleven. I am not going to ask you to call it eleven o'clock because of the great opposition from the other side of the house last evening when I made that request at one minute to eleven.
I have a good deal to say in this debate. I have listened attentively to most of the speeches that have so far been made. Most hon. members are able to rise in this house and talk about their constituencies, and everything appears to be rosy. I am sorry I cannot do that for the part of the country I come from, and I do not think the government can say that, because today the maritime provinces are classified by the government as depressed areas. Those are not very nice words.
The Address-Mr. Gillis

At this hour of the evening I am not going to attempt to deal with many of the things I shall say later on that subject. I just wish to say that I think the arrangement of debate in the house is unfortunate. In my opinion, the debate on the speech from the throne would have been over by now if the government had decided to put the matter before the house, follow through with it and finish it. This debate will be adjourned tonight and brought up again next Wednesday. In the meantime Ontario and Quebec members will go home to their constituencies, and next Wednesday many hon. members will be back here to make speeches which otherwise perhaps would not have been made at all. I consider it unfortunate that the subject matter before the house last evening, a serious and important matter on which something should be done immediately, is to be continued on Monday. We shall start that debate all over again, with hon. members coming back from their ridings bringing material from newspaper editors and anyone else who may have some thoughts on the matter. In my opinion, the public are badly confused in trying to follow what is going on in this House of Commons. There is no co-ordination. A subject appears in the press today, and it means something. It is out tomorrow; something else is on, and it is beginning to look as though this house had not the slightest idea of what it was doing. I believe hon. members opposite, and particularly members of the cabinet, should give some thought to that point. The public should be kept informed, but certainly that cannot be done through the press or in any other way with the method of debate we are following in this house.
The particular subject matter I wish to discuss this evening has reference to the part of Canada from which I come. In a press dispatch dated Ottawa, January 29, the Department of Labour issued a statement
under this heading:	"Darkest spots in
Canada's employment picture are the industrial areas of Cape Breton Island and Pictou county in Nova Scotia, the labour department disclosed tonight." That is the heading over a press dispatch emanating from the Department of Labour of this government. Those are not very nice headlines. When I left that part of the country the situation was such that in the very near future it will be necessary for the provincial and federal governments to institute some unemployment relief measures there. Another 'headline in the Halifax Herald said: "Employment picture grim for Canada's forty-five age group." Since the termination of the war and the swing over to a peacetime economy, industry has gone through what it went through after the last war, what it terms a rationalization process. In plain English that means they get rid of all the deadwood. Anyone who is not considered 100 per cent productive must be relegated to the scrap heap. If you are an industrial worker in Canada today and are looking for a job, if you have reached the age of forty-five you are not wanted. You are too old.
I see you are getting uneasy, Mr. Speaker, so I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Gillis the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: On Monday, as was understood by all parties before the adjournment last evening, the house will resume the debate on item No. 8 on today's order paper, the motion to set up a select committee. If that is concluded we shall continue with the debate on Bill No. 3.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
9S5
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 9, 1948