Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I wish to table copy of order in council P.C. 529 of February 10, 1948, passed under the authority of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, relative to certain powers of the Minister of Transport to be exercised temporarily by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply.



HUMAN RIGHTS


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps at this time I might answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), as follows:
Has Canada made any recommendations as yet to the united nations with respect to the composition of the international bill of rights, or with respect to any rights which should be included therein?
At the time my hon. friend asked the question I had not noticed that there was a question much to the same effect already on the order paper, asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which reads:
1.	Has a copy of the international bill of rights, which was approved by the commission on human rights at its meeting in Geneva, been received by the Canadian government?
2.	Has Canada been asked for comments on this international bil-1 of rights before it is submitted to the general assembly of the united nations?
3.	Have such comments been given?
4.	If so, what is the nature thereof and will parliament be given an opportunity to express itself on this matter?
I can answer both questions at the same time, as follows: Canada is not a member of the commission on human rights which was charged by the economic and social council
of the united nations with responsibility for drafting an international bill of human rights. The government, therefore, has not had occasion to consider the draft.
The international bill of human rights has recently been formally submitted in draft form to member governments of the united nations for their comment. It is the intention of the government to have the draft referred to the joint parliamentary committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms for its consideration, when the committee has been set up.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: May I ask a
supplementary question? Have any of the provinces made representations to the dominion government against the acceptance of any of the principles embodied in the international bill of rights?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am informed that the Minister of Justice has been in communication with the attorneys general of the provinces, but I am not able to say at the present time what answers the minister has received. Perhaps I might direct the attention of the Minister of Justice to the hon. member's question, and have it answered later.



HYDE PARK AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on February 3 the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) asked a question about the Hyde Park agreement. At that time he asked if there were any details about it unknown to parliament. I answered immediately that I was not aware that there were any, and that the Hyde Park agreement had not been set out in any document other than the communication to the press of April 20, 1941, which had been tabled1 in parliament.
Since that time there has been an exchange of notes between the government of the United States and the government of Canada in May of 1945, which I think I should table,
Hyde Park Agreement
[Stage Direction]
so that hon. members may have not only the details relating to the Hyde Park agreement itself, but anything that has flowed out of the agreement since that time.
As a result of the Hyde Park agreement, joint economic committees were formed, composed of interested officials of both countries, the function of which was (1) to achieve more efficient utilization of the combined resources of the two countries in the production of the defence requirements; and (2) to reduce postwar economic dislocation consequent upon the changes which the economy in each country had undergone. The joint economic committees were set up on the Canadian side by orders in council P.C. 4500 of June 20, 1941, and P.C. 7227 of October 4, 1941. While these committees were successful in achieving their first object, little progress was made in regard to the second, and by mutual agreement they were dissolved in 1944, Canadian action being taken by P.C. 2586 of April 11, 1944, following an announcement made to the press on March 14, 1944.
A year later, on May 7, 1945, a note was received from the United States embassy proposing that the general principles of the Hyde Park declaration be continued on a fully reciprocal basis for the remainder of the war and that the same spirit of co-operation between the two countries should characterize their treatment of reconversion and other problems of mutual concern as the transition to peacetime economy progresses.
In our note of May 15, 1945, the Minister of National Defence, who was then the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, replied welcoming the assurance of the government of the United States that it would continue to deal with the problems of the transition from war to peace in the spirit of the Hyde Park declaration. Further, it was stated that the government of Canada, on its part, desired to assure the government of the United States that the same spirit of co-operation which was manifested in the Hyde Park declaration would characterize the Canadian government's consideration and treatment of the problems of the period of transition which are of mutual concern.
At the instance of the United States, publication of these notes was withheld at the time, although the substance of the understanding evidenced by the notes was communicated to the press in Ottawa and in Washington on May 21, 1945. From then until last October the notes were treated as confidential; but in response to a request from the United States Department of State permission was granted by Canada in October last that they be released to the United States

Senate small business committee. And I understand that they have since been published in the United States.
I should like to table them. Perhaps it would be convenient to hon. members if they «ere printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings so that they may have the exact terms. If that is agreeable to hon. members I would ask that that be done.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Has the minister leave of the house to table these documents?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Horace King: And is it the pleasure of the house that these memoranda be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings'!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a question arising out of the tabling of the exchange of notes in May, 1945, regarding the Hyde Park declaration. Is it a fact that as a result of these notes the United States is now precluded from placing an embargo on oil or steel or coal so long as the Hyde Park declaration is in effect?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I was advised many times from the other side, even when I was Minister of Justice, that I should not venture to express any legal opinion in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not asking for any.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The notes have been tabled and the house has agreed that they be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings. I think the hon. member will wish to draw his own conclusions from the terms of those notes.


John George Diefenbaker: It all depends upon what the intentions of the government were. The minister Should know.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 11, to amend the Dominion Water Power Act.-Mr. Glen.
Bill No. 12, for the relief of Florence Joyce West Shannon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 13, for the relief of Alice Cecilia Anne Magniac Bailey.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Valerie Jean Lewis Samson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of William Neville Buckingham.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Marguerite Elsie Dunan Currie.-Mr. Maybank.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Ellen Catherine Holder.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Doris Amy Peate Taylor.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Kenneth Elliott Mitchell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Margaret Craig Carmichael Nicholson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Hilda Emily Brown.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Joan Ruth Grimble Campbell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 23. for the relief of Raymond Masse.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Barbara Mary Day Duffy.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Joseph Dunn.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Rena Victoria Rabin Wolfe.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Frederik Smith.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of William Thomas Wright.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Marie Antoinette Aubut dit Cimon Charron.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 30. for the relief of James Arnold Wells.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Magdalena Kleiziute Testart.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 32. for the relief of Hazel Shirley Elizabeth Hart Layton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Irene Morgan Neilson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Elerick Montgomery Barton.-Mr. Maybank.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LEWIS MENARY (Wellington North):: Mr. Speaker, as reported at page 986 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question about flax, which was answered; but he did not answer my question respecting the policy of the government concerning the export of cattle to the 'United States. Will he answer it now?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce) :: Export permits are issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce on the advice of the wartime prices and trade board. The policy with regard to cattle is not administered by the department for which I am responsible.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have already sent him a copy of a telegram I received from the business agent of the shipbuilders union at Saint John, New Brunswick. It sets out that the Saint John dry dock has closed down, affecting some 800 employees. Can the minister inform the house why this shutdown has taken place, and whether he will consider the construction of a public works dredge which, I understand, is now available to this firm?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can hardly imagine why my hon. friend addressed his question to me. I am not aware that there has been a shutdown at the Saint John diy dock. There are many reasons why it might be shut down for a day or two in the middle of winter, but I know the government recently awarded a contract to that firm in excess of $2,000,000.
I was told in Halifax that whereas the waterfront workers in Halifax were idle, the waterfront workers in Saint John were working night and day. Any matter with regard to a public works dredge or action under the dry docks act should be addressed to my colleague the Minister of Public Works.
Mr. GILLIS': In explanation I may say that the minister is mentioned in this telegram as having made the statement that there would be no layoffs in ship repairs, et cetera, for at least eighteen months.


James Horace King: The hon. member should ask his question; he should not make a statement.


Clarence Gillis: Will the minister pass on the telegram and the question to the appropriate minister for a reply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to do that.



TAFT-HARTLEY LABOUR LAW-COMMUNISTS IN U.S. LABOUR UNIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of immigration or to the Prime Minister. Has the government taken note of the charges recently made by Senator Taft of the United States, which charges are reportedly backed by C. H. Millard, that the Taft-Hartley
Inquiries of the Ministry
[Stage Direction]
labour law is driving communists out of United States labour unions and into Canadian unions?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have seen the statement to which my hon. friend has referred and I may say that the matter is one that will receive attention.


Mr. LOW:: It is reported that some of these men are now active in mining unions in northern Quebec. I was wondering if the government had taken any precautions against their entering Canada, or is contemplating any action to get those who have come in out of the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question of communists entering Canada has been under consideration by the department of immigration, and also, to a limited extent, by the government.



SEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. TUSTIN (Prince Edward-Lennox):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Because of weather conditions last year the farmers of eastern Canada had very light crops, particularly of grain. Will the government give consideration to providing a bank of seed grains at reasonable prices in time for spring seeding by the farmers of eastern Canada?


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The matter of providing seed grain to the farmers in the different provinces has always been taken care of by the provincial governments. So far as I know up to the moment we have had no applications from eastern provincial governments for any action.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Dion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned on Wednesday I was replying to a statement which had been made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). I had

expressed the view, which I know is held by the majority of the members from the mari-times, that it was to be regretted that the hon. member for Cape Breton South and other members of the C.C.F. group had gone to such lengths to decry the possibilities of the mari-times, particularly of the province of Nova Scotia.
In his remarks the hon. member for Cape Breton South had questioned the accuracy of statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) when he spoke to the Halifax board of trade last Monday evening. He had also referred to a statement which I had made that considerable work was to be carried on at the port of Halifax, and he likewise questioned the accuracy of that statement. I inquired of the hon. member whether he was in position to indicate whether the statement I had made was correct, and he replied, as reported on page 1105 of Hansard'.
I do not know anything about it. But if it is on a par with the statement issued by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, then it leaves a question in my mind whether it will relieve the situation which I know exists down there.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South went on to give a dreary and dismal picture of conditions in Halifax and Nova Scotia generally; and he referred to the fact that I was a member of the reconstruction committee which sat in 1942. He was very sure of that statement. While I did not correct him at the time, I wish to state for his benefit that I was not a member of that committee in 1942.
I should like to deal now with the hon. member's statement about coal. This is one subject which the hon. member for Cape Breton South should know' something about because he comes from a mining district. Hon. members of the house who are not as familiar with the subject expect him to give us information of a helpful nature. I recall that this question was discussed last April when something like 13,000 miners were out on strike. At that time I said I felt that greater production would be helpful, and that it was necessary for us in Nova Scotia to make the best possible use of our coal. Having suggested that increased production would help I was reminded that that strike cost the province of Nova Scotia something like one million tons of coal w-hich otherwise would have been produced during that time. I also took occasion to suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the government that if possible a scientific research centre should be set up in Nova Scotia with a pilot plant to look into the possibilities of developing the by-products of our coal industry. I

The Address-Mr. Isnor
said that if that were done I believed it would have a marked effect on the future of our coal operations. I stated that I was throwing out that suggestion to the cabinet, at the same time hoping the hon. member for Cape Breton South, with his knowledge of the coal industry of his own native province, would co-operate and offer some constructive suggestions which would help solve the difficulty which existed.
As I say, I was hopeful that the hon. member would offer some constructive suggestions in regard to the greater use of our coal. But apparently he was not as much concerned about that as he was in sowing seeds of discontent and creating the impression that our province was backward and had very few possibilities.
A week or so ago, on Tuesday, January 27, the hon. member made a speech in this house and again referred to the question of coal. He was speaking on the import and export regulations which had been brought into effect. At page 596 of Hansard, referring to the industrial centres in Ontario and Quebec, he said:
All the United States has to do at any time at all, if she wants to cripple and paralyse this country, is to withhold her fuel. By withholding her coal she can close down every industry in this country within a very short time.
Clarence Gillis: What's the matter with that?


Mr. ISNOR:: The hon. member nods his head and states that that is so. We are all interested in hearing what the hon. member has to say about coal, but I was certainly surprised at that statement of his. I wondered if he had endeavoured to look into the facts before making it. I was sufficiently interested to go into the question fully in order to get the facts accurately, and so I made inquiry. My question read:
What proportion of industry in Canada is operated by (a) steam, produced from coal; (b) electrical energy produced by hydro; (c) fuel oil?
What did we learn? We learned that in the area the hon. member no doubt had in mind, the industrial centres of Quebec and Ontario, only 9-4 per cent of industry in Quebec province is operated under steam produced by coal; 2-7 per cent by oil, and 87-9 by hydro. I think the hon. member should be more careful of his statements.


Clarence Gillis: May I ask a question?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I shall be pleased.


Clarence Gillis: That 9-4 per cent represents the basic industries, and if they were closed
down, the other ninety per cent of industries which are fabricating would have to close down.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I will give the hon. member some further information.


Clarence Gillis: I am giving you some now.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I will give him further
information so that he will not spread all over the country extravagant statements which are not in accordance with the facts. The figures for Ontario are just about the same as those for Quebec: steam, 15-4 per cent; oil, 3-8 per cent; hydro, 80-8 per cent. That is in central Canada where electrical energy is largely used. The same is true of Manitoba: steam, 10-5 per cent; oil, 5 per cent; hydro, 84-5 per cent.
The hon. member will no doubt ask about our own maritime provinces. During the time the hon. member was on his feet speaking of coal we were not producing enough coal to supply the demand in our own maritime provinces. That is to be regretted, and it is why I am very anxious to see production rise to the highest possible peak. I was indeed pleased the other evening to read the figures given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Halifax, showing that there was an increased production in the Cape Breton fields and in Nova Scotia mines which would help to relieve the situation.
I will now give the corresponding figures for New Brunswick: steam, 45-2 per cent- of course coal is produced right in that province; oil, 5-2 per cent; hydro, 49-6 per cent. Prince Edward Island: steam, 49-7 per cent; oil 20-5 per cent; hydro, 29-8 per cent.
In our own native province which the hon. member for Cape Breton South and I, along with other members have the honour to represent, we have a big field but as yet we have not developed the use of coal to the extent which I hope will be the outcome of present research activities. The figures for Nova Scotia are: steam produced from coal, 57-3 per cent; oil, 8-1 per cent; hydro, 34-6 per cent. There is still a field for the greater use of the products of our coal mines even in our own province, and I do not think it helps the situation for the hon. member for Cape Breton South to go round making statements belittling the possibilities in our own section of the country.


Clarence Gillis: Are you opposed to developing our own industry?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am very much in favour of it.
11S6
The Address-Mr. Isnor


Clarence Gillis: That is exactly what I was arguing for, but now you are making the case bad for us.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: If the hon. member will do the same as I do, listen and then reply or ask intelligent questions, I shall be pleased to answer him.


Clarence Gillis: Try to do something for the 4,500 unemployed in Halifax.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am glad the hon. member mentioned the unemployed. I was interested in a statement made by Mr. N. L. Rolfe, whom I am sure the hon. member knows. He is president of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and he says that there were 900 communists in the city of Halifax who are not at all concerned about getting or seeking employment. Like the hon. member for Cape Breton South I am anxious to encourage industry in every possible way, and that is why I offer constructive suggestions from time to time instead of simply criticizing.
The hon. member mentioned the situation at Sydney in coal and steel, particularly steel. He has no love for Dosco, and I hold no brief for Dosco because it is well able to take care of itself. I should like to put on record a statement made by Mr. Anson, the general manager of Dosco at Sydney: He says:
A $4,000,000 construction on a battery of 53 coke ovens of the "most modern design" will start early in the spring.


Clarence Gillis: Early in spring-just like the causeway.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I regret you cannot take it. The report continues:
Mr. Anson said the new project would replace "part of the present set-up which has outlived its usefulness."
The ovens to be replaced by the new battery had been in operation about thirty years, Mr. Anson said, although average life was twenty-five years. The new battery of fifty-three ovens will produce as much coke as seventy-five or eighty-five ovens of the present design, Mr. Anson stated.
Mr. Anson estimated the construction work would take about eighteen months. It is estimated the project will employ an average of 150 men a day.
Mr. Anson's announcement was the biggest story in Sydney steel in years, and added fuel to the fires of speculation that the sprawling Sydney mills are on the verge of a far-reaching expansion program.
During recent weeks the coke ovens situation has been the cause of concern, and according to reliable reports the domestic coke supply will be limited this winter.
Which we know to be true. I continue:
But before operations bogged down as a result of the coke ovens "operational difficulties," production records were cracked in the open hearth, and in fact new all-time marks were registered.

I felt, Mr. Speaker, that I should put that on the record to show that the company-even though it is not held in very high regard by the hon. member for Cape Breton South- was endeavouring to help industry and bring about better conditions and more employment in that part of my province.


Clarence Gillis: There are 2,200 veterans in that area.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: There is another matter to which I should like to refer. I mentioned a moment ago that last April I suggested that a scientific research centre be set up in Nova Scotia. I am pleased to note that in this same publication there appears a dispatch from Halifax which reads as follows-


Clarence Gillis: Just for the record, what is the hon. member quoting from?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I think I might say to the hon. member I am quoting from a publication that is not particularly unfriendly to him. It has done him very good service in the past and is continuing to do so.


Clarence Gillis: What is it?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It is called, "Business-Grams issued by The Halifax Herald and the Halifax Mail. The Voice of Nova-The Choice of Nova Scotia." Has the hon. member any objection to that source? The quotation is as follows-


Clarence Gillis: I should like to give the Herald credit on the record.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member will be able to give it credit in a minute; that is why I am reading it.


James Horace King: I must remind the hon. member for Cape Breton South that it is against the rules to interrupt an hon. member who has the floor without his permission.


Clarence Gillis: On that point, Mr. Speaker,
I suggest that the hon. member for Halifax make his speech to the house through you, and not to me.


Mr. SINNOTT:: It is getting under your skin, is it?


Mr. WINTERS:: A little too pointed.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: May I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a further dispatch in the publication to which I refer, which reads as follows:
Halifax's new national research council laboratory, designed to serve the three maritime provinces, will be a three-storey structure erected to the east of the science building on Dalhousie university campus at a cost -which might run as high as $300,000.

The Address-Mr. Isnor
This announcement was made recently by Dr. G. H. Henderson of the physics department at Dalhousie, and Nova Scotia member of the national research council, following his return from a meeting of the council at which further plans for the institution were formulated.
The building, larger than originally proposed, will be 90 by 50 feet with an ell in the rear for flexible provision for use of pilot plants in the work of the regional laboratory's 50-man staff, half of which will be composed of professional scientists.
I was pleased to note that, Mr. Speaker, because it brings into being something I suggested last April and which I have every reason to believe will be of real benefit not only to the particular section represented by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, but also to the whole of the province of Nova Scotia and perhaps to the maritimes in general.


Clarence Gillis: Hear, hear.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am glad to hear the hon.
member say "hear, hear". At last he is beginning to realize that there is something of a constructive nature being offered.
There was a further dispatch-and I shall quote this for the benefit of the hon. member for Cape Breton South-which appeared in the Truro Daily Neies of Monday, February 9, 1948, and which reads as follows:
Coal Resources Will be Developed
Halifax. Feb.8-Inauguration of a long-term program designed to develop Nova Scotia coal resources was announced here Saturday by Dr. Robert D. Howland, vice-president of the Nova Scotia Research Foundation, following a two-day conference sponsored by the foundation.
Dr. Howland said one of the aims of the program would be to encourage substitution of Nova Scotia coal for American fuel oil.
The research program will include the following:
1.	Geographical surveys to determine more exactly the extent and nature of provincial coal deposits.
2.	Physical and chemical surveys to determine the quality and burning characteristics of various Nova Scotia coals.
3.	Investigation and adjustment of combination equipment to promote the wider use of Nova Scotia coal.


Clarence Gillis: That will be next spring.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member for Cape Breton South said it will be set up by next spring. For the benefit of the hon. member may I say that they are working on it at the present time. In fact they have already set up a pilot plant in Ottawa to be ready to take over as soon as the building is completed in Halifax.


Clarence Gillis: That was set up three years ago.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I do not know how much of my time remains, since I began my speech on Wednesday; but I want to deal briefly
with the functions of the industrial development bank as they apply to the maritimes.
In central Canada, more particularly in Quebec and Ontario, borrowers are close to the head office; and they are able to make their applications and present their cases in person, and they receive, perhaps unconsciously, greater consideration than do the applications in the section of the country which I and others represent.
I regret that my time has elapsed. I wanted to develop that point, and I shall do so in just one or two minutes if I am permitted. I would ask that greater consideration be given to applications for loans, and that loans should be viewed not only from the point of view of the traditional test of whether the loan is good or not, but also in the light of the question whether the proceeds of the loan will be used to contribute to the welfare of that particular section of the country, the maritimes in my case.
In that regard I should like to extend my thanks to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) who has travelled all over Canada and who visited us in the maritime provinces. I believe he has done a good job in making known the possibilities of industry in our section of the country. I should also like to have referred to writers who have done a good job in making known the possibilities of Nova Scotia. I have particularly in mind an article which appeared in M aclean's magazine written by Blair Fraser, entitled: "Men by the Sea." Articles such as these do more good than speeches made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South which paint a dreary and dismal picture of conditions in our province. I for one when I stand here and talk about my province wish to paint as bright a picture as possible in order to encourage further industries to come to that section of the country.


Lewis Menary: Mr. Speaker, since I come from an agricultural district I should like to take part in this debate, and my remarks will be brief.
Can the government or the income tax department devise a simpler method of compiling income tax returns? There are very few farmers or even businessmen who can make up an income tax return on the present forms. In the small towns and villages there seem to be only one or two men who can compute an income tax return, and the farmers leave the computing of their taxes until the last moment and very often do not get the returns in in time. If the forms could be simplified, it would be better for all concerned.
The Address-Mr. Menary

I would like to say something about the feed companies. In the period between August 1, 1947, and January, 1948, the farmers were unable to buy grain to feed their hogs and poultry. That is one reason why the farmers sold their brood sows and laying hens and pullets. Now we are told that the elevators and the grain companies in the west held this coarse grain in storage awaiting the rise in price that they knew was coming. The farmers lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling this stock, much of it in an unfinished condition. Then you came along with a rise in price on all these grain products. You did not inform the farmer, but you allowed, I understand, approximately four million bushels of grain to get into the hands of the elevators in the western provinces at the low price.
Is it true that cars were held waiting for your announcement of this increase in price? Now, I understand that the farmers of the west are demanding from the government that they be paid an increase in price amounting to some $4,000,000 which they lost in selling this grain, possibly through lack of storage and need of money. Owing to this same shortage of feed the farmers of Ontario were compelled to sell a great many of the pullets they had raised for the producing of eggs during this fall and winter. The birds were brought in to the processing plants by hundreds. There are a number of processing plants in my riding, and truckloads of these birds were coming in every day. There were about fifteen hands employed' in each of these plants, and they were really taking in a good many fowl. These birds cannot be replaced.
The same can be said of hogs; and sows, even close to the farrowing period, were allowed to go to market. One trucker in my district took sixty-five sows out to market in one week. Other districts no doubt did the same. Later this grain came into Ontario at an increased price. There seems to be no guidance given by our government to the farmers. These farmers, who had to sell their laying hens and brood sows, will suffer a heavy loss. The birds cannot be replaced.
Another announcement should have been made by the government with reference to the question: Why were hogs not raised to $24 per hundredweight on October 1 as promised in the last session? If this had been done the farmers would not have sold their young pigs and sows, since this rise in price would have helped to offset the increased price of food.


James Garfield Gardiner: Are the questions that are being asked by the hon. member addressed to me, or are they questions that were asked of him by someone?


Lewis Menary: It is from Hansard of June 18, 1947. I am not asking the question of the minister now.
I want to say something regarding the veterans of the first great war. These men went through untold hardships in the fighting in France and Belgium. For hours they stood up to their knees in mud. I think there should be a re-examination of the position in which these men find themselves today. In my district a veteran of the first world war was carrying on a little business. He had a wife and two children. He was forced to give up his business because of illness. He was getting a small pension on which he was unable to live and keep his wife and family. The wife went out to work in order to help out. This came to the attention of the Department of Veterans Affairs and she was told that she could no longer work. Now, even veterans' families must eat to live. They must have coal and fuel to keep warm. When a veteran does not own his house he must pay rent, and he must buy clothing. I went to see this particular veteran on different occasions, and the poor chap simply sat there, unable to do anything, though his wife was willing to go to work in order to help out, because she could have obtained a position as an assistant in a store, as she had done before. In fact, they were getting along fairly- well, because when she came home at night she would help with the housework.
I think the government should be more generous to these returned soldiers. Can they not institute a more humanitarian method of dealing with our veterans, who have given so much to the people of this country?
I want to mention another matter affecting the veterans, and that is the Veterans Land Act small holding plan. There are many returned men in the towns in my riding who would like to get a small piece of land on which to build a house. They may be carrying on a business or engaged in some other activity in these towns. They find that the Veterans Land Act 'branch increased from half an acre to three acres the acreage they must buy, and three acres of land is too much for any man to take care of who is in the position of these men I am discussing. I would ask the department to allow these veterans to take up half an acre or less and build houses for themselves, at the same time carrying on their business in the small towns or villages. Since coming

The Address-Mr. Lacombe
here I have received several letters from one veteran who filed his application in plenty of time before the act was changed, but like thousands of other veterans he got the runaround from the department. It has been said recently that the government may reduce the required amount of land to one acre or less. This seems more reasonable when the veteran is fully employed at some other occupation. He can look after half an acre but he cannot take care of three or four.
I come from a riding where the population consists of many nationalities-English, Irish, Scottish, Poles, German and Mennonite. In the great melting pot of our races these people are Canadians. There are few ridings that have sent more boys, in proportion to population, to fight for and to save our democratic way of life. Of this we are proud. I was at a gathering of returned soldiers recently at which there were 125 of these boys, and I was struck by the number of foreign names among the lads who came forward to receive gifts. It is a great thing that people can mix and become assimilated in that way.
Before coming to attend this session I was asked a question by a father who had four sons overseas, one of whom made the supreme sacrifice. I may say that he had been overseas himself. This father asked, as many more fathers and returned men would like to ask: Why did the Minister of Trade and Commerce make the statement he did-see page 5727 of Hansard of July 16, 1947- namely, that the Premier of Ontario, who had arranged to bring 10,000 people from the motherland to Ontario, could not land them on Canadian soil? He stated that Mr. Drew might make arrangements to land these, our people, in the United States, but they would not be allowed to land in Canada.
A great many of the veterans in my riding resent that statement. It may be that the Minister of Trade and Commerce never thought it would cause trouble, but these veterans resent the statement because they were used so well in England. They were taken into the homes of the people there and treated with great kindness. I am sure that if the minister had given the matter thought he would not have made that statement. Let me say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the people of Canada will not soon forget those words. The people of England treated our boys with great kindness, as I say, shared their food with them and entertained them in their homes. Not only that, but England for two years stood alone. France collapsed early in the war and the United States did not come in for some time. We
owe to England a debt that we cannot repay. I say to the minister: You have been given great power-yes, I repeat, great power. Let us look back to world war I, from which emerged a paperhanger, I believe with the rank of corporal. Look back and see what happened year by year. His power grew; and through him the world was plunged into the greatest war of all time. Nations were destroyed; thousands died of starvation. I do not believe a democratic government should place this power in the hands of any man, since power grows day by day, and the common people are pushed aside and made vassals of the state.
(Translation):


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Mr. Speaker, the government has embarked upon a policy of restriction, which it has asked and is asking parliament to ratify. Some of these restrictions are extremely severe. There is no reason for subjecting the necessities of life to such austerity measures. Because of these restrictions, demand far exceeds production in Canada. The precarious state of our economy can no doubt be explained otherwise, but the basic reason of our present state, to my mind, can be found in these restrictions. This panacea was born of the war. Not five years have gone by since the government was pa3'ing the wheat grower to cut down production, a restriction which now deprives the eastern farmer of the grain necessary to produce wheat, butter and cheese and which leads to a shortage of goods, as well as to inflation.
Is it reasonable, in a country like ours, to pay so much for bread and all other food products? We should mind our own business more than we do. Our domestic policy is well worth looking after. Otherwise we shall witness the collapse of our economy.
It is all very well to draw up treaties and multiply international conferences, but it is more logical to watch over our financial position. Chambers of commerce, banks and all expert economists have forewarned the government of the danger of such long-term contracts with European countries. They have told them how urgent it was for Canada to obtain United States dollars. But the government had long ago pledged themselves to help Great Britain. And in order to restore the latter's finances, they are asking this nation to make sacrifices which today take on an odd character of solidarity and austerity. Why is Canada's fate always bound to that of Britain? Why should we, in our economic evolution, feel the effects of the slowing-down, the reces-
The Address-Mr. Lacombe

sion and even, the stoppage of the financial life of a country to which we have given what was the best in our economy? Finally setting aside fiction and confusion, the government now submit to parliament the result of protracted discussions in order to convince it that what was prosperity has ceased to be so and what was balance has become economic lopsidedness.
Is this an attempt to lower the cost of living? Such decline is not yet apparent. On the contrary, everything is being bought at a ransom price. One has the impression of living in an environment where unfair advantage is being taken of everybody and where such exploitation is equalled only by the entirely false complexion of our financial and economic situation. Producers as well as consumers face innumerable hardships, of which the adoption of these emergency measures is sufficient proof. These are expedients which have already been tried without success. They have always favoured and will still favour a small number of individuals, because of the shameful practice of the black market. The wartime prices and trade board is the most striking example of such expedients. Does the government hope to cure the evil by slowing down or cutting off our imports of raw materials, as it is doing in many unjustifiable cases? A nation's economy cannot be restored by such means. On the contrary, there is great danger of it being destroyed, through a lack of the necessities of life, as well as of raw materials. Prices show it is not a question of devaluating our dollar. Such a remedy would be ineffective, because of its temporary character. In a nation all economic factors are interdependent. We should keep up the volume of our United States imports and exports. We should have increased them steadily, as plain common sense dictated to our leaders. The United States have been our best customers for years, and still are. Yet, the government sacrificed part of our trade with the United States in favour of Britain, upon which we showered gifts and interest-free unsecured loans.
That policy has brought about disastrous results that will long be felt. Protests pour in from all quarters. Farmers, workers, financiers, manufacturers and all the other social classes are alarmed at the present situation. Not a day goes by but I receive resolutions from agricultural associations of my constituency, protesting against the scarcity of mash and feed grain and against the removal by the government of certain subsidies that are so necessary in this critical period.

The balance between the cost of production and the sale price of farm products has been disrupted. Yet, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) anticipates for next year an even more acute scarcity of agricultural commodities. He also warns fanners that there will be a shortage of fertilizers in the near future. Such is the picture drawn by the very members of the government. Should all those predictions materialize, what will follow? A slow-down in production, food shortages, substantial increases in the price of essential commodities and a whole network of restrictions.
Yesterday, in the name of the four freedoms of the Atlantic Charter-a hoax, according to the former president of the United States-our country was dragged into the path of military imperialism. Tomorrow, no longer in the name of Christianity, it will be drawn in the wake of financial imperialism to fly to the aid of a godless Russia that holds sway over the Balkans in staggering Europe. The appeal will be to save the sterling pound and the Empire's capital assets, which are vanishing in a world ruined by wars that have settled nothing. The secondary powers have been sacrificed to communism by the strongest nations of the world. Also Soviet Russia is therefore bringing the whole of Europe under her sway. One had to be blind not to foresee such a development. But nations like individuals are prompted by selfish motives. The dreadful conditions prevailing in the satellites of Soviet Russia have been fostered to a large extent by the greed of financial imperialism. Let those who have brought about such a sad state of affairs assume their proper responsibilities.
Once more orders in council have been enforced by the government without the advice of parliament. This encroachment upon the prerogatives of the House of Commons has been laid down as a policy. The representatives of the people have so often been ignored on behalf of irresponsible bureaucrats that this infringement of members' rights passes unnoticed by too many people. Not long ago, milk producers were deprived of their subsidy by an order despite a majority vote of parliament in favour of maintaining this assistance. There is no money left for granting subsidies to producers and consumers. There is no monev left for building homes for already begun to close down, crushed by the burden of taxes and restrictions. At a time such as this, when our production should1 be reaching new heights, it would seem that not

The Address-Mr. McKay
a stone is being left unturned to restrict and discourage it. You cannot build anything with restrictions. It is a policy which tires out and further weakens this country. The real builders succeeded' because they sought to stimulate commerce, industry and agriculture. The basis of all life, as of all prosperity, is to be found in the development of natural resources. This principle is as old as the world itself.
The Canadian people are at the mercy of financial dictatorship. The government cannot persuade anyone that they could not foresee the increase in the cost of living now weighing so heavily upon low-income families. However, they removed subsidies to producers and consumers at a time when both groups had the greatest need for them.
Before concluding, I wish to draw the attention of the house to the flag that floats over these parliament buildings. That flag continues to give to all the impression that Canada remains under the guardianship of another nation. It reduces this country's stature by asserting our bondage. I do not believe in the sincerity of those who advocate the unity of .this nation and who in the same breath refuse to play the game in the building up of a free and sovereign country. The government should thrust away the obstacles raised by those who deny Canada the right to small wage-earners and their families. Let war break out tomorrow, and there will be as many as you wish to continue undermining the economy of this country. Such is the result of an overdone war effort. This austerity program indicates the plight of our financial situation. It shows how anxious are the government and their financial advisers.
The new restrictions will tend to discourage middle-sized and small industries, which have grow up. They should meet them with the assertion of a truly national spirit and fight down colonialism, which is the very negation of a Canadian motherland. They should forthwith proclaim the adoption of a significant and distinctive flag. Otherwise, the government will go down in history as having denied Canada a truly national and essentially Canadian flag.


Mr. DECHENE:: Hear, hear.
(Text):


Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the house to the serious plight facing many veterans, particularly those on pensions and allowances, as a result of the discontinuance of price controls in this country. A large number of the 800,OOP veterans in Canada are in dire
need because of excessive living costs. Many are unable to purchase the necessities of life because of their high cost. The recipients of disability pensions, the widows of non-pensioners and those in receipt of allowances of various kinds, including veteran students, are hard hit because of the government's policy of decontrol of prices before there was a surplus of consumer goods available on the market.
No provision has as yet been made by parliament to assist these people who are the unhappy victims of ill-advised government policy. Every member of the house should be concerned in this matter, if for no other reason than that veterans live in every federal constituency. But concern ought to be shown more particularly by government members, since they are responsible for the dropping of price controls, which has resulted in so much distress among young and old veterans alike from one end of the country to the other.
Pensions and allowances remain at the same basic rate at which they were struck in 1926, when the cost of living index in this country stood at 121-8 as compared with 148-3 today. Although this increase in living costs should call for, an increase of twenty per cent in the basic pension rate, nothing has yet been done by this house to relieve the situation facing the thousands of veterans concerned.
A dollar in 1926 will buy less than 80 cents worth of goods today. If only clothing and food are concerned-and certainly a large portion of the pensioner's cheque goes for those commodities-the 1926 dollar is worth less than 60 cents. With a one hundred per cent disability a single ex-private would receive S75 per month. With the buying power of the dollar reduced to at least 80 cents it is apparent to all that his cheque will now buy only $60 worth of goods. The reduction in his monthly cheque is the equivalent of $15.
However, the situation is even worse than that, since few veterans actually receive 100 per cent disability. Most of them receive very much less than that. Of the 152,731 pensioners as of December 31, 1947, as indicated in an answer I received to a question i.n the house only a few days ago, just 7,165. or 4-7 per cent, are receiving 100 per cent disability, while 96,662 veterans, or over 63 per cent, are receiving small pensions of 24 per cent disability or less. It is true that many of these veterans have other incomes from jobs, but the pension granted is based on the fact that their earning capacity has been lessened by disability. They are handicapped, otherwise no pension would be provided. With no upward revision in pension rates they are
The Address-Mr. McKay

actually being subjected to a pension reduction because of the dollar's smaller buying power today.
These pensions are very small indeed. A 24 per cent disability pension for a single ex-private amounts to S18 per month. With today's inflated prices that pension has a buying capacity of only S14.40 or less. Last session I appealed to the then minister of veterans affairs to increase pensions by twenty per cent, as had been done in the United States. I now appeal to the present minister to grant a twenty-five per cent increase, because living costs, particularly clothing and food, have increased substantially since last year.
Veterans in this country are suffering because of the high prices of the ordinary things of. life, the result of a too hasty decontrol of prices. Veterans should not be subjected to the effects of an ill-conceived policy of this kind. After the first world war Sir Robert Borden, Canada's prime minister of that day, said "Our soldiers shall never want after fighting so gallantly." But thousands suffered in the depression of the thirties, and thousands are suffering today because of an inability to buy the necessities of life due to excessive costs. Their pensions and allowances are inadequate to meet increased living costs. Something must be done to relieve their plight. Something should be done without delay by this house.
We have been informed by the press that a proposal has been made by the government of a $10 a month increase in basic pension rates. If such an increase is made it is at least a recognition on the part of the government that something should be done. A flat increase across the board is inadequate and certainly is inequitable. It is indeed a crumb from Canada's table of plenty.
I feel that the whole approach to this problem is wrong. A veteran's pension is not a gratuity and has never been considered as such. It must be accepted as the wages of war. It is a small payment by the nation on a debt which cannot be reckoned in dollars and cents, a debt due for lives lost and bodies shattered wherever our boys fought in defence of this land. We cannot replace war-torn minds and bodies or bring back loved ones who are gone, but we can make some monetary compensation to the bereaved families and to disabled veterans. That much it is within our power to do. The very least this country should give to the disabled veteran and his dependents is the equivalent of lost earning power in the form of a substantial pension. A grateful people can do no less than that. Canada should compensate these

folk for everything they have lost when the ruthless hand of war uprooted them from their niche in the economy of this country.
Before the government makes any attempt to reduce taxes or declare surpluses it should meet, in part at least, the greatest debt it owes, the debt to the men and women who made sacrifices in order that all Canadians might have peace and security in a land of plenty. I repeat that an increase of $10 a month would be inadequate. I make that assertion because of official government figures issued by the bureau of statistics which show that there has been an increase of more than 20 per cent in living costs since 1926 when the present pension schedule was established. The cost of living is still on the upgrade, as is indicated by the 2-3 points increase in the index. It will need at least a 25 per cent advance in pensions and allowances to avert a reduction in the pensioners' standard of living below that which they are entitled to enjoy on the basis of the 1926 rates. This is especially true when we realize that most of the pension is expended on food and clothing, in connection with which the index now stands at 180 and 160 respectively, indicating much more than a 25 per cent increase in these prices.
The proposal in the February issue of The Legionary does not provide for any supplement to wives and dependents. This is where the proposal in inequitable. It is assumed, no doubt, but wrongly, that the $10 a month increase is sufficient to provide for both the veteran and his family. It is most difficult to understand the basis for such an assumption. The greater the domestic responsibility of the pensioner, the smaller the percentage of increase seems to be the plan. On the basis of a $10 increase the single veteran will receive 13i per cent more on his pension, but the disabled veteran with two children would obtain an over-all increase of only 6-5 per cent, or about one-half as much. This _ is grossly unfair to the pensioners with family obligations. It does not make sense.
It seems only fair to suggest that all the beneficiaries under the act should receive the twenty-five per cent advance in pensions. This would then include dependents as well as the recipients of various kinds of allowances, which is as it should be. Such a revision would be equitable because it would be based on the increase in living costs since the schedules were set up and would include all those veterans and dependents affected. Anything less than a twenty-five per cent increase is equivalent to a corresponding

The Address Mr. McKay
decrease in the scale of pensions set up in Canada twenty-one years ago, which even at that time was considered inadequate by many people. And if something is not done by this parliament to arrest the upward trend of prices, further adjustments may be required.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this might be done by allowing an increase of one per cent in basic pension and allowance rates for each point rise in the cost of living index, adjustments to be made quarterly. By the same token, reductions in the pension rate could be effected when prices recede, as they inevitably must.
The recipients of war veterans allowances also have a legitimate complaint with regard to the proposal to increase their allowances by $10 a month for single and married pensioners alike. This is inequitable in that the single man receives a greater percentage of increase than the married recipient. In order to be fair the single man should receive a minimum allowance of $50 per month and the married man with his greater domestic responsibilities, should be given $85 a month. These amounts would -bring the rates somewhat nearer to actual minimum living requirements.
For the same reason the widow's allowance now payable under the War Veterans Allowance Act should be increased to at least $40 a month. This is little enough. It has been said in this connection that the increase should be based on established need. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that need has been recognized, since widows now receiving the allowance have been subjected to a means test which establishes their right to assistance.
Some reference should be made in a speech of this kind to the difficulties being experienced by the 33,000 student veterans who because of the high cost of living are being forced in many cases, to discontinue their studies or are struggling along with financial worries, to the detriment of their work. The maintenance grants set by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 1944 of $60 for a single man and $80 for a married man have long been considered to be insufficient to meet the needs of the student veteran. Surveys have repeatedly shown that these allowances were barely enough to cover board and room even before living costs rose to the present high level. The veteran has always had to provide for transportation, books, laundry and clothing out of his own savings, which now in most cases are gone.
The situation has been aggravated by the removal of price controls which were in effect when the rates of his allowance were set. University of Toronto students have figures
to show that a S60 cheque now buys only $36 worth of goods in Toronto as compared to its purchasing power in 1944. The married veteran's cheque of $80 in 1944 has dwindled to $58 today in its value to purchase consumer goods there. To bring back the purchasing value of the student veterans' allowances of 1944, a twenty-five per cent increase in the allowances is imperative.
The cost of living index in 1944 stood at 118 points when the schedule of allowances was set up. Today the index stands at 148-3 points, or an increase of 30 points, representing an increase in living costs of over 25 per cent since 1944 when t'he schedule was first drawn up.
It was recently reported in the press that up to August last thirty-one per cent of the student veterans have discontinued their courses of training because of financial stress. If this statement is correct, Mr. Speaker, it is a most alarming situation. Everyone must be aware that all veterans attending institutions of higher learning are not so fortunate as to have parents who can assist them financially. Therefore many are forced to leave school inadequately trained to meet the stress of competitive job-seeking in a society which is demanding trained personnel.
The national conference of student veterans, which embraces students from every Canadian university, is now appealing, and I am glad to join in that appeal, for an increase in student veterans training allowances. On the basis of increased living costs a single veteran should get $75 a month and the married man $100. This would compensate for the 30 point rise in living costs since 1944. Furthermore I feel that the increase should be made retroactive to September, 1947, the beginning of the university fall term. Even such increases will barely meet average living costs, according to a survey conducted amongst veterans on the campus of the university of Saskatchewan. There it was found that a single man averaged $87 and a married man $124 for living expenses per month, and living costs in Saskatoon, the seat of the university of Saskatchewan, are not by any means the highest in Canada.
Canada needs trained men and women. The young student veterans, the cream of this country's youth, gave years of their lives in service to this country, while others profited. They sacrificed and fought for our democratic way of life. Our democracy should now show some gratitude for those sacrifices by giving them an opportunity to complete their courses of training so that they will be able to secure
The Address-Mr. Harkness

decent positions on an equal basis with those who did not serve their country in the same way. Surely the student veteran is entitled to this much at least. All that he is asking is a square deal. The late Theodore Roosevelt once said:
A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterward. To more than that, no man is entitled, and less than that-no man shall have.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that most Canadians will subscribe to the sentiment expressed in those words. The student veteran and every other veteran is entitled to a square deal, and it is within the power of this parliament to provide it. Canadians have not forgotten the sacrifices of these young folk. Canada cannot afford to be niggardly in the training allowances which are provided for them. Their future can be assured only by a 25 per cent increase at this time in their living allowances.
In conclusion I wish to emphasize again the pressing need for making an upward revision in pension rates and allowances to veterans to meet the present inflated living costs. Canada has a heavy obligation to the people who carried the torch of freedom in two world wars. Let us now meet, in part at least, that obligation by providing pensions and allowances adequate to meet present difficult living conditions.


Mr. GREGG:: Before the hon. member
concludes his speech, may I ask him a question?


Eric Bowness McKay: Yes.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Did I hear the statement
correctly that thirty-one per cent of the veterans had discontinued their courses on account of lack of financial assistance?


Eric Bowness McKay: In answer to the question,
Mr. Speaker, I would say that the press reported thirty-one per cent, and I used that figure in my speech. If that figure is right, then it is a most alarming situation. I do not know whether it is correct or not.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I know the hon. member
would like to be fair, and I assure him, Mr. Speaker, that that is not true. The figure is much less than that.


Eric Bowness McKay: Will the minister give us
the figure?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall be glad to submit it later.


Mr. D. S. HARKNESS (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like most heartily to join with the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), the hon. member who has just taken

his seat (Mr. McKay), and other hon. members, in their pleas to the government for better treatment of our veterans and their dependents at the present time, in view of the marked increase in the cost of living. I had intended to speak at some length on this subject, but it has already been covered so extensively that I shall leave it with just that remark.
For the past three sessions I have spoken on the oil industry in Canada, and have brought to the attention of the house and the government the measures which the oil men of Alberta have thought should be taken in order to encourage the search for oil, to expand the drilling program, and thus the production of this vital commodity. Up to the present time I am sorry to say that the government has not accepted many of these suggestions, and as a result, at its door lies the responsibility for the fact that our oil production in Canada today is not considerably greater than it is. However, the current shortage of fuel oil and the demand by some United States senators and congressmen that all exports of oil from the United States be stopped, has focused public attention on our oil situation in Canada and has thus created conditions which I hope will make the government more receptive to suggestions of the oil men.
The present shortage of oil in the United States and the warnings by various high officials of its government that, in the future, domestic supplies of crude will not be sufficient to meet the demand, particularly in the case of a war, coupled with the advice that plants should be started immediately to make gasoline from coal, has made it apparent to everyone in Canada that we can no longer depend upon the United States to supply us with the greater part of our oil requirements. This makes it an urgent matter to us to make sure of our own supply by developing our own resources.
There are three ways in which that can be done. The first is by finding and bringing into production new oil fields; the second is by utilizing the oil resources of the McMurray tar sands in northern Alberta, and the third is by the erection of plants to make synthetic gasoline from coal. The most immediately promising of these three methods is the first: and I am glad to say that the search for oil is now going on actively in widely separated parts of the Dominion of Canada, and particularly in Alberta.	That search is being
carried on, not by the federal or any provincial government, but by oil companies risking their shareholders' money, and today they have put into their efforts to find oil many more millions than they have received back from

The Address-Mr. Harkness
successful oil wells. Furthermore, most of this loss which they have experienced has been due to government taxation in one form or another. Under these circumstances I believe the government should encourage the movement of capital into the search for oil by meeting the reasonable requests which the oil men have made for tax, tariff and other concessions. On July 18, 1946, I made five suggestions to the government as to how exploration and drilling programs could be encouraged. Only one of these suggestions has been carried out to date, and I should like now again to bring them to the government's attention.
The first of these suggestions had to do with the fifty per cent tax deduction allowed on what are known as deep test wells, drilled in the foothills area of Alberta, where you have to go many thousands of feet to discover an oil well. Oil men have asked repeatedly that this concession be extended to all oil wells drilled in that western country, particularly to the wells drilled in the plains areas where it is not necessary to go so deep, and also to completing abandoned wells. The adoption of a policy of this kind by the government would, I think, without question result in the expansion of the drilling program.
The second suggestion was that there should be a greater depletion allowance. At the present time operators are allowed a depletion allowance of 33^ per cent. In the United States, oil men, with whom, of course, our oil men have to compete, and from where large numbers of them come, are allowed up to fifty per cent depletion allowance, and this can also be moved backward or forward, so that a company having no net income in any particular year is entitled to a depletion allowance, and may carry it forward or backward to apply against future or past profits.
The third suggestion was that all drilling costs permit and leasing expense, geological and geophysical costs et cetera, be allowed as deductions for tax purposes and, further that these expenses may be claimed as and when desired, so that large expenditures over two or three years may be deductible when production is secured, and spread over the period of production, which is ordinarily some time. The first three years of an oil well's life are ordinarily the most productive years.
The fourth suggestion was that the present income tax regulations covering' exploration and development, which are on a year to year basis, should be made part of the permanent tax structure, so that operators may be able to make future financial plans under definitely known tax conditions. That would be of
particular help to smaller operators, in that they would know where they stood and were likely to stand in the future so far as tax regulations, exemptions from sales tax on their equipment and so on, are concerned.
The fifth suggestion was the removal of the subsidies being paid at the time on crude oil. That was the only suggestion which the government has adopted. It did remove the subsidy and price ceilings and the price of crude oil has risen considerably. I should like to illustrate the extent to which it has risen, or how it has risen, and comment on the effect of it. I hold in my hand a bulletin of the Western Canada Petroleum Association, dated January 9, 1948.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Is each one of these suggestions within the competence of the federal government to fulfil, or would they involve the provincial governments as well?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think they are all within the competence of the federal government, without having any connection with the provincial governments.
The bulletin to which I have referred contains a little table showing what crude oil prices have been in Alberta. They are as follows:
Per barrel
May 1, 1944	 $1.66
January 1. 1946	 2.11
January 15. 1947	 2.61
April 1, 1947	 2.96
October 28. 1947	 3.16
December 12, 1947	 3.66
Quite a material rise.
The effect of this price rise has been marked in encouraging drilling. In the middle of 1946 there were twenty-eight large oil drilling rigs standing idle in Turner valley. In the middle of 1947 these rigs were all at work drilling in various parts of the province. This change in the drilling picture was partly due to the encouragement which the oil men received through the discovery of the Leduc field; but if the price of crude had, by government action, continued at the artificially low rates which prevailed up to the beginning of 1947, the heavy risk involved in drilling would not have been taken by many of the companies which now have wells either in production or going down.
In addition to the suggestions I have mentioned, which I believe the government should follow at this belated time, I asked that the special concessions made to "the gold mining industry in 1946 and 1947 be extended, in a
The Address'-Mr. Harkness

modified form at least, to the oil industry. That also should be done at this session, as well as continuing to exempt from the sales tax, oil drilling machinery and pipe which is at present so treated, and extending this concession to all oil production.
At the 1947 session I asked that this concession be extended to a piece of machinery known as heater-treater used for separating oil as it comes from the well from the sand and water with which it is mixed in the plains-wells area. The government refused to take that action, and that is another thing they might very well do at this session.
If the government considers that the development of Canadian oil fields is now vital to our economy, I call upon it to take the steps I have indicated, which would unquestionably increase drilling and thus production.
I should like to mention the extent to which Alberta oil production has met the oil needs of the three prairie provinces, and what can be expected in the immediate future. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba at present require
40.000	to 42,000 barrels of oil daily. Production at the end of 1947 was approximately
24.000	barrels daily, or a little more than half the amount required and used. Of this, approximately 14,000 barrels come from Turner valley and the other 10,000 barrels from the other newer fields. These fields, on their present known size, can be expected to double their output in 1948. However, Turner valley production is decreasing, and is expected to be down to 2,000 barrels a day ten years from now. These present known fields must be extended, and probably new ones found, if the west is to be self-sufficient in oil in two years' time. This is the position which oil men are confident will be attained. If several new fields comparable with Leduc can be found in Alberta-and there is every hope that they can be and will be-production to meet a major part of Canada's requirements will be secured.
A very large amount of exploratory work is going on in western Canada at the present time. Some twenty-eight geophysical crews of about fifteen men each are in the field now', and they will cover hundreds of thousands of acres this year. On the basis of the data they gather, many new exploratory wells will be drilled. At the moment they are drilling or rigging up in Alberta, exclusive of the Lloydminster area, which straddles the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary, some seventy-four wells, which will be going down in the course of a few weeks. Of these, twenty-eight are in the Leduc area and nine in Turner valley.

Most of the other thirty-seven are being drilled in efforts to find new fields. In other words, they are drilled as exploratory wells, and there is every hope that some of these thirty-seven will lead the way to new fields such as Turner valley and Leduc.
The promising oil picture in Alberta at the present time should not, however, be used as a reason for doing nothing on the other two methods I mentioned at the outset, methods which are open to us to make ourselves selfsufficient in oil and its derivatives. Research and experimentation to develop an economic method of extracting oil from the McMurray sands should be carried forward vigorously. It is a great pity that the dominion government gave up the work they were carrying on there during the war. I believe it was a shortsighted policy to do so, and that mistake should now be rectified. Another pilot plant should be started1 immediately.
The Alberta government, I am glad to say, is continuing its work on these tar sands, but the development of a method which would give us a supply of oil for the whole dominion from these sands is a national responsibility, and that responsibility should be assumed by the dominion government as it was during the war. If the dominion government, at that time, thought it was good business to try to discover means of utilizing these tar sands and extracting oil from them, I suggest that, in view of the present world situation and the oil short situation in the United States, it is even more necessary to continue that work now.


John Horne Blackmore: The Alberta members are deeply interested in this subject, and I was wondering whether the hon. member would suggest to the dominion government that it grant- Alberta a considerable amount of assistance so that they can go forward with their project more rapidly than they are doing. Would the hon. member be prepared to do that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should be very happy at any action the dominion government might take to carry forward experimentation on these tar sands; but whether it is done by a grant to the Alberta government or through the erection of its own plants I do not care, so long as it is done. Certainly it must be done.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: It is a
national problem.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is undoubtedly a national problem and should be dealt with on that basis. The erection of plants to produce synthetic gasoline is also a national problem.

The Address-Mr. Harkness
Apparently the United States government are going to erect such plants in their country as a defence measure and, in view of our own dependent position as far as gasoline is concerned, I think we should be taking some steps in the same direction. We have abundant supplies of the chief raw material, coal, and I may say that we have that in good quantities ini at least three widely separated areas in the country.
The liquefaction of coal may well prove to be the means by which our rather badly distributed supplies can be economically used throughout the country, particularly in the central section. It would seem to me that the expenditure required for one or two pilot or test plants would be an excellent investment in Canada's future, and an insurance against the position we may find ourselves in, if denied oil from the United States. An embargo on oil exports from the United States would be an absolutely crippling blow at our whole economy. If such an embargo were put into effect we would really have austerity, and it would be Austerity with a capital A. When I say that I am not thinking so much of the fact that all cars would disappear from our highways as of the fact that a large part of our farm lands could not be seeded and the crops harvested or got to market, and the consequences in other industries would be nearly as serious.
I shall leave this subject by saying the government can no longer delay taking vigorous steps to ensure an oil and gasoline supply from our own resources. It can be done, and I say it must be done and done now.
I should like to touch upon another subject, the sales tax. At its current level and in our present circumstances, this tax should be eliminated on a number of commodities and reduced on others. I am not talking of liquor, tobacco or other commodities which are luxuries or non-essentials-I am referring to that great range of articles of food, clothing, household cooking utensils and so on, that everyone in this country must buy in order to live. The sales tax causes a rise in prices much greater than is apparent on the surface. It is a double-barreled weapon in that it increases the cost of producing nearly every article manufactured in this country, while on the other hand it raises the cost of the finished article to the ultimate consumer. When the profits of the distributors are pyramided, along with the tax, you have a cost to the consumer altogether out of proportion to the amount the government collects.
In addition, the tax is applied in a discriminatory way in some cases. The tax on newsprint used by newspapers is an example.
Daily newspapers are in competition with both Canadian and United States magazines for their chief source of revenue, which is advertising; yet neither Canadian nor United States magazines pay this tax. In fact the tax does not apply to newsprint used by weekend newspapers which do not have a news section. For example, the Toronto Star Weekly has no news section, so that it does not pay the tax. On the other hand, other week-end newspaper editions with news sections have to pay the tax on all the newsprint used in the edition. Furthermore, the newsprint used to produce comic books and pulp fiction is not subject to this tax, though the government considers such publications so unessential, and many people consider them harmful, that under the present restrictions on imports they are banned from Canada. The unfairness of the eight per cent tax on newsprint, as at present applied, I think is quite manifest. In addition to this unfairness, it has entered into the increased cost of newspapers. Last year the two Ottawa newspapers increased their price from three cents to five cents a copy and, as I remember it, the main reason given was the increased cost of newsprint. Newsprint now runs at over $80 a ton. Thus the tax is well over $6 a ton, which is not an inconsiderable item. It has been an important factor in the increase of 66$ per cent in the price the consumer in Ottawa pays for his daily paper.
There are one or two other matters on which I should like to touch briefly. The new farmers' income tax form and income tax and account book have been dealt with by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Miller), so that I need say only a word about the matter. I have been wrestling with the wretched thing for the last two weeks, and I can assure the minister that not one farmer in a hundred will be able to fill it out correctly. I have had considerable bookkeeping experience of one kind and another, and I would say the betting is very much against my getting that form filled out correctly. So that I am quite sure the average farmer, who has had no bookkeeping experience, will be completely lost. It is a very nice form, and from an accounting point of view the book is well set up, but one of two things is needed to make it a success. One would be a course for farmers in how to operate the thing and how to carry on bookkeeping. The second would be a complete change in the nature of our farmers. Since neither of these would seem to be possible, I suggest to the minister that his department try to get something else which will be workable.
The Address-Mr. Harkness

I want to mention one other matter because it concerns the Indian affairs branch, and for some considerable time I have been identified with an effort to improve conditions for our Indians. I have received information-which I hope is not correct, though I have reason to believe it is-that there is a certain amount of political interference and finagling in connection with civil service appointments in the Indian affairs branch. In the interests of our Indian population, I do not think anything of that kind should be allowed in this country. I understand that the position of chief inspector of agencies became vacant when Mr. Christianson, the former inspector in Saskatchewan, was retired after having held that position for some time. A competition was announced, and a number of the senior officials of the department applied for the position, together with the private secretary of the Minister of Mines and Resources. The selection board of the civil service commission, or whatever it is called, conducted the competition and recommended for appointment Colonel Randle, superintendent of the Six Nations reserve at Brantford, which is the largest Indian reserve in Canada, where Colonel Randle has carried on successfully for a number of years.
I am informed that this recommendation was not accepted. Another competition was announced, and for this competition the qualifications were changed a bit, apparently to make it easier for one of the other candidates to obtain the appointment. Once more the competition was held and once more the selection board recommended Colonel Randle on the basis of his past record, his wide experience and so on. For the second time the recommendation was not accepted, and now I understand that another competition is to be held or has been held. For this competition they have changed the title of the job. They are not going to call it chief inspector of agencies; they are going to call it executive assistant; I suppose that gets away from the necessity of having experience. They have also changed the qualifications, and I understand the general idea abroad is that all these changes have been made for the purpose of securing the appointment of the minister's private secretary. I know the private secretary. I have a very high regard for him and nothing in the world against him. But I think a job of this kind, particularly in the Indian affairs branch, should be given to a man who has acquired, over years in the department, the experience which is necessary in order to carry on the work. I object most strenuously to any fiddling of this kind with appointments in the Indian affairs branch, and

I would ask that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) make a statement in connection with the matter.
Mr. RENE N. JUTRAS (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and to point out that they were both constructive in their speeches. I assure you I shall endeavour to follow the example they have set.
Today I wish to deal more particularly with the wheat question in this country. It is still one of our basic industries, at least out west, and it takes on added importance because I think it is commonly agreed that most agricultural products are directly or indirectly affected by the price of wheat in Canada. So from this point of view it is one of the most important questions facing parliament and the country at the present time.
We have heard a great deal about wheat. Much was said in the short session before Christmas, and more has been said since we resumed our sittings in the New Year. I suppose one of the greatest points of contention thus far has been in connection with the wheat agreement signed in 1946. I hold the view it is hardly fair to judge it because, after all, it has run only about half its course. However, many people have been busy in the last few years trying to discredit these agreements, and the policy of the government.
Some have been doing it as a matter of principle, because it did not meet with their general ideas of trade. That is their privilege. Others, however, have been going into the country and, through the press, have tried every means possible to discredit the agreement in order to gain political capital or to improve their political stock. There are others, too, who have followed the same practice throughout the country because the agreements interfered with their personal profits or businesses.
I believe this criticism begins and ends almost exclusively with the propaganda which has been put out through the medium of the research department of the Searle Grain Company of Winnipeg. Every second week they have sent out a letter. I have no doubt members of parliament and many other people throughout the country have received them. Those letters have been sent out in an effort to convince the farmers that they have only one group of friends in the country, only one group of benefactors, and that all these gentlemen were in the grain exchange at Winnipeg. This propaganda has pointed out that through the present policy the farmers had lost colossal sums, amounting to millions upon millions of dollars, and increasing every day.

The Address-Mr. Jutras
The propaganda is impressive in many respects. First of all, it is put out by an old and reliable grain company which has been operating for many years. It is also expensively printed and a well-turned out job. As they point out from week to week, it is supposed to be the product of a research department. Therefore it is only right to assume that the average man reading this propaganda would take it for granted that these facts and figures bear at least some resemblance to actual facts.
Before I begin taking this propaganda to pieces, let me make it clear that I have no personal animosity toward any grain company or, so far as that goes, toward the grain exchange. However, I suggest that this company has taken upon itself a tremendous responsibility when it goes out to feed the public deceitful propaganda and uses fictitious figures based upon an imaginative and unreal situation, in its effort to raise a protest throughout the country. This is more particularly true when the farmers, not the company, are the losers, should the inflated bubble presented to them explode in their faces.
The objective is quite clear. The company wishes to have the grain exchange reopened. As I have pointed out, the methods thus far followed are those of dangling inflated prices and boldly to give the assurance that these prices can be had, if the farmers would only pass their business through the door of the exchange. Not a word is said about what took place prior to the day the exchange was closed.
Fortunately, thus far the farmer has been cautious; so much so indeed, that one is almost inclined to reach the conclusion that at least at the beginning he has been somewhat suspicious. I believe it is true to say that a great many, if not all of the official opposition in the house, have swallowed the propaganda-paper and ink. If one looks at the record he will find that many of them have quoted these letters regularly. Even that reputable newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press, has occasionally given a certain amount of publicity to those figures in its columns, although, generally speaking, it has maintained a guarded attitude and has left responsibility for the accuracy of the figures on the shoulders of the company issuing them.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Do you dispute the accuracy of them?


Mr. JUTRAS:: I certainly do, and I will spend the next thirty minutes in disputing those figures.


James Arthur Ross: That is an invitation. Would the hon. member permit a question?


René Jutras: Certainly.


James Arthur Ross: Does the hon. member dispute the accuracy of any of the figures contained in the Searle index put out each second week?


René Jutras: I just said so; that is what I said, And I will spend the next thirty minutes in disputing those figures.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Apparently the hon.
member for Souris accepts them.


James Arthur Ross: He certainly does.


René Jutras: The hon. member for Souris has so consistently placed those figures on the record that one must inevitably come to the conclusion that, had he the responsibility of administering the affairs of the country and of the farmers, he would place the faith of fhe farmers entirely in the hands of the Searle Grain Company in the next few years.
I believe I have here all the letters of the Searle Grain Company issued in the last two years. Of course I have not time to read them all, but I shall take as an example the one of June 5, which appears to be a summary of the letters preceding it. It states:
Out of this fog of sentimental delusion about the future emerge-
And I ask the house to note this:
-certain cold harsh facts which now adversely affect the farmer's income and his pocketbook.
If I were to read the entire letter it would be clear that, again and again, the experts use the expression, "A simple calculation wilt show." With them it is always a simple matter' to prove their figures. As I read these letters from week to week in the last year, I could not help being reminded of Lord Haw-Haw,, at the time when he lectured the people in Great Britain. I remember one evening he spoke over the radio about twelve o'clock and, to impress the people that he knew what was going on in England, he said, "Ladies and gentlemen, to show you that I know what goes on, let me tell you that this very minute Big Ben is two minutes slow." That was twelve o'clock at night; England was in a blackout; no one could check the clock until next morning, and by that time many people assumed that the timekeeper had set the clock right. I know from the reaction of the public that he did manage to impress a great many people with the belief that he actually knew at any given moment what was going on in England. Mr. Strange, who, I understand,
The Address-Mr. Jutras

is the one and only and, as a matter of fact, the entire research department of the Searle *Grain Company-


James Arthur Ross: That is not a fact *either.


René Jutras: I beg your pardon.


James Arthur Ross: That is hardly a true statement either.


René Jutras: Well, he computes all these letters, and has the entire responsibility for them. That company has set this out on many occasions in its letters. When he went to England later on, that part of the letters was suspended until he returned. We now come to the details, and this is the first line of the propaganda:
American farmers just across the international line are today receiving the equivalent of $2.18 for their wheat.
Then it goes on to compute that on the basis of the $1.55 payment. That letter is dated June 5, 1946. If one takes the trouble to check the Chicago market for that day he will find that there is no quotation of $2.18 or anything like it. If you check back you will find that there was a quotation of $2.18 in the ibeginning of May, but it dropped after that.
That is another point to be noted. In his -distorted statement he says that the United States farmer just across the international border is receiving that price. This gentleman has not reached the realization that the United States farmer never did receive that price, and I do not suppose he ever will. Even if Chicago had quoted $2.18 on that day, there would not be a single farmer in the United States who would have got $2.18 for his wheat. The same thing applies here. When the Winnipeg grain exchange shows a certain quotation on- a certain day there are very few farmers who will get that amount for their wheat. At the very least he would have to deduct the amount of freight from his farm to the exchange. To come out boldly and say that the United States farmer actually gets $2.18 is absolutely erroneous.
I took the trouble to check with the United States department of agriculture to find out what the United States farmer received. The bureau of agricultural economics of the United States department of agriculture puts out an interesting publication entitled, "The Wheat Situation''. That contains the average prices received by the farmers, not by the grain exchange, not by the companies dealing in grain, but by the farmers. What do we find? Since this letter is dated June 5, 1946, I suppose it would be only fair to take the average for May, 1916, and this average was $1.70.

That is the average price received by the United States farmer in the month before this letter was published. I point out again that this figure of $2.18 is purely an imaginative or entirely fictitious figure.
I shall not spend any more time on this letter. A year later, the wheat board started computing a No. 2 price and then this company immediately dropped the figure of $2.18 as a basis of its calculations. It adopted the class 2 price of the wheat board. Before I leave this $2.18 figure, may I say that a reputable institution like the Winnipeg grain exchange put out a series of advertisements which appeared in the most important newspapers of Canada and which were based on this $2.18 price. I shall not read the whole advertisement, but there is one sentence right in the centre in large letters which I should like to read because it is the only one that makes sense. This sentence reads:
The whole thing doesn't make sense.
That is about the only true statement in the whole thing. It ends with:
Act-Protest-and protest loudly and long.
And again:
Demand that your elected representatives secure for you justice and equality of prices. If not-protest. Protest.
That advertisement was put out on the strength of a fictitious argument advanced by an official of one country and it was distributed throughout the country.


Mr. MILLER:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


René Jutras: Certainly, but hurry up as I have not much time.


Calvert Charlton Miller: What is the difference on which that loss is computed? The $2.18 is the high point, but what is the other figure?


René Jutras: They take the $2.18. They make no bones about it. They do not take the average.


Calvert Charlton Miller: What is the low figure? Where is the difference?


René Jutras: The hon. member must be under a misapprehension.


Calvert Charlton Miller: You are.


René Jutras: I did not give the lowest figure. No one here has submitted the lowest figure.


Mr. KUHL:: What was the corresponding Canadian figure?


René Jutras: I gave the average price received by the farmer in the United States.

The Address-Mr. Jutras


Calvert Charlton Miller: You said that the losses were computed on a false figure, and you mentioned that as being the figure of $2.18. What is the figure you had that it was computed on?


René Jutras: I shall come to that later. I cannot deal with four things at the same time.


James Arthur Ross: He is just the new wheat expert.


René Jutras: There is no use in continuing with the calculation based on $2.18 because they dropped it. I am going to take their other figures.


Calvert Charlton Miller: What do the farmers clear in your riding? How much do they net?


René Jutras: I shall give you that in a few minutes if you will only give me time.
I come now to another letter. I believe this is the latest, although there may be another one that has come in since. It sums up the propaganda in the first line by saying:
From August 1, 1946 to December 31, 1947, a period of 17 months, the loss taken by our wheat growers on the wheat they have delivered to country elevators comes to the following staggering sums, all as compared with what farmers would have received had they enjoyed the full world price set daily by the Canadian wheat board itself for class 2 wheat.
That letter is dated January 21, 1948. Another sentence reads:
(a) On the wheat hauled by farmers and intended for shipment to Britain, 296 million dollars.
First of all, let me say that I am surprised that the Searle Grain Company put any faith in a price set by the board. All through these letters they attempt to show that any time the government or the board sets a price it is only a fictitious price, one that will not endure and consequently one that has no value. Yet it is on that very basis that they attempt to show these losses.
The hon. member for Souris, in line with the Conservative party's propaganda, tried to establish the fact that the No. 2 price of the wheat board was the true world price. Personally I wish it were, and I am sure that a great many people in this country do, because then all our troubles would be over. The wheat situation in this country would then be very simple. All we would have to do is to close, all the exchanges and have one of the three officials of the board take a pencil, look at the Chicago market quotation, add the protein value of our wheat and its intrinsic value -I believe in class 2 there is also a small allowance for market variation-and then wre would have the price of Canadian wheat.


James Arthur Ross: How is the price arrived at now?


René Jutras: We shall deal with wheat first. Don't change the subject if you don't like it.


James Arthur Ross: I am asking how the price is arrived at now?


René Jutras: I was going on to say that the situation is not that simple. You cannot just take a pencil and figure out the price. If you want the world price, there are all kinds of world prices at the present time. Let us go back to 1946-47. In the United States they have a system of computing what they call a parity price and they try to maintain the market at 90 per cent of that price. I have all the figures here on that parity price. The average price to the United States farmer in 1946-47, as given by the department of agriculture, U.S.A., was $1.91.
In Canada, during the crop year 1946-47 we had three prices: first, the domestic price, due to change in the middle of the year, averaged $1.40. The price under the United Kingdom wheat agreement was $1.95. All these prices are based on Fort William. The average class 2 price in Canada has been $2.44. Which of those prices is the world price? That is the question.
Australia sold some wheat to Britain at $2.72. On the other hand, it sold a considerable amount to New Zealand at 92j cents, and it sold some to India at $2.96. Wheat for domestic consumption is 98 cents for poultry feed and 79 cents to feeders. On the average, the farmer would get $1.56 for wheat produced in Australia.
In New Zealand the farmer receives $1.28. On the other hand, New Zealand bought some wheat from Australia at 92f cents.
In the Argentine-I am taking countries competing with Canada in the export market -wheat sold at $3.60 and some at $5, no doubt a small amount. They sold some to Brazil at $4.85 and wheat for home consumption at 77 cents, and the farmer is supposed to receive, on the average, from $1.45 to $1.65.
Out of this conglomeration of prices, who can pick one price and say that is the world price when there is no exchange in Liverpool, no exchange in Winnipeg, and it is only in the last few months that the Chicago exchange can be said to have been operating freely. If we average the prices what do we find? Australia's price is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.80. Then, if we take the average price in the Argentine, and add them together and divide we get an average price of $1.89. I do not suggest for one minute
The Address-Mr. Jutras

that that is a price which has any real value, but it gives one an idea how utterly impossible it is for anybody, to arrive at a true world price of wheat. Probably the best criterion and the one most commonly used in this country is to take the United States price as compared with Canada's, and this I propose to do. As I said before, on No. 1 they figure a loss of $296,000,000. That is for the wheat shipped to Britain.


John Horne Blackmore: The Searle index.


James Arthur Ross: Based on government figures, too.


René Jutras: 'No, not at all. I am going to show just the opposite. The wheat sold to Britain in 1946-47, covering a period of from twelve to seventeen months, amounted to $168,000,000. The average price received by the United States farmer, according to the index I have just quoted, is $1.91. On that portion of our wheat which went to Britain we received-I might say that in my district we have to deduct twelve cents for freight, and I am deducting fifteen cents to get the net price to the farmer in that vicinity- we received $1.40, or fifty-one cents less than the average price received by the United States farmer. Multiply fifty-one cents by
168.000.	000 and you get a loss of $85,000,000.
Then, taking the crop year again for 1946-47,
53.000.	000 bushels went to bread eaters for home consumption, and the United States farmers received $1.91 and the Canadian farmers $1.25, or a loss of sixty-six cents, so that the total loss to the farmers on those 53,000,000 bushels was sixty-six cents multiplied by
53.000.	000, or $34,000,000.
Then there is a third price in Canada. There is a class called class 2. Our average export since the beginning of the wheat agreement for 1945 and 1946 was 74,000,000 bushels for those two years, and the net price to the Canadian farmer would be $2.29, as compared with the United States price of $1.91. That will give the Canadian farmer an advantage of thirty-eight cents on 74,000,000 bushels, or a total of $28,000,000. There is another important factor that should not be lost sight of. When the Winnipeg grain exchange and the Chicago exchange were working on a free basis I am given to understand, and the minister stated in a speech not very long ago, that there was always a difference of approximately thirty cents a bushel between the Chicago and the Winnipeg price. We know there is a difference of about thirty cents at all times, and even today there is that difference between the Minneapolis and Chicago exchanges. I am given to understand

that this difference of thirty cents a bushel has always existed with the exception of a few years here and there in the past. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that we have a monopoly board at the present -time and that wheat has been handled exclusively by the board, even if we had a free exchange we would have had that difference of at least thirty cents a bushel.
If we multiply 261, which is the Canadian production, less the No. 2 export which we have just calculated, we would be left with a difference of $78,000,000. Therefore, after the simple calculation is finished we get a difference of 3-8 cents between the amount actually received by the United States farmer and the amount received by the Canadian farmer.


James Arthur Ross: Oh, oh.


René Jutras: I know the hon. member for Souris is surprised, because he has been advocating something entirely different, and singing an entirely different song. I do not claim that these figures are exact, because I have not all the facts and figures, but I can certainly make the claim that they are as accurate as I could possibly make them. I have tried to be as accurate as I possibly can. I have tried to check the method of computing the 1944 crop, for which we have a complete statement, and to my surprise I was away below what was actually received by the farmer. I hope that I am below the amount in this case.
To continue with this propaganda it says here:
It -wall be remembered, too. that prior to the start of the wheat agreement August 1, 1946, the government had marketed our farmers' wheat for several years at less than the world price. These losses to farmers for the years 1943, 1944 and 1945, come to 'an additional $409 million.
I have quoted from the Searle Grain Company Limited letter. I am going to oblige the Searle Grain Company; I shall not only go back to 1943, 1944 and 1945, I shall go back to 1942 and 1941, because in 1942 the grain exchange was in operation, and the grain exchange was in operation in 1941. It will be very interesting to look at the past, as they said, prior to the close of the grain exchange, and during the time the grain exchange was open. What do we find in the year prior to the wheat contract, of 1944-45? In 1944-45 the grain exchange was closed and the wheat board bought all the wheat at an initial price of $1.25 a bushel. Later on, it paid a participation certificate of 18-6 cents, making a total of $1,436. The average price received by the farmers, according to the index, was $1.41, as against $1.43. The $1.41 is the price received

The Address-Mr. Jutras
in the United States by the farmer; whereas I am quoting $1.43 Fort William. Therefore we shall have to subtract fifteen cents from $1.43, which will show us the ratio for that year between the price received by the United States farmer and the price received by the Canadian farmer. The ratio is thirteen cents.


James Arthur Ross: Oh, oh.


René Jutras: I see that the hon. member for Souris is laughing. I do not know why. These are statistics-


James Arthur Ross: I wish he did not have to laugh.


René Jutras: These are statistics published by the government.


James Arthur Ross: Send copies of the speech to the farmers in my riding.


René Jutras: I will do that. In 1943-44 the minimum price paid was $1.25, and then a participation of twelve cents was paid, making a total of $1.37. The average price received by the farmer in the United States was $1.36. The ratio there was fourteen cents.
We now come to 1942-43. At that time the wheat board1 and the grain exchange were operating. In that year the board received 68 per cent of the marketing, and the remainder of the crop was handled by the grain exchange. The minimum price at the time was 90 cents and a participation of 12| cents, making a total of S1.02A The average United States price to the farmer was $1.09; the average price in Canada over the exchange for that year was 94 cents; therefore, through the medium of the board the ratio was 22 cents; whereas had they all sold through the exchange the ratio between the United States and Canada would have been 30 cents. Furthermore, had all the farmers sold their wheat to the open market on that average price they would have lost $24,000,000.
Then, again in 1941-42 the initial price was 70 cents, the participation 15 cents, making a total of 85 cents. The average United States price was 94 cents. The average market price in Winnipeg was 76 cents, which meant that through the board the ratio was 24 cents; through the exchange, 33 cents. Had all farmers sold their wheat through the open exchange, they would have lost $21,000,000.
In 1940-41 the minimum price was 70 cents; participation, 6 cents, making a total of 76-2 cents. The average United States price to the farmer was 68 cents; the average market price was 74 cents. Here again, had all farmers sold through the open exchange, they would1 have lost $9,000,000. In addition to
that, the wheat board paid $6,000,000 in storage to the farmer. I do not know whether I can give all the years. It is the same story all the way through.


Calvert Charlton Miller: May I ask a question? I want to know first what the hon. member is reading from. I want to know that in order to follow him.


René Jutras: I am reading from my own figures.


Calvert Charlton Miller: The hon. member is the expert.


René Jutras: No. All these figures will be on Hansard and the hon. member can check them against the wheat board report, which is an annual report. The other set is taken from the publication which I mentioned a while ago. It is the average marketing price per month and per year issued by the department of statistics.


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


James Arthur Ross: Let him carry on.


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


James Arthur Ross: Go ahead.


René Jutras: I must apologize, Mr. Speaker. I thought I had until six o'clock, and I was trying to get along on that basis. Unfortunately I must have started before 5.20 p.m. However, I shall try to sum up. As I said, I could go on with all the previous years, but I wish to bring to the attention of the house the year 1936-37. That is one of the few years in which the grain exchange functioned on an individual basis. What I mean is that in that year, as the house will recall, the minimum price of the board was applicable only if the market fell below 90 cents.
The wheat was marketed through the Winnipeg grain exchange and there was no board that year. There is an interesting factor here. I have the amount cf wrheat that was marketed per month; if you take the amount marketed by the farmers during the first four months of that year, you find that 78-5 per cent of all the wheat produced by the farmers in that year was marketed during the first four months of the year, and the average price for the first four months was $1.06, whereas the average price for the other eight months of the year was $1.30. Here again, if we wanted to make a comparison we could well say that
The Address-Mr. Jutras

the farmers in that year received $32,000,000 less than they would have, or, to put it in another way, that they lost $32,000,000.
Just to show how ridiculous these calculations made on theoretical figures can be, it is interesting to note for instance that if we base our calculations on the price the United States farmers are receiving, on No. 2 price, the United States farmers could be said to have lost $381,000,000 because our No. 2 price is above the United States price; and if we compare the price to the United States farmers with the price received by the farmers in the Argentine, $5, we get the colossal loss, on the part of the United States farmers, of $3,467,000,000.
In conclusion, I should like to make a few recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I know the minister has already announced that he intends to raise the initial price, and I think it is commonly agreed that it is high time the initial price of the wheat agreement was raised. The government recognized that necessity in the past. It has raised it on one occasion and I know it will raise the price again. I would point out to the minister that the price of domestic wheat should be raised without further delay to at least the level of $2. For a great many years the domestic market in this country accounted for only 15 or 20 per cent, whereas today-I have the figures but I have not the time to quote them-the domestic market takes so great a proportion that it is an important factor in the framing of our policy. I therefore urge the minister to raise the domestic price of wheat without further delay, even before the No. 2 price to Britain comes into force.


Milton Fowler Gregg: On a question of privilege,
earlier in the afternoon the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay) quoted from a report stating that thirty-one per cent of the veteran students at universities had discontinued owing to lack of finances. I interjected that I knew that report to be incorrect. The hon. member asked that I submit the correct figure, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to do so now, because I feel it is important that such an exaggerated report should not go out. Out of the 32,000 veteran students in universities, the closest check indicates that the number of students who have discontinued ' their courses, with lack of finances as the main reason, stands at sixty-three students since the beginning of the plan, or, in other words, approximately one-fifth of one per cent.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. W. MURPHY (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, for a moment or two I should like to touch on the tourist industry; as usual, my subjects are non-partisan. When I spoke in this house during my first session here, in 1945, I urged the desirability of greater recognition of what I thought was our greatest potential industry in this country; that is, the tourist industry. At that time I suggested that this industry warranted a cabinet minister without too many other responsibilities. I believe it is the opinion of many that this would be most desirable. At the moment it does not seem the tourist bureau is doing justice to what we have to offer in this country, and I would suggest to the government that there are other ways in which this industry might be stimulated. They might have a deputy minister to look after it, or they might have a commission. Those provinces which are paying a great deal of attention to that industry are benefiting from their efforts. If we could have a tourist commission representative of all the provinces, which would be a permanent body, it could more or less correlate the work necessary really to promote the industry. We have representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce in all parts of the world to develop our export trade, but I think many hon. members will agree that we are not taking advantage of what we in this country have to offer by way of attractions for tourists.
When I spoke in 1945 I said we had and would continue to have a need for United States dollars, and this is one way in which we can obtain those dollars without exporting goods. Instead, we have emissaries of good will who go back to their own country and bring more tourists here. At that time I think I showed that all segments of our society benefit from this industry. Everyone, no matter how he may derive his income, benefits. Of course we did not try to promote this industry during the war, but the war has been over for two or three years, and I think it will be generally agreed that some lead should now be given by the government to co-ordinate the work of the different provinces, because it is to the benefit of all. At that time I illustrated what I had in mind by a little story. Nine men sat down to a table which was covered with good things to eat. Their arms were tied in such a way that they could not raise their forks or spoons to their own mouths. They solved that problem by having each man feed the person to his left. If the

The Address-Mr. Murphy
dominion and the provinces could co-operate in somewhat the same way it would increase our supply of the much required United States dollars and benefit all.
I have had some returns brought down by the department in connection with this industry, and from them I see that most of the money to be spent on the development of this industry has been spent on advertising. I am not quarreling with the way in which the money has been spent; I believe the department should have more money for other purposes, and I also believe that if we had some government leadership such as those indicated, more attention would be given to this industry. For instance, in a return brought down just the other day I notice that last year the travel bureau under the Department of Trade and Commerce spent $768,000, of which $618,000 was for advertising. If we are in business we know that if we have a good product to sell we must certainly advertise it. I for one believe that if more attention were given the tourist industry our revenue from that source would increase immeasurably. According to the same return, I notice that total expenditures in Canada by United States citizens was $214,000,000 in 1946. I see no reason why we should not develop this industry to the point where these tourists will spend a billion dollars annually. We have everything to offer, even more than Switzerland, where the tourist industry is practically the only source of income.
I suggest to the minister now in charge of this department that steps should be taken to promote this industry. I believe one way of doing so would be in connection with films we get from Hollywood. We could arrange a barter. We might have films made in each province of Canada and, in addition to the advertising we do in United States publications, by means of this barter we could have these films shown throughout the United States, advertising our scenery and natural playgrounds. I notice also, according to this return, that the only person in that bureau who speaks on these matters in the United States is the director himself, whereas I believe they might well have ten, fifteen or twenty speakers travelling through the United States, speaking to service clubs and other organizations and we would be well rewarded. The first people these Americans meet when they enter our country are very important to them, because the first impression is usually the one that lasts. I should like to pay tribute to the customs and immigration officials we have in our employ in the Dominion of Canada. They 5849-78
are courteous and efficient. I believe the department should give careful consideration to the wages or remuneration these men are receiving, in view of the duties and responsibilities they have to perform.
In all fairness to these employees, the department should consider what United States immigration and customs officials are getting, because we on the border-and this applies to all border points-have Canadian customs and immigration officials going into the United States and coming back to the border by train. Then, we have United States customs and immigration officials coming into Canada, and returning to the border. On those same trains are either American or Canadian engineers and conductors. If we make a comparison I believe we shall find that the remuneration of these railway employees compares favourably with each other, and I suggest that there should also be a fair comparison between the pay received by Canadian customs and immigration officials and that received by those employed by the United States.
I regret to say that a comparison of pay between Canadian and American customs and immigration officials at the present time does not disclose that our officials are as well paid. I have not time to give details of figures, but I want the house to know that these men are not drawing much more than 60 per cent of the amounts drawn by United States customs and immigration officials; yet they are doing the same work. I do hope that these men will receive the consideration they deserve.
In the next few minutes I should like to deal on a non-partisan basis, with the Veterans Land Act, and the general subject of VLA housing. However, before going into details of what I purpose saying I should like through you, Mr. Speaker, to express to the new Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) the wish that the people of this country will have as high a regard for his administration of the department as they have for his honour in achieving such a splendid war record.
What I have to say is factual. I appreciate that the present minister was not in the government until recently, and I trust that he will not take as a personal attack any criticism which I may have to offer, because I shall be fair in what I have to say. May I also emphasize my high regard for the deputy minister of veterans affairs, a man who holds the respct and good will of veterans throughout the country. It seems to me that the
The Address-Mr. Murphy

administration of the Veterans Land Act may be the only blot on the department; and I believe I am expressing not only the wish of veterans, but that of many other people when I say that I hope the department will now endeavour to correct the injustices which the veterans justly allege, and which I allege, have been perpetrated on them in the past.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding, let me point out that on February 4, 1947, I spoke in the house and demanded a royal commission. After having recited certain particulars, which have since been verified to the satisfaction of a great many people, I said:
I demand that a royal commission be appointed to inquire into all contracts for purchases of land acquired for small holdings under the Veterans Land Act, to inquire into all contracts for the building of homes for veterans under the Veterans Land Act and contracts for the construction of roads the installation of water mains and other costs involved in the purchase of these homes.
I repeat that demand tonight. And I am going to add to the demand for a royal commission the request that it inquire into the administration of the Veterans Land Act. I hope the few remarks I shall have to make will warrant the government's granting this demand.
When on that occasion I asked for a royal commission, we did not know as much as we later learned; and certainly did not know what we know today. I sincerely believe we were entitled to a royal commission at that time; and certainly I believe today-and there can be no question about the sincerity of my belief-that the veterans of this country are entitled to a royal commission to inquire into the facts of the matters the investigation of which I have sought.
It must be borne in mind that these veterans were young lads without homes. They wanted homes as badly as did other people, and most certainly they were more entitled to them than were many others who had them. In all fairness to the government, I must say that it did provide roofs over the heads of these veterans, and provided them at low monthly payments. I would be most unfair if I were to rise in my place in the house and say otherwise.
I should like to bring the house up to date on what has happened. In the first place, I entered this scrap for no political purpose. I entered it on behalf of the veterans; and I have told them that when they are satisfied I will quit, and that I will not quit before they have had a fair deal. At this time I should like to pay tribute where tribute is due. I do not think we would have had this

matter before the public accounts committee, where so much information was revealed with respect to what has already taken place had it not been for the support of the press across this country. And in this connection I pay special tribute to the press of western Ontario including the Windsor Star, the Sarnia Observer, the London Free Press and many others. At this moment I should like to pay special tribute to one who is most responsible for the matter being brought thus far. As a matter of fact, he is now in the press gallery, and is none other than the representative of the Windsor Star, who brought this matter to my attention in January, 1947.
As the house knows, I was approached in January by some veterans who had received an ultimatum from the department, and the particulars of that ultimatum were recited by me at that time. They were told that either they would agree to buy their homes within a week or they could stay in until May 1 and pay rent, but by the end of May they would have to vacate. I investigated the houses, but I shall not recite now what I found out. Hon. members will recall the details I gave in February, 1947, and can read what came before the public accounts committee. Along with contractors I investigated these houses in Sarnia and Windsor and I am prepared to say that I advised the veterans to seek a new contract. I thought, and I think everyone who is fair will agree with me, that they were entitled to that. I think I should take this opportunity to say that the veterans are grateful for the support they received from other hon. members on this side of the house in their demand for a royal commission.
At that time I was not aware that there were other areas in Canada as bad as either of these two areas, but it was afterwards admitted before the public accounts committee by the director of the Veterans Land Act that other areas were just as bad as Sarnia, which, of course, was terrible. He referred to such places as Sackville, New Brunswick; Boucher-ville, Quebec; and Braefoot, British Columbia, as being in the same category.
I think it was on March 3, 1947, that the veterans in these areas who had not signed up received another ultimatum which was dated Toronto, March 3, 1947. This is set out on page 529 of the proceedings of the public accounts committee and it reads in part:
This application was signed by you in the presence of a commissioner for taking affidavits and the department can only assume that you completed this document in the best of faith.
In spite of the above, you refuse to sign the agreement of sale which was presented to you in the course of the past few days, and in view

The Address-Mr. Murphy
of this, the department has no alternative but to take steps to make the home in which you are presently residing, available to another veteran who is agreeable to completing the agreements presented.
And further down:
If however, you still are not prepared to sign, you may vacate the premises within one week from the date shown on the letterhead.
The former minister of veterans affairs gave his assurance in this house that the veterans would not be asked to sign purchase contracts until the repairs were made. The repairs had not even been started when authority was given to send out that ultimatum. I sometimes wonder if the director of the Veterans Land Act did not assume too much. I have stated publicly on different occasions that I did1 not think the Minister of Veterans Affairs or his deputy were aware of what was taking place with respect to these various ultimatums. When I see the amounts that have been spent in administering the Veterans Land Act I realize that somebody must assume responsibility in all V.L.A. matters and, of course, that must be the government. In view of the assurances which had been given by the minister on the floor of this house, I make no apology for having advised these veterans not to sign.
Immediately after that the deputy minister of veterans affairs and two others visited these homes, and in fact I -was in Sarnia when they came there. They saw the houses for themselves and the deputy minister was kind enough to assure the veterans that they would not be obliged to sign contracts until repairs had been made. Then, a royal commission not being set up, the matter was brought before the public accounts committee. One reason I suggested a royal commission is that, while this matter might be brought before the public accounts committee, our experience last summer showed that it would take hundreds of hours to hear the evidence of the complaints from the different areas. I submit that these veterans are entitled to have their cases reviewed by some tribunal.
When the public accounts committee was dealing with this matter, it took some four or five sittings of the committee to elaborate upon the details of faulty construction I had given the house. That is why I say that the public accounts committee could not go into the complaints from all these projects across the country. That committee served1 a useful purpose, and I should like to quote one or two recommendations it made, as reported on page 708 of the minutes of the public accounts committee for 1947. They are:
Your committee regrets that this matter was not brought to its attention in time to have 5849-78J
evidence by veterans of other projects. Your committee hopes that remedial measures taken as a result of its report may satisfactorily adjust defects which may have occurred in other projects.
And again:
Your committee recommends that a board of three men be appointed consisting of real estate and building experts, none of whom shall have had previous connection with the Department of Veterans Affairs, or with any other governmental building projects, to pursue the work undertaken by your committee, with a view to giving justice and fair treatment to veteran purchasers and all parties interested in this question. and to recommend to the minister any remedy it may consider fit to correct the situation.
Such board should first investigate the Sarnia project, as your committee considers it important to clarify the situation there at as early a date as possible.
Subsequent to its investigation of the Sarnia project, the board, in the opinion of your committee, would do well to examine other projects which may be brought to its attention.
That is a definite recommendation by a parliamentary committee composed of a membership proportionate to the representation in this house.
I come now to the third ultimatum which was sent from the London office. When I speak of Windsor or Sarnia the two are parallel because what happened at Windsor also happened at Sarnia and the proceedings taken by the department in the one area applied also in the other. This ultimatum which is evidence of the director's capacity for surprise is dated London, Ontario, September 9, addressed to W. T. Cleave, Sarnia, Ontario, and is signed by H. L. Armstrong, District Superintendent. It reads:
You have no-w been in residence and occupying house-
I will not give all the details.
-for a period of ten months.
It goes on:
If j'ou do not wish to be established in a home uuder the Veterans Land Act, we ask that you vacate w'ithin seven days after the date of this letter.
If you decide not to sign agreement to purchase. and do not vacate within the date as stated, September 17, 1947, the department have no alternative but to charge a monthly rental of $48 per month, payable in advance.
I attended a meeting at the request of the veterans in Windsor as a result of that ultimatum, and I assured them that this could not be action that the minister or the deputy minister would take. I attributed the responsibility to the director of the V.L.A., and I think I am justified in that conclusion, but of course we all appreciate that the government must accept the responsibility. Some repairs had been made, but not completed. I shall refer now to a return tabled in the house
The Address-Mr. Murphy

last year. This is further evidence to corroborate the necessity for a royal commission. I quote from sessional paper No. 1351, in reply to questions I asked. I shall quote only one question:
What was the cost per unit overhead and liow was the same made up?
The answer was:
Average per unit at Sarnia, $1,736.22.
Before giving the remainder of the answer to that question, let me say, so that there may be no doubt about it, that we discovered, before the public accounts committee, that the houses at Sarnia cost the department $10,106 and, may I say, they are still not completed. The drainage work has still to be done. With the additional work to be done and administration overhead, the cost of all houses built under V.L.A. will probably be in excess of $11,000 or $12,000.
I now will give the remainder of the answer to question No. 6, to which I have just referred.
Project overhead includes the following items:
Temporary buildings, salaries of staff located on the project including superintendents, accountants, bookkeepers, stenographers, timekeepers, material checkers, first aid attendant, watchman, and water boys-*
Water boys for eight houses! One water boy was not sufficient. It goes on:
-miscellaneous expenses incurred at job office in direct relation to the project include travelling expenses, telegrams, and telephone calls.
I inquired what the unit overhead cost was in Windsor but have not .vet received that information, nor have we received answers to many other questions placed on the order paper regarding the project overhead or the .unit overhead of various projects.
Another return -was tabled last fall, 135F, in reply to questions asked by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson). The question asked was:
What has been the total cost for administration of the V.L.A. from its inception up to February 28, 1947?
The answer to that question is given in the return:
Approximately $8,903,000. To some extent the same staff is engaged in Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Act and other work on which the administration is engaged. The figure given is a close estimate, and includes $331,256.93 for legal fees and $563,568.50 for taxes.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the evidence before the public accounts committee, and evidence such as I have given here tonight, and the concrete evidence of the construction itself and the admission by the director of V.L.A. and by the minister and

the deputy minister of defects in construction, the careless supervision and huge amounts spent by the director of V.L.A. for administration purposes, we should certainly inquire how that money was spent and how the administration of the Veterans Land Act spent the moneys allocated to them.
We know there is going to be depreciation in homes, and the more badly the home is constructed, the greater the depreciation There is the probability of gradual declines in home values, beginning three or four years hence, if not before, on well-built homes. On poorly constructed homes the decline in value and the depreciation will be much greater.
The director of V.L.A. admitted that these houses were of poor construction, and not only these but the others to which I have referred. I say here that the veterans are entitled to an opportunity to enjoy decent well-built homes at fair prices. The government has defaulted in its obligation to carry out this principle. Inflationary factors in the current situation arising from liberal credits and from other governmental policies are such as to keep the potential demand high in relation to housing supply, and for that reason the government let it be known that many veterans now without homes will be glad to move into these homes.
The minister stated, as reported at page 589 of Hansard-and I am not going to deal harshly with his statements-that these defects were inevitable. I contend, in view of the evidence we had submitted to us, and it is obvious to anyone who has inspected these houses, that there was no occasion for them to have had these defects, and I am sure the minister will agree that is in fact the case. As reported at page 589 of Hansard he said:
When the defects became apparent, my predecessor said on the floor of the house that the houses would be placed in first-class condition at no cost to the veteran.
We appreciate that. Yet the veterans were asked to sign contracts before the repairs were made and the repairs are even yet not complete.
In the few minutes I have left I want to compare cost of other houses with these V.L.A. houses. We know that a committee of three valuators has given a valuation on these veterans' homes. I said a moment ago that the public accounts committee recommended that none of those chosen as valuators should have been in any way connected with government building projects; but I understand, although it does not prejudice me in my thinking, that one of these valuators did build several hundred or about a thousand homes as a government project.

The Address-Mr. Murphy
I am going to compare the prices of a recently completed project in the Toronto area with these V.L.A. homes. These homes in Toronto area are of solid brick, constructed at 1947 prices, and the houses are just completed. The houses have 18,000 cubic feet and are from 10 to 15 per cent larger than the ones built under the V.L.A. The V.L.A. used the same nine or ten plans all across the country. The cost of this project in the Toronto area for home, excluding land, is $5,280; that is, without the upstairs being completed. These houses were of brick construction, with basements, hardwood floors, excellent kitchens, hot air heating, built-in baths, built-in cupboards in the kitchens, tile floors in the kitchens, plastered walls, and are completed in a satisfactory manner; much better homes than the V.L.A. homes.
In view of the fact that the minister referred to the new valuation of these houses I did wish to compare the prices.


James Horace King: Order; I am sorry, but I must call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that he has exhausted his time.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I would appreciate two or three more minutes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I thank you for that courtesy, Mr. Speaker. The valuations that were made by this committee were made last December. The houses were under construction in 1945, and I think the house will agree with me that in that period the cost of construction had increased some twenty-five per cent at the very least. I believe the government figures will show that the increase in building costs are much higher for that period. I regret to say this, but it is nevertheless necessary that I should, because the minister in his statement emphasized that the valuators had never seen the prices previously quoted by the Veterans Land Act administration. He said, as reported at page 590 of Hansard:
I want to make it absolutely clear that this independent appraisal committee set their prices without any reference to the prices previously quoted by the Veterans Land Act administration. They did not have in their possession the prices which the veterans had originally been asked for the houses.
I do not say this unkindly of the minister; I think he will appreciate that. I shall deal with the Sarnia area first. I want to call the attention of the house to the fact that the reduction in valuation ran from some $853 to
$1,619 per house. The over-all reduction was $1 ,228 per house. I must also refer briefly to some two or three of the valuations of the Windsor area rather than give the figures. The information is available in the report which the minister tabled. On a great many of the houses there was a difference of only a few dollars, $10, $12, $15 and $25 which would indicate to me, or to anyone else, that this committee certainly must have had this report, because it is almost physically and mentally impossible for valuators to valuate one hundred houses and come within $10 $15, $20 or $25 of the price which the government had set as the price to the veterans. In fact the prices charged to the veterans were available to the public.
I wish to say, in fairness to the minister, that he has provided the veterans with an opportunity of renting if they so desire. I maintain that these veterans really have to buy these houses. I do not blame them for buying them, because they can have them at a low monthly payment, and by buying them they have a roof over their heads. They are more or less forced into it. They are tired out. They have had so many investigators and inspectors around that many of them have decided to buy and take their medicine.
In conclusion, I am going to say this. I have the authority of my leader to tell this house that if these veterans do not get justice from this government, and if we are fortunate enough to form the next government and I expect we shall, we shall review and revalue-these houses and see that the veterans get the-justice that this government denied them.
When I began my remarks I asked for a royal commission. I want to repeat that. I think we are entitled to it and, on behalf of these veterans, I expect that this government will grant the royal commission.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, to me this has been the most interesting session that I have attended since I became a member. We are living in troubled times. The papers carry such contradictory headlines as, ''spiraling prices", ''crashing prices of commodities", and such headlines as I found in the February 3 issue of the Vancouver Sun on the editorial page, "Homeless, workless, hungry", in speaking of the plight of the single unemployed of Vancouver, which has been becoming worse each year since the war ended. In part it says:
Neither explanations nor regrets ever put a meal in a man's stomach or a pillow under his head.
Some of the attitudes expressed by various members of the government have been good,.
The Address-Mr. Archibald

but some, I believe, are due for criticism. The February 9 issue of Time magazine quotes an interview that some housewives had with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) protesting the high cost of living.
When one of the ladies said she had eight children Mr. Abbott cracked, "You must do pretty well out of the family allowance."
When he was on his visit to the United States in order to obtain the $300 million loan he gave a press interview in which he spoke of Canada's austerity program. He spoke about the nutritious value found in home-grown beets and turnips. I can see that, from a business angle, that was a good approach. There he was, going to our masters on Wall street asking for a loan, and in this interview he said, "Look gentlemen, I can drive the standard of the Canadian people down to that of the eastern European peasant and make them like it. You can easily give me a loan. I can exploit it out of the Canadian people." The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) has a solution. He goes one better than Marie Antoinette who told us to eat cake when we had no bread. "The hon. member for Vancouver North now [DOT]wants to put margarine on the cake.
The attitude expressed by the minister may *sound glib; it may sound cynical. I would [DOT]suggest that if he wants to take that attitude "Some day he give us the diet of that great liberal figure who discovered the nutritional value of ordinary lawn grass, Nebuchadnezzar. He might as well make it ridiculous and be done with it.
Let us see what is actually happening in the realm of action by the government in its handling of costs that have to do with the standard of the working classes. I hold in my hand correspondence from local 360 of the International Brotherhood of Papermakers, Ocean Falls, in which they inform me that the company, Pacific Mills, asked the rentals control board to send one of their administrators because they wished to raise the rents. Mr. Lobley went up for the department. He stayed there for two days and interviewed about twenty tenants out of a total of about five hundred, and then he left.
According to the information from local 360, rents are to be raised from two per cent to forty-eight per cent, with an average rise of twenty-four per cent. I wrote a protest to Mr. W. L. A. Pope, deputy administrator, rentals administration of the wartime prices and trade board, Ottawa, over the matter, because I thought that if an administrator were to go into any ordinary community and take a Gallup poll of the people and then 
raise all rents because he had interviewed twenty persons, there would be a howl and we would hear about individual justice. But because he went to a company town he took it for what he thought it was by his attitude, a slave compound, and once he got a crosssection of it he let it go at that.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Albemi):: Houses
are standardized, are they not?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Yes, they are standardized. But remember that not one of these people is standardized. They are all individual souls.


John Lambert Gibson: Wages are standardized too, at about $1.50.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: What the hon. member wants to do is to stamp them all in the same mould. But he will not make that stick.
In answer to my protest I received a letter from Mr. Pope, and this is what he said:
For your information I enclose herewith a copy of the decision made by Mr. Owen Lobley, which you will notice is approved by Mr. K. W. Taylor, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board.
This decision is self-explanatory.
I am going to put this decision on the record. I may say that this document is something marvellous to read:
Rentals Administration,
4!>0 Sussex street. Ottawa.
In the matter of the housing accommodation situated at the place known as Ocean Falls, in the province of British Columbia, of which accommodation Pacific Mills Limited is the landlord, employees of the landlord are the tenants:
Whereas the landlord has requested me to increase the maximum rentals of the said accommodations by the exercise of the discretionary power vested in me;
Whereas I have heard the representatives and representations of the landlord and the tenants;
Considering that all the land and buildings of every kind situated at Ocean Falls are the property of Pacific Mills Limited;
Considering that all places of dwelling at Ocean Falls have been constructed by Pacific Mills Limited for the accommodation of its employees because no one else would provide this accommodation-
No one else would provide the accommodation! Have you ever tried to put up a building in a company town? It is a physical impossibility. Even the legion there had to fight to put up their own building. Perhaps the only building that is not owned by the company is the post office, and sometimes I wonder if it is not owned by them. To continue:
Considering that the leases of the employee-tenants of these accommodations can be terminated under the provisions of the laws of the province of British Columbia, and that the ter-

The Address-Mr. Archibald
mination of these leases is not affected by the orders of the wartime prices and trade board;
Considering that in this community the amounts deducted from the tenant-employee's pay in consideration for the living quarters provided for him by his employer cannot cause inflation, nor can it affect the housing shortage in Canada: -
That is a fundamental statement.
Considering that the amount of rental-deductions from the pay of the respective employees in the said community is not related to the purposes and objects of Canadian rent control-
Now here it is:
Now therefore, I, Owen Lobley, rentals administrator, by virtue of the power vested in me, do hereby exempt all accommodations situated in the place known as Ocean Falls, in the province of British Columbia, from the provisions of order number 294 of the wartime prices and trade board as amended.
Dated at Ottawa, this 5th dav of February, 1948.
Who is this egotistical, stupid, frustrated little man who is taking on himself the power of royalty dispensing largesse? I read this order number 294, and the only institutions I could find that could escape the laws of this dominion were religious institutions and1 institutions given to charity. I do not believe that anybody in British Columbia could possibly call the Pacific Mills a charitable or a religious institution; yet this little man takes all that power in his hands and this is foisted on these workers, whether they like it or not.
I have never in this house criticized the civil service because I believe they are doing a good job; but there is a limit, and this is the limit, and that is one action that the government is going ahead with.
I should like to give some other actions of the government by way of comparison. Let me state some of their actions in the last few years.
In the realm of taxation, on April 29, 1947, there came out in the budget an income tax reduction of $12 for married men with an income of $1,600.
On April 28, 1947, in the same budget, there was an income tax reduction of $733 for a married man with an income of $10,000.
Take another comparison. On May 27, 1947, the government voted down the C.C.F. proposal to raise the income tax exemptions to $1,000 for single men and $2,000 for married men.
On December 31, 1947, the government completely removed the corporation excess profits tax.
On June 1, 1946, the governmnet subsidy of two cents a quart on milk was removed. On
October 1, 1946, the government subsidy of fifty-five cents per hundredweight on milk was removed.
On February 14, 1947, there was a contract signed retroactive to January 1, 1946, to provide a subsidy of $7,200,000 in 1947-48 to Dosco on steel production, the same to Algoma, granting a subsidy of $1,600,000 and lesser amounts to other corporations.
In 1947 the government gave $400,000 to Crane Limited as an incentive bonus.
This government, you know, does not believe in subsidies, but you have to watch it. It is like Peter. It denies more than three times the thing it has faith in.
On July 17, 1947, they failed to pay the cost of living bonus suggested by the C.C.F. to superannuated civil servants, who in many cases receive less than the old age pension.
On June 30. 1946, gold mines whose profit margin was 84 an ounce or less were exempted from tax.
On July 30. 1946, the bill to tax co-operatives was passed.
On August 17, 1946, Bill No. 250 to increase the pay of judges to $20,000 was passed.
On July 7, 1947, a bill was passed to provide diplomats with pensions up to $7,000 a year for life.


John Lambert Gibson: I voted against that.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Thank heaven you did. On June 26, 1947, the government voted down the C.C.F. amendment to the old age pensions bill to provide $50 a month instead of $30.
On April 1, 1947, an order in council was passed allowing Dionne to go to Europe to import 100 immigrants.
On May 6, 1947, the Chinese immigration bill was passed, discriminating against Chinese.
On January 1, 1946, new gold mines coming into production on or after this date were given three years tax exemption-Hansard, page 1017.
On February 6. 1947, there was an increase of two cents a gallon on gasoline and other petroleum products sold on the prairies.
On March 1, 1946, the cotton and wool subsidies were removed or reduced, affecting men's and women's clothing.
On March 30, 1946, there was an upward price adjustment for primary Canadian steel mills, approximating $5 per net ton of ingots produced.
On March 30, 1946, creamery butter increased by four cents per pound; dairy butter followed suit on April 13, 1946.
The Address-Mr. Archibald

On April 2, 1946, ceiling prices of men's and boys' shirts, pyjamas and flat cut underwear increased by 25 per cent at the retail level.
On April 11, 1946, the ceiling on Canadian farm machinery and parts was raised 12J per cent.
On April 15, 1946, a variety of goods and services was removed from price ceilings: cement, fertilizers, office supplies, et cetera.
On May 16, 1946, manufacturers' prices of certain types of metal beds and furniture increased by from 10 to 12J per cent.
On May 20, 1946, corn syrup increased by approximately two cents a pound.
On May 29, 1946, prices of wooden and upholstered household furniture of all types increased; consumers will pay seven to thirteen per cent more.
On January 1, 1947, depletion allowance for gold mines increased from 33i per cent to 40 per cent of profits earned.
On April 30, 1947, removal of butter fat subsidy of ten cents a pound and cheese subsidy at thirty cents per hundred pounds.


John Lambert Gibson: No wage
increases in all this time?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Nothing to correspond to these increases. During the recess the Ottawa Citizen stated that prices had gone up twice as fast as wages had increased.
In June, 1947, Alberta nitrogen products plant sold.
On July 1, 1947, Bill No. 339 passed, fixing old age pensions at $30 a month.
On July 8, 1947, voted down amendment to Civil Service Act which would have extended the veterans preference to merchant seamen.
On July 11, 1947, increase in senators' allowance, Bill No. 443 passed.
On October 22, 1947, feed grain subsidy of twenty-five cents a bushel on wheat and barley and ten cents a bushel on oats removed.
In November, 1947, publicly owned nitrate plant at Niagara sold to American Cyanamid Company after the government had assured the C.F.A. that it would be retained for production of fertilizer under public ownership.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the best example I have yet seen of what is known as class legislation. You are trying, so you say, to instil into the people respect for democracy; yet the democracy you are dealing out is just to one small segment of the people of this country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What are these classes
you talk about, that you say we have in this country? I did not think we had any classes here.


Mr. BURTON:: You go into a company
town and you will soon find out.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I cannot help it if
the hon. member has not been around enough to find out what the score is. I went through that depression, when the doughnuts hung high, and I know what classes are. No doubt being a lawyer-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Don't worry; I worked in the logging camps on the west coast long before you did.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Well, you don't show it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I do.


Arthur Leroy Smith: His callouses are in a different place from yours.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Ini all my remarks I have been dealing with and criticizing the government, but do you notice how they get together? Immediately I talk about the Liberals the Conservatives come to the defence of the government and those fellows over there sit quietly. I made up my mind that from now on, when I had any interruptions on the floor of this house from the Conservative party I would just let them go, because as a political force they could not fight their way out of a paper bag.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I asked a very simple question, what were these classes? I have not yet had an answer.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: You had a very simple and direct answer.


James Arthur Ross: It was simple, all right.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: You will find the only way to get the answer is by experience. Take up your bed and walk; go and find out.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I suggest that you
should get the experience; apparently you have not yet had it.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I leave you to the tender mercies of Calgary at the next election. However, I should like to point out-
Mr. ROSS i(Souris): You may be worse off than ever then.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I do not mind ordinary interjections in this debate, but when these fellows get their big feet ini somebody else's business they bog down like a gumboot in an oily bilge.


James Horace King: Order.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, before I was so rudely interrupted-

The Address-Mr. Archibald


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask one question?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Oh, no. I want to finish my speech very quietly, because I am a very modest fellow and detest trouble. I just want to go on and point out that this is class legislation. It will mot give our people faith in our institutions. It will build up bitterness, fear and hatred. We wish to sell our democracy abroad, but if this sort of thing continues we shall not be able to do so. If we are to instil faith in democracy into the peoples of the world: and into our own people we have to feed and: clothe them properly; we have to give them a sense of security, a sense of being a part of Canada. If we do not do this we shall meet more trouble ahead. We shall have to go through all the agonies people have gone through in countries where there have been upheavals. Some of us are trying our best to bring about the change in a peaceful fashion, to bring about a society where real justice and freedom will reign.
At the present time there is one program which would meet the immediate situation. It has been placed on record previously, but I wish to put it on record again. There must be immediate reimposition of price controls on all the basic necessities of life, including food', clothing and fuel; renewal of the subsidies on milk, butter, bread', feed grains, cotton and wool; the closing of the Winnipeg grain exchange and1 the elimination of speculation in essential foods; the restoration of the wartime prices and trade board on a permanent basis in such a manner that it will be able adequately to administer price control; continuation of the excess profits tax, which was discontinued on December 31, 1947; the rationing, if necessary, of any essential commodity which is in short supply, so that all Canadians may get their fair minimum share.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Now' will the hon. member answer a question?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You spoke about company towns. As you are aware, there is a good deal of coal mining in Alberta; and in Nordegg, west of Red Deer, you probably know there is the best housing of any town in Alberta. Yet it is a company town, where the houses are wholly owned by the company. Laugh that one off if you can.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that a question?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I asked the hon. member if he knew that to be a fact. That was the form of my question.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: When the hon. member for Calgary West speaks of a company town where the housing is wonderful I am reminded of that song about the bird in the gilded cage. People are not happy just because they live in beautiful surroundings. They want their freedom. They want to be treated as individuals. In the case I mentioned they are being treated en masse like slaves in a compound. That is the answer. They are free Canadian citizens; and even if they are living in good houses, as they are in Ocean Falls, they still want that basic freedom.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Would the hon. member permit just one short question?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Certainly.


Humphrey Mitchell: Has he any knowledge of the contractual relations between the labour organizations and the employers in the pulp and paper industry?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Yes, I have a knowledge of the contractual relations, if you mean the ordinary contract they draw up each year. They have good contracts.


Humphrey Mitchell: Certainly they have; among the best relations in industry in Canada.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Several days ago you asked the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) whether or not the unions would have their wages fixed. Those fellows have fixed their wages, and now they are having their wages hijacked out of them because of these increases in rents.


Humphrey Mitchell: I say to my hon. friend that the speech he has just made was made in Moscow; it was the worst thing I have listened to in a long time.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: On a point of order, I want to answer that man. I shall not ask him to withdraw it; I never ask for mercy in this political game. That man is trying to dam the free movement of Canadian people. He knows very well my history, and that I fought communists more than he did. In the last election he had Tim Buck around his neck; and just because you have gone ahead with spy trials, and sent a bunch of dewy-eyed fellow travellers on a one-way ticket, and sent Sam Carr down to Mexico for a rest cure, you can't pull that stuff on me.


James Horace King: Order.


Mr. GREEN:: On a point of order, I think the Minister of Labour should withdraw the statement he made. That is not a proper statement to make about any member of the Canadian House of Commons or any member

The Address

Mr. J. H. Harris
in any legislature in a democratic country. I think that statement should be withdrawn. I doubt if the minister realized just what sort of statement it was. I am sure he would not object to withdrawing it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I knew the paper makers' organization before this young fellow from Skeena was born. I know what I am talking about.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: You don't act like it.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are no better relations on the North American continent.


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order-


Humphrey Mitchell: You wait a minute.


Howard Charles Green: I am not complaining about
that part of it at all.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver South to state his point of order.


Howard Charles Green: The point of order is this, that the Minister of Labour has accused a member of this house of making a speech which was made in Moscow. That is the part which I submit to Your Honour is quite out of order and should be withdrawn.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will withdraw that, and I will say this, that speeches like that are made in Moscow. I would say this to my hon. friend, that if my young friend would take his political diapers off he would get along better. And I say to my hon. friend that when the hon. member for Skeena said that this government sent Sam Carr down to Mexico, that is a perversion of the truth.


James Horace King: The hon. member for Vancouver South has raised a point of order and the minister has withdrawn. Would the hon. member for Danforth (Mr, Harris) proceed.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, after looking over the geography of Canada, and having something in the backs of our minds which made us think that those who came from Skeena were from a broad and strong part of the country, and would not lend themselves to anything which would not go down very well in the system of those of us who like to think we are strong men of the north, may I say that my conception of Skeena has not been raised very much this evening by the exhibition which I have witnessed, and to which I have listened within the last half hour.
When I think of a loquacious Irish schoolteacher of a decade ago who represented that great constituency in such a charming manner,
{Mr. Green.]
a man who never harmed anymne; then, when I think of the incumbent who immediately preceded the present one, a man who came to this country from Sweden, without a dollar to his name; when I think of his wholesomeness and of the private enterprise in which he took part; -when I think of the example he set to so many who have come to our shores, and how proud we were to know him; and when I think of how we on all sides of the house learned to love him. I must say that tonight I feel let down, after listening to the remarks of the present hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald).
I hope, as he grows a little older, that perhaps he may mature a little. We all do. We do not like to, but we must admit that that maturing does take place. We hope that he will mature, and that he will take a viewpoint of Canada which is much broader than that narrow viewpoint which sets one group of our people against another. I belong to both groups, to the group who work for a living, and to the group who are honoured and privileged to have others working for them-and 1 have working for me several hundred-without strife. I love to know their families and their children, although they have become so numerous that it is not easy to keep track of them.
Yet we have a man rising in his place in (he house and referring to those people as stupid, frustrated little men. I do not hear quite so well now, Mr. Speaker; and when I thought I heard him say that, I thought he was referring to himself. WTe do not want little men-and I do not speak as to stature-* we do not want little men, men small of mind, in this country of ours. Whether they w'eigh 100 or 200 pounds, we want them to be big and broad men; because we have a big country, a broad country, and we are charged by Providence with the responsibility of developing this country for our children. The only ones who can develop it are men who will speak from their hearts and their minds, and will not read into the columns of Hansard theses which perhaps took weeks, or perhaps only a few moments to prepare. I wonder sometimes if those theses are the thoughts of the men who deliver them in the house, or are they the thoughts of others?
Until such time as young men in this honourable house, sir, have something to say which comes from within their own minds, which flows from their breadth of experience, from their reading, from their study, not from some essay handed to them by some outsider, or some outside organization telling them what to say I am wondering if this is really a parlia-

The Address-Mr. J. H. Harris
ment. Is it a parliament, or is it a chamber in which the views of others from outside can be placed on the record?
We are in parliament and, according to my idea of things, we speak for our constituents, and for what they think. And if you cannot say what you think, then I doubt very much whether you have a right to be in this chamber.


John Horne Blackmore: Pretty cheap.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order. I had thought that, after the generous way in which the Minister of Labour withdrew his remark, we would not have further remarks of that kind tonight. I call Your Honour's attention to Beauchesne's, second edition pages 98 and 99, where we find set out a list of unparliamentary phrases; and we are told that no member will be permitted to say of another that the house has a right to know whether that member meant what he said. We are also told farther down that no member can suggest that another member does not believe a statement he has made. If I interpret correctly what the hon. member for Danforth is now saying, he is casting doubt upon whether or not the hon. member for Skeena was expressing his own thoughts. That is getting pretty close to the line. I shall not make an issue out of it at this time, but perhaps it might be better if the hon. member for Danforth were to get on with his own speech.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am very happy to submit to the suggestion of my learned, honoured and reverend friend. Perhaps the words should not have been used. If they are withdrawn I suppose I shall be in order; I suppose it is a case of whether it was good taste to call someone a stupid, frustrated little man. However, I am the last one that would want to say anything that would disturb any hon. member in this chamber. However, when I listen to someone talking about fifty-five cents a quart when he means 55 cents a hundred pounds I begin to wonder whether he is quite sure what a quart of milk is or what a hundred pounds of milk is. That is what led me to think that perhaps he was not just sure of what it was all about.
Let me get to the subject before us, the speech from the throne, the vehicle which permits us to say something on behalf of our constituents, to make our requests, to tell of some of our difficulties. After having had four constituencies during the last two and a half decades, I think at this stage I might be permitted to say something about my own community.
Before doing so, may I express to the government my great disappointment with regard to the speech from the throne. I am thinking of what was in the minds of the Canadian people when it was presented. I am thinking of the words in the speech from the throne, how it bristled with one outstanding feature, the rise in prices and the high cost of living. My next two or three sentences may be out of order, Mr. Speaker, but I pray your indulgence. When the speech from the throne was introduced the committee on the cost of living was not functioning.
The people of Canada, reading this speech from the throne delivered on December 5, were happy that something would be done. By whom? By their elected representatives. The elected representatives hoped that each would have an. opportunity of saying what he would like to say about this matter. However. that hope is gone because we now have this committee set up. On behalf of the Canadian people I wish every success for the committee.
In what I am going to say now, I call to witness one or two of my hon. friends on the other side. The hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone) served diligently on a committee day after day and month after month. I wonder what his thoughts are now as to the success of that committee. I wonder what are the thoughts of other hon. members in this chamber who, in days gone by, have served on committees. This committee is simply a stopgap; it is a waste of time. The government waited for something to happen but they were frustrated.
They did not get very far with the department. The staffs of the departments, having been engaged in parliamentary business all their lives, know more than the ordinary member of the House of Commons. Even though members of committees work with great diligence, they are not trained in that particular field. They are unable to match wits with deputy ministers and deputies' deputies and their deputies and their deputies behind them. They have nothing but parliamentary procedure in their blood, and the net result is that this committee will, in my opinion, not be able to give our people the satisfaction they are hoping to get. In the meantime we as members of the house are not able to discharge our responsibility to our people as we would like to discharge it.
What is the cause of some of these difficulties in connection with the austerity program and the loss of exchange and conditions generally? It is the tardiness of the

citizens who are out of pocket $44,000 after an audit, which is the responsibility of this institution, and that they give it consideration in order that we may clear that statement up and be happy about the service which we have been able to render.
I appreciate the opportunity I have had to mention this. I feel a little humble at this time. This is the first time in many years that I have said anything on behalf of my own constituents, and it is the first time in years that I have asked for something on their behalf. I hope that I am one who, when he asks for something, believes he should have it. I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to my hon. friends in the cabinet ajul to those who are responsible in any degree, that anything I have suggested or asked for, I feel I am sound in my request, sound in my judgment; and until such time as they can show reason why they will not acquiesce in these requests, from now until that time, I am determined that some consideration shall be given to the constituency of Danforth.
(Translation):


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, you have no doubt noticed, that after a shower, storm-tossed clouds gradually melt away and finally let a sunbeam filter through which sets the human mind at rest. Just now we were caught up in a storm, marked by a shower of epithets, into which the previous speaker rushed fearlessly and, with your help, Mr. Speaker, he managed to restore peace. As he spoke, the clouds vanished, and now that he is through, you will allow the sun which usually follows, to shine once more-tonight in the shape of the beautiful, sweet, noble, delectable French language.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover of the address, the hon. member for Lake St. John-Roberval (Mr. Dion) whose eloquence, which flows like a flashing stream, we thoroughly enjoyed. We derived no less enjoyment from the fruit which he described to us with perfect knowledge and as ably as a painter with his brush. I compliment him for having uttered choice and convincing words first toward the house which he was addressing anti for having spoken with the dignity which characterizes

him, and secondly for having spoken convincing words on behalf of those who do him the honour of electing him as their representative in this house. Those who sit here have no doubt recognized the truth of his allegations and noted the moderation with which he views things and, especially, the eloquence of the words by which he expressed his deep gratitude to the people who have done him the honour I mentioned a few moments ago.
I cannot but make a special mention of the seconder of the address, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey). I listened to him with attention and I especially appreciated what he said in my own language. As we are now going on with the same debate, permit me, Mr. Speaker, to quote the following excerpt from his speech:
Mr. Speaker, my election to this parliament will, I believe, afford me. among other privileges, an exceptional opportunity to appreciate and improve m.v knowledge of fellow citizens whose language I speak with, of course, great difficulty, but among whom, I am happy to say, I have close and valuable friends.
There you have evidence of what broadmindedness is needed to achieve co-operation between the citizens living within the four corners of this wonderful country. I am sure this example will be followed by all those who do not entirely share our views and opinions or who cannot speak our language, so that we may achieve the measure of understanding which we so badly need, which the whole of Canada so deeply needs to remain a great country, to become greater if possible, and to hold the place assigned to it by Providence in the course of past and coming centuries.
The following statement is found in the first paragraph of the speech from the throne:
In many countries, political and social unrest is serious. Failure to agree on peace settlements with Germany and Austria is preventing the recovery of Europe.
No wonder such a situation exists, especially when, in many countries, the powers that be entirely lack good faith and, instead of striving to spread among the nations of the world a spirit of goodwill necessary for an enduring peace, seek rather to promote a dubious philosophy, philosophy they seek to spread the world over, so as to achieve an aim envisioned by the followers of that theory since its inception: to crush under its iron heel humanity which yearns only for peace and mutual understanding.

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
We are surprised at the delay in the signing of peace treaties. But such delay is only normal. See what is happening in Europe and in several countries I could mention. After the war, Russia got more in the way of war reparations than was obtained by any other allied country from the nations which fought under the swastika. Russia received larger reparations than some countries which have probably suffered more than she did. Further, not content with accepting, taking, extracting from these countries the amount of money required, Russia bleeds them white, throws their industries out of gear, undermines their culture and, to reward them, tries to spread within their borders the questionable philosophy of communism which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. Such is the reward bestowed by the hammer and sickle.
Another paragraph of the speech from the throne reads as follows:
In view of the price fixed for the 1948-1949 crop year under the wheat agreement with the United Kingdom, you will be asked to consider a measure to provide for an increase in the initial payment to producers.
If my understanding is correct, this means that we will be asked to pay western wheat growers a certain sum of money because under the British agreement they did not get a fair price for their wheat. The eastern farmers will be good fellows as usual and, through their representatives who will co-operate with the western members, they will compensate those who claim that they have been plundered-strong language, perhaps, but this is how I feel at present. As I say, we shall be good fellows, but I hope that when the time comes to take steps that will benefit our Eastern farmers and workers, those same Western farmers will also be good fellows by asking their representatives to act as we did, and will not hesitate to comfort our farmers with grateful words. The Western farmers will understand that if they sometimes find themselves in a critical position, the Eastern farmers also have to cope with similar difficulties, especially as far as the dairy industry is concerned. In that connection, we hope our farmers will receive the same consideration as Western producers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hearl


Pierre Gauthier: The other
day I mentioned a project put forth by an official of the Quebec Department of Agriculture; the same idea has been advocated by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) who described it as a wheat or grain bank. I feel it is an apt description and I am pleased to accept it. I hope our Western brothers will support us when we officially request that the Government or the Department of Agriculture help our Eastern farmers, by providing them, all year round, with the grain they do not produce or do not grow in sufficient quantity, so that they will not have to await the freight cars that are often late in arriving, and will not be at the mercy of the Winnipeg Pool, of the Grain Exchange or any other concern.
I quote another paragraph found in the speech from the throne:
You will be asked to consider plans for a low rental housing project for veterans.
This I fully endorse, Mr. Speaker. I feel that our veterans are entitled to every consideration since they risked everything to save democracy and Christianity as well as to prevent national socialist or fascist ideas from taking root in our country. Heaven grant that we be spared the need of resorting to similar methods in order to stop communist ideas from spreading in our country, following the activities we have uncovered and which I shall discuss again later. However, we must think not only of our veterans but of the rest of the population, of all those who are homeless.
At long last, let them build homes for our people. In the province of Quebec, especially, veterans as others, have families of five to ten children or more. What good, therefore, are those tiny postwar houses? Despite the legislation designed to promote harmony between industry and labour and between large and small farm producers, true co-operation will not be achieved among our people unless they are provided with decent shelters for their families. Many of the dwellings built after the war are by far too small for large families. Why not be realistic? Thank God, in the province of Quebec large families are not and will not for a long time yet be things of the past. We are not depending upon immigration to increase our population and, as I said before, we need houses large enough to provide our families with a decent standard of living.

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
If the bill passes or when private builders and building concerns are granted housing contracts, I hope that the plans approved by the government will take into account large families which are also to be found in other provinces. They are very numerous in Quebec, but I know they also exist in the other provinces. Such plans should therefore be suitable for all the provinces in this dominion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Gauthier: Let me read another paragraph of the speech from the throne:
A measure similar to the one introduced at the last session of parliament to provide more effective machinery for the adjustment of differences between employers and employees will be submitted for your consideration.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, if recrimination on the part of both employers and employees is of the kind we have been hearing tonight, such co-operation is very unlikely to prevail. I am not used to hearing very bitter discussions between industrialists in my county, and I am grateful for it.
My constituency is half-agricultural, halfindustrial. I believe that the agricultural element is the larger of the two, but nevertheless one will find there a mining region which is unfortunately closed down as an aftermath of the war. The quarrying industry is flourishing in two districts, at Riviere-a-Pierre and Saint Marc, whence comes the limestone of which I have spoken. Portneuf has roofing nnd kraft paper industries at Portneuf Station and at Pont Rouge, plus two newsprint plants, one at Saint Raymond, the other at Donna-cona.
We are not used to strikes in my constituency. To my knowledge, we have had but one strike. That lasted one week and was settled to the satisfaction of both parties, as far as I know.
I do not remember any strike ever having taken place at Saint Raymond. There was one at Donnacona, and it lasted only one day. At the present time I may say that the lowest salary paid there, that is to the labourer, is 85 cents per hour. The most perfect co-operation exists between industry and labour. We have but one labour union, the "syndicats catholiques" which, I believe, have more than 800 members. There is perfect agreement between the company's management, civil
cause-I say so with some reluctance but with the knowledge that it is true

because there and church authorities and labour leaders. The company even affords advantages to those workers who wish to join the union. Why does it do so, some one may ask? Simply because before letting any disagreement come to a head, they meet, negotiate and manage to come to terms. Strikes do not occur when things are done that way.
Why do not like conditions always prevail in other parts of this country? Simply be-are people who profit from strikes, who seek to divert workers from their jobs by turning them against their employers, because it fits in with their design-I do not hesitate to say it-their design to foment revolution. That is perhaps premature in Canada; I sincerely hope so, but in other countries, talk of revolution was sometimes thought premature but it burst upon them like a hail-storm.
At Donnacona or anywhere else in my riding, there are no trouble-makers, in other words no communists. That is why we have no strikes. We have people who were not born in our constituency, people who were born in other countries. They are not troublemakers, they are good citizens who get along well with native Canadians. Why? Because they do not entertain dubious philosophies, because they know they have the right to work, and they are not unaware that if they have rights, they also have duties to perform.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Gauthier: And, because both employers and employees understand their rights and duties, there is co-operation between them and these good people's sole ambition is to live in peace together and to secure for their families, whether large or small, the necessary food and clothing, the degree of welfare which every human being is entitled to in this world.
That is why strikes are unknown in my district. This condition is due to the full understanding and co-operation which mark industry and labour relations. Tonight I was anxious to pay this tribute to the fine county of Portneuf which I have represented for nearly twenty-one years. There was, it is true, a nine-month gap but I have forgotten it and I have continued to serve those who do me the honour of electing me.

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
In the speech from the throne mention is also made of the proposed amendment to the Indian Act. I shall only make a few brief remarks on this subject, and I ask the government to review the situation of Indians in Canada most closely and from all angles. Among other things, I request that in the case of any given area, when a religious denomination has a majority and the establishment of a hospital, or a first aid station is contemplated, the government should at least send to that area physicians, nurses and attendants of the same faith as the majority in the locality. I feel that such a request is only fair.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, not long ago it was reported in the press that some immigrants had found their way into this country using spurious passports. The latter, which they had obtained in England, were English passports illegally secured in the name of British subjects born in the British isles; and, with such spurious passports, these illegal immigrants violated this land of ours and well intended to remain here. It is our reasonable right and privilege to ask ourselves what kind of citizens these gentlemen could have become here in Canada. There surely were reasons for their not being able to enter legally; however, I shall not deal with them at length tonight, but I may be given an occasion of discussing them later on, in another debate.
Under the circumstances, it therefore affords me great pleasure to very heartily congratulate the hon. the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Glen) on his firm stand with respect to these immigrants.


Benoît Michaud: Hear, hear!


Pierre Gauthier: And I trust that he will continue-to quote an expression much in use amongst French Canadians-to stand up and resist the influences which will no doubt make themselves felt on behalf of these illegal immigrants, and that he will not rest-no more than we will in fact-until they have gone back where they belong.
Once again I hope that the Minister of Immigration will remain adamant and that the arguments and reasons he has advanced in support of the firm stand he has taken will be accepted by all.
Canada, he says, has provided for the entry of a considerable number of displaced persons
from Europe, of which a large proportion, having been examined and accepted, are patiently waiting for the necessary transport facilities. It would be inconceivable that advantage be taken of these people by a recourse to illegal means. Any other decision would not only be unfair, but would encourage these people to again resort to the same tactics and to benefit financially and otherwise from such illegal ventures.
Again I am not the only one to congratulate the minister. I am sure that the Canadian people will also give him credit for his courage in- taking this attitude which I feel he will preserve until justice has been done in this particular case.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Gauthier: In fact,
current events justify the minister and his officials for being adamant in the choice of immigrants to whom Canadian citizenship is to be granted.
I have here a picture taken from the Montreal Gazette of February 13, 1948. Am accompanying article tells of the seizure by provincial and city police of certain documents, lottery tickets which show that the communist party is not to be found only in Moscow or in the Cominform, the new organization set up in lieu of the Comintern. Those lottery tickets came from Italy. This picture shows first Tim Buck, of Toronto, leader of the Labour Progressive party, and, just under, one of those lottery tickets, the proceeds of which were to be used) for the consolidation of the Italian republic. Lower down, I read these words which I translate as I go along: "This subscription is in favour of the Italian communist party to promote elections to the national assembly. In spite of my limited knowledge of the Italian language, I can give a literal translation. We are fully justified, Mr. Speaker, in asking that the Immigration Department or division be more adamant in these matters. Those lottery tickets were surely smuggled somehow into Canada. In Montreal, they were distributed in several places. There is evidence that the communist party is supplying funds for the Italian elections next April. Are we not justified in asking the authorities, federal, provincial and municipal to be on the alert and to work untiringly in order to unearth the subversive propaganda with which we are literally swamped in Canada? I am not afraid to
The Address-Mr. Stanfield

speak frankly. Those documents have been seized, but how many more are circulating ini the country and ini our homes.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that any or all of our government authorities will not stop investigating nor relax their vigilance and thus spare themselves our censure for their guilty weakness and apathy. In 1937, when I mentioned communist activities in this country, all I got was more or less derisive laughter from the house. That happened just a little over ten years ago and yet, today, in Canada, we find a communist party that styles itself labour progressive. What matters, however, is not its name but the fact that it has recognized leaders and is extremely active. I do not claim that we should ban these radicals in order to curb the party's activities in the most effective fashion, but I do contend that we must be well acquainted with the communist theory in order to fight it successfully. For Christians, the best way to oppose communism is to live a Christian life. We must not hesitate, even in public, to show that we are Christians, nor must we refrain from studying this questionable philosophy, for when we have become familiar with it, we shall be better equipped to fight it, the weapon of knowledge being even more effective than that of legislation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Gauthier: The whole
population, however, can perhaps not understand the rather obscure philosophy of Marx or Lenin. Others will have to explain their teachings. Nevertheless, let those who really believe in a sound democracy such as we acknowledge in Canada, come to the vanguard and make themselves the apostles of this theory. Let them not fear to draw a parallel between the communist doctrine and our sound democracy. With these methods, we shall surely triumph, and triumph all the more easily if, by judicious and fair legislation, we provide our people with the well-being which they have a right to expect.
(Text):


Mr. F. T. STANFIELD (Colchester-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like, first of all, to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply upon the able manner in which they acquitted themselves. I am sure,

if one may judge from their contribution to this debate, they have bright futures in the political life of our country.
Much has been said in this debate about wheat and hogs. In fact, some nights when I go home I fear that I shall dream of hogs and wheat. Therefore this evening I feel that I would be justified for a few moments if I were to set out the merits of the old province of Nova Scotia, and' to say something about the fine people who live by the sea.
Nova Scotia is a pleasant spot indeed in which to live; and the people who live there are the finest to be found anywhere on this globe. They live ini a very happy and pleasant way. Contrary to what many people think, especially to what you may read in some papers, most Nova Scotians live in lovely homes. They are proud of their homes and they take great interest ini them. They have civic pride in their properties and they keep them in) the best repair possible. I think the homes in Nova Scotia compare favourably with those ini any other part of Canada.
The people of Nova Scotia enjoy life. They do not chase the dollar quite as hard as do the people of Ontario and Quebec. When they want to go fishing, they go fishing; when they want to play golf, they play golf; when they want to dance, they go to a dance, and they have the privilege of dancing with as many beautiful, gifted and charming ladies as there are any place else in the world.
A lot of people think that we are paupers there, that we are poor financially. I am quite willing to admit that there are other parts of the world which are more prosperous than we are, that possess more of this world's goods, but those people do not enjoy life any more than we do. We have never had to ask for a great deal of assistance. I should like to point out to some of these western bronchos who do so much talking about wheat and hogs that a few years ago when the price of wheat and hogs was not so high as it has been of late years many of the towns in Nova Scotia sent carload after carload of clothing and other things out to the people who were suffering from such hard times in the west. We have a great fondness for western Canada because many Nova Scotians have gone out there to settle.
The people of Nova Scotia are very thrifty and conservative by nature. You understand, sir, that I use the word "conservative" to denote their thriftiness, not their politics. We in Nova Scotia are proud of our educational system. We have Dalhousie University; we have Acadia University and we have St.

The Address-Mr. Stanfield
Francis Xavier University. Then there is King's College, which is really affiliated with Dalhousie. We educate our people down there in order that they can help to build up the rest of the world. Perhaps it is too bad that many of our people leave the province, but Nova Scotians are great people to roam. They like to go away and see the world. Everywhere you go you will find Nova Scotians and you will find also that most of them have done very well indeed.
Just a word about our countryside, our picturesque scenery. We have heard a great deal about the scenery in Ontario and British Columbia, but I do not think the countryside of Nova Scotia has to take a back seat to any area. Let me tell you that it makes you feel good to be alive to take a drive along the Dartmouth lakes on a fine, bright autumn afternoon, when the leaves of the hardwood trees have turned to red. Then there is another lovely drive from Hawkesbury to Hastings. When you go through there in the evening just as the sun is about to set you would almost think you were in Switzerland. Then there is another lovely scenic drive around Cabot trail. I think all who have taken that drive will agree that the scenery is picturesque. In fact our province is just one picture after another. I invite those who do not believe me to come down to see for themselves.
The climate of Nova Scotia is quite bad in the spring and we can offer no excuses. We are not very proud of that weather, but for the other nine months of the year the climate is most delightful. At times it may have its drawbacks, but most of the time it will compare favourably with the climate in any other part of the world, yes, even in Ottawa.
We have good roads in Nova Scotia. Perhaps we have to thank the Liberal government for them. I hate to do it, but that is the fact. All our main trunk roads are paved with asphalt. We have no four-lane highways like there are in Ontario and Quebec, but our main roads are all paved and our secondary roads are rapidly being paved. The province of Nova Scotia is a natural set-up for the tourist trade.
It may be said that we have not sufficient tourist accommodation in the province. Let me mention some of the best. There is a grand summer hotel at White Point beach; then there is The Pines at Digby, and then (here is the Keltic Lodge in Cape Breton. Those tourist resorts are as fine as you will find any place, and we are proud of them. Additional hotels and tourist camps are being
erected all the time. I am certain that Nova Scotia has a very bright future as far as the tourist trade is concerned, and in saying that I am not forgetting that we have enjoyed a very good tourist business in the past. However, with our good roads, our lovely climate and our hospitable people, I am sure our tourist business will continue to grow.
As I said before, I realize that perhaps there are more prosperous places in Canada than Nova Scotia, and I should like to point out a few ways in which I think our province could be helped to better its economic position. I am not one of those who believe that Nova Scotia should not have entered confederation. I believe our place is in confederation, but perhaps we should have received better treatment. Some of the fault may lie with ourselves because we are not as aggressive as we might be; but, be that as it may, we have not received as much consideration as we should1 have.
For instance, in order to get to the island of Cape Breton you have to cross about a mile of water. There are about 150,000 people on the island of Cape Breton and they have to go back and forth on a ferryboat. I believe, and so do most Nova Scotians, that a bridge should be built across the strait of Canso to connect the island of Cape Breton with the mainland. It is my belief that if 150,000 people were living on an island in lake Ontario, separated from the mainland by only a mile of water, they would have had a bridge long ago. We may be told that it would cost a lot of money to build that bridge because of the swiftness of the water and ice conditions in the spring of the year. That is true, but I am sure that the difficulties are not insuperable, and bridges have been built over harder places than the strait of Canso. Suppose it does cost $15,000,000. Today we have become so accustomed to talking in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars that $15,000,000 in comparison seems very small.
I would also suggest to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that a faster train service be provided between Montreal and Halifax. I know you cannot change geography, but the time can be shortened that it takes a train to go from Montreal to Halifax. I realize that the roadbed from Montreal to Halifax is not as good as that between Montreal and Chicago and that the Halifax train cannot, therefore, make as fast time, but I have a suggestion to make to the minister which would speed up the service. Instead of running three trains around to Campbellton
The Address-Mr. Stanfield

and away down the St. Lawrence river, I suggest that one train, after it leaves Moncton, be routed' over the Grand Trunk Pacific and go through Fredericton, Edmundston and on to Montreal. I understand that this route would shorten the running time by four or five hours between Montreal and Halifax. I would also point out that the people of Fredericton and Edmundston and all the way along that line have a very poor train service to Montreal, just as poor as anything could be. If my suggestions were adopted, not only would the running time between Montreal and Halifax be shortened by four or five hours, but these places which I mentioned would have a first-class rail service to and from Montreal. The other two trains could run over the present route to serve that traffic. I believe that the people of Moncton and the province of Nova Scotia are entitled to ask the Minister of Transport to look carefully into this suggestion to see if it is not feasible.
There is one subject on which there has been no discussion at all in this house, and it is that of our great forest industry and allied industries. It comes next in importance to agriculture combined with our dairying industry. I realize that our forests are in the care of the province, but still it is the duty of every citizen of Canada-and this house is a very important body of Canadian citizens- to look after the welfare of our forests. The forests of Nova Scotia have been greatly depleted in the last twenty years; yet they are of untold value to our province; and, while selective cutting, reforestation and the care of our forests are in the hands of the provincial government, it is my conviction that this government should do everything it can to foster and speed up the care of our forests. They are the second greatest form of wealth we have across Canada and are being depleted by fire, insects and ruthless cutting. The forests are vanishing more quickly than they should be. But with proper cutting and reforestation practices we would have in Nova Scotia enough lumber to last us forever. I think 500,000,000 feet of lumber are being cut lately every year, besides pulpwood, hardwood, et cetera, from the forests of our province. If we took as good care of our forests as Sweden and other countries do, our children would never need to worry about the income to be derived from the forest wealth of our province.
There is another way in which our province could be helped. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) has been speaking on behalf of the marshlands for many years. These lands have practically gone to waste,

from many causes into which I shall not go at the moment. But when you see elsewhere in the province small farms being settled on land suitable for growing only a few spruce trees and then see those rich marshlands flooded out and the buildings falling down on the adjacent upland, with only a few cattle here and there trying to pick up a living, I sometimes wonder what is the matter. The marshlands cannot be reclaimed by the settlers or farmers themselves because it takes heavy machinery to do it. In the old days that work was all done by hand. In 1750, the Tant.ra-mar marshes under the French settlers were built. They were assisted by prison labour brought out from France. They did not know what a steam shovel was; all they had was oxen and a hand shovel. But today we have bulldozers and all the necessary equipment for rehabilitating those marshlands. I am afraid, however, that the marshlands constitute more or less of a political football, and I am not blaming the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), because I believe he is sympathetic toward rehabilitating those lands.
I should like to say a word or two on the deficiency of the United States dollar, a situation into which we run every ten or twelve years. I believe we should have a long-term national policy whereby we could make in Canada a great many of the articles we now import from the United States, thereby building up our country and providing more employment for our people. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that some of these industries be established in Nova Scotia. We shall welcome the help of the dominion government in having new industries established in our province. Somebody may say that these industries could not be run down there. I should like to point out that in Nova Scotia there are many industries which have prospered for many years and sold their products across this fair land of ours. I can assure this house that industry can be run profitably in Nova Scotia. Therefore I would ask the house to lend us its support to see if some of these industries cannot be established in Nova Scotia to make the products that we have been buying across the border so that the deficiency in United States dollars will not keep on recurring.
I think I have spoken for twenty minutes, Mr. Speaker, and that is a long time for me; therefore I shall take my seat.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Stanfield) telling us of the beauties of the maritimes. I can agree with

The Address-Mr. Wright
him. I have had an opportunity of visiting the maritimes several times during the last two or three years and I know of no place in Canada where there are more beautiful scenes than in that part of the country. I would say it would be a very good trip for any Canadian to spend a week or two in the maritimes in the fall of the year when everything looks so beautiful down there.
However, the hon. member for Colchester-Hants is not quite so optimistic as the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) with respect to the maritimes. He realizes that they have difficulties down there and thus it is necessary for some action to be taken to solve some of these difficulties. The senior member for Halifax apparently thinks the difficulties are all solved and when other hon. members from the maritimes suggest that there are still things which might be done down there he chides them and indicates that everything is quite all right.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Like yourself, they do not know conditions.


Percy Ellis Wright: It was amusing to me to
read an editorial in his own paper, the Halifax Chronicle, printed on the day that he made his speech in the house. I think I should put it on the record, because it does not bear out what the hon. member said here. In fact it says this:
Some Cheer Would be Welcome
In his press interview of last week end the Rinht Hon. C. D. Howe ran the gamut of the political octave in respect to Nova Scotia with remarkable optimism, and made a number of very plain statements. Specifically, to the question as to whether he had anything to say to cheer the citizens of Halifax, in view of the prevailing unemployment situation, the Minister of Trade and Commerce queried whether any cheer is necessary and suggested that a considerable number of our unemployed -are seasonal workers who have -alternative means of getting a living when their normal trade is slack.
National employment service here could probably disillusion Mr. Howe on this point. There are, admittedly, odd jobs here and there that men can take. But they do not fill the dinner pail, and they come nowhere ne-ar to the point of absorbing even temporarily the total number of unemployed. Over the week end, according to officials of the freight handlers' union, not a single stevedore or freight-handler was employed on the waterfront at the time of year when work should be most plentiful. A lack of steel has thrown many out of work at the shipyards. Men with skills such -as these unemployed have -are hardly the types that ought to be set to work shovelling snow. That is like putting an unemployed architect to work laying bricks.
The trouble at bottom is that, while these men are losing work, the province is in some danger of losing industries which have been built up painfully during the war. That is not merely a local problem. It is one which, if not rectified soon, will have permanent repercussions on various branches of industry all over the country in the future. It is the part of wise statesmanship to foresee such tendencies and to take steps to forestall them. Mere optimism will solve none of our problems here or elsewhere. We need wise planning and fast action.
That is exactly what the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) was suggesting in this house. To solve some of the problems in that part of the country, it is necessary to take action and to take action immediately. The sen-ior member for Halifax said that certain- western members had gone to the maritimes to tell the farmers there how to make money. I can- assure the hon-. member that the farmers of the maritimes know their business quite well enough without having to take any advice from farmers from any other part of the country. They are quite efficient in- their methods of operation. If they had n-ot been- they would not have stayed in- business during the thirties.
In my conversations with farmers in the maritimes, I found- them very much the same as farmers all over Canada. All they ask for is an even break in this economy of ours, and they are prepared to d'o their bit in providing the food that is necessary. They, along with farmers all- over Canada, are anxious about the present situation. When they find that ceilings have been placed on the goods which they have to sell, while no controls are placed over many of the things they have to buy, is it not enough for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to rise in his place and say, as he did- the other day, that we have in this country a guarantee in the form of an Agricultural Prices Support Act that will guarantee in the future that agricultural prices will be maintained at a stable level. The Minister of Agriculture said as reported at page 807 of Hansard the other day:
The policy which protects the consumer is sound because we have said in the prices support legislation that if the time ever comes when the bottom falls out of prices we will ask every taxpayer in this country to help -to the extent provided in the Agricultural Prices Support Act. that is, $200 million, to maintain -the price levels.
The Minister of Agriculture knows quite well that is an act set up for the purpose of maintaining floor prices under agricultural products during the transitional period; it sets out quite clearly in the act that it is an act to protect prices during the transitional period from war to peace. When these subsidies are all removed and we are through the transitional period, at the very time when it will be necessary to give some support to agriculture this act, according to its own words which will be found in another place in Hansard, will be

The Address

Mr. Wright

ultra vires, if maintained at any other time than during the transitional period. That is one of the points which we in this group have been urging on the government. We have been asking them to make this legislation permanent legislation and provide that these floor prices will be maintained when they are needed.
On motion of Mr. Wright the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I know the Minister of Finance is ready on Monday with both Bill No. 3 and Bill No. 7, dealing with the gold subsidy. There have been requests from many members of the house on both sides that the
latter bill be taken up at an early date. The Minister of Finance is not here today. He had official duties that called him elsewhere, and I am soriy not to be able to say in which order he intends to proceed, but he is ready with both of them for Monday. I hope that the order which he will select will be one that will be convenient to hon. members.
Howard Charles Green: Either Bill No. 3 or Bill No. 7?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Both are ready. There were some hopes that both might be disposed of, but I am not able to say which order he will prefer.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 16, 1948