HONG KONG


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The question of privilege relates to the publication in the Ottawa Evening Citizen of yesterday, March 1, 1948, of what purports to be a series of quotations from a letter which Mr. George A. Drew addressed to me on July 11, 1942, respecting the Hong Kong inquiry.
The press report, apart from other allegations, contains certain statements respecting myself as Prime Minister which are not in accord with the facts. With respect to Hong Kong, it is in effect alleged that after the government of Japan changed on October 16, 1941, and before the expedition sailed on October 27, I received messages from the United Kingdom government in the nature of the most complete warning of the probability of early hostilities. Not only is such a statement not correct, but the fact is that both before and after the expedition sailed and, indeed, until the very eve of the Japanese attack, such information as I received from the British authorities was to the effect that an early attack upon Hong Kong was not anticipated.
In my opinion, such information as the Canadian government received, at the time, from the British authorities is in complete accord with the finding of the commissioner, Chief Justice Duff, in his report, namely, that "the best informed opinion available to the Canadian authorities was that hostilities would not arise in the near future."


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I am sure the house has listened with interest to the comment of the Prime Minister on the report that appeared in at least two papers yesterday. The house was expecting a statement such as the Prime Minister has given. I wish now to ask this question. In view of the state of the public mind with respect to this matter

Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


John Bracken: In view of the state of the public mind with respect to this matter, will the Prime Minister not now reconsider his decision with respect to making available in full the letter which has given occasion to so much discussion in the press and outside?


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege which affects every member of the House of Commons. It is this. Last night we read in two Ottawa newspapers, perhaps not the whole but a considerable portion of a letter which we have sought to get in this House of Commons now for a matter of weeks.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: You have a copy of it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have not a copy of it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Your party has.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will speak for myself; you look after yourself. Why should this House of Commons be treated by this government with contempt when they will not give us a letter which the general public already has? That is my question.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I too, Mr. Speaker, rise to a question of privilege arising out of the publication of the excerpts in last night's Ottawa Citizen. I am not condemning the newspaper for doing this, but my point of privilege is that the publication of these letters indicates that newspapers can publish what we in parliament are denied the right to see or discuss. This is a matter which affects our privileges. It is no longer a question merely of Mr. Drew and his relationship to this matter. It is a question whether or not parliament shall be outraged or circumvented by statements, made in answer to a request for the tabling of this correspondence, which have not been in accordance with the facts. According to last night's paper-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member understands perfectly well that it is against the rules to enter into a debate on this matter, because there is nothing before the house.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: It is a question of privilege.


James Horace King: It is the right of the hon. member to rise to a question of privilege, but I would ask him to state his question of privilege and be as brief as possible.
Hong Kong Inquiry


Mr. REID:: Who gave the material to the paper if the hon. member did not? Why does he not publish it all?


John George Diefenbaker: My point of privilege is this, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister said that the reason these letters could not be produced to parliament was that it would result in the revelation of ciphers.


Mr. CLAXTON:: That was never given at all.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Let us get on with the business of the house.


James Horace King: The hon. member will understand the difficult position in which the Speaker is placed. I have to ask hon. members to abide by the rules, but at the same time I have to protect freedom of speech. Actually there is nothing before the house. The hon. member knows perfectly well that there is a way in which he can bring about a debate in respect to a matter which interests him, and that is through a motion. If the hon. member feels that a certain matter should be discussed in the house, the proper way to have it discussed is through a motion, and on such a motion I would permit debate. Since I have not the right to do that at the moment, I must ask the hon. member to abide by the rules. -


John George Diefenbaker: I was coming to my point of privilege. The only justification for denial to parliament of information that parliament is entitled to was the excuse that to produce it would reveal certain ciphers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: I am stating my point of privilege.
Mr. SPEAKER,:	The hon. member is
making a statement, not discussing a question of privilege.


Brooke Claxton: And he is making an inaccurate statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have noticed that hon. gentlemen opposite, including the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, have tried to have it appear that the reason I gave for not agreeing to table the letter addressed by Mr. Drew to myself was the secrecy of certain ciphers or some decision that the British government had taken, apart from the usual reservation that the British government makes with respect to the publication of documents to which it possesses a certain right. The reason I gave to the house, and hon. members have only to look up Hansard to see it, as to -why I was unwilling to table

Mr. Drew's letter to me is that that letter contains references to certain communications that were produced before the commission and were produced only on the undertaking that those communications would not be made public, and because the British government is still unwilling that they should be made public. I communicated with the British government not to ask whether Mr. Drew's letter might be tabled; the government takes the full responsibility for not tabling Mr. Drew's letter. In taking that responsibility, I wished to be perfectly sure that I would not be breaking any pledge given to the British government at the time the secret telegrams were made available to the commission. The British government declines to allow publication of certain telegrams that were placed before the commission and were kept entirely secret, and to which no reference was to have been made. In a second request I asked if the British government would review their decision in that regard. I have received a reply that they have reconsidered it and they still decline to allow publication of those secret telegrams. Having regard to the obligation which this government is under to the British government, I am not going to break faith with the British government by tabling a letter which contains references to a communication to which no reference should have been made by anyone who was appearing before or with the commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that the Prime Minister has explained-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Horace King: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -may I say that the Prime Minister has just done, Mr. Speaker, that which you a few minutes ago denied me the opportunity of doing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Horace King: The hon. member should
not reflect on the Speaker.


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw.


James Horace King: Order. The Prime Minister made a statement. The hon. member for Lake Centre rose to a question of privilege, and the Prime Minister felt that he should answer it. The hon. member knows perfectly well that he should not say anything which would give to the house or to the public the impression that I have been deliberately unfair in my rulings with regard to ministers of the crown and members of the opposition. He knows perfectly well that I am trying to do my duty and be fair to all hon. members.

Hong Kong Inquiry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Arza Clair Casselman: Putting on the gag.


James Horace King: Order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What a spectacle I


John George Diefenbaker: These interruptions have all the spontaneity of trained seals. What I intended to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That remark was not very bright.


James Horace King: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: What I intended to say was this. Parliament has no right to be gagged or stifled-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -when the matter is being discussed outside parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Horace King: Order.


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: In view of the statement made this afternoon by the Prime Minister, would the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) like to withdraw the statement he made on February 26-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order.


George Randolph Pearkes: On a question of privilege-


James Horace King: Order. If the hon. member for Nanaimo has any question to direct to the minister I would ask him to wait until the orders of the day are called.


George Randolph Pearkes: On a question of privilege, I cannot understand the conflicting statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence.
Sone hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Horace King: Order. I would call attention to a very important point. Hon. members will understand that the Speaker has a duty to perform in this house; that is, to see that hon. members abide by the rules. When hon. members know perfectly well they have no question of privilege they should not rise and make statements to create disorder in the house.
On the orders of the day:


Hon. W. EARL ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: In view of the statement made yesterday in the press and the recent statement by the Prime Minister I should like to ask the right 5849-113
hon. gentleman if the Drew letter was ever submitted to the British government, since he states the British government asked him not to reveal it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have never said the British government had refused to allow the Drew letter to be tabled. The Drew letter was not referred to the British government at all. That is the responsibility of this government; but the responsibility of this government also extends to making sure that in tabling any document asked for in this house no breach occurs of an undertaking that has been given by this government to another government in reference to the non-tabling of communications from that government.


William Earl Rowe: Then I would like to ask the Prime Minister another question. Did he not receive a cablegram from Britain three days before the Hong Kong expedition left this country, stating that conditions in the Pacific had altered?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have said all I intend to say on this matter. The evidence will be produced.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not here for the amusement of hon. gentlemen opposite. I am here to see that parliamentary rules and practices are observed, and I intend to do so.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: Order.


William Earl Rowe: I might add that I am here to see that the public get the truth.


George Randolph Pearkes: I want to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. On February 26, at page 1639 of Hansard, he said:
It is no secret that the plan envisaged in garrisoning Hong Kong was that it might be held for a number of months, at the end of which-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order. If the hon. member wishes to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence he should do so, and not give information.


George Randolph Pearkes: My question is, did the Minister of National Defence envisage the holding of Hong Kong for a period of some months, until such time as United States and British naval forces could relieve the troops there, and were those hopes dashed-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. gentleman may put his question on the order paper.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer! Answer!
Inquiries oj the Ministry


James Horace King: Order. I enjoy very much the good humour shown on one side of the house, but hon. members know perfectly well that while it is their privilege to direct questions to the ministers it is also the privilege of the ministers not to answer them if they do not wish to do so.


Mr. L. E. BAKER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: I rise to a question of privilege. As a member of parliament I want to see us get ahead with the business of the house. I think this George Drew letter is being given much more importance than it is worth. I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
(Note: Owing to the noise in the chamber the remainder of the remarks of the hon. member could not be heard.)



REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of joint committee on the Indian Act.-Mr. Brown.

[Stage Direction]
: rNQtrthV r AS to oi.d ace pensions and health '-iifcoqqo r. insurance measures hSS %0,'t :	.'**
,, On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: In view of the reports that have appeared in the press from time to time may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he can indicate whether legislation respecting an improved old age pension plan and national health insurance will be introduced at this session.


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As to the first part of the question, the policy of the government will be announced in due course. With respect to the second part, these matters receive continuous attention.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Have the tenants occupying wartime houses in the city of Vancouver been informed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that it is the intention to increase rentals beginning on April 1 next? If notice has been
[Mr. Speaker.!
given, will the minister state the reason for such increases, and how the increased rent will compare with other rentals in the same locality?


Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: May I say, sir, that I have a similar telegram on behalf of people in my town of Amherst, that Wartime Housing officials are increasing rentals at this time. I should like to know the reason, and whether the minister will not have this proposed increase of rentals postponed and investigated.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think the same answer will cover both questions. The situation is that the houses referred to were built during wartime under agreements with cities or municipalities covering fixed taxation for the period of agreement, which was for the duration of the war and one year thereafter. The taxation agreement with the cities and municipalities has now expired. In some cases we have been able to renew the agreement, and in other cases that has not been possible.
In respect of Vancouver, let me say that the city of Vancouver by resolution of February 24, 1948, laid down the policy that the city would increase the taxes on tenants of these houses. My hon. friend will appreciate that the city cannot tax government property, and could not tax the houses. But it is free to tax the tenants in the houses.
To straighten out the matter and to save confusion, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has agreed to collect the taxes which the city has assessed against the tenants. The increase in the rentals represents the amount of increased taxes requested by the city. I may say that the corporation receives no more revenue from the houses than was the case before new taxes were assessed.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs when wre may expect that the special committee on veterans affairs will be set up.
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): The resolution to set up the committee will be brought before the house just as soon as the program will permit.

The Address-Mr. Blair



CZECHOSLOVAKIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. R. THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs

and I apologize for not having sent him notice. Has the Canadian loan made some two years ago to Czechoslovakia been used up? If not, in view of recent events in that country could the minister say what the government's intention is regarding the remainder?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I happen to have before me the figure as to the amount that has not yet been committed on the loan to Czechoslovakia. It is $1,400,000. The matter of what action will be taken is still under consideration. When a decision has been reached it will be announced.



QUESTIONS AFFECTING MEMBERS' TRANSPORTATION -WIVES AND DEPENDENT MEMBERS OF FAMILIES

['Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. gentleman who has preceded me will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks. However, I wish to congratulate him upon having put up a splendid fight against his adversaries and upon having put at least a couple of them to flight. I did not intend to say anything during this debate because, like others, I was anxious that it should come to an end. However, upon pressure being brought to bear upon me by some of my maritime colleagues, I yielded against my better judgment. I did not think it was right to allow the Tory member for Queens (Mr. McLure) to have everything to say about conditions in Prince Edward Island. One of my old teachers used to say that when you heard nothing you should say nothing, but here I am afraid I am disobeying him.\nI listened attentively but painfully to the doleful speech of the Tory member for Queens. It was a gloomy picture indeed that he gave of conditions in our province. The last part of his speech was brighter, however, because he invited tourists to come down to that terribly neglected province. His speech reminded me of the poet\'s description of Jacques Cartier\'s first winter on the St. Lawrence river. He was very gloomy at first because the river was frozen over and there were other conditions which were not very suitable, but later on he changed like my hon. friend. I think the lines of the poet read somewhat as follows:\nBut when he changed the scene He told how soon it oast In early spring the fetters That held the waters fast.\nHow the magic wand of summer Cast the landscape of his eyes Like the drybones of the just When they wake in Paradise.\nHe was referring to the St. Lawrence river and surrounding scenery.\n\nThe Address-Mr. Grant\nI am sorry the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) is not in his seat at the moment. Before continuing and by way of diversion, may I say that following the last provincial election in my province I understand he gave an interview to the press. I am told that the reason given by him for all C.C.F. candidates having lost their deposits was that the people of Prince Edward Island were not sufficiently educated along C.C.F. lines. I am not finding fault with his way of expressing himself, but I presume he meant that we did not know the C.C.F. party well enough. There is a contradiction here, because the people of Prince Edward Island turned down the Tory party because they knew them too well.\nTo get back to the Tory member for Queens, his speech was indeed mournful and bewildered. The other day he told the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that he and the minister had both done well for the province of Prince Edward Island. I think it was ingratitude on his part to ignore the senior member for Queens (Mr. Douglas). I am reminded of the traveller in iEsop\'s fable who picked up a frozen snake and placed it in his bosom, and after it had warmed up a little it stung him to death. I was surprised to hear such a speech made in this house, especially at a time when the province of Prince Edward Island has never been as prosperous. In fact it looks sometimes as though this is a period of uncontrolled prosperity.\nIn his speech yesterday the only minister praised by the hon. member was the former minister of fisheries, the late Hon. Mr. Bridges. I suppose he thinks the only good Liberals are dead ones.\nThe Tory member for Queens deplores the fact that we have not more cold storage plants in Prince Edward Island. His party has been in power in Prince Edward Island, and if he were in his seat tonight I would ask him if he could point to one cold storage plant that the Conservative party ever built in Prince Edward Island. There are in my constituency about five potato warehouses which were built for the benefit of the potato growers and the Liberal party built every one of them. There is one in Souris costing $200,000, another of the same kind in Georgetown, another in Elmira, another in St. Andrews, and another one being built in Morell-all built under a Liberal administration. Not one of those cold storage plants was built by the Conservative party. The Liberals built every one of them. I should like the Tory member for Queens to point out\nsomething that the Conservatives have done in Prince Edward Island, or anywhere else for that matter.\nHe also spoke about highways. We have a great many highways in Prince Edward Island, hundreds of miles of paved roads running from one end of the province to the other, and the Conservative party did not build one foot of them. They did attempt at one time to build a few miles; but they did not seem to understand how to do it; the frost destroyed the road, and the work had to be all done over again by a succeeding Liberal government.\nHe also spoke about foxes and reefers. I do not know exactly where his word "reefer" came from, but there is a warm jacket which is known as a reefer and perhaps that is why they call the warm cars reefers. I suggest to my hon. friend that he get one of these reefer coats, if he can get one large enough to button, and then get one of these fox furs and put it around his neck, and then he would not have to do so much talking in the house. We would all know what he stood for-reefers and fox furs.\nOne strange thing he did say, that all the money that was spent on plants in Prince Edward Island during the war was $1,277. As a matter of fact, there was more money spent in Prince Edward Island for its size than in any other province. Millions of dollars were spent there by the then minister of national defence because he was a member for the province. Millions of dollars were spent on two or three airports. I did not get much in my constituency, but I got elected at the next election. What I did get was an air raid telephone line all along the north shore of my constituency, and after the war was over, the government gave that to the people. It served several parishes. That alone must have cost many thousands of dollars, so that I cannot understand where my hon. friend gets his figure of $1,277.\nThe Tory member for Queens also complains about our national park and says that the roads leading to it are not good enough. I ask him who built the national park there? What is the national park to any Tory? It was built by the Liberal government, but the Tories can go there, of course. But they never put it there, and they never would put it there. There is one highway to the park. My hon. friend need not complain because his party never did anything like that in our province at least.\nSpeaking about reefer cars, I should like to put a statement on Hansard with regard to', 'The Address-Mr. Grant\nreefer cars in Prince Edward Island. This is taken from the Department of Agriculture in Prince Edward Island:\nDuring the crop season of 1947 there were 8,835 carloads of potatoes ferried across the straits by the Canadian National Railways.\nDuring the same season 858 carloads of turnips were ferried across, making a total of 9,393 cars of potatoes and turnips ferried across the straits.\nSo the Tory member for Queens had a big job on his hands in arranging for all these cars. Of course he had the assistance of the Minister of Transport, but he had to work pretty hard himself. The minister is a hard worker too,\nbut I do not think he could ever get along without the aid of his parliamentary assistant, the Tory member tor Queens.\nOn motion of Mr. Grant the debate was adjourned.']
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) asked a question regarding transportation for wives and dependent members of families of members of parliament over the railways of Canada.
I would reply by saying that members of the House of Commons are entitled by law to free transportation upon all railway trains in Canada. This is by virtue of section 346 of the Railway Act, 1919. Free transportation to dependent members of the families of members of the House of Commons is issued under authority of section 345(c) of the Railway Act.
I am informed by the Canadian National Railways that trip passes issued for their trains to dependent members of the families of members of the House of Commons bear no restriction whatever. The Canadian Pacific Railway, however, advise that trip passes such as I have mentioned are restricted in so far as travel on trains 6 and 15 between Montreal and Toronto is concerned, and trains 355 and 356 between Montreal and Quebec. The company states however that if a member will make known to them at the time a pass is requested that any one of these particular trains is to be used, the restrictions will be removed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why should it be there at all?



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 1, 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. Cold-well.
Mr. W. G. BLAIR (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to deliver this speech on health during national health week in Canada, but unfortunately I did not have the opportunity of doing so. During national health week our attention was drawn to the importance of health through articles in the press, ever the radio, by public meetings and by educational programs. Every means was used to direct the attention of the Canadian public to the importance of health, both for the elimination of disease and suffering, and from the standpoint of building a stronger Canadian nation. The House of Commons is one place in particular where this question should be discussed fully. It is not a subject which is commonly debated in the house, except for a few short hours when estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare are under consideration.
Today medical science has made the world healthier than it has ever been. But what has been accomplished in scientific medicine is small when we consider the future possibilities of preventing disease, alleviating suffering and prolonging human life. The best definition of an ideal situation regarding health is found in the constitution of the world health organization, which states:
Enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being, without distinction as to race, political belief, economic or social conditions.
We in Canada might well regard this as our objective so far as the health of the Canadian people is concerned. At different times in the House of Commons I have quoted statistics and placed on record figures to show that we have been lax in dealing with a problem of such marked importance to our people. There has been little change in the statistics, although there are some encouraging features. There has been a drop in the maternal and infantile mortality rate, but still more work can be done in these and other fields of national
5849-113J
The Address-Mr. Blair

health. While educational programs have shown rich benefits, we are still faced with the problem of opportunity to receive necessary treatment.
A year ago I drew the attention of the house to the high cost of hospitalization and treatment. I pointed out at that time that the costs were becoming so high that the average citizen could not afford to pay for hospital treatment. This condition has not improved; and with the rising cost of living it has become much worse. We are still faced with the high cost of hospital construction, the maintenance of existing hospitals, and the shortage of nursing staff. Statistics in the various provinces differ. We must realize in investigating these statistics that the health of a Canadian citizen in any one province is as much a matter of importance to the Canadian nation as the health of a Canadian in any other province.
Even if we have made advances in the matter of infantile mortality, there is no reason to feel complacent. Our infant mortality rate for the year 1945, the last year for which I have the figures, stands at 51 per thousand live births. The rate in the United States is 38. In fact New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, England and Denmark all have lower infantile mortality rates than we have. I draw attention to the difference in the infantile mortality rate in the United States and in Canada, that is, the United States with 38 and Canada with 51 per 1,000 live births. This is something difficult to comprehend in view of the fact that the United States has such large cities and urban centres. In 1945, when the dominion rate was 51, the provinces had the following rates:
Ontario	 41
British Columbia	 42
Alberta	 43
Saskatchewan	 44
Prince Edward Island	 45
Manitoba	 48
Nova Scotia	 53
Quebec	 62
New Brunswick	 71
In 1945 we lost 14,823 infants, a large percentage of whom could have been saved by adequate treatment and care. The matter of an immigration policy absorbs much of the time of this house, but in losing those 15,000 children we lost the finest type of little immigrants that could come into this country. They were children of French, English, Irish and Scotch parentage, they were the children of those other hardy races which came to Canada and helped to build up this country. While such conditions exist the saving of such little citizens should receive priority in parlia-
mentary discussion over debates on immigration. An immigration policy is necessary but such a policy is unsound when we are forced to replace 15,000 little Canadian citizens with people brought in from other lands. I am not averse to an immigration policy and the bringing in of citizens from other lands, but I feel that in carrying out such a policy we should also pay attention to the 15,000 little immigrants who came into this country in that year.
The number of infants dying from communicable diseases in 1945 stood at about the same rate as in former years. In that year the number of deaths was 1,040. A large number of those small children could have been saved by immunization. If preventive measures had been taken we could have saved many of them, but the difficulty is that preventive measures are not equally available in all parts of Canada. At the beginning of my speech I referred to the shortage of hospital facilities. We have generally believed in Canada that 4-5 beds per hundred of population was sufficient for our needs, but the number of hospital beds throughout the province varies from three per hundred in Prince Pldward Island to seven and eight per hundred in Alberta and British Columbia. Even in those provinces with the greatest number of beds there are many hospitals with long waiting lists.
The costs of hospitalization have increased tremendously but the value of the services given in hospital has also increased tremendously. The average stay in hospital has dropped from about twenty days to around nine days per patient. However, it is a fact that today many people are faced with costs which are difficult to meet, especially by people in the lower income tax brackets. It is unfortunate that in a country with a scattered population we cannot go as far as is necessary to meet the needs of the people. Costs are high not only in existing hospitals but in those areas where extra accommodation is required. Construction costs have reached an almost prohibitive figure.
Under present conditions the cost of providing new hospital accommodation is around $8,000 to $9,000 per bed. At that rate the construction of a fifty-bed hospital will cost almost half a million dollars, which is a heavy debt for many small municipalities or towns to assume. According to a return made by !he Department of National Health and Welfare, as of June. 1947, we still required 5,000 beds for tubercular patients. It is impossible to eliminate tuberculosis or put on an all-out program for the prevention and cure of tuber-

The Address-Mr. Blair
culosis as long as such shortages exist. It is admitted that there is an increased demand for hospitalization and that the demand for hospitalization far exceeds the supply at the present time. This causes considerable hardship, and it means that there is a lack of proper care. Because of the shortage of nurses, which totals approximately 10,000, the staffing of new or existing hospitals is very difficult.
Many hospital boards have planned new building projects or extensions but the cost is entirely beyond their financial means. In order properly to take care of sickness in this dominion the distribution of Canadian doctors from province to province and from urban to rural areas must be considered. Most urban districts have an adequate supply of doctors, but according to a return from the Department of National Health and Welfare, the following ratio of doctors to population exists:
Persons
per
doctor
In cities of 150,009 and up	 665
In cities of 30,000 to 150,000	 669
In cities of 10,000 to 30,000	 857
In communities of 10,000 and under .. 1,300
According to a survey of physicians in Canada as of July, 1946, the distribution is as follows:
Number Persons of	per
physicians physician
Prince Edward Island ..	74	1,243Nova Scotia	
492	1,262New Brunswick	
293	1,597Quebec	
3,334	1,068Ontario	
4.752	843Manitoba	
706	1,042Saskatchewan	
562	1,504Alberta	
076	1.222British Columbia	
1,012	938
It is estimated that at the end of 1947 there were in Canada 13,419 active physicians, which with an estimated population of 12,300,000 gives us one physician for every 916 of population. This situation is not as bad as it first appears. Urban areas have a concentration of hospitals and specialists and the statistics show that from twenty to fifty per cent of the patients are from rural areas. We should take steps to make the conditions and financial awards of those doctors practising in out-oftown areas more satisfactory in order that the younger group of doctors starting to practise may be induced to settle in rural districts.
It is not my intention to present to parliament health statistics which I have given in previous years. The conditions have not varied greatly and the percentages are practically the same. Some action has been taken in the matter of cancer research by the Department of National Health and Welfare. This is a
step in the right direction, in view of the annual death rate in Canada of over 14,000 citizens from this terrible disease. Research should be given all possible encouragement and treatment facilities so broadened that all citizens may have the opportunity for early diagnosis and treatment.
I am not impressed by the so-called total war on arthritis, as announced by the department. During the last session of parliament when the matter of arthritis came up in the course of a debate on health estimates, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) stated that a conference of government and professional authorities would be called-I quote the minister's own words- "to see if we cannot provide some co-ordinating authority to carry on in the field of arthritis". We must remember that there are some 600,000 sufferers from this disease, of whom 125,000 are crippled, either bed or wheel-chair patients, without any hope of gainful employment. Many have spent all their available funds in hospitalization or on long and expensive treatment. Rheumatic disease is the cause of one-sixth of all industrial invalidism. Since up to the present there is no specific cure, it has been viewed in a spirit of hopelessness. It has been misunderstood, described by many medical terms, and is often confused with rheumatic fever. There is a tendency to group all the diseases of this nature under the common term "rheumatism". Rheumatic fever is most frequent in the young from five to fifteen years of age and often leaves a damaged heart. Many of the most destructive forms of arthritis cripple the patient between the ages of twenty and forty, which is the period of greatest productivity. Millions of dollars have been spent annually by sufferers from rheumatism. It is obvious that, since there is no single method of treatment, there is no specific cure. Every effort should be made to save these patients from crippling, apart from the relief of pain and suffering. We should not consider them hopeless.
The result of the conference on arthritis in Ottawa last November was a decision to carry out the program of arthritis in the Department of Veterans Affairs hospital at Sunnybrook. Arthritis exists from coast to coast; we find these unfortunate patients in the wards and rooms of all our public hospitals. It may be possible to do research at Sunnybrook, but D.V.A. hospitals could not possibly accommodate all the arthritis patients seeking admission. There is no provision, even in Sunnybrook, for female patients. The only women patients obtaining entrance at Sunnybrook are a few army nurses who were unfortunate enough to develop this disease. I
The Address-Mr. Blair

question the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to handle the situation. They have not on the staffs of their hospitals sufficient physicians and personnel trained in arthritis to carry out such a program effectively. There is a marked shortage of physicians trained1 in arthritis clinics. Even if the D.V.A. undertakes to train men in the treatment of arthritis, these men will later on, when they go out to run their own offices, have no access to such equipment-and some of it is very expensive-or to facilities for treatment. There are in the dominion many general hospitals and many good physicians. Under present conditions with the D.V.A. arthritis clinic located in Sunnybrook, these men are shut off from all help and assistance. Every general hospital and every physician has a percentage of arthritis patients. I speak from my own knowledge. It is a problem for all general hospitals in Canada. The patients are there demanding treatment, and the doctors and the staff of these hospitals, and the general practitioners throughout Canada, should be given help. We must not forget that we have 125,000 invalids or semi-invalids among 600,000 arthritis sufferers. While I admit the necessity of research, yet I suggest action and help for all arthritis sufferers. Even if we have not yet a specific cure, many of these cases could be saved from crippling disabilities by adequate treatment.
I have criticized this set-up of the Department of National Health and Welfare at Sunnybrook, and having criticized it, I feel that I should offer some constructive suggestions for dealing with this question.
1.	There should be increased facilities for treatment in the hospitals throughout the country.
2.	There should be sufficient beds for these patients; physiotherapy, equipment and trained personnel.
3.	There should be institutions for the special care of arthritis patients where they can receive specialized diagnosis and treatment.
4.	Medical colleges should teach the care of arthritis to students and internes so that when they go out in practice they have a working knowledge of the subject and the basic principles of diagnosis and treatment.
5.	Medical schools and teaching hospitals could be made the basis of arthritic centres instead1 of limiting the efforts to the D.V.A.
6.	There are no places in Canada where men can be trained for this specialty and therefore grants should be given to universities to train suitable men for teaching purposes. This could take the form of travelling fellowships for professional men who desire to take training.

In the consideration of matters affecting national health, proper and adequate nutrition is of marked importance. This applies particularly to veterans suffering disabilities from war services, and those veterans who by reason of their age receive the veterans' allowances. War veterans' pensions and allowances must be increased to the poiifc, having regard to the high cost of living, vwhere the veterans can maintain a decent standard of living. Old age pensions under present conditions are not sufficient to maintain a standard of life of which we can feel proud. There are many, and I have particularly noted this fact, especially in the age group 67, 68 and 69, who, by reason of physical disabilities and age, are deserving of allowances but under present legislation are not eligible.
Speaking on the matter of health, I wish to direct the attention of the house to certain regulations made by the Department of Transport, radio communications division. These are regulations governing wave lengths for electrotherapeutie equipment for use by the medical profession. This is a type of treatment which has come into common use in Canada and the United States and which gives beneficial results.
In December, 1946. a new wave length was set at 10-98 metres for medical diathermy machines. A few manufacturers sent in machines for tests, both in Washington and in Ottawa, and received approval of this wave length. Under a new regulation passed on October 27, 1947, however, another set of rules was given by the radio division of the Department of Transport which changed the wave length from 10-98 to 11-06 metres. Manufacturers making these machines, and physicians purchasing them, have had to change the type of machines used.
The Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Hospital Council both made protests to the government over the short time limit allowed in Canada, that is, until January 1, 1948. It is true there was considerable notice given of these requirements at the time, but hospitals have found it difficult to obtain the equipment which they would like, and that which is available is in short supply.
The federal communications commission of the United States allows five years, from July 1, 1948, for users of these machines to conform to the new regulations, but in Canada the users of these machines were simply cut off on January 1, 1948. The United States allows five years in which these machines can be replaced. The regulations axe supposed to be international, yet doctors or hospitals in cities close to our border, for instance in

The Address-Mr. Blair
Plattsburg, may continue to use old machines while in Montreal they may not, and naturally a machine just across the line would interfere just as much as one in Canada.
I would like to read and place on the record a resolution passed by the Canadian Hospital Council in October, 1947.
At the Winnipeg meeting, the Canadian Hospital Council passed the following resolution unanimously:
Whereas the recent announcement by the Department of Transport that all eleetrothera-peutic equipment emanating interference must be either completely screened or replaced by equipment so constructed that it w'ill disseminate waves on three designated wave lengths alone; and
Whereas it will be exceedingly difficult for the hospitals to comply with this regulation in the time stipulated, partly because of the difficulty of obtaining adequate screening or ia sufficient number of properly constructed new type machines and also because of the marked expense involved; and	_
Whereas, under similar conditions, the United States government permits the hospitals a period of five years within which to replace the present machines, and interference from machines in the United States will affect Canadian reception during that period;
Be it resolved that the Canadian Hospital Council respectfully request the Canadian government to so modify the regulations respecting radio interference by elecitrotherapeutie equipment that the use of old equipment be permissible for a period of another five years but that all new equipment purchased during that period be of the new crystal controlled type.
If Canadian hospitals have to replace this equipment with new machinery, or if they have to go to the trouble and expense of screening this equipment, it will involve a good deal of money, and hospitals at the present time are having their own difficulties financing their own institutions, without submitting to a rule of this type.
The Canadian radio department is not equipped to find out whether certain machines do interfere. They have one testing equipment in Canada, and that is in Ottawa. This is an important matter because there are about 10.000 diathermy machines in Canada. Time should be given to permit manufacturers to try to develop some means of converting the old machines now in use to the new wave length and thus save hospitals and doctors thousands of dollars.
Under present conditions a physician or a hospital using a machine since January 1, 1948, must either purchase a new machine with the new wave length or go to the great expense of shielding by a lead-lined room. The use of screened treatment rooms in hospitals is cheaper, but it prevents the taking of these machines to the rooms and to the hospital wards, and even if doctors and hospitals can
afford the investment of replacing old machines with new ones built to the new specifications of wave length, it will probably be two or three years before sufficient machines can be manufactured to meet the demand.
The departments state that they do not contemplate extending the above date for suppression of excessive radiation. It is of peculiar interest to note that while radio communications for ships at war, aeroplanes and radar are now considered important in peacetime, there was no move during the war to stop the use of these machines when our communications were vital. The regulations are supposed to be international, but the United States has given a five-year extension. In view of this there is no reason why radio experts or the technicians of the radio department-of Canada should use such arbitrary measures in dealing with a matter where such equipment is used for the purpose of treatment by Canadian doctors and Canadian hospitals.
In the early part of this speech I dealt with certain conditions regarding lack of hospital facilities, shortage of nurses, and opportunity for treatment. I pointed out the glaring need for action as regards our heavy infantile mortality. In previous speeches I have called the attention of the house to the need for early action to correct these deficiencies in health matters in Canada.
As each province has control of legislation affecting health matters, it is very apparent that the provinces must receive assistance in order that a common plan for the benefit of all Canada may be produced. Provinces have different standards of health and varying facilities. There have been reports from Ottawa of a national health insurance scheme. The government has taken the position, if one may judge from some of their speakers, that owing to the absence of financial agreement between the Drew government in Ontario and the Duplessis government in Quebec, action is prevented. The premiers of these two provinces have both on several occasions in public strongly urged, and intimated their willingness to participate in further discussion of these matters in a dominion-provincial conference. There is no doubt that there is a certain amount of stubbornness in the government at Ottawa which prevents a resumption of the conference. To me this is something difficult to comprehend. The saving of life and the relief of human suffering should receive consideration above any political bickering.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Tucker) made a speech in Toronto early in February in which he intimated that Ottawa is not prepared to
-rter

The Address-Mr. Blair
go ahead with health insurance. I wish to quote from the Toronto Star of February 4. Incidentally, this was headed, "No health insurance, Tucker from the prairies says." I quote:
*Speaking before the Liberal businessmen's club of Toronto, he said that administration of the scheme would be left to the provinces, which would pay 20 per cent. The balance of 20 per cent would be split evenly between the municipalities and the individuals participating.
Incidentally I notice this is another time when people seem to make very important announcements outside parliament. It was amazing to read this in the Star. Continuing:
"Cost would be about $30 per person per year, of which the individual would contribute about $3," Mr. Tucker said.
Possibly this too is news to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said today that the matter was under consideration.


William Gourlay Blair: To continue the quotation:
It would include all present health services as well as all branches of medical, surgical, nursing, dental, hospital, pharmaceutical and optometrical services. The individual would have a free choice of doctor and hospital. Outlying areas would be served by travelling clinics.
He intimated that the failure to proceed with a health program-and we have it again -was due to the absence of a financial agreement between the dominion and the provinces. I think I read a speech made by the minister in Quebec, and he mentioned something about a red herring. Possibly he felt that, being near the maritime districts, he should say something about fisheries too. I hope this portfolio is not saddled on him.
The member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), in an amazing statement, is reported as saying that the dominion is prepared to pay sixty per cent of the cost of the health insurance scheme. Under this the provinces would pay twenty per cent and the remaining twenty per cent would be split between the municipality and the individual. The cost would be about $30 per person annually and the individual would contribute only S3. This looks like an entirely new scheme if the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs has been quoted correctly; or it may be possible that he has been talking about something without knowledge of the subject. In order to achieve the desired result from the standpoint of the Canadian nation, nothing can be done, nor can a proper plan be brought into existence, without an agreement and the consent of all the provinces in matters of taxation. It is obvious that any

other proposal would be only a partial plan, or a failure, in so far as all Canada is concerned.
The time has come, Mr. Speaker, to enunciate and put into effect a national health program for Canada. We have fallen far short of the objective of the world health organization. The objective plan of this party is one which will bring physical and mental health to every Canadian citizen, regardless of race, economic status or geographical position. There are certain basic features necessary at present to any plan and without which a plan cannot succeed. In our judgment grants should be given for hospital construction and expansion. Existing health insurance plans should be investigated with a view to their possible amalgamation, and enlarged as the basis for a contributory health insurance plan which should be inaugurated. That is, we would take the best features out of all the plans. This would make health services available to all at a minimum of expense. We believe that there must be a free choice between doctor and patient, and that in order for the plan to be successful it must be brought into effect with the full co-operation of dominion, provincial and municipal governments, and the medical association. I mention the medical association because in any plan that is adopted, the doctors must not become civil servants. With this full co-operation, there is every reason to believe that this will be the solution to the problems which I have mentioned today. Sickness is costing the people of Canada a billion dollars a year in loss of production, absence from work, and cost of illness. A health insurance plan will be expensive, but above all it will pay dividends in the relief of human suffering. This is not a time for political bickering and inaction. The health of the citizens of Canada should be the paramount consideration.
Medical science has today reached a high standard. It has opened up new fields of treatment in the prevention of disease which were unknown a few years ago. We must take full advantage of all that science offers for the relief of human suffering. The health of the people of Canada should be a matter for the federal government to consider far above many of the affairs which now engage the attention of parliament. In six years of war we lost 45.000 men. who were either killed in battle or died of disease; but in the years following the war we still lose thousands of Canadian people whose death could have been prevented. We were successful in the battle against our enemies in the war in the cause of freedom. We should continue the battle

The Address-Mr. J. H. Matthews
against disease which is causing such tremendous casualties among our people. We should fight not only for better facilities for treatment and cure of disease, but also for those other things upon which health is dependent- elimination of slums, facilfties of education, and adequate nutrition. We must realize that the raising of the standard of living is an important factor in the national problem of health. We must realize above all that little in this life is of importance without health.


Mr. J. H. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: In rising to participate in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring one or two matters to the attention of the house.
First of all I want to refer briefly to a bill which was passed in this house during the 1917 session of parliament. It was a bill designed to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act. I remember, sir, that there was a prolonged and very interesting debate at that time and many divergent views were expressed, partly because of a lack of a definite government policy in regard to people of the Chinese race. The leader of this C.C.F. group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) at that time expressed his keen disappointment in the bill because it failed to carry out the promise made by the Prime Minister, who had given out a press statement saying that "the effect of the repeal will be to remove all discrimination against the Chinese on account of race and to bring Chinese persons under the general provisions of the Immigration Act, and no longer under legislation applying exclusively to persons of Chinese origin."
The bill which we passed, sir, did not remove all discrimination against people of the Chinese race. It did permit, however, the entry of the wife and children of Chinese residents in Canada who had become Canadian citizens; but the discrimination was continued against those who had not become Canadian citizens. I have in my hand at this moment a clipping from the columns of the Ottawa Journal, dated Monday, February 16, which is headed with these significant words:	"No Chinese
wives have entered Canada since ban lifted." It reads as follows:
Resources Minister Glen was told today that not a single wife or child of a Chinese-Canadian citizen has entered Canada since it became legally possible nearly a year ago.
.An eight-man delegation from the committee for the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act made that statement to Mr. Glen, Minister of Immigration, while urging repeal of an order in council which prevents wives and children in China from joining Chinese here who are not Canadian citizens. Repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act about a year ago technically allowed in the families of those who had become citizens.
In answer to their charge that the change had so far meant nothing, Mr. Glen said the department was only getting to the point where administrative difficulties could be cleared up and an immigration officer appointed to go to Hong Kong. The officer had only been chosen this week.
However, it would probably be some time before there was any movement of families because an office would have to be found in Hong Kong and there would be other problems.
At a press conference following what he described as "<a sympathetic hearing," Irving Himel, of Toronto, legal counsel, estimated that something fewer than one hundred applications for family movements must be on file with the government.
The delegation criticized the continuing prohibition against families of non-citizens as unnatural and morally wrong and in contradiction of a stand Canada had taken in united nations councils in arguing that husbands and wives should be allowed bo live together as a matter of principle.	[DOT]
Reverend Doctor A. E. Armstrong, of Toronto, head of the Canadian council of churches, said the Protestant churches were against the government han. It was estimated by the delegation that repeal of the order in council would mean the coming to Canada of between three thousand and four thousand Chinese during a ten-year period.
It would appear that the members of this delegation feel that things have been moving altogether too slowly as far as the admission of Chinese wives and children to Canada is concerned. I can quite understand how difficult it is for a department to act rapidly and function properly in a world as dislocated as our world is today, but I too would express the hope that every effort might now be put forth to facilitate the reunion of these long-separated families. But this is not my only appeal. In the lifting of the ban against the admission of wives and children of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin, Canada took a definite step forward, but only a step. She could have gone and I believe should have gone further. On the highest of moral and spiritual grounds we should have permitted the entrance of the wives and children of all Chinese now resident in Canada, whether or not they have become Canadian citizens. In fact I believe such a step would go far toward leading more of our Chinese residents to seek to become citizens of Canada. The fact that the Protestant churches of Canada are against the perpetuation of this ban is significant indeed, and I believe should carry considerable weight with the government. I believe, too, that the strength and soul of the Roman Catholic church also support this appeal. As I understand it the Roman Catholic church has always taken a very strong stand on the question of divorce, holding inviolate the sanctity of marriage. Yet there are Chinese
1782	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. J. H. Matthews
scattered across all the provinces of this dominion who have not seen their wives and children for many years. We hold up our hands in horror and disgust when we learn that in spite of our diplomatic representations Russia refuses to allow her womenfolk to leave that country and join their Canadian husbands. As a nation Canada has taken a strong stand in regard to these matters in the united nations assembly; yet our actions here at home are a direct negation of the very high principles we profess.
In making this appeal to the government today I want to make it quite clear that I am not advocating the unrestricted immigration of all classes of Chinese into Canada. I only ask for the admission of the wives and children of Chinese who are now resident in Canada, because I do feel that we have no moral right to keep families apart, as we have done in the past. We are proud to call ourselves a Christian nation. Then let us not act deliberately in an un-Christian way toward these people, remembering the words of Him who said, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
The second matter I want to deal with at this time has to do with the work of radiotelegraph operators on the British Columbia coast. To introduce this matter I should like to read another short clipping, this time culled from the columns of the C.C.F. News of Thursday, February 19, and coming from Vancouver, British Columbia:
Union shows need for radio operators on coastal ships
Discontinuance of protection afforded the travelling public and ships' crews, through elimination of full-time radiotelegraph operators, is forecast by a recommendation of the new maritime commission.
Division 59 of the commercial telegraphers' union (AFL), whose members include most of the radio operators carried on B.C. coastal passenger vessels, has been pressing Ottawa fo-r stricter regulations to insure proper radio service on these ships. In the latest brief submitted it. is pointed out that some ships have never maintained an efficient radio department while on many it has been voluntary and limited to a radiophone with no certified operator.
The Canada 'Shipping Act governing these conditions is so full of loopholes, according to a union spokesman, that it is actually permissible for a ship of any size and capacity to operate anywhere on the B.C. coast entirely without radio, by merely arranging her schedule suitably. A number of B.C. coast ships do just that, while others flout this archaic law by carrying one man in a combined position of purser-operator or freight clerk-operator, in which radio duties are side-tracked. Less than a dozen B.C. coast ships maintain a proper radio service, it is reported.

The CTU's protests against this disgraceful situation have been repeatedly turned down by Ottawa for several years, and when it recently put in specific requests for amending the act to eliminate these evils the Minister of Transport replied "The (maritime commission) does not believe that coastal vessels should be compelled to have a full-time radio operator, but it thinks that the duties of the radio operator should be combined with those of one of the mates or purser or freight clerks."
The brief submitted by the local operators pointed out the thousands of lives and huge value of property that has been saved from loss at sea over some thirty-five years by the availability of radio communications; it also showed some of the shortcomings of radiophones and pointed out the vital need of having certified operators giving full time to the radio service.
It reminded the department that on the B.C. coast this service costs the ship but $11 a day, and some of these ships carry over 1,900 persons. But Ottawa apparently does not consider the safety of 1.000 persons and a ship worth up to several million dollars justifies demanding an $ll-a-day service.
Discontinuance of full-time operators would also result in the laying-off of the present experienced staff, most of whom have given over a quarter of a century of excellent service. Many of them are veterans of one war at sea, some of two. Curtailment of radiotelegraph service on B.C. coast vessels has already hit two of these men, while further reductions appear imminent.
As one who in years past has travelled considerably up and down the Pacific coast of British Columbia, I feel disturbed by this move to eliminate gradually the radio operators from our coastal vessels. This move may not greatly disturb people in the inland areas of Canada, but those whose duties take them down to the sea in ships certainly cannot view this trend with any degree of complacency.
The oceans that lap our shores have given to us far too many tragic marine disasters, with their appalling loss of life and property; and the development of radio, and the presence of radio equipment on board, serviced by experienced operators, has done much to allay the fears of the travelling public. I believe we should be extremely careful just now lest in the interest of so-called economy we destroy the very protection we have so consistently built up.
Our maritime commission is a newly established body. They have still to prove themselves before the Canadian public. It would be regrettable indeed if their earlier recommendations should produce such a disastrous effect. Radio contacts, whether on land or sea or in the air, are priceless in times of emergency and need.
The suggestion, then, that the duties of radio operator should be combined with those of one of the mates, or the purser, or the freight clerk, is simply not good enough. A

The Address-Mr. J. L. Gibson
sea tragedy may occur, and the S.O.S. signal might go unheard while other required duties were being performed by the radio operator. Therefore I have no hesitation in telling parliament that this is not economy at all. It is sheer madness, and I am absolutely opposed to it. I would go further and demand that instead of dispensing with the full-time service of radio operators, all vessels should be equipped with radar facilities, and that the shipping laws should be amended to require each vessel to carry as part of its personnel a man who is able not only to operate these devices, but also to repair them when necessary.
What is $11 a day in comparison with the safety of a ship and the lives of all on board? I leave it to hon. members to answer this for themselves. I can well imagine the outcry that would be heard if it were suggested that radio operators should be removed from our air lines. I know every effort has been put forth in the past to make Canadians air-minded. Our Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Air Lines have built up for themselves a most enviable reputation for safety, security and service.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Does the hon. member know of any instance in, the last decade in which a ship was lost because there were no wireless facilities either on the rescuing ship or on the ship in distress?


James Herbert Matthews: No, I do not know of any particular instance. But we do know that we add to the risk if we have a radio operator attending to duties other than those of radio operation. In such circumstances he is not going to be on duty at a time when a radio signal may come in. It is on that ground I would oppose the removal of these men, or giving them extra duties in addition to radio operating. A vital and integral part of these air line organizations is the radio operators who are on duty every hour of the day and night, maintaining contact and enabling these great organizations to function efficiently and well.
Yes, whether they be on land or sea or in the air, I pay tribute to the radio operators who quietly and unobtrusively make their contribution to the world of travel and of business. I definitely do not want to see this splendid body of men go out in order that some shipping company may save a few dollars in operating costs. Very humbly I commend these suggestions to the maritime commission.


Mr. J. L. GIBSON (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has covered a 5849-1141
wide range of subjects, some of which I should think might better be discussed when departmental estimates are before the committee. However, there are two or three matters which to my mind are urgent and which I should like now to bring to the attention of the house.
The first subject which comes to mind, and which I think requires some discussion, is that of veterans' pensions. I entertain the fond hope that before the government brings in its final bill covering veterans' pensions it will reconsider its most recent and, may I say, its most generous decision to date; it is not actually generous, but certainly it is more generous than the announcement made on December 19, which to my mind was a shabby statement. The recent announcement was somewhat better; still I do not think it is adequate to meet the need it is supposed to cover.
I have heard many excellent speeches from all sides of the house. Perhaps I should not mention any in particular, but I can say that I received a great deal of information from the speeches of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) made an excellent speech on the subject. I do not confine my comments to members of the Progressive Conservative party, although those are the names which come first to my mind. I think it is unfortunate that on so many occasions in the house we should witness the spectacle of gallant soldiers urging better treatment of their comrades. I believe all hon. members are interested in doing the right thing for those who did so much for us in both world wars.
Today I thought I should like to express in some measure the views of the average civilian in Canada who did not have the opportunity or privilege of wearing the king's uniform in either war. I believe that the civilians of Canada have done particularly well. It may be a strange thing to say, but it seems to me that, as a result of world war I and world war II, our standard of living has advanced measurably. I do not think the same thing can be said of the conditions faced by our veterans, particularly those who suffered disabilities through fighting for us.
I often feel a sense of shame-I am sure many other civilians have the same experience -when I associate with veterans in the legion and other organizations, particularly with pensioners; I have a feeling that we have not done as much as we should have done. I think it must be admitted that civilians in Canada have better homes and better jobs. Many
The Address-Mr. J. L. Gibson

companies have started insurance and pension schemes for their employees. Our standards of education have advanced. The government has done its utmost to see that no undue profits were made out of the war; but, despite that, many companies have been able to extend their plants and build up financial reserves. There are also refundable taxes which will be coming back to them in due course.
Since 1925 there has been an increase of approximately 16 per cent in pensions, but actually this represents a decrease in purchasing power. We must face up to the fact that with the present rates of pension the disabled pensioner is forced to live in mean surroundings. The wife or widow of the pensioner must dress more shabbily than the average woman in our population. It means that most of their children receive an education inferior to that received by other children.
I do not believe that is the desire of civilians in Canada. I do not think that is all we want to do for these people who have done so much for us. At the same time I think most people fee! that the veterans of world war II who were not disabled have had a good deal. The government of the day has done an excellent job in re-establishing them in civilian life. I think every Canadian is glad to have participated in the putting up of the billion and a half dollars or so which we have invested in the rehabilitation of our veterans.
It is difficult for me to understand the niggardliness of the government in the present instance. On December 19 the announcement was made of an increase of $7,500,000 in veterans' pensions, but that was lumped in with the announcement of an increase of $17,500,000 in the pay of civil servants. In fairness to the veterans I think the increase in pensions warranted a separate statement. The Canadian people do not want to be misled and I do not think the government has any intention of trying to mislead them, but at the same time I think we should have had a separate statement.
As announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) recently, the pensions were increased by 16 per cent. The legion suggested an increase of 25 per cent as being fair and I think they were most reasonable in their request. I certainly appreciate the way in which the cabinet guards our money. It would be easy to accede to every demand for more of this and more of that, particularly when it might be a sound political move. I am certainly finding no fault with the way

in which the cabinet guards the taxpayers' money, but in this particular instance I think the cabinet has been too careful. I think the members of the cabinet should meet the wishes of the average Canadian citizen.
Those who stayed at home were able to earn big wages or make reasonably largo profits. As their contribution they were asked to invest in victory bonds. We have said to them, "We will pay you $400,000,000 a year as interest on the money you have lent to prosecute the war." We have also said, "Any time you want to renege you can go into the market place and for every $100 you lent you can get $102, or even S106 in some instances." Those people who lent money' to the government during the war are infinitely better off than those who went overseas to fight for us. Those veterans who sacrificed everything they' had, had no opportunity of participating in war profits. Some of them suffered permanent impairment of health and many of their widows must face tragically blasted lives. But we say to those people, "We cannot afford to pay' you one-quarter as much as we pay each y'ear to the people who lent money."
By paying out another $10,000,000 the country could meet the wishes of the Canadian Legion. We could do the right thing. I am sure there is not an hon. member who would not gladly' vote that money. I am sure there is not a taxpayer in Canada who would not be happy and honoured to pay that money. I want to make an appeal to the cabinet. They are all businessmen, and it is hard for me to understand why they are not ready to protect the investment that has been made in our veterans.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: They are mostly
lawyers.


John Lambert Gibson: That may be true, but I think most members of the legal profession are fair and possess good judgment. It seems to me that in this particular instance the cabinet is acting like a board of directors which is looking back on an unsuccessful operation and looking forward to bankruptcy'. I am quite sure that if this were something having to do with prairie wheat or hail insurance or freight rates or something like that, it would be found possible to take that 810,000,000 out of our consolidated revenue fund. This additional $10,000,000 would not bankrupt Canada. If we grant it to the veterans we can go home from this session of parliament feeling a great deal better than we do at the present time. As someone says, it is possible that some members of the government may come back again.


191S
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. J. L. Gibson
I should like to say a few words to the Prime Minister who unfortunately is not in his seat at the moment. He rarely calls mo in to consult with him, but I should like to bring to his attention the fact that British Columbia has no cabinet minister. In bringing up this matter I want to assure the house that I am not talking for myself. I am quite certain that hon. members in all corners of the house regret the passing to another place of our good friend, the former Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Right Hon. Ian A. Mackenzie. He was a good friend to all of us, and I know the veterans of Canada will long remember the advanced legislation on their behalf which he presented to this house. I myself wish him long life and many happy hours in his new abode in the senate. I want to say to that gallant soldier who replaces him as Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) that I am sure he will make a great contribution to the welfare of his comrades in the direction of the department of which he is how the head.
It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is about time that the folks back here in eastern Canada realized that British Columbia is getting to be a great big country. We have always had a vast area out there but have been short on population. Today we have over one million people in that province, and the highest per capita income of any people in Canada. The people of British Columbia are the highest taxpayers per capita in the whole dominion. British Columbia has also been extremely co-operative with the dominion. It took the lead in the dominion-provincial conference, and if there is any political pay-off British Columbia ought to do at least as well in cabinet representation as Ontario and Quebec. Quebec with its 3,000,000 people is favoured with six cabinet ministers in addition to the distinguished member who occupies the Speaker's chair. It seems to me that it is time that British Columbia was recognized for its stature and its worth by the appointment of two cabinet ministers.
Wilbert Ross Thatcher: If the hon. member will permit a question, does he suggest that the Prime Minister pick his cabinet ministers from within the house or outside?


John Lambert Gibson: I am loj'al enough to the members of the House of Commons to say I consider that the cabinet ministers should be picked from the membership of the house. I certainly feel that we have in this house all the cabinet ability in the world amongst the British Columbia members. I think of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), the senior representative for British Columbia, a man of great industry and large experience, and an acknowledged expert in Pacific coast fisheries. I think, too, of the distinguished member for Victoria, British Columbia (Mr. Mayhew), parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), a successful businessman who has made a worthwhile contribution to this house. No one can gainsay that he also is of cabinet limber.


Mr. McIVOR:: And the hon. member for Comox-AIberni (Mr. Gibson).


John Lambert Gibson: I think of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), the champion of the British Columbia farmers, and, as we all know in this house, an expert in verbal combat. I am sure that when the going got rough and the cabinet fell on troubled times the ready tongue of the hon. member for Fraser Valley would prove a valuable help. I do not think it is necessary to eulogize my good friend the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), because we are all well aware of his brilliant qualities. So I would say to the Prime Minister, -with such cabinet material at hand I sincerely trust that British Columbia -will not have long to wait for the announcement of the appointment to the cabinet of one of these distinguished gentlemen.
I come now to a matter that is of grave concern to business, large and small, in Canada. I come here from the constituency of Comox-AIberni, which is the great home of free enterprise in Canada. We have businesses there both very large and very small, and many in between. I think of the small loggers in my riding, owning probably only an axe, a saw and a pump jack. I think of the fishermen with their small boats, each of whom is a private enterpriser owning his own business and taking orders from no one. He wears no man's collar, not even a socialist collar. I think, too, of very large industries in my riding which have been most successful.
What concerns me is the apparent indifference of this free-enterprise government-I was going to say this so-called free-enterprise government, and I think that is better-to attacks on successful businessmen by irresponsible members of the house. I have been surprised that no minister felt called upon to defend from such attacks successful businessmen who are paying such a large proportion of the taxes which go into the public treasury and are doing all that free enterprise can do. I do not think ill-considered, derogatory remarks against successful businessmen,.
The Address-Mr. J. L. Gibson

coming particularly from my C.C.F. friends opposite, should be allowed to go unchallenged in this house. I do not consider it the duty of private members of the house to be rising in their places all the time and challenging these statements. It sometimes embarrasses me to have to rise myself to take a clip at some of my C.C.F. friends opposite, because I do not feel that I draw cabinet weight. But if I am to continue to do this kind of thing, perhaps something should be done about that. I often wonder if the government is ashamed of these businessmen who have done so much to build up this country, going into the markets of the world, competing in all quarters of the globe, bringing back to Canada as a result of their enterprise large profits and turning over a large portion of them to the dominion treasury. I find the government unwilling to defend that type of enterprise, and I do not think that is good enough. I trust that the members of the cabinet will take this matter into their consideration and see whether something cannot be done about it, because I am tired of having to take care of the C.C.F. myself.
I mention one specific instance. The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe) rose in his place the other day and referred to a prominent organization in my constituency as a gang. I do not think that is good enough. It might be true of some companies in Canada that I might help the hon. member to kick around, because there are companies that do not do everything they might do for their employees, and do not carry out their social obligations as they should. But the MacMillan organization is one of the mainsprings in the industrial life of Comox-Alberni and one of the answers to why the standard of living is so high in my constituency. This man MacMillan and his so-called gang paid 87,600,000 in taxes to the federal treasury and yet the hon. member for Regina City calls them a bunch of gangsters. Well, Mr. Speaker, if they are gangsters, that kind of gangsters is making a valuable contribution to our economy. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and, when I hear the hon. member for Regina City discuss business in British Columbia, I think he is in dire peril. I sometimes think that if our C.C.F. friends opposite continue to heckle our lumber operators as much in the future as they have in the past they might be surprised one day to find one of these operators coming to Regina and starting a box factory.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Let him come.


John Lambert Gibson: I can
warn my hon. friends that if they ever do, it will make their administration out there look very sorry, because they will find that far higher wages are being paid there than are paid in their box factory, and they will also find that besides paying dominion taxes, at the end of the year bonuses will be declared, such as the H. R. MacMillan Company declare.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Come and try it. Bring your hammer and saw and start working.


John Lambert Gibson: Let us
take a look at the operations of this company which the C.C.F. call gangsters. I am curious to let the public of Canada know what kind of people they consider to be gangsters. It might be worthwhile for the record. Last year the MacMillan export company, under price control in Canada, for fifty out of the fifty-two weeks, and, may I say, under contract with the United Kingdom at less than world prices-


An hon. MEMBER:: With escalator clauses in it.


John Lambert Gibson: The same as your wheat is sold, and we do not come asking for guarantees either. The company brought nearly $45,000,000 of foreign money into Canada last year.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: Canadian money.


John Lambert Gibson: Do you call South African money Canadian money? You are off there.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I am talking about Britain.


John Lambert Gibson: Does my hon. friend regret having lent money to them?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: No, but call it Canadian money.
* Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni): Is it not better to bring it back to Canada than have it go, to the United States? The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald) is a seaman, and he is fair enough, so that I think he would be the first to admit that this particular company took these 10,000-ton freighters built in 'Canada and provided the finest seamen's accommodations to be found on any ships flying the Canadian flag. That in itself is to their credit. They provided the men with the highest wages paid in any industry in Canada, the finest accommodation, the finest board, certainly far beyond anything known in eastern Canada or anywhere on the prairies.


An hon. MEMBER:: No horse meat.

The Address-Mr. J. L. Gibson


John Lambert Gibson: I have been, watching this Regina Leader-Post for some announcement on the bonuses that are given at the end of the year to the employees in the box factory, but nothing has been forthcoming at all. The hon. member for Regina City expresses concern over depletion. I would advise him, before he starts monkeying around with things like this in British Columbia, to look after timber conservation and soil erosion in Saskatchewan. That will occupy his attention for a long time.


Thomas John Bentley: After forty years of Liberal rule we need to. You are right there, brother.


John Lambert Gibson: As long as he is in the kindergarten stage in connection with lumber in British Columbia, he should stay with something he knows something about. This so-called gang have also played a great voluntary role in reforestation in British Columbia-[DOT]


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Nuts.


John Lambert Gibson: -and have also taken a leading part in insect and fire control. I can assure the hon. member, if he is worried about no lumber being available in British Columbia for years to come, that as long as he and I are around the country we shall have all the lumber we need: for granaries, and I hope, too, that when the people of Saskatchewan get over the mental aberration they have at the present time there will be plenty of lumber for good private homes owned by the common folks.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I think the hon. member wants to be fair-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I think the hon. member wants to be fair. I do not think the hon. member for Regina City described Mr. MacMillan as a gangster. I am not sure, but I do not think that is correct.


John Lambert Gibson: If you will look up Hansard you will find it was, "Mr. MacMillan and his gang".


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: He did not call him a gangster.


John Lambert Gibson: A gangster is a member of a gang.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is your interpretation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For an independent mem-oer you have quite a gang around you.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is the interpretation given by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, but it is not the interpretation of the hon. member for Regina City, and the- hon. gentleman should retract that. In fairness he should withdraw it.


John Lambert Gibson: I think that if anyone is referred to as a member of a gang he is a gangster.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The hon. member for Regina City did not say that. I must appeal to Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member should retract that statement, because the hon. member for Regina City did not call Mr. MacMillan a gangster.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I will not sit down.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted,


John Lambert Gibson: I will give my hon. friend the interpretation which I think is the right one.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The hon. member for Regina City did not say what the hon. member said.


William Ross Macdonald: I must insist that there are too many interruptions. The hon. member who has the floor should be allowed to continue his speech without so many interruptions.


Mr. PROBE:: Has he been quite parliamentary, Mr. Speaker?


John Lambert Gibson: I should like to give my own rough analysis of the operations of this gang, so called by the C.C.F., and see if anything in their fair province of Saskatchewan can show anything like a similar record. Last year, by this company's operations in the markets of the world, the dominion government received $7,682,000, for which the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) is very grateful. From Saskatchewan government enterprise he did not get anything. The employees who work for Mr. MacMillan and his corporation received double the Saskatchewan rate of wages, and on top of that they also received $1,382,000 in the form of cash bonuses and in funds set aside to care for their pensions. The shareholders at the same time received a cash dividend of $782,000, or 1-5 cents on each dollar's worth of business done. That left in the company's treasury approximately $6,000,000. And here is where socialist thinking goes off the rails. In the
The Address-Mr. Blanchette

first place, looking over at the socialist party there, I am sure they could not make 16,000,000 profit to start with. I do not think they have the experience-


An hon. MEMBER:: Or the brains.


John Lambert Gibson: I do not like to use the word " brains." They have not the experience or the initiative to run a business of that scope and make a profit of that kind. Certainly the record in Saskatchewan would not indicate that they could.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: You will find out in June.


John Lambert Gibson: With reference to the lumber business in British Columbia, I might say that during the war that was one thing which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) could bow his head for, because, as a matter of fact, I am sure he would say it is not a good thing for the government to undertake lumber business in British Columbia, as he will know from his own experience.
This $6,000,000 profit, which seems to be the cause of controversy among my socialist friends, is being reinvested in my riding to place another $6,000,000 there. There is only one reason in this world why this other $6,000,000 is coming to Comox-Alberni, and that is the fact that the people putting it in are quite sure there will never be a socialist government there.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: You haven't got a Liberal government there.


John Lambert Gibson: Just to finish off this particular subject, I want to say that the operations of this company, and hundreds of others like it in the riding, have all added up to a higher standard1 of living for the people there than in any other place in Canada. The reinvestment of the money that was made from the resources of the riding assures us for the future that these people working in the lumber industry will have jobs in perpetuity for themselves and their children. I feel that any time free enterprise companies such as these have to become the subject of criticism in this, house it is time something was .done about it.
*


Mr. J. A. BLANCHETTE (Compton):: My intention in taking part in this debate at this stage, Mr. Speaker, is not to delay unduly the proceedings of this house by making extended remarks but rather to emphasize some of the points which undoubtedly some of the other speakers have already touched upon, but which I feel should, be reiterated in view of the recent turn of world affairs.

I have the honour to represent Compton county in this honourable house, which county forms one of the eleven ridings known as the eastern townships in the province of Quebec. Its main occupations are agriculture, industrial occupations and lumbering. Its people consist of descendants of loyalist stock and early French settlers; and in this section of the countiy we find no problem of Canadian unity, being all proud as we are of the name of Canadians, believing Canada to be the best country to live in today, and therefore believing heartily in the summing up contained in an article in the Atlantic magazine of January last, which states:
The various pieces of very complex national policy which Canada is fashioning fit together into a long-range program which shows solid and consistent thought, and1 is a credit to what is perhaps the best managed democracy on earth.
This declaration, coming as it does from a neutral and outside source surveying and commenting upon world affairs, as it has done for the past ninety years, is high tribute to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and also to the members of his cabinet. There is perhaps an additional reason for pride and appreciation on the part of the eastern townships with regard to this declaration, since we have a native son of Compton among the cabinet ministers in the person of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), whose Canadianism and statesmanship have brought pride and admiration not only to Compton county, not only to the eastern townships, but to the whole country at large.
Since the close of the war the attention of the world has been focused on the possibilities of European recovery. The trade agreements signed at Geneva, the ITO conference at Havana, the restriction of Canadian imports and consumption, the recalling of the United States congress at an earlier day than usual, and likewise the calling of our own parliament in December last-all these events serve to underline the obvious fact that all parts of the world suffer when great trading areas are disabled. Satisfactory trade relations for any country can develop only as rehabilitation of such trading areas proceeds.
As is well known, Canada is in an outstanding position as a world trader, and the recent Geneva trade agreement is of the utmost importance to the people of Canada and its economy. That Canada has a great economic interest in Europe's recovery cannot be denied. It may not always be realized that, before the war, western Europe-now representing those European countries outside the Russian sphere-and the United Kingdom

The Address-Mr. Blanchette
together accounted for almost forty-five per cent of the total world trade. Since the war, forty per cent of Canadian exports went to Britain and western Europe during the first nine months of 1947. The importance for Canada of European developments is revealed especially when these exports are broken down into groups of commodities. Britain and western Europe were taking all our exported wheat and nearly two-thirds of our flour. Britain is the principal market for our meat, cheese and eggs. It also takes a third of our exports of planks and boards and all our pit props. Western Europe and Britain absorb a third of our nickel, half of our zinc and lead, two-thirds of our aluminum and four-fifths of our copper. Western Europe is taking two-thirds of our rubber products, most of our locomotives and the greater part of our ships. It is therefore apparent that the prosperity of all the regions of Canada, from the maritimes to British Columbia, is dependent to a certain extent on what happens in Europe.
The Geneva trade agreements entered into by twenty-three separate countries are for three years' duration, so that at the end of that time Canada shall be free either to continue or to refuse to renew these agreements. Our 1935 trade agreement with the United States was for three years and this has continued since with no disturbance. In addition, the Geneva trade agreements prepared a draft charter for a world trade organization. I sincerely feel that it is to the interest of Canada, of labour and agriculture, to accept these trade agreements in order that the country may continue to progress and to obtain its large share of the world export trade.
A recent release supplies the information that under the Marshall plan, which is to be accepted shortly by the United States congress-let us all hope-Canada is to share the greater portion of the $2 billion total which will be provided for European recovery, all of which will greatly relieve our shortage of United States dollars; for it is recognized by all, I believe, that although dollars will not save the world, the world today cannot be saved without dollars. The whole free world now has its eyes on the adoption of the Marshall plan, opposed to which is one other plan only, namely the Molotov plan. Without the re-establishment of economic health and vigour in the free countries of Europe; without the restoration of their social and political strength, necessarily associated with economic recuperation, the prospect for free people everywhere to find peace with justice, well being, and security for themselves and their children, will be gravely prejudiced; and by corollary, so will economic health and vigour in our country.
1 his endeavour of the new world to help the old is neither sure nor easy. The plan has rightly been called "a calculated risk." Already, within the last few days, it has been forcibly brought home to us and to the whole free world that political sabotage and communistic activities are rampant against the realization of the recovery of Europe. Last week, as we all know, was an intensely drastic week in history, when the tempo of the struggle over Europe was vastly and suddenly stepped up. Swiftly last Wednesday Czechoslovakia fell under complete communist control. Two days later there were signs that Finland might be next. Since last summer the communist drive has resulted in the following countries now being or about to come under complete communistic control: Poland, Augoslavia, Roumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, Czechoslovakia and Finland. These countries represent a total area of 565,000 square miles, with a total population of 100.000,000. So that today in Europe the population is divided in this way; the population of Russia in Europe and satellite eoun-' tries, 268,000,000; the population in the European recovery program area, 264,000,000.
Czechoslovakia has served the world as a laboratory for a test as to whether or not communism and democracy can govern together in the same state and participate in the direction of the same society. The destruction of democracy has been the result of the. experiment. On Thursday of last week the United States, Britain and France issued a joint statement, as follows:
By means of a crisis artificially and deliberately instigated, the use of certain methods already tested in other places has permitted the suspension of the free exercise of parliamentary institutions and the establishment of a disguised dictatorship of a single party. The consequences can only be disastrous for the Czechoslovak people.
Then a few days ago Anthony Eden, deputy leader of the opposition in Britain, and a former foreign secretary, had this to say:
What is really required is immediate positive action on our own account. If the policy of a western union is to be fully effective it must be one of mutual assistance covering economic and political fields.
Recently Senator Arthur Vandenberg, chairman of the United States foreign relations committee, set March 15 as the target date for the acceptance of the Marshall plan, adding:
The decision which must now be made is whether we shall continue to achieve our goal: the establishment of a stable world with free political institutions and the rule of law. World stability and European stability are inseparable; free institutions and genuine independence cannot perish in Europe and be secure in the rest of the world.
The Address-Air. Blanchette

I have cited these declarations, Mr. Speaker, to show in what a precarious position all free countries find themselves today, whether in the old world or the new. Therefore it would appear to me that we in Canada should be on our guard at all times against any action which might be interpreted by some as undermining constitutional authority. I heartily endorse the excellent remarks made last week by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene), whom I see in his seat at the moment, and trust that others will weigh the portent of his speech. Freedom of speech and freedom to criticize in a democracy do not carry with them the licence to represent constituted authority as public enemy No. 1.
Again, all governments, whether municipal, provincial or federal, should do their utmost to establish economic and social security. As far as the economic field is concerned, the world is passing through such an intensive transition that it behooves all of us to be on the alert not only for the maintenance of our present living standards but for their improve-'ment- when occasion arises and it is possible to do so. In the social realm Canada has to its credit unemployment insurance, old age pensions, pensions for the blind, pensions to veterans and widows and family allocations. But it would appear to me that there is one gap in our social legislation, which is created by the lack of assistance to persons who are physically unfit to earn their living, and this irrespective of their age; young people who are invalids, older invalids who are middle aged or too young to qualify for the old age pension. Two years ago the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand) introduced a resolution advocating assistance to these people; the resolution was introduced again this year; and I trust that, when possible, the government will do its utmost to come to the assistance of such people, who are greatly in need of state help, as a worthy measure of social security.
It is to be regretted that with respect to further social measures, as planned in the dominion-provincial program by this government, certain provinces have seen fit to refuse the plan on the ground of autonomy, when autonomy was never to be violated since it was recognized that a central government can only be as strong as ithe individual provinces maintain their respective autonomy. It is all very well to make general statements by way of attacks against provincial autonomy; but I still have to hear, as far as Quebec is concerned, in what specific case or cases its autonomy was violated. The suggestion made some time ago by the federal government that old age pensions be paid needy

persons at sixty-five years of age was a proposal which certainly would have alleviated many cases of hardship and misery throughout the country. In my humble opinion the payment of old age pensions at sixty-five to needy persons, and the payment of pensions to crippled or unassisted persons unable to earn their living because of permanent physical disability, are the two most important social measures which should receive the attention of the government at the earliest possible opportunity. I sincerely trust that this government will do its utmost to assist in bringing security, both economic and social, to those two categories of needy citizens of Canada.
It was through the efforts of a Liberal administration that in 1926 the Old Age Pensions Act was passed, under which to date some $132 million has been distributed in the province of Quebec. In that province the blind have received pensions totalling $5,000,000. Together these two items amount to $137 million, of which the federal government has paid $103 million. In 1943 I had the honour to introduce in this house a resolution in favour of family allocations, which measure was placed in our statutes.
Since July 1, 1945, payments totalling $221 million have been made to Quebec, and each month 465,000 Quebec families are now receiving this assistance to help provide their children with better food, clothing and medical care, and with increased opportunities for training and education. To date, family allowances have brought to the province of Quebec a total in excess of $324 million and the other provinces have shared proportionately in this measure.
When the measure of family allocations was first brought up, we recall that, for one, the present Premier of Quebec castigated this proposal as one affecting autonomy, which argument, however, soon became on his part one of tautology.
Humanitarian and effective measures of economy to increase the security and wellbeing of our citizens represent Canada's answer to communism and other isms which rise in materialism, and thrive on misery, disorder and revolution if necessary.
No time more than the present holds more promise for the free nations of the world; and yet no time more than the present demands sagacity, judgment, experience in international affairs and the keeping of the peace in a changing civilization in both domestic and international affairs, if these same free nations of the world are to survive.

The Address-Mr. Lockhart
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, I desire to associate myself with much of what was said by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette). His comprehensive review of world conditions is something to which I believe we can all subscribe. I noted that the hon. member referred particularly to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). I thought perhaps he might have included some other ministers in his eulogies, because I do not think it is fair to single out one aspirant for leadership without giving an equal chance to the others. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would seem to run a very close second, with perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) trailing along a little bit in the rear.
I should like also to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member respecting communistic tendencies. May I, in a word, offer a tribute to the immigration officials who at this time are trying to sift the wheat from the chaff in Europe. I am sure each member in the house will extend to them his best wishes for success in their efforts. I do not know of any task which could be given any group of public officials more difficult than would be that of trying to keep out of this Canada of ours those having undesirable tendencies.
I noted the hon. member's reference to health services, and I should hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would pay close attention to the speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), and that the hon. member's speech may register with the minister. May I express the pious hope that we may not have to wait until just prior to a general election to have in Canada proper health measures, as happened in connection with the baby bonus bill?
I have noted that it is the tendency of most hon. members to discuss matters having particular reference to their own constituencies, and with that in mind I propose to deal briefly with the constituency of Lincoln. This debate would appear to be the sounding board through which hon. members may place on record the merits of their particular constituencies. I am particularly favoured in that the historic county of Lincoln needs no advertising in the House of Commons, nor does the garden city of St. Catharines located in the very heart of that county.
It is a byword that over a hundred years ago that great and fertile area of Lincoln county, in which is situated the garden city of Canada, was the cradle of democratic governmentand that at a time long before confederation. In old Upper Canada it was in what was then known as Newark, now Niagara-on-the-Lake. that government in Upper Canada was born. The names of Secord, Service, Chrysler, Butler and many others stand out preeminently in Canadian history. This area was the scene of battles in the war of 1812-14. It was in this district that the battles of Queenston Heights, Lundy's Lane and Beaver Dam were fought, battles which did so much to stem the tide of the irresponsible government then threatening our future. I say, therefore, that Lincoln county forms a most important part in the history of Canada, not only in early days but at the present time.
When one passes on to those more important matters with which the people of my constituency are concerned he finds that the housing problem becomes of first importance. This afternoon I shall be content to try to reflect some of the utterances one hears when at week ends he is privileged to visit his home.
I should like to pass on to the house some of the criticisms heard. Strong criticism is made respecting the diversion of essential building materials to non-essential buildings, and the consequent neglect to have those materials made available for housing. Many of the complaints come from veterans. I have made a careful inspection of some of these complaints and I say without hesitation that the veterans in particular, if not the citizens at large, are justified in the criticisms they make.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) to a situation that exists in my constituency. Yesterday the minister stated that the situation prevailing in the Braefoot subdivision in British Columbia would be referred to a parliamentary committee. This committee has not yet been set up and the government does not seem to be in any hurry to set it up. It is not necessary to refer the matter I have in mind to a committee. I hope that I can make the situation so clear to the minister that he will not require to do anything but take action.
If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) were in the house at the moment I would suggest to him that he pay close attention to the situation which exists in Niagara Falls and Welland, two progressive cities in his constituency. I think he would find that certain discrepancies exist in connection with Veterans Land Act houses there and he would be well advised to check those particular developments.
I want to direct the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs to the conditions
The Address-Mr. Lockhart

that exist in connection with a group of veterans' houses which were built in the vicinity of St. Catharines. The former minister of veterans affairs knew all about this situation because I brought it to his attention well over a year ago. He stated in the house that these houses would be put in first-class condition and that the taxpayers would foot the bill, and he suggested that the cost may be in the neighbourhood of SI,000,000. It will be interesting to follow this through to the end. I have been watching the progress being made in this one small subdivision and I shall be interested in getting figures of the complete cost a little later on. I want to commend the former minister for really attempting to put these houses in fair condition at considerable expense. There has been some improvement in the original set-up.
I would say to the present minister that the condition in connection with septic tanks is still abominable. All last summer they were digging up these septic tanks. A week ago I was in one house which has a sump pump in the basement, and the stench-I cannot call it anything else-that arose from the hole in which the pump sits was such that I would not think any person could live in the house. I am not trying to raise an issue that has no foundation. The condition that exists indicates clearly to me that the water pumped out of the sump goes into the ground and probably absorbs part of the pollution from the septic tank which is only twenty feet away. It probably joins with the liquid from the septic tank, then flows back through the weeping tile into the sump again, and there you have a perpetual motion.
I say to the minister that proper drainage beds must be provided. This thing will have to be approached in a scientific way.
Last summer they had professors from the agricultural college out there as well as other technical men, but the condition still exists. The former minister wrote to me saying that these veterans would not have to sign contracts until these conditions were rectified. Then one, two or three days after the first septic tank was dug up, representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs were on the doorsteps of these veterans demanding that they sign contracts.
I say to the minister that that kind of thing is breaking faith with the veterans. Some of them signed because they felt they were more or less coerced into doing so. The interior painting, the exterior painting and other things had been taken care of and they felt that they might sign. They now find that their protection has been more or less taken 
away because their septic tanks are not in proper condition and they have signed contracts at increased prices. As I say, the former minister said in this house that the added cost would not be a tax on these veterans homes. I want a statement from the minister in due course as to the increased prices which have been put into some of the new contracts. I cannot accept any evasion in this matter.
Having brought this matter to the attention of the minister, I hope that he will proceed to have it cleared up, not when the veterans affairs committee is set up but immediately. The moment spring breaks, this putrid and polluted condition will reappear as it did last summer -when the stench was simply unbearable. These veterans cannot put up with it for another summer season.
I want to pass along to something that has been of particular interest to me ever since I have been in this house. I have listened to our friends of the C.C.F. and our friends of the Social Credit group who have spoken about the development of our oil resources. I have watched the type of fuel that comes from the United States. Those of us who have anything to do with the distribution of fuel sometimes think it is just the screenings, what might be swept up off the floor. Yet this type of fuel is selling today at very high prices, anywhere from $19 to $20 a ton. Its value is much less than in former days. Oil prices, too, are continually rising, and if somebody shuts off the tap in the United States we shall be in a pretty fine pickle here in Canada. Not a day passes but we hear about the shortage of electric power, and the provincial governments are struggling to cope with that shortage. We hear of blackouts; I think we have had one or two electric power blackouts in the city of Ottawa. In view of all these circumstances I ask the government: When, oh when, are you going to wake up to the necessity of formulating a national fuel, oil and power policy in ' this country?
During the war days the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) talked about what would happen in the reconstruction period. But here we are, going on year in and year out, with a shortage of coal, oil, and electric power, and the government putting up with it. We have been told over and over again that we have in Canada all these resources at our very fingertips and that all that is needed is a policy to develop them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am in sympathy with the members of the Social Credit group who have urged year after year that our oil resources be developed. They were developed to a certain extent to meet an emergency that arose during

The Address-Mr. Lockhart
the war, but I am told that all that equipment has been dismantled and scrapped. Again I urge the government, with all the power I possess, to formulate a real fuel, oil and electric energy policy for this country. Ever since I have been in this house I have heard the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) describing the surveys that he has made of our fuel, water and power resources and detailing the wonderful possibilities for their development. I bring that to the attention of the government, which I think has been very remiss in not assuring the people of this country that something will be done in this regard.
I find in my constituency terrific criticism of the cost of government. I received a letter not long ago asking me the number of personnel in the government service. I could only write back and say that there were 69.000 more than there were before the war. The people back home just cannot understand why this terrific expense continues. They want to know when it will cease. Immediately they cast reflections on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) for continuing the eight per cent sales tax and the twenty-five per cent excise tax on washing machines and refrigerators that the veteran needs to furnish his home. The tax is off again, on again, so that the veteran is just about fit to be tied. It is just about time that we got down to knowing where these people are and where they are not.
I know of three veterans who are building small homes. They have calculated the percentage of their gratuities and re-establishment credits that is absorbed by taxes of this type, and I warn the Minister of Finance that if he does not change the situation he will hear a protest, the like of which he has never heard before, against government policy, particularly as it applies to the veteran and the household equipment he has to buy.
Further, if the Minister of Finance does not take steps to enable the owner of a home, particularly the veteran, to get possession of his property, he will hear plenty from that quarter. I appreciate that there is a shortage of houses; nevertheless present regulations are causing hardship to the veterans, who are being done a grave injustice as I view the situation after careful investigation of all these circumstances.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Mr. Speaker, during the dinner hour one hon. member came to me and, in a tone of surprise, said he had never heard
of the advantages of that part of the Dominion of Canada which I have the privilege of representing. I thought that perhaps in fairness to him I might have taken the rest of my time to inform him, but I realize that I have but a few minutes at my disposal and therefore I propose to spend an entire evening with him sometime in order that I may properly inform him. Apparently he is the only one who does not know. He comes from a very remote part of the country and I shall make it my business on another occasion and in a more advantageous way to tell him all about that part of Canada which I represent. An hon. member to my right suggests that I might take him home on a week end. Perhaps it would take a whole week end to describe adequately the garden of Canada, the garden city of St. Catharines and all that goes with it.


Thomas Reid: It is beautiful.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There is no doubt about that. I appreciate that, for the hon. member for New Westminster has been there and he knows.


Thomas Reid: You took me around.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: During the few minutes at my disposal I wish to bring one important matter to the attention of the government. I desire to say something on behalf of the forty odd flying clubs at present operating in Canada who are finding it very difficult to carry on their operations. I have no wish to deal at too great a length with the subject, but I should like to go back to the year 1935 or perhaps shortly before that. It was at that time that I first discovered and observed what the few flying clubs then in existence were actually accomplishing in the development of aeronautics. I also discovered at that time the extent of the help that came from enthusiastic citizens, men of means, men of vision, who saw the necessities of the future.
Air training was just beginning to grip the imagination of our youth. In my own city, as I recall, when the one-seater Moth planes used to fly overhead the boys of those days gazed in amazement and wonder. I say it is well that those flying clubs assumed the responsibility they did. As I remember, the department of civil aviation lent some aid. In my own city, the city council gave financial assistance. But the greatest contribution in those days came, in my opinion, from the young men themselves, young men who almost denied themselves the necessities of life in order to equip themselves so that they might reach their objective, which was to become air pilots.
The Address-Mr. Lockhart

About that time war clouds began* to descend. They were hovering overhead, and there were many misgivings not only in government circles but on the part of the people generally who began to wonder what was in the offing. Airports began to grow up. Perhaps behind the scenes there was an influence of which some of us knew little.
As one looks back over those twelve or fifteen years, I think we have to express thanks, yes, to Providence, Mr. Speaker, that those things did* happen and that our people were becoming air-minded. I recall with considerable pride the time when one class of candidates graduated from our small flying school. I believe there were fifteen of them. One or two, because of vision and other difficulties, took up ground work and technical work.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, those were important diays and they meant much to us in the years that followed. Then the darker days came. Britain was attacked. Our boys who had received their pilots licences, and those who had learned ground-crew work, technicians in large numbers from my own particular area, went in defence of Britain to help her in her dilemma. A great many of those young men- and I am sure that what is true of my area is true of many other parts of Canada-went over and joined the Royal Air Force. Canada owes a great debt of gratitude to those young men, because many of them never returned and never had an opportunity even of transferring to their own R.C.A.F.
This was before the commonwealth air training scheme was mooted. There have been many criticisms about delay in connection with that scheme, and I will not go into that tonight, though it is a story in itself. But I say that none were more critical than those young pilots whose ambitions were being thwarted to some extent.
Then the war clouds broke. The government finally took action, and I say that the accomplishment of our youth is one of the proud spots in Canada's contribution to the war.
About that time elementary schools began to grow throughout the dominion. Elementary No. 9 was established in my area and a subsidy was paid by the government for every pilot who graduated from those different schools.
I want to pause, Mr. Speaker, to say just a word to those public-spirited citizens who put up the large sums of money required by the government before an elementary school could be started. I wish to pay a word of tribute to many real citizens across this country who made those schools possible. As

I recall it, although I am subject to correction, $35,000 was the sum which had to be put up. In connection with elementary school No. 9 in Lincoln county, I want to say that the money was given without interest and was given wholeheartedly. I am quite sure that not one cent of interest was ever collected by those men who put up the large contribution which made possible the establishment of our elementary school.
The war was won and the R.C.A.F. played an important part. The forty odd airports in Canada are now trying to carry on alone. The government seems to have lost interest in them.


John George Diefenbaker: They have lost all interest.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Financial help is being curtailed. As I understand it, the subsidy has been stopped. Consequently these flying clubs are finding it difficult to carry on. They are faced with increasing cost of gasoline, maintenance and parts. Everything is costing a great deal more than it did prior to and during the war. The grim part of it all is that on March 2, 1948, the war clouds are again appearing distinctly on the horizon. In spite of the experience we had, and in spite of the sacrifice of thousands of young men who gave their best-and the government needed their help badly-these flying clubs are being left to fight their own battle.
In conclusion, I wish to urge the government to get behind these forty odd flying clubs. I want the government to impress upon these clubs the fact that their efforts have been and are now being appreciated. I want the government to help these clubs for at least one year. They are the nucleus of an organization, the need of which none of us knows how soon may again arise. A year's procrastination might prove disastrous. I urge the government to increase their interest and not decrease it. I was in consultation with one member of the executive of the flying club in my own area and he expressed willingness to submit to the government their figures on costs, and any information that the government requires; but, as one of the senior officers of the local flying clubs, he pleaded that the government show more interest in their work. A new generation of youth is still being thrilled by even the Moth plane that flies overhead. So I again make an urgent appeal. The world picture is not too reassuring. With all the persuasiveness that I possess, I ask the government to keep our pilots in the air. We dare not do otherwise in the light of events in the world today.

The Address-Mr. Knowles


Stanley Howard Knowles: I propose to address my remarks tonight, Mr. Speaker, to one general subject, namely, the older citizens of this country, with particular reference to their need for, and their undoubted right to, old age security. At the outset I want to say that in my view living conditions in Canada, on the average, are unquestionably better than they are in many other parts of the world. That, of course, is a somewhat comforting thought to those in Canada who enjoy the average standard of living, and it is a very comforting thought to those who enjoy a standard of living above the average. But my concern, and I think it should be the concern of all members of parliament, is with those who live at a standard below the Canadian average, and there are millions of them in this country. As I see it, it is a sad commentary on the government and its supporters that they spend so much time in boasting of the standard of living in Canada and fail to recognize the stark tragedy of insecurity which faces millions of our people. I could speak tonight of wage earners who, week after week, take home $10, $15 or $20 less than is necessary to provide their families with a proper standard of living. I could talk of housewives trying their best to buy sufficient food out of the money that is available to them for that purpose. I could speak of the plight of parents who see the family allowance that was given to them a few years ago wiped out by the increased1 cost of living. I could speak of housing conditions, of doctors' and hospital bills that mortgage the future of a great many of our people, to say nothing of the failure thus far to prepare adequately for the health of all Canadians along the lines suggested this afternoon by my good friend the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair). But I have chosen, as I have already indicated, to confine my remarks tonight to the insecurity of old age in Canada.
I now want to confront the house with the fact that this problem of old age insecurity is not only one which should concern us right now in the month of March, 1948, on behalf of the old people now with us in this country, but is one which will become more serious as time moves on. In the face of that, I submit that if we are worth our salt as public representatives we must come to grips with this problem in a much more effective and satisfactory manner than has vet been done.
A moment ago when I said this problem would get worse I overheard someone to my right ask why. Well, I have here the answer, in some information which I have secured from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. First,
this page of figures gives a breakdown of the Canadian population by age groups for each ten-year period from 1851 to 1941. According to these figures, in 1851 only 2-7 per cent of the Canadian people were sixty-five years of age and over; -but that percentage has increased every ten years since then, until in 1941, 6-7 per cent of the Canadian population was sixty-five years of age or over. The increase has been not only in percentage terms but also in absolute figures. That increase took place at the general rate during the ten years between the last two censuses. In 1931, according to these figures, 5-6 per cent of our people were sixty-five years of age or over, and the number was 575,830. In 1941, as I have said- already, the percentage was 6-7, and the number was 767,815.
This table indicates that there has been a similar increase, both in percentage terms and in absolute figures, in those between the ages of twenty and sixty-four. In 1851 some 41 per cent of our people were in that age bracket. In 1941 the percentage was 55-8 between the ages of twenty and sixty-four. Obviously there must have been a percentage decline somewhere to account for the percentage increases in these upper age brackets, and that percentage decline has taken place in the age group zero to nineteen. In 1851 some 56-3 per cent of the Canadian people were nineteen years of age or under, while in 1941 that percentage was only 37-5. In other words, we in Canada are an aging population.
In addition to the set of figures to which I have already referred-, I hold in my hand a copy of bulletin No. 4, issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in 1946, entitled, "The Future Population of Canada." This is indeed an excellent piece of work, which provides a great deal of useful information. On page 30 of the booklet I find a table which points out that in 1971 our population of sixty-five years of age and over, which in 1941 numbered 767,815, will be 1,523,000. In other words, by 1971 our population of sixty-five years of age and over will be in absolute terms, just about double what it was in 1941. At that time our people sixty-five years of age and over, instead of being 6-7 per cent of the population as was the case in 1941, will constitute 10-4 per cent of the Canadian population.
I submit that these estimates in regard to the future population of Canada-and they are official estimates from- the Dominion Bureau of Statistics-highlight the fact that the problem of old age security is one that we must tackle with a great deal more determination than has yet been shown by the government of the day. This afternoon I asked a question T have asked many times before in this house,
The Address-Mr. Knowles

as to when we might expect an improved old age pension plan. Of course I was given the stock answer that government policy will be made known in due course. I suggest that the situation is bad enough today, when 6-7 per cent of our people are sixty-five years of age and over. Today's provisions will not at all fill the bill twenty-three years from now, when 10-4 per cent of our population will be in that age bracket.
There are those whose reaction to these figures will be that this increase in the percentage of people sixty-five years of age and over might be counterbalanced by a decline in the percentage of those younger, which some would say might provide more room for employment for older people than is the case today. Entirely apart from my own objection to that idea, my own feeling that when people reach that age they are entitled to retirement, in any civilized society, there are two facts which speak against it. On the one hand, there is the fact of the technological improvements that are taking place all the time. The other reason is the one to which I have already referred, namely, that there is also taking place an increase both in the percentage and in the absolute number of Canadians between the ages of twenty and sixty-four, with a particular increase shown in the group around forty-five and fifty.
Just incidentally I remind hon. members that people in this age group are already having unemployment problems of their own. That is something else with which we must concern ourselves, in addition to old age security; that is, the rights in our society of those in the age group forty-five to fifty and fifty-five. The figures on page 29 of the booklet to which I have already referred indicate that at the same time as there is this increase in the percentage of those sixty-five and over, there will be an increase in the percentage of those between forty-five and sixty-four. Thus the problem of finding something for the older people to do wall not be solved by any lessening of those in the next younger group.
But may I suggest that the fact to which I have just called attention, namely, the parallel increase in the percentage of those in the working years, is not only a difficulty; it also provides an opportunity for the development of an economy that will provide better old age security. The simple fact is that if there are more people available for work in the ages from twenty to sixty-four, or take any section of that bracket you wish, it means it is possible to produce, with the working force we will have, sufficient wealth to provide security for our old people, as well as proper care

and maintenance and education for the children of the land. And may I suggest that this idea, while it is my own, is supported by conclusions to which the Dominion Bureau of
Statistics comes in bulletin No. F-4. I wish time would permit me to read more, but I shall limit myself to just a few sentences. On page 31, I find this:
Secondly, the proportion of children in the population begins to decline in the period 19411971, while the proportion of old people continues to rise. The former decreases more rapidly than the latter increases so that the trend for the period is toward a state of lighter dependency.
And note this sentence:
This trend, together with the increase of productive workers, suggests that the burden of dependency will be spread over a greater number of people, and hence the effect of an increase ini the aged population rvith the heavier burden which it entails will not be so costly a problem per capita.
In other words, this situation I have presented, which might strike some hon. members as something of a problem, is looked upon by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as creating a situation in which we can do a better job toward providing old age security, because of the increased number of workers in the working ages which we shall have in this country.
Not only does the Dominion Bureau of Statistics point to the possibility of this sort of thing being done, but it urges that it must be done; for on the same page I read this:
The trend toward an increasing proportion of old people in the population implies intensification of the problems of the aged. The emphasis upon change and the depreciation of tradition prevalent in modern industrial society, and the social structure which such a society engenders have placed the aged in a precarious economic and social position in which more of the responsibility for their welfare is being of necessity assumed by the state.
Then the bureau goes on to say something I like very much. It points out that not only is there the necessity of greater social security for older people being provided by the state, but that we must begin to give thought to the position of older people in our society. In other w'ords, they will not be satisfied just with being the recipients of an adequate old age pension, if that means being put on the shelf. The paragraph concludes with this sentence:
More thought will probably be given in the future not only to the problem of widening state services for the aged but also to careful consideration of the whole position of the aged in North American society.
I commend that to the house, not just as an academic study but as a suggestion that


194S
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Knowles
this indeed is a problem about which we should be concerning ourselves now in 19-18, and not waiting until 1971 arrives.
With regard to the present, the staggering fact is that, even with the means test restrictions at present attached to our old age pension legislation, a tremendous percentage of the Canadian people over the age of seventy are able to qualify for the old age pension. In 1941 there were 460,091 Canadians seventy years of age or over. I find that 186,863 of them, or 40-6 per cent, were on old age pensions. This indicates that 40-6 per cent of Canadians in 1941 over seventy years of age were sufficiently destitute to qualify for old age pensions.
The figure of 186,863 in 1941 had risen to 215,889 as at September 30, 1947. I have been unable to get the exact figure as to the total number of Canadians in 1947 aged seventy and over. But by doing a bit of simple interpolating I find that the same percentage of roughly 40 per cent of Canadians at the age of seventy are qualifying for the old age pension. May I point out also that the figure 186,863 in 1941, which was 40-6 per cent of the people over seventy, was 1-7 per cent of the Canadian population as a whole.
Again, if we look to the future, in 1970 Canadians seventy years of age and over- and I take my figures from the same booklet -will number 955,000. If by any chance the qualifying age for old age pensions is still seventy in 1970-and heaven forbid-then 40 per cent of that population seventy years and over will be 382,000 persons, or 2-8 per cent of the estimated population in 1970 of roughly 14,000,000.
I have also a figure in this connection which relates to 1971. I take these figures according to the statistics that are available. I now take the age of sixty-five and over in the hope that surely by 1971, even if this government is still in power, the qualifying age for the old age pension will have been brought down to sixty-five. It ought to be that right away for men, and sixty for women.
But let us assume for statistical purposes that the qualifying age is sixty-five in 1971. If that is so, there will be in that year 1,523,000 persons who are sixty-five years of age and over; and if 40 per cent of them qualify the number will be 609,200, or four per cent of the total population, which it is expected will be 14,600,000.
I have given these figures, at the risk of confusing the house with so many of them, to point up the statement I made some minutes ago that the problem of old age insecurity as it is today, or old age security
as it should be, is one to which we should give our attention, both because of the plight, of the old people in this month of March, 1948, and because if we are worth our salt as members of parliament we should be laying a proper foundation for the future life of this country.
I was led to look up these figures because of references made to them in the past by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martini, and by his predecessor, who produced figures from the same source to argue with us in this group that our demands for old age pensions of $50 a month at age sixty-five v-ere impossible to meet now, and would be still more impossible to meet a few years hence, because of the increase in percentage of old people.
I submit that an honest facing of economic facts, and a courageous facing of our responsibilities as members of parliament, leads us not to be frightened by figures like this, but to accept them as a tremendous challenge and opportunity. I must remind the house that, after all, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is not concerned about philosophy or politics, or anything other than just plain hard facts; yet it comes to the two-point conclusion: (al that something more must be done for the old people, and (b) that something more can be done, because there will be a larger working force in the ages around forty, fifty, and fifty-five.
I have made fairly abundant references to these tables. So far as my argument is concerned, all the figures I wish to give I have now presented to the house, and I am not asking that these tables be put on the record for my purposes. So far as I am concerned, my argument at this point is complete. I feel, however, that these figures as to changing percentages of population with respect to ages in both the past and the future, and figures with respect to the working force in the next twenty-three years are valuable and would be useful to lion, members and to those who read Hansard for reference purposes. For that reason I suggest that the house might give its consent to the tables being placed on record.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Horace King: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I explained, it is immaterial to me personally. I have completed this phase of my argument but I thought these
The Address-Mr. Knowles

figures which come from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics would be useful.


James Horace King: If the hon. member has unanimous consent he may put them on the record; if he has not, unfortunately he cannot.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you. The tables are as follows:


NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF THE POPULATION IN SPECIFIED AGE GROUPS, CANADA, CENSUS YEARS, 1851-1941
[Stage Direction]
Age	1851					
Male	Female	Both Sexes	Number	P.C.	Number	P.C.	Number	P.C.Total	1,211,346	1000	1,150,376	100-0	2,361,722	100-00-19	672,084	55-5	657,097	57-1	1,329,181	56-320-64..:	505,048	41-7	463,720	40-3	968,768	41-065+	34,214	2-8	29,559	2-6	63,773	2-71861	Male	Female	Both Sexes	Number	P.C.	Number	P.C.	Number	P.C.Total	1,622,482	100 0	1,536,894	100-0	3,159,376	100-00-19	865,076	53-3	842,507	54-8	1,707,583	54-020-64	704,202	43-4	651,337	42-4	1,355,539	42-965+	53,204	3-3	43,050	2-8	96,254	3-11871	Male	Female	Both Sexes	Number	P.C.	Number	P.C.	Number	P.C.Total	1,810,399	1000	1,767,360	100-0	3,577,759	100-00-19	953,069	52-7	931,612	52-7	1,884,681	52-720-64	786,272	43-4	776,368	43-9	1,562,640	43-765+	71,058	3-9	59,380	3-4	130,438	3-61881	Male	Female	Both Sexes	Number	P.C.	Number	P.C.	Number	P.C.Total	2,159,858	1000	2,106,183	100-0	4,266,041	100-00-19	1,077,709	49-9	1,050,884	49-9	2,128,593	49-920-64	989,075	45-8	972,104	46-1	1,961,179	46-065+	93,074	4-3	83,195	4-0	176,269	4-11891	Male	Female	Both Sexes	Number	P.C.	Number	P.C.	Number	P.C.Total	2,428,936	1000	2,341,187	100-0	4,770,123	100-00-19	1,141,714	47-0	1,109,794	47-4	2,251,508	47-220-64	1,172,788	48-3	1,127,037	48-1	2,299,825	48-265+	114,434	4-7	104,356	4-5	218,790	4-6
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Knowles
NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF THE POPULATION IN SPECIFIED AGE GROUPS, CANADA, CENSUS YEARS, 1851-1941- Concluded.
Age
Total
0-19	
20-64	
65+	
Total
0-19	
20-64	
65+	
Male
Number
2,721,942
1,211,379
1,372,715
137,848
Male
Number
3,795,308
1,549,419
2,070,284
169,605
Total
Male
Number
4,518,055
20-64
65+.
1,926,570
2,377,128
214,357
Female
P.C.	Number
1000	2,600,296
44-5	1,180,347
50-4	1,288,400
51	131,540
Both Sexes
[Stage Direction]
Number

[Stage Direction]
Female		Both Sexes	
P.C.	Number	P.C.	Number	P.C.1000	3,374,652	100-0	7,169,960	100040-8	1,502,001	44-5	3,051,420	42-554-7	1,708,493	50-6	3,784,777	52-84-5	164,158	4-9	333,763	4-7Female	Both Sexes	P.C.	Number	P.C.	Number	P.C.1000	4,248,632	1000	8,766,687	100042-6	1,894,540	44-5	3,821,110	43-652-6	2,149,359	50-7	4,526,487	51-64-8	204,733	4-8	419,090	4-8
Male
Total
0-19	
20-64	
65+	
Number
5,371,830
2,183,859
2,893,594
294,377

[Stage Direction]
Female
Number
5,001,185
2,136,947
2,582,784
281,454

[Stage Direction]
Both Sexes
Number
10,373,015
4,320,806
5,476,378
575,831

[Stage Direction]
Male
Total.
Number 5,900,536
[Stage Direction]
Female
Number
5,606,119
[Stage Direction]
Both Sexes
Number
11,506,655

[Stage Direction]
65+.
2,184,511
3,325,116
390,909
56-4
2,134,075	38-1
3,094,138	55-2
376,906	6-7
4,318,586
6,420,254
767,815
55-8
1800
The Address-Mr. Knowles

[Stage Direction]
Estimates B and D (000's omitted)
Region

[Stage Direction]
Maritime Provinces-*
(B)	
(D)	
Prince Edward Island-
(B)	
(D)	
Nova Scotia-
(B)	
(D)	
New Brunswick-
(B)	
(D)	
Quebec-
(B).
(D).
Ontario-
(B)	
(D)	
Prairie Provinces-
(B)	
(D)	
Manitoba-
(B)	
(D)	
Saskatchewan-
(B)	
(D)	
Alberta-
(B)	
(D)	
British Columbia-
(B)	
(D)	
Number
765
47
177
132
46
67
1,016
1,018
98
36
224
377
212
68
75
69
107
1,285
1,281
115
62
43
293
467
282
89
99
94
124
1,529
1,523
132
51
386
554
317
100
108
109
134
Per Cent of Total Population
6-7
9-5
6-8
80
6-3
50
1951
7-9
7-6
101
7-8
70
5-8
90
8-1
8-6
7-	8
8-	1
7-7
11-0
9-5
8-4
9-5
9-9
7-5
7-0
11-2
100
10-7
9-5
9-8
13-9
1971
10-4
8-4
8-1
91
7-6
8-2
12-6
10-7
11-7
10-2
10-4
13-5
Note: In the above table, and in the one that follows, estimate B is based, roughly speaking, on the assumption that Canadian population trends will follow the experience of other countries when they were at our current fertility and mortality rates; estimate D is based on an attempt to correct estimate B in the light of changes in Canadian trends during world war II and certain other factors. For general purposes the Dominion Bureau of Statistics recommends the use of estimate D.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Knowles

[Stage Direction]
Estimates B and D
(000's omitted)
Region and Age Group	Number	Per Cent of Total 15-64 Years	1941	1951	1961	1971	1941	1951	1961	1971CANADA-	15-34 Years	.(B)	3,955	4,217	4.278	4,185	52-5	501	46-3	43-0(D)	4,234	4,371	4,538	50-3	46-8	45*035-44 " 	[DOT] (B)	1,434	1,756	2,058	2,039	191	20-8	22-3	20-9(D)	1,741	2,070	2,041	20-7	45-64 " 	(B>	2,141	2,455	2,908	31511	28-4	29-1	31-4	36-1(D)	2,443	2,890	3,513	290	310	34-8Maritime Provinces-	15-34 Years	* (B)	389	435	460	474	55-7	53-7	49-5	46 0(D)	432	464	506	54-2	35-44 " 	.(B)	122	165	208	213	17-5	20-4	22-4	20-6(D)	159	205	210	20-0	45-64 " 	[DOT] (B)	187	210	261	344	26-8	25-9	28 1	33-4(D)	206	254	338	25-8	27-5	32 1Quebec-	15-34 Years	.(B)	1,184	1,337	1,423	1,418	56-6	53-7	49-7	45-5(D)	1,336	1,456	1 547	53-Q	35-44 " 	[DOT] (B)	400	510	621	668	19-1	20-5	21-7	21 -4(D)	505	621	672	?n.2	45-64 " 	[DOT] (B)	508	644	821	1,032	24-3	25-8	28-6	33-1(D)	639	815	1,029	25-8	28-2	31-7Ontario-	15-34 Years	[DOT] (B)	1,265	1,272	1,244	1,176	49-4	46-3	43-0	40-5(D)	1.302	1,291	1,289	46-6	35-44 " 	(B)	518	587	639	602	20-2	21-3	22-1	20-7(D)	595	660	610	21 -3	45-64 " 	.(B)	779	891	1,007	1,128	30-4	32-4	34-8	38-8(D)	898	1,019	1,155	32-1	34-3	37-8Prairie Provinces-	15-34 Years	[DOT] (B)	847	926	910	887	52-9	51-3	46-1	42*2(D)	879	882	910	51 5	47*1	35-44 " 	[DOT] (B)	287	364	460	447	17-9	20-1	23-3	21-3(D)	335	430	427	19-6	4.5-64 " 	.(B)	468	516	003	768	29-2	28-6	30-6	36-5(D)	494	562	714	28-9	30-0	34-8British Columbia-	15-34 " 	.(B)	270	247	241	230	46-9	43-2	411	39*8(D)	285	278	286	44-7	35-44 " 	.(B)	107	130	130	109	18-6	22-8	22-1	18-9(D)	147	154	122	45-64 " 	* (B)	199	194	216	239	34-5	340	36-8	41-3(D)	206	240	277	32-3	35-7	40-4
I move on to suggest that parliament must begin to think pretty seriously about this whole problem right away. One thing that we must try to resolve is this question of contributory or non-contributory old age pensions. No one can deny that it is impossible to think of making the present pension contributory or of attaching any contribution as a necessary part of the pension which people are now receiving or which people of fifty-five,
sixty and sixty-five years of age will be receiving in due course. That phase of the matter has to be looked at by itself.
There is beginning to develop an opinion in Canada, in the trade union movement for example, that so far as younger Canadians are concerned it would be a good idea to have some kind of contributory plan started now; with individuals, industry and the government all taking part; the whole thought being that
18D2
The Address-Mr. Knowles
[Stage Direction]
it will not be satisfactory to wake up in 1971 to discover that the problem has become a much larger one and that we had not made plans for it back in 1948. When you start to talk about a contributory plan I say that you must keep separate the case of those on the present inadequate old age pension and you must realize also that any proper social security plan must be an over-all plan.
It is no good having a contributory scheme for old age pensions here, a contributory scheme for health insurance there and a contributory scheme for unemployment insurance some place else, and have other schemes as well which fail to interlock. The result is that the cost becomes prohibitive and the benefits inadequate. If we can get going with an over-all scheme it would be possible at reasonable cost to provide security in that way and also to remove any question as to the rights of people to these benefits. Despite all the boasting that hon, members opposite like to do, the fact is that we in Canada are far behind in the matter of an over-all social security plan.
I want to point out that that is not the only side of the picture. One must not think we are going to provide an adequate old age security plan in 1971 simply by having a contributory plan started now. What is really required to have adequate old age security is to have a planned economy that accepts it as proper that one section of the community, namely the children, are cared for with respect to all their needs, their wants and their rights out of the whole national wealth and similarly that another section of the community, namely those of sixty, sixty-five years and up, are equally well provided for out of the current production at the time the people are at those ages. We have already had experience with superannuation benefits of one kind and another completely losing their value because of the change in the value of money, and we know also that the standard of living changes as decades come and go. Here is hoping that our standard of living will go up in the next few decades. Old age security in 1971 must not be security in terms of what we think would be sufficient in 1948; it must be related to economic conditions of that time. So I submit that this calls not only for having some kind of a contributory plan started now, one which does not require contributions of those who are at present receiving old age pensions or who are near to receiving them, but also for economic planning which includes an overall social security arrangement.
John George Diefenbaker: At what age would you start contributions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that it could be built on to the unemployment insurance structure and started at working ages, or at twenty-one years in most cases. As I have already indicated, it should be a scheme that covers all things that hit a person over which he has no control, such as unemployment, ill health, accidents, old age and such exigencies as are covered in a social security plan such as is now in force in countries like the United Kingdom.
I submit that in the face of the problem and the opportunity that is coming in the next twenty-five years, in the face of what we have demonstrated we can do in the way of organizing to meet the challenge of war when it comes, it is not good enough for us to continue with an old age pension plan that provides 830 a month at age seventy with all the means test restrictions that we have at the present time. I do not think the government can be condemned too strongly for the way in which it has trifled with this matter. We had the offer to the provinces in the late summer of 1915, and ever since then, with respect to both improved old age pensions and a national health plan of any kind, we get the answer that it depends upon the provinces agreeing to certain dominion-provincial arrangements. That is not economic planning. That is not responsible government as I see it.
I feel bitterly about the way in which this federal government has jockeyed the various provinces into feeling that they have to do something to meet the present plight of our old age pensioners. It is very nice for the old person of seventy, seventy-five or eighty years of age who is now on pension to get some increase from the provincial government so that he can enjoy it while he is still with us. I would not deprive those people of that for one moment. But there is an element of tragedy in this. To the extent to which the government has forced the provinces to increase their share of old age pensions, this country has retreated from the position that we had gained where the federal government was paying 75 per cent of the cost of old age pensions. That is not enough; it should be 100 per cent. We started the government in that direction some years ago when it went up from 50 per cent to 75 per cent, but now the Minister of National Health and Welfare has it to his doubtful credit that he has reduced that percentage.
I want to see these older people get every dollar they can, no matter from what source it comes, but in the long run it is simply bedevilling the whole concept of an adequate old age pension plan fully carried by the

The Address-Mr. Knowles
people of Canada as a whole through the one section of government that can carry it, namely the federal government here at Ottawa. I hope that the answer the Minister of National Health and Welfare gave to me this afternoon that the government's plans with regard to improved old age pensions would be made known in due course was not just a stock answer. I hope "due course" means some time this session and that we shall yet get some reasonably improved plan for the the people now' in the older age'brackets and also have a beginning toward a plan to meet the problem and the opportunity that will confront us in the years that lie ahead.
My time ds about up. but I wanted to make passing reference to some other groups of older people in our society who in my view have been treated very poorly.


John George Diefenbaker: Where the dominion fails to discharge its responsibility in providing suitable and proper old age pensions, does the province not then have some responsibility?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By all means. The provinces have to be human if this government is not.
My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), dealt with a problem last night which both he and I have raised in this house a number of times, the plight of superannuated civil servants. The figures my colleague gave last night underlined the seriousness of their problem. I shall not take time to repeat those figures or to give similar ones, but may I say that I, too, was bitterly disappointed when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), after all the promises we had last year from him to give consideration to this matter, announced on January 23 of this year:
While it is recognized that superannuated civil servants encounter difficulties during periods of rising costs, these are similar to the difficulties faced by other retired persons living on pensions, annuities or other savings, and the government does not consider that it would be fair or proper in these circumstances to single out its former employees for special assistance.
That is an argument which looks at three people, A, B and C, all starving, and says: We are sorry that we cannot do anything for A and B, so it would not be fair to them for us to keep C alive. So far as we are concerned, that is not a satisfactory answer.
I have here a specific case of a retired civil servant in the city of Winnipeg who is also a veteran of the first world war. Had he not earned a civil service pension of $58.85 a month-that is all he is getting and he is one
of the favoured ones-he points out that he could now qualify for a burnt-out pension of $60.83; or, if not that, he could qualify for an old age pension of $60 a month for himself and his wife. Here are three different superannuation amounts that he might have qualified for, but he can only draw one, and that happens to be his civil service superannuation of $58.85 a month. That individual case epitomizes the unfairness that exists with respect to all these three groups, old age pensioners, superannuated civil servants and burnt-out veterans. Had time permitted, I would have gone in more detail into the plight of burnt-out veterans; but, as time is short, I just add my plea to the government to bring in that legislation soon and to make the increase much larger than has been indicated thus far and to grant a reasonable increase also to the widows of the non-pen-sioned veterans, who thus far are still getting only $30.41 a month-a disgrace to this country.
I sense, Mr. Speaker, that you are getting to the edge of your chair and so I shall resume my seat in a moment. But before I sit down I want to speak of two other groups of old people. They are selected groups, but their plight also highlights the need of an over-all social security program.
I refer to the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways, and the Canadian Pacific non-pensioned employees about whom I have spoken so often. Incidentally, the other day the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), answering the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), said that in view of the government's answer that it could not do anything for superannuated civil servants, he felt it would not be fair for him to ask the Canadian National Railways to increase the retirement benefits of their employees, even those receiving only the basic $25 a month. So there you have the government saying that not only C shall starve but B too. The government should be giving a lead in these matters, instead of using the fact that others are not doing anything as an excuse for inaction on their part.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your generosity and I hope that the house will realize that, although democracy calls for many other things as well, at the very least it must provide security for our old people, and sooner or later that includes us all.


Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to participate in this debate, but during the course of the debate there have arisen in my constituency some problems which, although having a
1S04
The Address-Mr. Brown

local aspect, do affect the national economy. There have also been referred to in this debate, some matters which affect my constituency and on which I should like to make some comment.
But may I first offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Dion) and the seconder (Mr. Dickey) of the address. It may be we have by this time forgotten that of which they spoke, but may I, in offering them my congratulations, state that in my humble opinion they upheld the dignity, integrity and ability of that section of the house which we affectionately call Little Chicago.
Recently a situation has arisen which has caused a shut-down of a large number of industrial plants, resulting in considerable unemployment and temporary hardships to many thousands of industrial workers. This was due to the failure of the supply of natural gas so-called, or should I say fuel gas, to meet the demand caused by the severe winter which resulted in an increased consumption by householders. I said natural gas so-called, because I understand that at the present time only about 45 per cent of the present supply can be classed as natural gas. I am informed that a great deal of our supply of gas for the Windsor area is stored in underground wells and drawn upon as the need arises, as a result of manufacturing processes at Sarnia, Ontario. We may as well, therefore, face the fact that the supply of natural gas, especially in southwestern Ontario, is rapidly being depleted. In fact, from official sources at the disposal of all members I have observed that in 1940 in the whole province of Ontario 13,000,000 cubic feet of gas were produced, which had dropped in 1946 to 6,000,000 cubic feet, while natural gas in the province of Alberta had increased from 17,000.000 million cubic feet in 1936 to over 40,000,000 cubic feet in 1946.
The city of Windsor I understand to be the largest automobile manufacturing centre in the British empire, as well as the largest pharmaceutical centre in the British Empire. We also produce a great percentage of the salt, with its by-products of chlorine, caustics and other chemicals consumed in the Dominion of Canada, so that a stoppage of activities in these industries cannot but be reflected in the economy of the whole dominion which depends so largely on the commodities we produce.
If, therefore, we are not to be able to depend on natural gas for our industrial activities during critical weather conditions it will be necessary that we take steps to provide some other fuel to be consumed. The
fMr. Brown.]
four main sources of heat generally employed either for commercial or domestic consumption, and excluding atomic energy, are coal, gas, oil and hydro-electric power.
During world war I, I am informed that, in the 'United States alone, coal furnished 80 per cent of the energy used in that country. Oil supplied 12 per. cent and the others about 4 per cent each. Since then, a tremendous change has taken place. I am now informed that, in the United States, the use of natural gas has jumped 434 per cent, oil, 413 per cent, hydro-electric power, 350 per cent, but coal consumption has risen only about 5-5 per cent.
So that it is that in 1947, it is estimated coal furnished about 47 per cent of the power' for heating in the United States; oil supplied about 30 per cent; natural gas 12 per cent, and hydro-electric power 11 per cent. It would therefore seem that a continuing increase in the demand for oil and gas in this country as well as in the United States would be inevitable. We have huge supplies of natural gas as well as coal in Alberta, but because of the long distance there is no means, in southwestern Ontario especially, of tapping these supplies. On the other hand, we have supplies of coal in the maritime provinces and in the western provinces, but by reason of the long haul these do not stand competition with United States producers.
It is further estimated that on the basis of the current production the supply of crude oil is calculated to last about ten or eleven years at today's accelerated consumption pace. Further, we cannot look too hopefully to a longterm supply of crude oil. Natural gas, on the other hand, is estimated to have a lifetime of about thirty-three years. There appears, however, to be a sufficient supply of coal, anthracite, bituminous and lignite, for many years to come.
It is, therefore, necessary for us to take stock and lay long-term plans to meet the demands of liquid or gas fuel. In the United States the secretary of the interior has obtained an appropriation of $9 billion for a synthetic oil program, to study ways and means of converting natural gas into synthetic gasoline and diesel oil as a short-term program, and later to convert coal to oil or gas as a long-term program. The transition to a synthetic era will doubtless come as needed and be spurred on or retarded by developments in technology and more knowledge of atomic energy, or by the discovery of more oil resources.
I am informed that the most promising solution of the short-term program is the production of gasoline and diesel oil from

The Address-Mr. Brown
natural gas. The Standard Oil Development Company recently dedicated a research laboratory at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, which will work with the pilot plants in that area now producing petroleum products, gas and oil. Other plants are now planned in Texas and Kansas.
We have in the city of Windsor and environs facilities to produce annually a surplus of an estimated three and a half billion cubic feet of coke-oven gas, which would contribute largely to the supply of fuel gas in the highly industrialized area of southwestern Ontario for all time to come. This could be produced if the blast furnaces now erected on the Dominion Steel property at Ojibway, adjacent to the city of Windsor, were put into operation. This property is situated on one of the finest inland waterways in the world. It has excellent harbour facilities, highway facilities, and every other essential for the successful operation of a steel plant, which is so vital to the expanding economy of the dominion.
May I, therefore, urge the government to take every step possible in seeing that all the possibilities of this project, on which so many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been expended, is utilized to the fullest extent, to the benefit not only of the city of Windsor, but of the whole Dominion of Canada in making accessible these basic products which are so badly needed.
May I further urge the government to make such appropriations as are necessary to explore the possibilities of converting the vast supplies of natural gas into gasoline and oil and of converting coal into oil, not only as a means of satisfying domestic consumption for peacetime activities but as a further means of national defence. This, as I have stated, is being carried on in the United States and was done successfully in Germany and other countries, and Canada takes second place to no country in national research.
There is another matter which I should like to deal with briefly since it is wholly within my constituency, a matter which I have been dealing with since the summer of 1946. It has to do with the veterans land project known as the Roseland farm sub-division and the Oliver farm sub-division. My interest in this matter has been to see that these veterans, who have fought and bled and suffered for us' should now be rehabilitated in an atmosphere of industry, contentment and security, that they be re-established in our community where they may rear their children in an atmosphere of peace and quietness, and till their gardens, deriving therefrom as much satisfaction as is humanly possible. It is my hope that these 5849-115
veterans may continue to enter into the life of the community, socially, economically and politically, to the fullest extent.
I do not propose to thresh old straw from which all the wheat has been removed. Suffice it to say that I propose to continue, to the best of my ability, to serve the people of these sub-divisions as my constituents. The Roseland sub-division is probably one of the most beautiful locations for such a project to be found anywhere. This sub-division is approximately two miles from the business area of the city of Windsor. It has winding drives, small and neat white homes which circle a nine-hole golf course, well treed and with well kept greens and fairways. The possibilities of improvement of this sub-division cannot be reckoned, for it is an area in which any veteran may be proud to live. The Oliver farm sub-division, which is a short distance away and on the same highway, is a more recently developed project which also has winding drives and is easily accessible to the main part of the city by two highways. It is also in close proximity to another golf course.
It is regrettable, however, that these two sub-divisions are not serviced by a school, particularly a school which would accommodate the very small pupils. The township, by reason of its financial position, is not able to finance a school building for these areas, and the federal authorities have no jurisdiction in educational matters.
I personally accompanied the township representatives and the representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs, including the trustees of the township of Sandwich West school board, who have been doing such a magnificent job, in waiting upon the Premier of Ontario and other officials of that governmental body. It is to be hoped that some provision will soon be made, by the authorities having jurisdiction, to provide some accommodation at an early day. I might state that the Veterans Land Act administration has already indicated that it will provide the land at any time for a school, at no charge.
The hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy), however, has raised a point on which I think I should make some comment, for he has stated, at page 1209 of Hansard the following. I do not propose to read all of it, but in referring to a committee which was formed for the purpose of seeing that the veterans were getting fair value for their money he has this to say, in part:
The valuations that were made by this committee were made last December.
Further on:
I regret to say this, but it is nevertheless necessary that I should, because the minister in
The Address-Mr. Brown

his statement emphasized that the valuators bad never seen the prices previously quoted by the Veterans Land Act administration.
Then a little further on he says:
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 bad 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.
There is, of course, no reference there to the fact that this committee also found on other houses prices differentiating to the extent of about SI ,000; that is to say, the price on the house as set by the Veterans Land Act administration was reduced by nearly $1,000. I am not sure whether the hon. member, in making the remarks, intended them as a reflection upon the members of this committee who, not being members of this house, are not here to defend themselves. But since I had a great deal to do with influencing the government in appointing this committee, I should like to make some comment thereon. Mr. J. E. L. Price, who was chairman of the committee, is of Montreal. He had been unknown to me except by reputation which, I might state, was very high. Mr. Price, however, is chairman of the Canadian Legion national housing committee, and has probably done more, as a private individual, for the housing of veterans than any other person in Canada. Furthermore, I am willing to accept the advice of the Canadian Legion as to his integrity, ability and reputation. I, however, know the other two members of the committee who made the valuation on the Windsor houses and have known them for many years. These men were picked because of their outstanding ability in their respective fields, their reputations for fairness and integrity, and certainly because of no political affiliation; for none of these three gentlemen, to say the least, has been known as a member of the political party to which I adhere.
I attended the opening sessions of this committee and accompanied them on part of their inspection; and whenever any suggestion of any price was mentioned, they were vigorous in their rejection of any such assistance. All these gentlemen are returned soldiers themselves and interested in veterans' activities; and through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to express to them my gratitude for the work

which they undertook solely as a public service in seeing that the veteran obtained full value for his money.
There is another item which I should like to mention briefly in conclusion, and it has to do with a class of persons who are not in this house and who are not in a position to defend themselves. Of course I realize that, from a political point of view, it is never profitable to defend civil servants. But I hear from time to time many stories as to the operation of various departments. One story which obtained considerable publicity and notoriety had to do with the customs officials in my constituency. It appeared that at one time there had crossed at Windsor a car which contained an invalid who was returning from a hospital where she had undergone an operation. These people-and I believe there were three of them-when asked if they had anything to declare, said, "We have some gifts in the trunk". The examiner went to the trunk and tore the claws off (he fur and damaged the car, so it was reported. Then the officer is reported to have made them move the lady, who was an invalid, inside the customs house where she was kept for quite a while. The officer also is reported to have said, "You did not tell us about this item and that item". And the reply was, "I told you that we had gifts, and the names are on them". That might be misleading because the true facts of the case are as follows. Upon being requested to declare any goods to customs, they mentioned a few groceries and some small Christmas gifts which they had been given at Christmas and were now bringing into Canada. Their baggage was brought into the office and examined by a female examiner who found several articles of new clothing. As each article was found, one lady remarked, "My sister gave me that for my daughter-in-law," and each such item was allowed entry. These consisted of several articles, including a cotton playsuit, a pair of shoes the lady was wearing, a pair of shoes the gentleman was wearing and other small articles, although these were not packaged as gifts. On examining the automobile three children's dresses, two small lamps, and two pairs of ladies' shoes were found in the trunk of the car, and these goods still had the price tags attached. While they were also stated to be gifts from friends in the United States, after further questioning one lady admitted she had purchased them herself in the United States. Upon further search of the automobile, one carton of cigarettes was found concealed in a bag of groceries, and six cartons of cigarettes were found under the

The Address-Mr. Brown
front seat. These were placed under seizure because no declaration had been made.
On other occasions we have also been told that it would be advisable or expeditious to hold sort of sales or educational meetings with the examiners located at the border in order to attempt to turn them into diplomatic policemen. It is reported that the one making the statement had noticed quite a few oases at the border where examiners became rough and tough. I feel sure that the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross), who is such a congenial member of this house, never meant any offence to these public servants, and I am sure that he with his charming personality has had no difficulty personally. But his remarks, if hon. members wish to look them up, may be found at page 1157 of Hansard. You know, Mr. Speaker, I have found that these men referred to as the examiners usually treat a traveller somewhat in the same manner as the traveller treats the examiner. I do not deny that because of the imposition of the restrictions as of November 17, when no advice was given to the officers, nor could it be given to them, many assumed their responsibilities conscientiously. Many were new men who had been taken on without instruction. It is only fair to say, however, that these officers, most of whom had been recently released from the armed services, were and are trying to do a job conscientiously and efficiently. I too realize that these officers are salesmen for the Dominion of Canada; and since they have a valuable and serviceable product to sell I know they will do a good job. We as civilians can be of immeasurable assistance to them in trying to make their job, which in itself may be unpleasant, a cheerful and pleasant experience, if we realize the tension under which they are working and are willing to co-operate with them to the fullest extent. I have always found that if I approached these officers with a smile and showed courtesy and consideration, I received similar treatment from them, and vice versa.
So, if the department decides to hold these sales or educational meetings, as suggested by the hon. member, let us not restrict them to customs or immigration officers. Let all the citizens of Canada be invited to participate, to show the world we can live in unity, industry and prosperity.


Mr. MURPHY:: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question before he takes his seat?


Donald Ferguson Brown: Glad to.
5849-115i


Joseph Warner Murphy: In view of what he said with respect to the valuation of these veterans' homes being made in December, 1947, does he now think the price to the veteran should be 25 per cent, or 33 j per cent less, inasmuch as it was 1946 when they were asked to buy the homes?


Donald Ferguson Brown: As I understand the question, the interrogator would like to find out my personal opinion with respect to the valuation of a house in 1947, and whether or not I believe that house is now worth perhaps 25 per cent more than in 1945. My thought is that the veteran should get whatever he can for his money. The committee that was formed was asked to value the house as it stood, without any strings. That is my understanding, though, of course, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) can answer for his department. If my hon. friend is trying to ask me whether the cost of building a house was greater in 1947 than in 1945, my answer would be yes, that it was higher in 1947. On the other hand, what have they bought? I do not know the exact number, but not a great many have signed contracts. So I would say to them that they should decide whether or not they want to buy these houses at the figure for which they are being sold. If they do not I am sure no pressure will be exerted upon them; and if there is any pressure I know, and I am sure the Minister of Veterans Affairs knows, I shall be the first to protest.


Mr. W. GARFIELD CASE (Grey North):: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I feel I should say that the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) is in much better form when speaking of his wonderful city of Windsor than when defending the position of the administration with respect to veterans' homes and holdings.
For a great while I have tried to determine why it is considered the proper thing immediately to offer congratulations to the hon. members- who were selected to move and second the address in reply to the speech from the throne, though I know one can appreciate their contributions. Only recently, however,
I came to the conclusion that they were to be congratulated because of the courageous effort they made to bolster an administration which, by the very terms of the speech from the throne and in its general plans, offers no sense of direction and no statement of policy with respect to the economic problems which beset our country.
Tonight I felt that I should like to dwell for a little while on this great country of
The Address-Mr. Case

Canada and to evaluate our position in regard to the situation which prevails in the world today. Sometimes I think we are too modest, that we do not emphasize sufficiently the great advantages Canadian citizenship offers. Recently I was greatly impressed when, in company with the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Skey), I had luncheon with a Polish gentleman who came to this country during the days when the Polish legion was recruiting in Canada and drawing many recruits from Chicago and Detroit. After the United States came into the war those sources of recruits dried up; but this gentleman, who had escaped from Poland at the risk of his life with his wife and two small children, continued to make his home in Canada. He is now located in one of our substantial cities, where he has established a manufacturing plant which now employs over 250 people. What he said to my hon. friend and myself that day, as to his vivid realization of the advantages offered by the land of his adoption, impressed me greatly. He said, "Recently I was addressing a service club. I said to the people gathered there that very few of them realized the rich blessings they enjoy in this great land of freedom, this land of golden opportunity, this land which is indeed a challenge to all comers." So I feel that Canadians are prone to regard too lightly the great advantages we enjoy in this country. If we might travel across this vast dominion from the tide-scoured shores of the Atlantic coast right through to the foothills of the Rockies, indeed to the Pacific coast; if we might grasp the thought that our great country stretches almost 4,000 miles along its southern border and reaches northward from the 49th parallel right through to the arctic snows; if we could but conceive that within this vast area is the workshop of Canada, we might appreciate these advantages. We are indeed a sparsely populated country. About 12,000,000 people live within this vast expanse of territory and the challenge is there for them to apply their energies and ingenuity and to exhaust their ambitions in this land of golden opportunity.
When I stop to think of what leadership means, and what an administration can do for a nation and its general over-all economy, I am shocked to think today that the very administration which has been so fortunate, possibly, in its choice of name as to call itself Liberal, has cast upon this young nation a sense of confusion and doubt which is baffling businessmen and enterprise to the extent that we indeed will not reach our greatest destiny. Yet but a few short months ago Canada stood on the threshold of her greatest possible industrial expansion.

Today we have a so-called austerity program introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and sponsored largely by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) which, in their own language, offers no sense of security for planning in the future. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is the very opposite. There is only one way we can seek to beat inflation and that is by increased production. And we shall not have that increased production so long as we continue to apply the brakes on industry and seek to nullify the productive capacity of the people. Yet we find that that is what is taking place.
Where can one find an industrialist in Canada who would be willing at this moment to retool his plant with a view to producing parts for motorcars or anything else when, by the very words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, this program may be in effect for only a few short months? I would ask a somewhat similar question with regard to our market gardeners and vegetable growers, bearing in mind that it is not so many years ago that Canada was to a great extent self-sufficient in the production of many of her vegetables. Market gardeners would pit their cabbages and other produce, and would remove it from the pits as the season progressed so that it would find its way to market. But they had no sense of security. United1 States produce reached our markets. Today, when we have advanced so far and now have the finest refrigeration facilities, if our market gardeners were told that they might expect to supply the Canadian market even during the coming winter I am sure a great effort would be made to find means whereby their products would be made available. But the Minister of Finance has said he anticipates this program will remain in effect at least until the end of 1948 and possibly into 1949. So he is going to kill off another winter when we shall have a great deal of difficulty in getting along.
As I listened1 tonight to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I could not help noting the tremendous stress he was placing upon social security. So many things are done in the name of social security that I think they should be carefully reviewed in relation to the general welfare of our nation. It is so easy to encourage our people to become a nation of leaners so that they will depend upon some central authority for their security, rather than depend upon their initiative and their own ambition.
Let me remind the house that but a few short years ago, as we measure history, this great country of ours was hewn from the forest by a group of pioneers who left their

The Address-Mr. Case
homes and comforts, and whatever security was available to them, to take their chances in a new world. They laid the foundation upon which we, the succeeding generations, have continued to build.
We have not failed in our task; but this very insidious thing which is creeping among the people of our land, the thing which is encouraging our people to lean upon somebody else for their security and their sense of direction, ..this very thing which is robbing them of ambition and their initiative to do things is creeping into the very administration itself.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: You are not against old age pensions, are you?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I should like to say this to my hon. friend, that I am not really against anything. I am for a lot of things. And if he will follow me far enough, and try to keep up with me, probably he will change his opinion, too.
Let me say that this very thing has crept into the administration itself; until today we find the government of Canada in the position where they are leaning upon somebody else. Our whole future economic program is predicated upon what the United States of America may do with respect to the Marshall plan.
Irrespective of this vast expanse of territory which challenges every citizen and encourages us to produce from its rich resources, there is no planning being done to guarantee that we can travel under our own steam. We are depending upon somebody else, whereas we should be laying plans for ourselves.
Probably the greatest and most fatal error that was made was when we introduced into this country parity with respect to our money. I am not a convert in any sense, and no one will challenge me as to where I stood when the minister made his announcement; because on July 5, 1946, the Minister of Finance announced parity with the United States dollar, and on July 16, 1946, which would be a reasonable period of time in which I might be heard in debate, I challenged the minister's position and devoted more than a column of Hansard to criticizing the move the government had made, because I realize that the more we interfere with natural laws, the more difficult it will be to govern. The great advantage which we enjoyed with our 90-cent dollar has been taken from us, and I do not know why. Today Canada has a dishonest dollar. We must admit that, because it is not worth 100 cents in relation to the United States dollar and because it can be bought for 80 cents in New York. The best method we could have employed to adjust that difference
was to produce goods and services and let them flow across the border. In that way the situation would have corrected itself. But, instead, we sought to place an artificial structure under the one commodity which has more to do with regulating our general prosperity than anything else one can think of.
United States plants were bound to come to Canada and so was foreign capital. Well within our grasp lay the markets of the world as long as the United States dollar was accepted as the standard of value. I say that the government were indeed ill advised when they placed under our dollar an artificial structure which has since placed upon our industry and our enterprise the greatest possible handicap that could be placed upon it.
What has happened? Let us take a look at our natural resources. Let us look at our gold mining industry. This industry had arrived at a place where it was beginning to give an account of itself. After all, gold is a valuable commodity. It is durable and requires little space for storage. All down through the ages it has been accepted as [DOT] a standard of value throughout the world. History reveals that the nations which possessed the most gold were usually in the driver's seat. Yet we have dissipated and thrown away the great advantage we had to develop our huge gold mining resources.
Gold in the rock is of very little value and you may say that it is of very little value when sterilized and lying in the vaults at Fort Knox. But it does not need to lie in the vaults at Fort Knox. Surely we as a Canadian nation, masters in our own house, could have continued to mine the gold and offer our basic industries encouragement so that we could store the gold and hold it against balances of foreign trade. Let us take our great pulpwood industry. We ship from 90 to 94 per cent of our output to the United States of America and, after all, we are the largest producers of pulpwood products in the world. That industry was receiving the advantage of the premium as were our farmers who were selling their registered herds south of the border.
Government has been carried on at the administrative level and they have failed to give us a sense of leadership. We judge them by their record. We judge them by the development of our nation. We judge them by the increase in our population. As was said a few days ago during this debate, we have not even a highway across our great country on which we can travel from one coast to the other. Rich and all as we are in great resources, we have failed to apply them
The Address-Mr. Case

for the benefit of the nation and in many instances we have allowed them to be exploited for the benefit of the privileged few.
Canada is in a strategic position inasmuch as the smaller nations of the world look to her to give them a sense of leadership. Fortunately we are well situated, having to the south of us a great and friendly neighbour whose system of government is much the same as our own. It is admitted to be a system of democratic government and I do not think anyone will question that. Let me say to my hon. friend who interrupted me a moment ago that there is no substitute for democracy except dictatorship. The moment you introduce any other system of government, you deny the individual that great and cherished right he possesses to think for himself and to express his opinion as he sees fit.
In seeking to give this sense of leadership to the world, I wonder how well we shall discharge that great responsibility. I think back to the dark days of the war when the government was being carried on by a previous administration led by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I well remember that during the general election of 1945 it was freely said that the King administration should be returned to power because the Prime Minister was the only one properly qualified to represent Canada at the peace jonference.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: My hon. friend says, "Hear, hear," and I say we should have been represented at the peace conference. But let me tell you the type of leadership we have been given. When Great Britain was hard pressed for manpower, appeals were made to Canada to leave our troops to assist in the occupation of Germany, but we brought them away. Among the Prime Minister's souvenirs is the correspondence which deals with that and which he has not revealed. Whether that played a full part in future events, I do not know, but I know that it had a considerable effect. I do not say that seasoned troops should1 have been kept there, but there were thousands of young Canadians who had been trained and equipped for combat and who would probably have welcomed the opportunity to travel overseas for greater experience. They could have mingled with seasoned troops and have assisted in the occupation of Germany. We do not know at this moment just how costly our withdrawal may have been. We little realize the unfortunate situation which is building up in Europe today.

I recall also the time of the San Francisco conference when delegates were being named. I well remember the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), who was leading the opposition at that time, making an appeal to the Prime Minister that the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) be one of the delegates to San Francisco. The Prime Minister replied that he did not think that one who was not a member of the house should attend the conference, and, of course, the present leader of the opposition did not attend.
It is almost like irony of fate to realize that when it came time to sign the united nations pact the situation was reversed. The Prime Minister no longer held a seat in the House of Commons while the leader of the opposition did. In spite of that fact, the Prime Minister, without a seat in the house, flew to San Francisco to affix his name to the united nations pact. That meant, in effect, we will go to the aid of the other nations if they are attacked. More recently I listened to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) saying that Canada would respect her obligations and play her part when called upon in the Palestine situation. We have probably been long on showmanship but short on practicality, because the Prime Minister to my knowledge has never had the courage to tell this house or the Canadian people what method he intends to employ to honour our obligations under the united nations pact which he signed.
When I made my maiden speech in this house after the Grey North by-election I challenged the administration to take time by the forelock when peace came so that as members of this house and citizens of this country we might know what our future manpower policy was to be. But constantly politics interferes with our better judgment and we are leaving something of vital concern to be dealt with haphazardly. I ask the house this question: Are we to listen to General Crerar, with his great experience? Are we to formulate a plan now by which we can honour our obligations?


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about Drew?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: You have heard quite a bit about him in the last few days, and you probably have not yet heard the last. I can say this. One reason why your leader would not table that letter was that he does not want to give it official recognition. But the Canadian people will judge by the record.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You people gave the letter to the newspapers.

The Address-Mr. Case


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I do not know who gave it to the newspapers. During my first trip out west I got off at a place called Springwater in Saskatchewan and heard a hee-haw in the distance and thought the most amusing thing in the world was to hear a jackass bray.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And you have been braying ever since.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Military training has a greater objective in view than training a man to kill someone else. It trains a man how to defend himself.


Mr. VIAU:: Wear a uniform and you will understand it.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I have worn one, and I tried for the second time too, and can produce evidence to prove it. I do not want to detract in the slightest from the effort my hon. friend has made, nor do I want to praise the effort I have made because I am none too proud of it myself. But military training is training our young people, our boys and our girls as well, in the art of self-defence; and with a proper approach and educational program the mothers of this land will approve it. As we scan the world's horizon today, we must appreciate that our very existence may some day depend upon the training that our people have had. Canadians are just as brave as any people on earth, but like most of the democracies we are not warlike. We are fond of peace and we thrive on peace; it is very difficult to talk of war in times of peace, and that is why we are usually caught napping. I was brought up as a boy on the farm, and what I feared most in the first world war was going up against soldiers fully trained in the art of war. Training gives a man confidence in being able to defend himself, and in the two great wars Canadians-I say this with a great sense of humbleness and at the same time with a deep sense of pride-have written lines that will never fade from the brightest pages of Canadian history. By their sacrifices and their love of freedom, their regard for their homes and their lovedl ones, they have guaranteed the security which we enjoy today.
There is something which I think might be done. I have a great admiration for General Crerar. He visited my home city, but unfortunately I was not present at the time. He has won great respect for his military knowledge. Canada has never had a full-fledged field marshal. I think of Field Marshal Smuts. I do not know why we do not shake off our infant clothes and make General Crerar a full-fledged field marshal, to give some sense of direction as head of the Canadian Army, and be able to associate on equal terms with other military officers of the highest rank abroad. We pride ourselves on being a nation. We do not want to glorify war, but I think our people would appreciate this honour being given to a great Canadian soldier.
What is the situation in Europe at the moment? We do not know what will happen next. There is an air of uneasiness. It is a grave moment when our government and other democratic governments, the defenders of freedom, must indeed be concerned. I hope that we shall begin to realize that our greatest security is our faith in God, confidence in ourselves, and confidence in our great country. It is a moment when we can afford to be a little more tolerant that we would be under ordinary circumstances. It is a time when we should know who our friends are, because at this very moment the enemy is boring from within, and that will make the situation just that much worse should something unforeseen occur. I hope that in the days to come we shall address ourselves to the task of so equipping our nation and building up the morale of our people by training and otherwise that we shall be equal to the test of defending ourselves, though we may never wage an offensive war.
Just one brief thought in closing about our austerity program. I am emphasizing this austerity feature, because I do not think it is too late yet for the government to turn back and listen, to the voice of reason. In the ordinary course of events, thousands of people will wish to visit our country. That is what we call our tourist trade.
The time is not far distant when we must give careful consideration to plans for this season and, as a matter of fact, plans are no doubt under way at the present time. If it is possible for the American to purchase 81.10 of goods in Canada for his dollar I am sure our coffers will be that much richer. You may correct the United States dollar situation by the restrictions that are at present in effect. I am not going to deny that. But in doing so you are very likely to wreck the whole Canadian economy. That is the concern of Canadians today, because businessmen are confused. No one knows exactly where to turn or what position to take at the present moment. There is ample evidence that the moment the government took this position, someone paid and Canada was the loser.
It is not very long ago that the Bank of Canada was bidding for victory bonds at
The Address-Mr. Case

a very substantial premium. Many people made substantial fortunes, having purchased victory bonds only to turn them over two or three months later, and I presume the Bank of Canada was the purchaser. The bonds were purchased at par and sold at $104.50 and as high as $106. Now these bids are withdrawn, and it causes one to wonder, because I know that Americans were large purchasers of our bonds. They could purchase them after they had been on the market for so long, and they were able to purchase them with that $1.10. Do not think they did not speculate on the possibilities of the Canadian dollar returning to par, so that when it returned to par they would be able to turn in those bonds and convert their money into 100 cents on the dollar in Canada. Therefore I often ask myself the question why the government maintained this bid on dominion government bonds until it did, in the sense that the Americans were secure. Whether it was to encourage them to believe that this was a good place to put their money, I am not prepared to say.
I had a great deal to do with war finance in the early days of the war, having headed up seven victory loan campaigns in my community, and having been for two and one-half years chairman of the war savings certificate campaign to encourage people to put their money into that form of investment. Many millions were invested in war savings certificates ; and I would emphasize that $40 a m-onth would return $50 a month in seven and a half years' time, these being the only government bond in the world paying 34 per cent interest compounded' semi-annually. Now look at the situation. It is true that their $40 will be worth $50, but every $4 will purchase only $3.60 worth of goods, and every $40 only $36, as compared with the time at which the investment was made.
I say, therefore, that the Canadian investor has been taken down the road, and now it would appear the time has come when people who invested in these war savings certificates, with a sense of security and in the belief that they were building up something worthwhile, find that their expectation has been entirely dissipated because of the policy which this government has adopted, which has led to confusion, higher prices and an increased cost of living. Our building trades are stagnant and no one knows where to go or what to do. Costs are out of line and people are inclined to wait and see. And while we are waiting to see we are losing the advantage of the tremendous volume of production of which our nation is fully capable under normal circumstances.

I say to the government that the sooner it gets out of business which private enterprise can look after, and utilize all the latent power which is evident among the individuals within our nation, the sooner we shall recover and be on our way to solid prosperity.


Mr. RENE HAMEL (St. Maurice-La-fleche):: Mr. Speaker, before addressing the house in French, I feel it would be appropriate to give to the English-speaking members of the house an idea of the subject with which I intend to deal. My intention is to deal with the important problem of national unity. In my opinion there are two fundamental reasons why the major groups of this country are divided.
The first reason why we are divided is the fact that we have not the same conception of the part our country should play in the British commonwealth of nations. Some people seem to be satisfied that Canada sacrificed on the altar of the empire her last man and her last dollar. Others, among whom I place myself, disapprove such a stand.
The second reason why we are divided is that the two major groups in this country do not give to our constitution the same interpretation. We feel that we have given in Quebec, to the Protestant minority, better treatment than that given to our compatriots in the other provinces.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Nonsense; not in British Columbia. That is a lot of horse feathers.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is speaking for himself.


John Ewen Sinclair: We have a Catholic premier and we are glad to have him.


René Hamel: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will propose in the federal sphere a few reforms which in my opinion would improve relations between the two major groups in the country.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, during this debate on the address in reply, I shall deal with a matter of perennial timeliness for almost two centuries, namely that of good understanding between the two major groups of our population, Canadians of French origin or of Catholic faith and Canadians of English descent.
Though intending to deal only with the differences between French and English Canadians may I say at the outset that in my opinion the problem is not confined to those two groups in particular. In its population of about 12 million souls, Canada numbers some

The Address-Mr. Hamel
5,700,000 people of British birth or descent, nearly three and a half million of French stock and almost three million who have come from different countries, mostly Europeans.
Those three million Canadians have retained, I am sure, a perfectly legitimate attachment for their native lands and created among themselves bonds of solidarity which are a credit to them and which I would be the last to condemn. The various national societies they have formed to safeguard their common interests are sufficient evidence of the bonds of solidarity which unite Canadians of Ukrainian or Polish descent, as well as of other nationalities.
Italian and German-born Canadians had to disband their associations for a few years, but I would be much surprised if they did not reorganize at the first opportunity. We cannot solve the problem of national unity in Canada without taking into account that important ethnological factor.
Statistics on immigration and emigration show that, from 1851 to 1941, we have brought in 6,699,226 foreigners to help us develop and build our country. On the other hand, during the same period, we have witnessed the sad spectacle of a mass exodus, which drew away 6,301,320 citizens from our country.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that we have no right to remain unmoved by such statistics, and must ask ourselves why so many citizens have failed to adapt themselves to their new country or to find a decent living among us.
For the time being, I shall confine my remarks to the causes of the rift in the two main groups of our population.
One reason for our lack of unity is that the word "country" does not mean the same thing to both. Granted, we all consider ourselves Canadian citizens but we do not attach the same meaning to this status. In the eyes of some, Canada is but a secondary nation bound to sacrifice its interests on the high altar of the British commonwealth of nations. Canadians of French descent feel, however, that their first loyalty belongs to Canada and cannot resign themselves to seeing their country become the cat's-paw of the British commonwealth of nations. May I remind those who deem such language rather strong and the Canadian people at large of the following facts . . .
(Text):


John Ewen Sinclair: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Once again may I ask when in this house the rule against the reading of speeches is to be observed. The
hon. member is not only reading but is reading at close range. If he intends to read his speech, surely to goodness he should be able to read it on his desk.


Mr. CAOUETTE:: He is only consulting his
notes.


John Ewen Sinclair: We shall not be through by August if this goes on.


René Hamel: You do it yourself.
(Translation):


James Horace King: Order. I would point out to the hon. member that he is forbidden by standing orders to read his speech.


René Hamel: I did not understand your remarks, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):


John Ewen Sinclair: The rule is against the reading of speeches.
(Translation):


Mr. GAGNON:: The hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche is doing exactly what the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret) did some days back when he introduced a bill.
(Text):


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The hon. member for Vancouver North will never be a cabinet minister if he is going to take that attitude.


An hon. MEMBER:: Neither will you.


Mr. FULTON:: The hon. member makes only one speech a year, so he can memorize it. He does not have to read it.
(Translation):


James Horace King: Order, I would ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank) to abide by the rules of the house. The hon. member who has the floor must not be interrupted without his consent.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Very well.


René Hamel: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker . . .
(Text):


James Horace King: Order. I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that one of the duties of the Speaker is to protect freedom of speech in this house. I would ask hon. members to listen to the hon. member who actually has the floor. If anyone wishes to ask a question of that hon. member, he should rise in his place and ask for permission to do so.


René Hamel: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness.
1814
The Address-Mr. Hamel

(Translation):
As I was saying, compared to the rest of the countries in the British commonwealth, Canada has been playing the role of a cat's-paw. Here is how I intend to prove my statement.
(a) Our financial effort in the last war was close to four times as large as that of Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa combined. In fact, according to the World Almanac for 1947, page 523, the war budgets of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa combined amounted to $4,620 million while Canada alone spent $15,580 million. On a population basis, the financial effort shows an even, greater difference. Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa spent $226 per capita while Canada gave $1,354 per capita.
Comparing our losses in human life with those of South Africa, whose population is about the same as ours, we find that we suffered 92,493 casualties against 23,044 by the latter dominion.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: May I ask the hon. member where he obtained these figures? If you refer to official data, you will find that our losses in human life totalled 30,000 and not 90,000.


René Hamel: I may inform the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Lapointe) that those figures are drawn from what I consider to be i reliable source, the World Almanac for 1947.


Hugues Lapointe: I believe the figures quoted include not only the dead but also the wounded.


René Hamel: The figures I am giving for Canada cover exactly what is represented by the figures for South Africa. The same basis of comparison is used.


James Horace King: Order.
(Text):


René Hamel: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
I would not have dwelt on those sad memories if the government of my country was not continuing to squeeze the Canadian ratepayers for the benefit of Great Britain.
From the end of hostilities in 1945 to this date, according to a Canadian Press dispatch published by /.a Presse of Montreal on May 13, 1947, the joint contribution of three dominions, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, for the recovery of the United King-

dom, adds up to about $125 million. As regards Canada, if the loan of $1,250 million is added to outright gifts, her contribution to the recovery of Great Britain is nearly twenty times greater than the joint contribution of the three other dominions, whereas Canada's population represents only about 55 or 60 per cent of the population of the three other dominions put together. Our per capita contribution towards the recovery of Great Britain is 33 times greater than that of the other dominions.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Shame!


René Hamel: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if an individual had managed his property the way the government has done for ten years, he would be prosecuted before the courts and laid under an interdict perhaps not for madness but surely for lavishness.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: For madness, to be sure!


René Hamel: Mr. Speaker, we do not agree as to what the term motherland means. In my humble opinion, this is the first cause of our dissensions.
The second cause lies in the fact that we give a different interpretation to the internal constitution of our country. The spirit of confederation is to make out of Canada a bilingual country.
( Tgx t)*


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask, not being familiar with the situation, what the hon. member is reading from?
(Translation):


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Sit down, you are talking too much!	.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And you talk too loudly!
(Text):


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down!


James Horace King: Order!


John Ewen Sinclair: Just enforce the rules of the house.


James Horace King: The hon. member will realize that the member who has the floor was just now quoting many figures and, of necessity, had to consult his notes.


John Ewen Sinclair: Why does he not file it with Hansardt
(Translation) :


René Hamel: According to the spirit of confederation, Canada was to be a bilingual country. The two main religions existing in 1867 were to enjoy special protection all across Canada. That was the meaning given by the French Canadians to section 93 of the British North America Act.

The Address-Mr. Hamel
(Text):


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member quoting mow? I will put it in French, if he cannot understand it in English. Vous parlez contre l'unite canaddenne. Is he reading it or not?


James Horace King: Order.
(Translation):


René Hamel: I have here section 93 of our constitution, of the B.N.A. Act. Our interpretation of it is based on the statement made by Lord Carnarvon on February 22, 1867. This is what he said1 in the British parliament:
The purpose of this section (93) has been to provide all minorities, whether in esse or in posse and irrespective of their creed, with status of absolute equality. Thus the Protestant minority of Lower Canada and the Catholic minority of the Maritimes will be on an equal footing.
Mr. Speaker, that is how French Canadians in Quebec have interpreted the British North America Act, and we feel we have treated the Protestant minority of Quebec not only with fairness and loyalty, but with generosity. We have formed a Protestant school committee entrusted with the full organization and supervision of their curricula, as well as the complete administration of their generous share of funds. To my knowledge, the Englishspeaking Protestant minority of Quebec has never complained in that connection.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: That is true.


René Hamel: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, things worked out differently in the provinces with an English-speaking majority. As early as 1867, two words-"by-law"-allowing judicial authorities to give our pact a narrow interpretation were inserted in the constitution, apparently without the knowledge of the Catholic population of the time.
As early as 1871, the New Brunswick legislature enacted the common school legislation compelling Catholics to choose between the painful alternative of sending their children to a school of which they disapproved in conscience, or building their own schools at the heavy cost of the dual tax.
This piece of legislation seemed so highly unfair to the people of New Brunswick that when brought before the legislature in 1869, it was defeated. In 1870 it was again rejected and only in 1871, thanks to the support of a narrow majority, was it embodied in the statutes.
This legislation was so obviously unfair to the people that the dominion parliament begged the king to make his influence felt in Fredericton in order to have it amended.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Keep quiet!


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Keep quiet yourself!
(Text):


James Horace King: Order. I am tired of calling hon. members to order. I am sorry to say that if some of them do not abide by the rules, the next time I shall be obliged to apply the sanction.


John Ewen Sinclair: Since you have not cared to apply this very excellent rule of the House of Commons against the reading of speeches, Mr. Speaker, I for one will withdraw from the house and read about it in the morning.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall be glad to join the hon. member.


James Herbert Matthews: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to many speeches in this house since I was elected to this parliament. I have heard speeches read by members of all parties, and I think it ill becomes a member of any party to criticize others. Let the hon. gentleman criticize those on his own side.


James Horace King: Before the hon. member continues his speech may I say to hon. members that they know perfectly well it is against the rules to read a speech in this house. They also know perfectly well that on different occasions I have called the attention of hon. members on both sides to that rule. However, hon. members will appreciate that in spite of the fact that the rules forbid the reading of speeches, unfortunately it has become a practice on the part of many hon. members to do so during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Since I have been appointed Speaker, every session after the debate on the address is concluded I have informed hon. members that I would not tolerate any further reading of speeches. I believe it is only fair that we should be generous to the hon. member who has the floor since, as another hon. member has already stated, hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house have read speeches during this debate. I might add' that hon. members will realize that the hon. gentleman who has the floor actually has quoted many figures and extracts of one kind and another, so he has had to read a good deal, and I believe he should be excused for having done so. Now I hope
1816
The Address-Mr. Hamel

hon. members will be kind enough to let the hon. gentleman proceed with his speech, and not interrupt him any more.


René Hamel: Once more, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for your kindness.
(Translation):
In 1868, the school legislation of Prince Edward Island underwent a thorough reform. Catholic schools were recognized and provided for. This province entered confederation in 1873 and until 1877 Catholic schools were maintained under the 1868 statute. Everything was at peace then. But again in this province Catholic and French schools were struck out with a stroke of the pen. Your Catholic and French schools were in existence, we are told, but they were not protected by statute. As regards the teaching of French, it is also true that this right was expressly written in the provincial school legislation, but unfortunately it is not protected by the 1867 act as it did not apply to a specific class of persons. In Prince Edward Island as elsewhere, French was crossed out of the act.
(Text):
I suppose hon. members are interested in knowing what are the fundamental reasons why we are divided. That is why I have dealt with this problem.
(Translation):
Leaving Fredericton and Charlottetown and setting out for Winnipeg, we find another Golgotha where the rights of the French Catholic minority were pitilessly immolated. Passed in 1870, section 22 of the Manitoba Act provided protection against any legislation "affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education." Section 23 of the act provided as follows:
(Text):
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the Houses and so on.
(Translation):
Could it be clearer or more specific? As a matter of fact Catholics and Protestants have been living together for twenty years in perfect understanding. Catholics and Protestants support only their own schools.
In 1890 came the Martin laws depriving the Catholic minority of all its rights. The privy council acknowledged the glaring injustice of this legislation. Parliament agreed. A Protestant member from Winnipeg, Mr. Hugh J. Macdonald, stated in this house in 1893:
The separate school system of Manitoba has been abolished in a barbarous, brutal and cruel way.

Once more the French and Catholic minority was crushed. Being unable to face double taxation they were forced to close a large number of their schools.
Study closely the story of schools in the district of Keewatin and in the other parts of the northwest territorities. In every case the same condition obtained. In order to ensure the consent of Catholics and of French people to the entrance of their territory into confederation, you had the same definite promise as to the protection of their faith and of their language, and the same violation of these rights as soon as the anglo-protestant majority could act at no great risk to itself. Mr. Speaker, I have gone into this bit of history for the following reasons.
In the first place, it is because I am personally convinced that the treatment inflicted upon the Catholics of this country, who number nearly five million and form 43 per cent of our population, explains much more adequately than the way in which history is taught in our schools, the dissension existing between the two major groups in this country. My second reason is that I thought it desirable to recall that historic episode, in view of the fact that the establishment of a federal district is now being mooted. I do know, Mr. Speaker, that speaking before a meeting of representatives of 22 municipalities interested in the project, the Minister of Public Works, as reported in the February 11, 1948, issue of Le Droit, gave the assurance that the plan was not to form a federal district administered by a commission, like those which exist in Washington or Canberra, but rather to beautify the dominion capital and the neighbouring localities, while respecting their autonomy as was done in Paris. How can the statements of the Minister of Public Works jibe with those which were made by the Prime Minister himself in this house, especially on April 21, 1944, when he said, as reported on page 2237 of Hansard'.
I have spoken on this subject a number of times and some years ago I made the suggestion, which others have also made, that some day the capital of Canada might become a federal district to be administered by a commission, in a manner similar to the capital at Washington.
This statement was made by the Prime Minister himself. It is not the system followed in the French capital that the government contemplates in connection with the dominion capital, but indeed the system followed in Washington. Consequently the population of French origin and Catholic

The Address-Mr. Hamel
faith will be faced with the same problems which arose in 1867, 1870, 1877, 1890 and 1905. How do the hon. gentlemen opposite intend to spare their compatriots and co-religionists the sad fate met by the French and Catholic population of the maritimes, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Northwest Territories and even Ontario? By promises? Ten times in 80 years, the most solemn and formal promises have been broken. By texts? Read over again Manitoba's constitution, the Northwest Territories first constitution, and you will find out what a text is worth.
Mr. Speaker, the second reason of our dissensions in this country is that confederation was a bona fide pact, which was to be interpreted in a broad and generous manner, but it has been applied shabbily at the expense of the Catholic population which in 1941 was 44 per cent of the total country's population, and to the detriment of the French population which is more than 30 per cent of the total population of Canada.
Frustrated in their religious and cultural rights, the French Canadians were again frustrated in economic matters.
In the matter of subsidies, whether it be under the dominion tax proposals, or towards the construction of houses or again, on a per capita basis, as family allowances, it is a well known fact that the province of Quebec ranks last in Canada.
Last week's debate on the Farm Improvement Loans bill has shown that there also Quebec has received less than any of the other provinces.	.
Coming now to the railroads, we find Quebec still dragging behind the others. I find at page 660 of the Canada Year Book a most interesting table on this question:
Railroads
Number of miles per thousand people
Saskatchewan	 9'69
Alberta	 7'22
Manitoba	 6-65
British Columbia	 4-74
New Brunswick	 4'01
Prince Edward Island	 3-00
Ontario	 2-77
Nova Scotia	 2-5
Quebec	 1-43
Another known fact is that in the civil service French-speaking employees represent only about \2\ per 100 of the total while
we account for 30 per 100 of the Canadian population.
From what the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois) said yesterday, I understand
he is satisfied with present conditions.


Mr. LANGLOIS:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he quote from my speech the part where I said I was satisfied with present conditions?


David Réal Caouette: You showed it throughout your speech.


René Hamel: If the hon. member says that he is not satisfied, I shall take his word for it; however, when I read his speech I had the impression that he was satisfied with the situation.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: It was a false impression.


René Hamel: Mr. Speaker, I take
exception to the reflections cast yesterday on one of my personal friends, the representative for Quebec county in the Quebec legislature, Mr. Rene Chaloult. The hon. member for Gaspe contends that Mr. Chaloult stated a falsehood when he said that immigration was organized on the largest scale under the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I have here documents to prove that Mr. Chaloult was speaking the truth. I do not intend to quote all the figures mentioned by the hoh. member for Gaspe, but I will point out to him that in the period when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was prime minister of Canada,-from 1901 to 1911,-not only was immigration greater than at any other time in the history of the country ,and since confederation, but in that period 1,781,918 immigrants entered Canada, or nearly as many as during the fifty previous years.
If the hon. member for Gaspe cares to look at the immigration problem in a different light or to consider those statistics from a different angle, I shall not challenge his right to do so, but I contend that it was unfair of him to accuse in this house the hon. member who represents the constituency of Quebec in the provincial legislature of not speaking the truth.


Mr. MICHAUD:: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?
The Address-Mr. Hamel


James Horace King: Order! The hon. member for Restigouehe-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) has the floor.


Benoît Michaud: I would like to ask the hon. member whether he fully endorses all the words spoken by Mr. Rene Chaloult in the Quebec legislature.


René Hamel: I may confess to the hon. member that I have not read the whole of Mr. Chaloult's speech, but I would be very happy to have the hon. member for Quebec county in the provincial legislature meet my hon. friends-


Benoît Michaud: You are not answering my question.


René Hamel: May I, in closing, Mr. Speaker, offer a few suggestions conducive to national unity. Here, then, is what I propose. First, that the French-speaking ministers who make statements in this house use the mother tongue of the majority of their constituents as often as possible. Second, that standing order 47 prescribing that motions be read in French and English before discussion be respected from now on. Third, that members of the cabinet, at least those who can do so, answer in French questions which are put to them in French by members of this house. Furthermore, let the French version of committee reports be made available to Frenchspeaking members at the same time as the English version, instead of many months later, as at present.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


René Hamel: Also provide hon. members with the French version of Hansard at the same time as with the English version. As matters now stand, the French edition almost invariably reaches us four or five hours after the English. Then require that those heads of branches whose jurisdiction extends throughout the country be bilingual.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


René Hamel: Also require that all House of Commons employees be bilingual, pages, messengers and other officials who may be called upon to answer French-speaking as well as English-speaking people.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Hear, hear!


René Hamel: Have bilingual posters and menus in the cafeteria or the restaurant. Make the signs on the grounds and around parliament hill bilingual also.

To my mind, Mr. Speaker, we shall learn to respect each other all the more if the federal parliament is given that true bilingual character which is provided for by the constitution.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Would the hon. member say where he got those figures?


René Hamel: What figures?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Those on immigration.


René Hamel: Here is my reference:.
A table submitted to the Senate committee (proceedings, page 261) by Mr. Herbert Marshall, the dominion statistician provides precise and striking evidence on this point.
This is from the newspaper, The Canadian Unionist.
(Text):


Mr. T. V. GRANT (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. gentleman who has preceded me will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks. However, I wish to congratulate him upon having put up a splendid fight against his adversaries and upon having put at least a couple of them to flight. I did not intend to say anything during this debate because, like others, I was anxious that it should come to an end. However, upon pressure being brought to bear upon me by some of my maritime colleagues, I yielded against my better judgment. I did not think it was right to allow the Tory member for Queens (Mr. McLure) to have everything to say about conditions in Prince Edward Island. One of my old teachers used to say that when you heard nothing you should say nothing, but here I am afraid I am disobeying him.
I listened attentively but painfully to the doleful speech of the Tory member for Queens. It was a gloomy picture indeed that he gave of conditions in our province. The last part of his speech was brighter, however, because he invited tourists to come down to that terribly neglected province. His speech reminded me of the poet's description of Jacques Cartier's first winter on the St. Lawrence river. He was very gloomy at first because the river was frozen over and there were other conditions which were not very suitable, but later on he changed like my hon. friend. I think the lines of the poet read somewhat as follows:
But when he changed the scene He told how soon it oast In early spring the fetters That held the waters fast.
How the magic wand of summer Cast the landscape of his eyes Like the drybones of the just When they wake in Paradise.
He was referring to the St. Lawrence river and surrounding scenery.

The Address-Mr. Grant
I am sorry the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) is not in his seat at the moment. Before continuing and by way of diversion, may I say that following the last provincial election in my province I understand he gave an interview to the press. I am told that the reason given by him for all C.C.F. candidates having lost their deposits was that the people of Prince Edward Island were not sufficiently educated along C.C.F. lines. I am not finding fault with his way of expressing himself, but I presume he meant that we did not know the C.C.F. party well enough. There is a contradiction here, because the people of Prince Edward Island turned down the Tory party because they knew them too well.
To get back to the Tory member for Queens, his speech was indeed mournful and bewildered. The other day he told the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that he and the minister had both done well for the province of Prince Edward Island. I think it was ingratitude on his part to ignore the senior member for Queens (Mr. Douglas). I am reminded of the traveller in iEsop's fable who picked up a frozen snake and placed it in his bosom, and after it had warmed up a little it stung him to death. I was surprised to hear such a speech made in this house, especially at a time when the province of Prince Edward Island has never been as prosperous. In fact it looks sometimes as though this is a period of uncontrolled prosperity.
In his speech yesterday the only minister praised by the hon. member was the former minister of fisheries, the late Hon. Mr. Bridges. I suppose he thinks the only good Liberals are dead ones.
The Tory member for Queens deplores the fact that we have not more cold storage plants in Prince Edward Island. His party has been in power in Prince Edward Island, and if he were in his seat tonight I would ask him if he could point to one cold storage plant that the Conservative party ever built in Prince Edward Island. There are in my constituency about five potato warehouses which were built for the benefit of the potato growers and the Liberal party built every one of them. There is one in Souris costing $200,000, another of the same kind in Georgetown, another in Elmira, another in St. Andrews, and another one being built in Morell-all built under a Liberal administration. Not one of those cold storage plants was built by the Conservative party. The Liberals built every one of them. I should like the Tory member for Queens to point out
something that the Conservatives have done in Prince Edward Island, or anywhere else for that matter.
He also spoke about highways. We have a great many highways in Prince Edward Island, hundreds of miles of paved roads running from one end of the province to the other, and the Conservative party did not build one foot of them. They did attempt at one time to build a few miles; but they did not seem to understand how to do it; the frost destroyed the road, and the work had to be all done over again by a succeeding Liberal government.
He also spoke about foxes and reefers. I do not know exactly where his word "reefer" came from, but there is a warm jacket which is known as a reefer and perhaps that is why they call the warm cars reefers. I suggest to my hon. friend that he get one of these reefer coats, if he can get one large enough to button, and then get one of these fox furs and put it around his neck, and then he would not have to do so much talking in the house. We would all know what he stood for-reefers and fox furs.
One strange thing he did say, that all the money that was spent on plants in Prince Edward Island during the war was $1,277. As a matter of fact, there was more money spent in Prince Edward Island for its size than in any other province. Millions of dollars were spent there by the then minister of national defence because he was a member for the province. Millions of dollars were spent on two or three airports. I did not get much in my constituency, but I got elected at the next election. What I did get was an air raid telephone line all along the north shore of my constituency, and after the war was over, the government gave that to the people. It served several parishes. That alone must have cost many thousands of dollars, so that I cannot understand where my hon. friend gets his figure of $1,277.
The Tory member for Queens also complains about our national park and says that the roads leading to it are not good enough. I ask him who built the national park there? What is the national park to any Tory? It was built by the Liberal government, but the Tories can go there, of course. But they never put it there, and they never would put it there. There is one highway to the park. My hon. friend need not complain because his party never did anything like that in our province at least.
Speaking about reefer cars, I should like to put a statement on Hansard with regard to

The Address-Mr. Grant
reefer cars in Prince Edward Island. This is taken from the Department of Agriculture in Prince Edward Island:
During the crop season of 1947 there were 8,835 carloads of potatoes ferried across the straits by the Canadian National Railways.
During the same season 858 carloads of turnips were ferried across, making a total of 9,393 cars of potatoes and turnips ferried across the straits.
So the Tory member for Queens had a big job on his hands in arranging for all these cars. Of course he had the assistance of the Minister of Transport, but he had to work pretty hard himself. The minister is a hard worker too,
but I do not think he could ever get along without the aid of his parliamentary assistant, the Tory member tor Queens.
On motion of Mr. Grant the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Angus MacInnis: What will be the business
for tomorrow?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	We shall continue
with this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 3, 1948