Mr. David Gourd (Chapleau):

Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you for the faultless manner in which you have discharged your important duties during the four years of our twentieth parliament.

I am glad of this opportunity to renew my congratulations to the Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent who, after assuming the leadership of the great Liberal party, undertook to everyone's satisfaction the heavy responsibilities of governing the country as prime minister. All who are anxious to ensure the prosperity and future of this country rejoiced on seeing such great responsibilities entrusted to a man so able to assume them. Fortunately, the great majority of the people appreciate the importance of responsible leaders who wish to preserve the people's freedom while guaranteeing its economic security and stability. I join my distinguished colleagues in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. members for Essex West (Mr. Brown) and for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Demers).

At this session, the house will discuss several important matters and take decisions of far-reaching consequences.

As far as the speech from the throne is concerned, I wish to draw to the attention of the government a few points which I believe to be of the utmost importance for the constituency I represent, as well as for the country at large.

First, I was greatly pleased, Mr. Speaker, to learn of the government's intention of supplementing the present Family Allowances Act, which we owe to the cabinet of our illustrious former prime minister. The hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) showed once again, in putting forth that legislation, that he has a profound understanding of social justice. Since this legislation has proved effective, it should now be stripped of as many restrictions as possible. I congratulate the government on its proposal in this respect.

The Address-Mr. D. Gourd

Obviously, estimated budget expenditures are thus increased, but can a state spend more wisely than by providing for its human heritage?

In troubled times such as ours when so many false, destructive and subversive ideas are spread throughout the world, steps should be taken to ensure that future generations will be physically, intellectually and morally sound. The best Canadians we can hope for are still those who are taught, on their mother's lap, to love Canada. For them, moral values are part and parcel of their family heritage. In planning first of all for them, we plan for the future.

It is in the newer regions especially, such as Chapleau county which I am privileged to represent, that the benefits of this Family Allowances Act are more easily observed. The families of settlers and pioneers of that district, who pride themselves on having lived in this country for three centuries, whose forebears cleared uninhabited tracts of land and who, in their turn, are now building an entirely new country, are quite deserving of some encouragement by the government in carrying out the superhuman task of pushing the frontiers of civilization beyond their present limits and of making new wealth accessible to all.

I pay tribute to those builders, to those fathers and mothers who are rearing strong and healthy children to help us face an uncertain future.

May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to again submit to this house how important it is, in my estimation, in order to co-ordinate good will and to maintain peace, that a country such as Canada be represented at the Vatican, stronghold of Christianity and a moral force so necessary at all times.

I also submit that the official recognition of a distinctive national flag would answer the wish of a great majority of Canadians. I am happy to congratulate also the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) for his excellent remarks. I join him in thanking the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) for the adoption of legislation so useful to humanity.

In a constituency as new as the one I have the honour of representing, we already have a sanatorium, and a new hospital now nearing completion. Similar facilities exist in Val d'Or, in the constituency next to mine.

To show the usefulness of this act to our people, let me give an example. A few days ago I received a letter of thanks from the

908 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. D. Gourd chairman of the board of the Macamic sanatorium, Mr. Jacques Bouchard, acknowledging the receipt of a $256,680 grant to his institution.

Since the second hospital to which I referred has not yet been completed, I do not know what portion of the grant it will receive, but I am nevertheless convinced that it will be a fair share.

Mr. Speaker, before dealing more particularly with my constituency, I wish to suggest that measures should be taken for the relief of low-income taxpayers. I am convinced that if all incomes lower than $2,500 were exempt from taxation, the economic prosperity of this country would become more and more stabilized.

Ever since the victory of our armies, allied to those of other nations, that is to say for more than four years, we have experienced wonderful prosperity, as a result of the wise administration of our government. Once more, our national balance-sheet shows a considerable surplus. Through the competence and ability of our minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) Canada has secured a financial position which is one of the soundest in the world. I therefore suggest that the tax burden which Canadian citizens have to bear should now be lightened.

I wish to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) for his vision and ability in building a branch line from Barraute towards Kiask falls. I must again mention the important reports prepared by Mr. Keith Ralston, C.N.R. engineer, on the natural resources of that district. I must recall too the many resolutions passed by the boards of trade and other organizations in my constituency asking that this railway line be extended over a further eleven miles, so that it may reach Cedar rapids at Kiask falls. Navigation would then be possible over a stretch of about sixty miles north of these rapids.

At the time I discussed this matter at length, on March 6, 1947, this line was only in the blueprint stage. Today it is being completed and results already apparent, particularly at Bachelor lake, are an incentive for the building of this line on the 11 mile stretch I have mentioned and, before long, for its extension to Chibougamau.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the house to a rather extraordinary fact in northern Quebec and Ontario. Our provincial highways reach the boundaries, or [Mr. Gourd (Chapleau).l

nearly, whilst the Ontario roads are 50 miles remote from our boundaries, a stretch that has never been built. There has been so much talk about unity that it seems unbelievable that such conditions exist and that our communication system should not be more efficient.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is not always easy for the dominion government to obtain the co-operation of the provincial governments. However, I urge the federal authorities to do everything in their power to open up the 50 miles of road which I have mentioned and to build a highway connecting my district with northern Ontario. Those two areas have several things in common and the relations of their citizens will consolidate their common interests, wipe out their disagreements and strengthen unity between the two provinces.

I would also suggest that the necessary steps be taken so that the trans-Canada highway may have approximately the following layout; going east from Cochrane, running somewhat parallel to the C.N.R. tracks, passing through La Reine and crossing my constituency to Mont Laurier. Such a layout would greatly reduce the distance between Montreal and Cochrane.

In plotting the highway in that manner, the present roads could be used for the greater part of the way, which would save time in building the highway. The layout would be advantageous to tourists who could take one road going north and another one coming south, thus making a loop.

I should like to stress the fact that the present highway, leaving the Manitoba boundary at 35 miles from Kenora and passing through Fort William, Kapuskasing, Cochrane and Ottawa, is 1,390 miles long. I would also point out that the highway from Point Fortune in the province of Quebec to the New Brunswick boundary, near Edmund-ston, covers a distance of 388 miles. That means a total of 1,778 miles from the Manitoba to the New Brunswick boundary. The present highway is located in Ontario to the extent of 75 per cent. If my proposal were carried out, the road starting at Kenora would still pass through Fort William, Hearst, Kapuskasing and Cochrane. It would cover a distance of 894 miles in Ontario. From Cochrane, it would head for La Reine in the province of Quebec and thence through La Sarre, Louvicourt, Mont Laurier, Montreal and so on until it reached the New Brunswick boundary. The highway would then cover a distance

of 828 miles in the province of Quebec. The present road stretches over 1,778 miles while the alternative I suggest would be only 1,722 miles long. Not only would the latter be 56 miles shorter, but it would be more evenly distributed between Ontario and Quebec.

Since the dominion government will pay half the cost incurred in building the trans-Canada highway, I suggest that a joint committee, consisting of dominion government representatives and of delegates from the provinces concerned, be authorized to act on this matter.

Before I resume my seat, I would like to draw the attention of the house to a problem of great importance to the farmers of my constituency. I would like to voice, for the benefit of all members, the protests of my constituents against any measure designed to promote the free sale of margarine.

There are not a few people in this country who claim that the farmers have been reaping profits during the last few years. If such arguments are to be used to justify the free marketing of margarine, I wish to state in reply that the present situation of the farmers, in general, is not very profitable and that it would be economically unsound to increase their difficulties by forcing a drop in the price of butter and by making it harder for them to sell their product. At the very least, legislation is necessary to preclude margarine from being sold with the same colouring as that of butter.

I wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that in my constituency of Chap-leau there are a great many Indians. It would be advisable to build a special school in order that they may be trained and educated, so that they may t?.ke an active part in our public affairs and contribute to the development of our vast region.

I also suggest the establishment by the federal government of an experimental farm in northwestern Quebec. The great expanse of fine, cultivated land of which we are the proud owners and the constant advances made in the clearing of land mean that this farm would be of great service to our farmers and settlers.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it to be my duty, in order that justice and truth may prevail, to correct the statements made in this house by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Caouette) on February the 1st last.

I must say that I do not intend to match insult with insult. I have far too much respect for the house to stoop to that. The respect I have for myself, for my electors and for the

The Address-Mr. D. Gourd mandate which they have given me, prevents me from doing so. I will therefore restrict myself to stating the actual truth.

I have always thought that we are elected to serve the best interests of all but especially those of our constituents. I was therefore quite surprised when the member for Pontiac took me to task for having secured a post office for his constituents of Val d'Or. I shall not deny the part I played in this matter. I have also helped to secure grants for the mines located in the constituency of Pontiac and elsewhere. I am sure that the farmers of his constituency or of my own do not bear me ill will for having thus helped the development of the district, because this makes it easier for them to market their products. I may add that, for my part, I shall always be happy to see colleagues of mine in this house do a service to my constituents.

The member for Pontiac saw fit to add that nothing was being done in the Chapleau constituency. I must say in this connection that I am prepared to let my electors, who have witnessed my efforts during the last four years, be the judges in this matter.

The member for Pontiac also referred to a meeting which was held at Senneterre on January 14. As he was not present, and since he has to rely on inaccurate secondhand information, I may say that at that meeting three matters were discussed. The first related to the refund of tax overpayments on electricity. I have requested my constituents to send me all documents and details pertaining to that matter, and the hon. member for Pontiac may be assured that as soon as I receive them I will give the matter the attention I always devote to matters which concern my constituency. The second point had to do with the opening of a school for Indians. I have dealt with that question in my present speech and I am requesting the establishment of such a school. At the said meeting I informed the people of Senneterre that I was in favour of that project, but that in my opinion before deciding on a site for that school the department should have a survey made so that the most suitable site might be chosen. In so doing, I was following a policy which is that of the Liberal party as well as my own, and which consists in avoiding wholesale promises not meant to be kept. Whenever I have made a promise to my constituents, I have kept it.

The third matter discussed was the building of a post office. The postal revenue at Senneterre is $7,800. The department cannot build a post office when revenue from such a

910 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Brooks source is less than $10,000. The member lor Pontiac should know it. This I have explained to my electors of Senneterre. I also told them that Val d'Or had secured its post office because the revenue there was $45,000. On the other hand, La Sarre, whose post office yields over $16,000, can expect to obtain one also.

The member lor Pontiac is blaming me because I said that a member must use tact. I submit that tact and politeness are qualities all ol us should strive to acquire.

That hon. member has said that I had boasted that I did not have to be a member ol parliament to make a living. Mr. Speaker, what I said is that I am not in politics to make money but only to help all I can towards the development ol northwestern Quebec. I have been in that part ol the country lor 37 years; I saw the first tree that was lelled there, the first ploughing, the first crop, the first train, and I am indeed happy to have witnessed the extraordinary development that has taken place in Abitibi. When I think that there were only about ten people when I first got there and that Chapleau now has a population ol 75,000, I am as proud as if it were a personal achievement. There is no doubt that a member ol parliament would make more money by staying home to look alter his business, but I am amply rewarded by the knowledge that I contribute to the development ol my constituency ol Chapleau, ol my province and ol my country.

(Text):

Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):

Mr. Speaker, belore entering into a discussion ol the matters contained in the speech from the throne, I wish to add my congratulations to those which have already been expressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and to the other cabinet ministers who have been appointed since the last session of the house.

I also wish to extend congratulations to my leader (Mr. Drew) and express my pride and pleasure in his appointment as the head of the Progressive Conservative party. I am sure that all hon. members, no matter what their politics, have realized that the leader of the Progressive Conservative party is not only a man who has already gone far but one who is going to go much farther in the history of this dominion of ours.

During the debate on the speech from the throne an opportunity is given to hon. members, as representatives of the people, to discuss the country's conditions generally, and to present to parliament the views of

their own constituencies and the needs of the country as they see them. I shall only touch on a few of these this afternoon since there will be many other opportunities to bring up these matters.

We have already discussed the question of bringing Newfoundland into confederation. No objection has been taken by any member in this party. All members of the Progressive Conservative party are pleased indeed to welcome this new province to confederation. As a matter of fact I doubt if there are many members in the House of Commons opposed to their coming in. We did object to the manner in which their joining was being brought about. However, that matter has been discussed fully, and I do not intend to weary the house by discussing it again at this time.

We in the maritime provinces are particularly proud to welcome this new province. We have much in common with the people of Newfoundland. They are our near neighbour; their people are much the same as our people; their basic industries are much the same as ours. That is, they get their living from the sea, the forests and the mines. Those of us in the three little provinces by the sea are pleased indeed to welcome another sister.

May I express the hope that this new maritime province will not have to travel as hard a road as have the three provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island since the time they joined confederation. As was said in the house a few days ago, this matter of bringing Newfoundland into the fold is the fulfilment of the dream of confederation as expressed many years ago by Sir John A. Macdonald. It is the uniting of two great countries of the British commonwealth of nations. I was pleased indeed to hear the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette)-who, unfortunately, is not in his seat this afternoon-make his eloquent appeal for unity within this country. He stated that a united Canada is one of the great essentials, so far as the future prosperity of the country is concerned. He went on to say that a united commonwealth and empire is also a great essential, not only for the future welfare of this country but for the future peace of the world.

This is no idle dream, Mr. Speaker. History has proved in two great wars just how necessary the British commonwealth is to the welfare of the world. It is true that in the house we often hear in speeches, questions asked of the ministry or through notices of motions placed on the order paper, state-

ments which might seem to weaken those ties which bind together the different members of the commonwealth. However, I have been in the house now for fourteen years and have learned to pay very little attention to such statements.

The great problem agitating the minds of the people of Canada, as well as those of other freedom-loving countries today, is security for the future. I have said that the British commonwealth of nations is one of the requisites for the procurement and maintenance of peace in the world. In the war of 1914-18 the British commonwealth stood as a bulwark preserving the liberties of freedom-loving people. We did not lose sight of the fact that our great neighbour to the south played an important part in that war. But, as has been said on many occasions, the war did not commence in 1917; it commenced in 1914. And if we had had to wait for a year or so, until the United States came in, I doubt very much what position the world would have been in by that time.

Then, the second great world war from 1939 to 1945 did not begin after Pearl Harbor. It began in 1939; and had it not been for the British commonwealth at that time one might wonder in what position the world would be today. In saying these things I am not in any way belittling the great part played by the United States. But the point I would emphasize is that it is essential and necessary that this great organization, this British commonwealth of nations which, on two occasions, has preserved the freedom and peace of the world, continue to keep itself as strong as possible.

We had hoped that after the last war, when so many nations had fought for the preservation of peace, and after so many had perished in those countries which had been overrun, the United Nations would have been the source to which we might turn for the preservation of peace and for the future security of the world. But, as was stated only a few days ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), it is unreasonable and would be unreasoning if today we were to depend upon and place our hopes in the United Nations. We must remember what has happened. Fifty nations met at San Francisco; but the ink was hardly dry on the signatures of many of their representatives before trouble arose in different parts of the world, and particularly trouble with one of those great nations which, we all admit, had played a magnificent part in the war of 1939-45.

It became necessary therefore, in order to preserve peace and security, for the freedom-

The Address-Mr. Brooks loving peoples of the world to look around for the purpose of forming some other pact, or arriving at some other solution. The speech from the throne mentions the north Atlantic pact. Let me say at the outset that I and, I am satisfied, all hon. members in the house and all others interested in the preservation of the peace of the world, are in favour of the north Atlantic pact. We realize of course the difficulties involved in bringing this pact to a successful conclusion, and the difficulty of bringing all nations within its sphere. First of all, those countries in Europe which were devastated and torn by war must be put on their feet; they are not in a position today to bear the great burdens they would have to bear in the event of future hostilities. Countries such as France, Belgium, Holland and other European countries, all of which suffered devastation, must be placed in a position where they can bear their share of the burden. Then, nations such as the Scandinavian group must be brought into the pact; and we recognize the great difficulty involved in this procedure. Perhaps we do not realize as clearly as we should the difficulty this presents to smaller countries such as Norway. They have terrific problems to solve. In Canada we do not find it hard to decide on which side we would place our strength. But for a little country like Norway, situated on the very border of one of those nations from which we expect our chief trouble, the difficulty is most acute. We must respect the stand taken by this small nation within the last few weeks.

We realize, too, the difficulty confronting a country such as Eire. I am not concerned with nor am I competent to discuss the internal politics of that country. It would seem to me, however, that the salvation of a country like Eire, in the event of trouble, would depend upon an agreement such as the north Atlantic pact. This country feels that it is impossible for it to enter such a pact until certain internal arrangements have been made. I simply mention these things to show how difficult the problems are that are involved in bringing about security in the world.

The other day the minister, when speaking about security, praised the airlift, but he mentioned something which caught my attention at that time. He said it represented a paradox. The paradox was that young men who had fought in the last war, who had carried bombs to Berlin for the destruction of that city, today were using the same bombers to carry food for the preservation of the people of the same city. The thought that struck me was that not all the young men and not all the bombers are being used for this purpose. I have wondered why it is that

912 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Brooks Canadian bombers and Canadian young men have not been employed to assist Great Britain and the United States in the task. We are told that the maintaining of the sections of Berlin occupied by Great Britain, France, and the United States is very essential as far as the future preservation of peace is concerned. If it is so essential it seems to me it is another paradox that we in Canada are not bearing our full share in carrying that burden.

In the speech from the throne there is a section which is of great interest to the people of Canada, and which I think will be of particular interest to the people of the maritime provinces. It reads:

You will be asked to approve, subject to the approval of the United States authorities, the agreement concluded in 1941 for the development of navigation and power in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin.

That is the St. Lawrence waterway. I listened to the speech of the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Brown), and may I at this time congratulate him on a very excellent effort. In his speech he pointed out the great benefit that the St. Lawrence waterway would be to certain parts of Canada and the United States. He pointed out that the dream, not only of people of the present day, but of people of Canada and the United States for a great many years, has been that grain and products shipped at the head of the lakes might be conveyed by water right through to the sea. He also spoke about the merchandise that could be moved from Montreal, Toronto and other parts of Canada into the great central areas of the North American continent. That is something which will be of great benefit to those sections of Canada, but there are certain parts of the dominion, as there are certain sections of the United States, which are not going to benefit very materially from the development of the St. Lawrence waterway.

In the three maritime provinces we feel that it will not be of very much, if any, benefit to us. In saying that I am not intimating that we are not in favour of anything that will assist in the development of our great country as a whole, or that is for the benefit of other sections of the Dominion of Canada. History will disprove that. We have always borne our full share of the development of all parts of Canada. Our money and our people have helped to develop them. We have helped to develop the great railways that cross the country. Some three or four hundred million dollars have been spent by Canada in the development of canals in Ontario and other parts of the nation. We helped to build the Hudson Bay railway, which has never been,

and never will be, of any benefit to the people of the maritime provinces.

Therefore I say we are not opposed to anything which is for the benefit of the whole. I think there are certain ways in which the St. Lawrence waterway can be of benefit to the maritime provinces. Perhaps we might get cheaper feed for our farmers inasmuch as it would be conveyed by water all the way from the west. The way in which the most benefit would be derived would be, I believe, from the development of the Chignecto canal. In this house on previous occasions I have mentioned the development of the Chignecto canal. I want to say to hon. members that, while it is a very old subject, while it has been discussed since long before the days of confederation, it is still a very burning question in our provinces.

This afternoon it is not necessary for me to weary the house with the history of the Chignecto canal. It is sufficient to say that by its construction over 400 miles will be eliminated from the water route of ships traveling from the St. Lawrence river to Saint John, Digby, and other ports on the bay of Fundy.

As far as coastal service is concerned, it would help to shorten the distance for ships wishing to trade with Boston, New York, and ports of the New England states. The gypsum that we produce in the region of the bay of Fundy could be shipped through the Chignecto canal to the central part of Canada, and that industry would benefit greatly. The construction of the canal would benefit our lumbering industry, our fishing industry, and practically every other industry in our provinces.

There is another benefit which I think might be derived from the construction of a canal. I refer to the great iron finds in Labrador. Now that Newfoundland is coming into confederation the Hollinger-Hanna concessions in Labrador and Quebec are to be developed. A railway is to be built from the mines to Seven Islands, a port on the St. Lawrence river. There is no doubt that the New England states will expect much of the ore to be shipped to Boston, New York and other places in the New England states. I repeat that by constructing the Chignecto canal you will link the bay of Fundy with the St. Lawrence waterway, and over 400 miles, as can be seen from this map, will be saved in transporting iron ore from the port of Seven Islands to different points in the United States.

I hope that, when the question of the St. Lawrence waterway is being discussed, members of the house will bear in mind that, as we will be called upon to help to pay for the

development of the St. Lawrence waterway, we should be given some consideration as far as the development of the Chignecto canal is concerned, for it is something that was promised to the people of the maritime provinces many years ago.

There is another point about the development of the Chignecto canal. I am not an engineer, but I have been told that through the construction of the Chignecto canal hydro power can also be developed. The maritime provinces need hydro power. As a matter of fact, our people are starving for electrical power. One of the main reasons why we have no comparable industry in that section of the nation is the fact that we have not cheap power. I hope that consideration will be given to that side of the question when the matter is being discussed. Just a few days ago I read that locations were being sought in Canada for some four hundred factories from Great Britain. A few of these may be coming to the maritime provinces; I do not know of any, but I believe one or two have come to Nova Scotia. If four or five hundred industries from the old country are to be located in Canada, certainly we should have some of them down on the eastern coast. As a matter of fact if these English companies, or any other companies, wish to export goods overseas, what better place would there be to establish factories than down in the provinces by the sea?

There is another development on which I want to say a few words; that is the Passa-maquoddy project. Last summer I saw an article in the newspapers saying this matter was being discussed again, that it was being brought up in the United States by Senator Brewster of Maine, and I wrote to the Department of External Affairs about it. Many years ago, I think in 1920, an engineer named Cooper first thought of developing power by harnessing the tides. Millions of dollars were spent at that time; as a matter of fact I believe Mr. Cooper spent some $300,000 of his own money. As hon. members know, tides in the bay of Fundy rise sometimes as high as 40 feet. In Passamaquoddy bay and Penobscot bay in Maine the tides are very high, and Mr. Cooper's idea was to use these two bays for the development of power by letting the water out of one and holding it in the other to form a head, and vice versa. This project was not very popular in New Brunswick when it was first introduced, because at that time it was said that it would be injurious to the fisheries of that province. Since that time the matter has been thoroughly investigated, however, and I believe the fear that it might injure our fisheries has been proved groundless. So

The Address-Mr. Brooks I hope the Canadian government will give this matter serious consideration. It is being investigated at the present time by a commission, and if it is found practicable I hope the government will take whatever steps may be necessary to carry it out.

Much has been said during this debate on the question of taxes. I am not going to make any extended remarks, but I believe we in New Brunswick are paying the highest taxes anywhere on the North American continent. I might mention taxes on tobacco, for instance, as a result of which we pay 39 cents for a package of cigarettes which costs 35 cents in Ottawa and other parts of Canada. The gasoline tax in New Brunswick is higher than anywhere in Canada, and I believe higher than anywhere on this continent.

A day or so ago I was interested to learn that the farmers were to receive some consideration in the matter of basic herds. I think this is a step in the right direction. The previous ruling was that if a basic herd was sold or slaughtered in a single year the proceeds were looked upon as income and the owner of the herd had to pay the full income tax. There is another question that is very closely associated with that of the basic herds, and that is of great interest to the farmers of New Brunswick. Most of them have woodlots. They go out and cut lumber or pulpwood, sometimes completing their cutting all in one year or sometimes extending it over a period of years. As we all know it takes thirty or forty years for a tree to grow. If these farmers sell all the lumber off their farms in one year the proceeds have been taken as income for that particular year, and they have had to pay the full income tax on it. This is the same principle as the basic herd, and when the minister is giving consideration to these income tax reforms I hope he will consider this matter of lumber cut by farmers. In this connection, if the house will bear with me I should like to read a resolution offered at the convention of farmers and dairymen held at Fredericton in January of this year, as follows:

Whereas the farmers owning woodlots and cutting therefrom have no allowance made them for the annual growth when being assessed income tax;

And whereas they are assessed in full for all stumpage value received over and above original investment;

And whereas this has the effect of discouraging continued ownership of farmers' woodlots due to the fact that he has to pay tax to the extent indicated in the foregoing. In fact, in many cases, this taxation is the reason for farmers selling and moving off their farms;

And whereas it is in the interest of the country as a whole to offer every encouragement to farmers to stay upon their farms and continue to produce food for Canadian consumption and export;

Now therefore be it resolved that this farmers' and dairymen's convention in session assembled do

The Address-Mr. Brooks recommend that farmers be allowed a reasonable stumpage value for logs, pulpwood, etc., cut on their lots deductible from tax notwithstanding write-offs which may have been previously made with a view of encouraging the farmer to stay upon his farm;

And further resolved that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the Minister of Agriculture of New Brunswick with a request that he take immediate action with the Department of Finance at Ottawa with a view of having its provisions implemented at the first opportunity.

I hope the Minister of National Revenue will take this matter into consideration also, because the situation is very unfair and should be corrected at once. While I am dealing with taxes I must say that I consider our young people are being taxed much too heavily. We often say, "Oh, he is a young, unmarried man with a fairly good salary; he can afford to pay a high tax". These young men are trying to build up their incomes. They hope to get money with which to get married and build homes, but with the taxes they have to pay it is impossible for them to build up their bank accounts for these purposes. That is a very bad thing for the country, and it also has the effect of driving these young men out of Canada. We suffer from this in New Brunswick to a great extent, and I am satisfied that one of the great reasons for our young people leaving the country is the heavy taxation imposed upon them. So I would hope the minister might be able to increase the exemption allowed our young people.

I see that my time is fast slipping by, but I should like to say just a few words in connection with veterans affairs. On numerous occasions I have recommended that a standing committee on veterans affairs be set up by this house, and I take this opportunity of repeating that recommendation. I know of no committee which would have a more beneficial effect. We have a number of standing committees of this house, and I have been a member of many of them in the past fourteen years. Some of these committees never meet, and some of them meet once or twice a year. If there were a veterans affairs committee, it would meet very often.

Upon looking at the record, I find that the first veterans affairs committee met in 1916. From 1916 until shortly before the last war, there were thirteen veterans affairs committees. Since the last war, there have been five such committees, making a total of eighteen committees in the past thirty-two or thirty-three years. When these veterans affairs committees meet, they meet almost daily. During the last session, no committee was busier than the veterans affairs committee. If that committee were sitting today, many problems could be considered by it.

I will not take the time to enumerate those

problems, but the veterans consider that committee as their forum. It is a place to which they can come and present their grievances to sympathetic ears. I do ask that the veterans affairs committee be again set up.

While I am mentioning veterans affairs, Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay a tribute to a gentleman who passed away a few days ago. I refer to the late John Herwig, who was the secretary of the Canadian legion. The returned men of this country have lost a great advocate in the death of this man. For many years, Mr. Herwig has fought and worked on behalf of the veterans of this country and, on many occasions, he appeared before the veterans affairs committee. Since other opportunities will be afforded for speaking of veterans affairs, Mr. Speaker, I shall have more to say on that subject at a later time.

I should like now to say a few words about conservation. A few moments ago I spoke of the woodlots of the farmers in my own province. The lumbering interests of this country are becoming very much concerned, and I think rightly so, about a situation which is developing in the depletion of our forests. In my own province there has been a great need for conservation for many years. The financial position of the province does not permit the province to undertake it. It is time the federal government gave some assistance. I was pleased to see some mention of conservation in the speech from the throne. The time has come when the federal government should assist the small provinces, or assist all the provinces for that matter, in their conservation problems.

Some people may say the federal government has no interest in this matter, except in the northern parts of the dominion. The federal government has an interest, however, because these lumbering areas provide employment for many of our people. In places where there is little manufacturing, as in the province of New Brunswick, the lumbering industry is the greatest industry we have. I was very much surprised to read in the February issue of a publication issued by the Canadian Forestry Association that there are very few Canadian films which can be used to educate the people on forest conservation. This article reads as follows:

Motion pictures as an aid to forestry education are an important medium employed by the Canadian Forestry Association. During 1948, Canadian Forestry Association's own motion picture and lecture tours, its film libraries and co-operative tours recorded an attendance in all Canadian provinces of 400,000 men, women and youths, French and English.

It is regrettable to report that all the major motion pictures, in the 1948 program, dealing with forest management, forest protection, soil erosion, water and wild life were purchased by Canadian Forestry Association in the United States and adapted (and

translated for Quebec) in Canada. The principal producer of forest conservation films on this continent is the United States Department of Agriculture.

This article goes on to say that this is one field in which our Canadian film board could very properly take a prominent part. The production of films on conservation to educate our people would be of great assistance. The article also says that, so far as the association's program for this year is concerned, they must again depend on the United States for films.

My time has run out, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to say a word about crippled persons. The member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) made an eloquent plea on their behalf the other day. It was gratifying to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) say that approximately $500,000 had been set aside to aid crippled children. There are other cripples, Mr. Speaker, who are not children. I refer to those young men and young women whom we see in every town and village across the country who have suffered from some incurable disease and who are forced to drag their bodies along on crutches. As was pointed out last night, these people receive no assistance. They are not old enough to receive the old age pension, and they are not blind. They are helpless, however. I have received letters from some of my own constituents about this matter. I do hope this parliament will consider helping these people. There is no more deserving class of people in this country, to my way of thinking.

Mr. Arthur Williams (Ontario):

During the time at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I intend to direct my remarks to just two subjects which are only briefly mentioned in the speech from the throne. These two subjects are health and housing. As I looked very carefully through the speech from the throne, I noticed that it dealt with some thirty-nine items. Of the thirty-nine items only two referred to health and housing. Housing was referred to in just twenty-six words and health was referred to in forty-four. I was disappointed that the speech from the throne should be so sparse in its reference to these two important matters.

Two of the most pressing problems of the nation at the present time are health and housing. These are the two things that weigh most heavily on the people of this country. It is true the people are concerned about prices, and in the speech from the throne there is a very brief reference to the question of prices. It is to the effect that present controls will be continued. Some time was spent on that question when the resolution concerning it was before the house, so it is

The Address-Mr. Williams not necessary to refer to it again. I hope some serious attention will be paid to these two particular questions. On the question of health itself, may I say that it was with a great deal of interest and some degree of pleasure that I listened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) when he addressed the house. The hon. gentleman made an effective speech and clearly outlined the steps that are being taken in those particular fields. But the fields are extremely limited. To me the minister was just describing the skeleton of a health program. After all the years that Canada has been a country, I think it is about time that we had something more than a skeleton and that we began to put flesh on it.

It is true that what the government is doing is highly commendable. With the exception of one who wished to indulge in carping criticism, nobody would offer any word of condemnation of the government's activities in connection with cancer, for instance. It is most desirable that something concrete and effective should be done to deal with that scourge. In her speech my colleague the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) referred to the seriousness of arthritis. I agree entirely with what she said. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), who just sat down, referred to the condition in which incurables find themselves. During this session most members of parliament have received a circular letter from the head office of the incurables association in Calgary. We have also received letters from our constituents who are suffering from "polio" and other diseases. It is necessary that concrete steps should be taken by the government to remove these people from the position of being a burden of responsibility on other members of their family. Instead of these unfortunate sufferers feeling that they were dependent upon other members of their family-though the latter gladly accept the responsibility- and being obliged to endure not only the suffering occasioned by these diseases but also the embarrassment of being dependent on other members of the family, many of whom cannot stand the strain, I think it would be commendable if the government undertook responsibility for them.

All these things are highly commendable. But if they were all done, there still would remain just a skeleton of a health program. I sometimes wonder whether people who are in positions of authority in this country really know a great deal about a health program -and I am not thinking now merely of members of the federal government but of other people too. Some of us have had the fortunate experience of living in a country with a complete health program. The Minister of

816 HOUSE OF COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Williams

Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is one of them, and I know other gentlemen in this house who have had that great advantage. I am sure that every one of them would agree with me that such a health program provides not only for the things that the Minister of National Health and Welfare says this present government is providing for, but for all the other things that so many hundreds of thousands of our people in Canada have not the opportunity of enjoying. All kinds of sicknesses and illnesses are still being. endured by the people of this country because of the fact that they are not able to afford medical attention. They just sit down and continue to suffer. In this connection I should like to quote the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he introduced in this house on May 14 of last year what was then described as a national health program. As reported at page 3935 of Hansard, the right hon. gentleman said:

No doubt it will seem to hon. members that in presenting this health program to parliament the government is pursuing a policy which over the years will involve the expenditure oi considerable sums of money. That is apparent. But what these expenditures may mean in the preservation of health, in the saving of human life, to say nothing of the lessening of human suffering and misery and not infrequently despair, is beyond calculation.

For all the years before this statement was made by the right hon. gentleman-and even since it was made-the people have continued to endure this "human suffering and misery and not infrequently despair" merely because we still have only the skeleton of a health program; there is no flesh on it.

A moment or two ago I expressed wonder whether the responsible people of this country knew much about health programs. I have noticed on their part a great tendency always to enlist the assistance, advice and professional experience of people who are termed "experts". Through the years shoals of information have been compiled on this subject. Yet the most effective steps toward the introduction of the best health plan that was ever introduced and devised were taken when people who were not experts, who were not professionals, undertook to do the work. Sometimes I think we can get so bogged down with expert and professional opinion that we are not able to see the wood for trees.

In matters of health we have before our eyes in Great Britain the most magnificent exhibition on the part of a government that can be found anywhere in the world. Hon. gentlemen in this house have had occasion to know at first hand about such a program. The Prime Minister knows about it for he went to England quite recently. Other hon. gentlemen know about it; they went later as [Mr. Williams l

a delegation from this parliament to the old country, including even the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), who the other day spoke so scathingly about Britain. When these gentlemen landed in England, about the first thing that happened was that they were given a little yellow card. On that yellow card the instructions were printed. They did not have to be in the country any length of time; they did not have to be contributors to the plan. Irrespective of where you come from or what ailment may befall you while you are in the old country, or what accident may occur to you, without any other concern, consideration or requirement, that yellow card provides you with complete health, medical and hospital facilities.

Last Friday when I spoke in this house on the resolution dealing with price control I referred to the fact that the people of Britain were getting something for their taxes; that they were paying four shillings and eleven pence for this huge social program which the people are getting in Britain. All they paid was a paltry four shillings and eleven pence or $1.25 of their pay, for their whole social security plan. Of this amount eight pence halfpenny, or seventeen cents a person was taken for the health plan.

Mr. Mitchell:

A week.

Mr. Williams:

Yes, a week, about $35 a year, to get everything that the medical and hospital profession can possibly give them. You get the doctor without any further charge. I have heard some people say that you have to take the doctor that you are ordered to take. That is just so much political bunkum. That is said in this country deliberately to gain a mean political advantage at the expense of a tremendously worthwhile project in the old country. You do not have to take the doctor that anybody recommends. You take the doctor you want; and if you are over sixteen years of age, and perchance your mother and father have one doctor and you want another doctor, under the plan you are perfectly entitled to your choice. There is no compulsion about it.

Another interesting thing about the whole plan, despite the fact that here in Canada we are told that you must join it, is that there is no such thing as "must" about it. You can join it or stay out of it, whichever you like; but it is such a wonderful thing that practically all of the 48,000,000 people in Britain, are members of it, even the Tories.

I am very proud of one fact, namely, that the man who is responsible for the administration of the health program in the old country is an associate of mine. He and I worked in the same pit back in the old

country, Ni Bevan. Please do not spell that N-y-e. An hon. member to my left, who is a member of the Social Credit party, is always correcting hon. gentlemen. On two occasions I have heard him correct the pronunciation of hon. members and yesterday I noticed that he tried to correct the spelling of a particular place in his riding. I follow his example in this respect and say please spell the name N-i. That is the way Ni spells it himself, so I would say that he is right. He and I worked in the same pit, and when all this fuss was being publicized in the Canadian papers about the introduction, or the contemplated introduction, of the health plan in the old country, I wrote to Ni and asked him if he would kindly send me a copy of his proposed bill in order that I could understand what it was all about, and Ni wrote back to me and said: "You don't want a copy of the bill, Arthur; just think of the Tredegar medical aid society." The Tredegar medical aid society is an organization which was started many years ago not by experts, not by professionals, but by a bunch of miners. Back home we call them colliers. They are the chaps who dig the coal for one shilling and two pence a ton, which the capitalists sell for sixteen shillings a ton. These miners got together. The coal companies, although they were tremendously wealthy, did not provide health plans, did not provide hospitals, did not provide any medical facilities, and the miners, in their desperation, got together and started to hammer out a program for themselves. I shall never forget one Saturday afternoon back in our town hall, after we had gone through the laborious and sometimes tedious process of fashioning this thing. This Saturday afternoon we came to the point of putting it in action. The first job was to select a secretary of the medical committee and we got the secretary. We employed doctors; we bought a hospital, the Tredegar cottage hospital. We set up what we called surgeries, which was a place as big as this chamber. In the centre was the dispensing room where all the medicine, pills, bandages and the rest of it were stored. Along each side of the room were the private offices of the doctors. If I wanted to see Dr. Davis I would go along the corridor where his office was and walk in and tell him what was the trouble. He would give me the prescription and I would go to this dispensing room in the centre of the building, put my prescription in through the window and get my medicine and it did not cost me one single cent beyond the four pence in the pound, the eight cents in the pound, which was deducted from my wages each week.

The Address-Mr. Williams

If our children met with accidents on the road, they went to the hospital, and they were treated without any further bother about payment of doctors or hospital bills. It was all set up by a bunch of miners, just ordinary people. If miners, or a group of workers anywhere, can fashion a plan of that kind out of their extremely limited resources, what wonderful possibilities there are for the government of this country, with the wonderful resources of the nation at its disposal. What a wonderful and thrilling thing it could do too to take this burden of human suffering and oftentimes despair from the shoulders of the people. I do not know whether it will be done. I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) were in the house this afternoon. I would not care if nobody was in this chamber but the minister. If I could talk to him, and plead with him, if necessary, to set an example of that kind of thing, I am as certain as I stand here this Friday afternoon that if he set aside a block of money out of his $30 million and said to me, "Set up that example of a health and hospital plan in your riding," I could guarantee that in five years the thing would be selfsupporting. But you must have the resources to start with, and I do wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare would do it.

Oh, oh.

Mr. Williams:

Don't indulge in these jeering laughs, particularly you Tories, because you have in Ontario a government that is not doing the very thing that you say this government ought to do.

They are trying to do it.

Mr. Williams:

Don't tell me that, because I hold in my hand a copy of the bill which was introduced by the minister of health for the province of Ontario, and it is not worth the paper on which it is written. So you do not know anything about it; and, if you are possessed of the intelligence that I think you have, you will keep quiet.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order.

Mr. Williams:

Anyone, if he likes, can see this bill of Dr. Vivian, former Ontario minister of health. I could easily describe it. However, I have only forty minutes in which to speak, and I want to talk about housing. I do not wish to waste my time describing something which, after all, is really no good.

Mr. Case:

I thought you were asking this government to do it.

Mr. Williams:

Oh, sit down, sit down.

I was at the convention of the Canadian Congress of Labour held last October and sat through twelve sittings throughout the week.

918 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Williams I found people at that convention doing exactly the same thing as I see the Tories doing here. Up there we called them communists; down here we call them Progressive Conservatives.

Mr. Smith (Calgary West):

Well, I will not

bother rising to a point of order on such absolute nonsense as that.

Mr. Williams:

There you are. He just says, "I will not bother to rise to a point of order, because it is nonsense"-but he rises, nevertheless.

Mr. Smith (Calgary West):

And it was nonsense, nevertheless.

Mr. Irvine:

That brought him up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order.

Mr. Smith (Calgary West):

I at least have been brought up.