The last one. We have
heard a lot about keeping Canadians at home. I do not think there is a single member who does not want to keep every Canadian at home. But there is only one way to do this- to make this country so attractive and business so good that our people will prefer to stay at home; and hon. -members will note that the figures I have quoted are proof of what we are doing to this end. In many election campaigns, Mr. Speaker, we have heard this remark: "We would rather have
one Canadian than all the immigrants that could be brought in." I take exception to that statement. We are proud that we are Canadians and Canadian-born, but I say that you have only to look -back a few years to the time when our forefathers came f-rom the Old Land, travelled up the St. Lawrence and through hundreds of miles of forest, cutting down the trees to build the houses which you and I are enjoying and did not pay for. Surely it is evident that every immigrant we put into Canada is an asset which we cannot value. If we had a million more men in our Canadian northwest next year, we would have a crop worth $800,000,000 instead of $400,000,000 and the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway would not be able to haul the traffic; it would have to go over the Hudson bay route. .
I am going to make two suggestions which do not bear upon the question we are considering, and then I shall have finished. I want to pay a tribute to a suggested law, the old age pension -measure. I am pleased that this government has almost decided to bring in a bill providing -for old age pensions. It is in the best interests of this country that any person who has lived in Canada and spent his money-who has not hoarded it up the way some of us do-should be taken care of when he has passed the age of seventy years, and I stand for that measure. Then there is the question of rural credits. Possibly this measure would not have been necessary had we not our present Canadian -banking system, but under the circumstances there is nothing else to do. Consequently a bill will be brought down covering this -matter of -rural credits.
One further thing I would like to see is a recommendation from the Board of Railway Commissioners that the government take over
The Address-Mr. Young (Weyburn)
its fair share of the cost of getting rid of level crossings on state highways. When this country was in its infancy-in* fact up until a few years ago-we had ordinary farm crossings on country roads, and over these crossings people passed with their teams from ten to fifteen times a day. But our governments have built beautiful highways, especially in the province of Quebec, from thirty to fifty feet wide, over which from two to three thousand automobiles pass per day. Every year these crossings take their toll of human lives. The trouble in the past has been that the municipalities, already taxed to the limit, have found it hard to keep going. They say, and rightly so, that they can get along with these crossings, so why build an overhead or underground crossing for the automobiles which use the roads? I have consulted with one or two members of the Quebec government and I know that government will do its share. I suggest that we divide the cost among the provincial government, the federal government and the railways themselves. We should do a few every year, where state roads exist, and eliminate this risk.
Topic: S90 COMMONS