Mr. BENCE:

That is not an answer to the question. I asked the hon. member if he would obtain the consent of the provinces before putting through the amendment to the constitution.

Mr. TUCKER:

I do not think it is necessary to obtain the consent of the provinces to put into effect a measure such as this. But if there were any doubt about the matter, or if the payment of these allowances were m danger of being interrupted, I do not think any province would stand ip the way or ask to be consulted. And if, in a great humanitarian measure like this, any province did stand in the way, I would say that its objection should not prevail against the will of the Canadian people.

An hon. member said something about the birthrate of this country; and what he said applies, I think, not only in Canada but throughout the white world. When I was recently attending the international monetary conference I had occasion at different times to talk to some of the Indian and Chinese delegates. One of the things which both of them emphasized was this, that practically every fourth person in the world is an Indian and every fourth person in the world is a Chinese. That, of course, indicates that one person out of every two in the world is either Chinese or an Indian. These people are basing their claims to certain things upon their share of the earth's population. Their delegates also pointed out to me that it is coming to be realized that the people of these races are not inferior, in ability to fight and defend themselves, to the white races. It was very clear to me that if the white race hopes to maintain its place in the world it must cease its present practice of limiting its families, or the time will come when it will have to yield its present position to the other races.

I agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon City in his suggestion that the implementing of the recommendations in the Sirois report should not be hindered through the passing of this bill, and I do not believe that such is the intention of the government. The whole basis of the recommendations in that report, as I understood it, was to provide the various provinces with the means of doing as well by their citizens in the realm of jurisdiction con-

fided to them as any other part of the dominion is able to do. It is well recognized that, owing to fiscal and tariff arrangements in ' this country, the tendency is to concentrate great wealth in certain provinces, and if other provinces do not have access to the taxes levied upon those centres of wealth they will not be able to discharge their obligations under the constitution as well as provinces in more favoured areas. But these obligations are among the most important of any which are confided to either the dominion or the provinces. Education and- medical attention are obviously among the most important obligations of any government. They are confided to our provinces, and one of the grievances of the western provinces has been that they have not had the means of providing the same standard of education or of medical attention to their children as has been possible in the more wealthy provinces of central Canada.

I said, in one of my first speeches after I had the honour of being elected to this house, and before I realized what was going to be required of some of our western Canadian boys, that I deplored the apparent assumption that there is such a thing as a second-class citizen as well as a first-class citizen in this country, that it was all right for a lad to be brought up and educated in Saskatchewan with not quite so good a chance as a person in the more favoured provinces. I said that if we were to have a united- and harmonious confederation we had to treat all parts of our country the same, and do away with the idea that there should be parts of the country where some people were treated better than others. -

Nowadays, hardly a week passes without its coming to my attention that some of these young lads who were brought up in Saskatchewan in the depression days, who often did not have enough to eat or the wherewithal to get a decent education, have given their lives for a country which told them and their parents in the days of the depression that they could not find the money to enable their parents to give them enough food and medical attention to bring them up as children should be brought up. -That, I hope, and in fact I am sure, has been borne home to every person in the more favoured provinces. Of those lads who were denied those privileges, many are to-day defending this country; many of them have already given their lives in its defence; and never again must it be said to any Canadian family that we have not the money to provide them with the bare necessities of life so that they may have food and clothing, a reasonable education and medical attention in order

Family Allowances

that they may arrive at complete manhood and womanhood in the full possession of health and strength.

It is something for which I have been thankful ever since I came to this house that we have at the head of this administration a man who felt as our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) does, about the poor of this land. If as many things as we should like to see done for the poor have not been accomplished, I am sure it was not his fault, and to-day I rejoice in this measure and am thankful that he heads this administration, because in a great measure he is responsible for bringing it in at this particular time. I deplore the attitude of those who ask, why the haste? I would say on the contrary, why has there been a delay?

I cannot understand the members of the Progressive Conservative party asking, why the haste? I am glad that the measure has now been brought in. I am happy that it is being done now, and I express my humble and deep appreciation of this administration in acknowledging this achievement. I am glad they did not listen to any quibbles about constitutional obstacles.

I remember very well when the same arguments were advanced in connection with old age pensions, that we had not the constitutional power to do such things. If our present leader had not decided to go ahead with the old age pension legislation, regardless of such arguments about jurisdictional problems-and such arguments were advanced then, just as they are being advanced now in connection with this proposed measure-I suppose we would never have had old age pensions to-day. Many times as I talk to old people to-day and see how much better their last days have been because of the old age pension they receive from month to month, I have thanked God that the Prime Minister felt as he does toward the poor of this country, so that he saw to it that the evening of their lives was made happier and more comfortable by reason of old age pensions, and that he had not listened to quibbles and arguments that we had not the constitutional power. I remember it was argued at that time that that legislation might be declared ultra vires, just as it is said that the legislation before us at the moment will be ruled ultra vires. But I have not seen any province object to it, nor have I seen it ruled ultra vires; and certainly if the grant made in connection with old age pensions is not ultra vires, and no attempt has been made to declare it ultra vires, there is even less likelihood of this measure being so ruled.

There is another suggestion, why take up this particular bit of legislation? There are many other problems, it is said. Well, I do 100-346 '

not think much attention should be paid to that argument. You cannot make a better beginning than to make sure that the children of the country are well looked after through' a minimum measure of well-being. Surely it is not suggested that we should not do anything until we are able to do everything. You have to start somewhere. We have looked after unemployment insurance and old age pensions, and now we are starting to look after the minimum standard of well-being for the children of the nation. In my opinion that is the greatest measure for the good of the nation in the days that lie ahead, greater than any other measure that has been introduced into, this parliament since confederation.

I commend the speech of the leader of the government when he introduced the bill, pointing out how an investment in the health of our children, in the food, clothing, shelter, medical attention and so on which they require, would bear rich dividends in the days that lie ahead. Thinking back over the period of depression in Saskatchewan and of some of my neighbours, some of the casual labouring people who were trying to bring up families of five and six, and knowing, as we all do in a small town, pretty intimately the circumstances of everybody, I knew the income of some of those people, and I often wondered how in the world they managed to clothe and feed their children and send them to school as well as they were doing. Some of those children were brought up on incomes which I am sure hon. members would regard as impossible; nevertheless they went to school and did well, and they have gone into the world and become good citizens. Many of them, as I have said, are in the armed forces and some have already been decorated in this war.

When I hear people who are highly placed, enjoying good incomes, saying that we dare not trust such people with the money because they will not use it to help their children, that it will not be properly applied, I should like to have some of these members see what was accomplished by some of those neighbours of mine with the' little amount they had from year to year. I know of families during those depression years, the families of returned soldiers who were getting very small pensions, some of them having to live on the war veterans' allowance, which was around $40 a month, and some of the heads of those families could not get other work and had to subsist on that allowance of $40 a month. I have known a family where that was practically the only income for several years and they had five children. Somehow or another,

Family Allowances

those children were looked after and brought up and to-day two of those boys are overseas fighting for their country.

I do not know of a single pensioner or returned soldier who is in receipt of money from the government in the way of pensions or war veterans' allowance, where practically every bit of money that came into the house did not go to look after the children, to procure food and clothing and provide education and who has not been grateful for that assistance. I think the money paid by this country in pensions to returned soldiers of the last war, apart from the fact that it was an obligation to those men, has already borne fruit in this war in the type of children brought up in those homes, where there was a measure of gratitude to the country for looking after them when they needed looking after.

The Prime Minister dealt eloquently in his speech with this aspect of the matter, and I do not think that people who are in receipt of a good income, or who have confidence in their ability to earn a good income, can have any appreciation of the haunting fear that stalks a household where a man has to live on casual earnings and where very often, if he does not earn even $5, the question presents itself, where will they be able to provide for the children the following day? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in a country as rich as Canada that sort of situation is not good enough for the kind of people that we have here, people who have shown themselves to be capable of almost measureless self-sacrifice in connection with this war. Canada owes something better than that to the kind of citizens we have in this country, as they have shown themselves to be in the last war and in this war. I rejoice that now there is going to be given to all citizens of Canada some measure of security such as was given in the war veterans' allowances or to those in receipt of pensions in the past few years.

We see that striving for security on the part of some of the highly placed citizens of our country. We see that on the part of the judges who wanted to see that their families were looked after. This parliament does not hesitate to take steps to see to it that people placed in those positions receive a certain amount of security. We see it with regard to the- civil servants who serve their country in the civil service. We do not hesitate to appropriate money to see to it that they are looked after in their old age. Surely the average taxpayer who is not in receipt of an income from the country but who, in fact, helps to build up the nation and contributes toward the income of the country, is entitled to the minimum standard of living.

In addition to the benefit which this will give to the children of the nation, there is that element of the banishing of fear from the homes, the banishing of fear from the hearts and minds of the parents of the children and from the children themselves. That alone is a great step forward. After all, in this country we do not let our people starve to death. I have wondered why it is that we have not before this given them some measure of security by telling them that they can rely upon us, not as a matter of charity, but in this wealthy country of ours where we produce ample food, clothes and shelter for all our people we could tell them that if, through no fault of their own, they are unable to earn these things themselves they are going to have it as a matter of right; and to the extent that this measure does not give that minimum standard of livelihood to the people of this country I would hope that it would be supplemented by other measures which would give that minimum standard of life.

One of the arguments that have been used throughout the country against the present system is that we have want in the midst of plenty; that we produce more food than we can possibly use ourselves, more clothes, more shelter, plenty of doctors to look after the medical needs of our people, plenty of teachers to look after their educational needs, and that if we do not then give a reasonable standard of living to all our people our system is not functioning properly. That is a reasonable argument. The organization of the state exists to serve the people, and it must be so organized as to serve the people. If it is not organized to serve the people and give them what they are able to produce as a people, give them security, give them that minimum standard of living, then they will change the organization of the state. Some people ask "Why was not this done before?" My answer to that is that we live in a democratic state, and while there may be far-sighted people who perhaps many, many years ago would have liked to give this minimum standard of welfare to our people, we know that throughout the country there were the fearful ones who said: "Where is the money to come from?" and all that sort of thing. They thwarted the will of those who realized that these things were possible. I rejoice that at last that bogey has been laid to rest once and for all; that never again will it be used as an argument against giving the standard of living that this nation is able to provide for its people; that we cannot find the money to do it. To those people who worry about the $200,000,000 that is to be spent per year on this measure, I say that the only limitation upon the good things of life

Family Allowances

that we should provide for our people should be the limitation on what we are able to provide for them by our industry within Canada and our ability to produce here and procure goods from outside the country with our production within the country.

Of course, living in a country such as ours, that means that if we are to have a high standard of living we must have world trade, and I rejoice in the attitude of our party because I realize that it is fundamental, if we are to have a high standard of living, to be able to trade our great surpluses for the surpluses of other countries that produce things we cannot produce. But while we are striving for an increase in world trade to raise the standard of living of all our people we should never lose sight of the fact, as the Prime Minister pointed out, that we produce most of the basic necessities of life in abundance within Canada. I rejoice that by this measure we are now going to help to supply those basic necessaries of life to all of the children of this land of ours. I hope that once and for all that argument is going to be laid to rest, that we are such a stupid people that we permit our children to go in want alongside granaries bursting with grain and other foodstuffs that are spoiling, and that that situation will not prevail in the future.

One argument that has been used against this bill is that it will destroy the self-reliance of our people. I think that was well answered by the Prime Minister. I think, Mr. Speaker, that for one man who has been made strong by adversity there is at least one man who has been broken by adversity.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

One? Thousands.

Mr. TUCKER:

with a measure like this. It must be that they have never left the large cities, or, if they have gone through the country, they have kept their eyes closed. Services such as they describe cannot be provided in the small urban centres or the rural sections of this country. A very large proportion of our people live in those small urban centres and rural areas; and the social agencies built up in the large centres could not begin to take the place of these grants, which will enable parents to provide their children with more of :he basic necessities of life.

Mention was made of food and clothing, but other difficulties were experienced in Saskatchewan even before the war. Because of the lack of money and purchasing power in the hands of the farmers in many of the rural ^reas of Saskatchewan, doctors found that they could not make enough out of their practices to pay expenses, and they had to leave. For distances of perhaps fifty to sixty miles there would be no doctor at all. In the winter time, after the roads were closed, the women in isolated farm homes would be snowbound, with the nearest doctor perhaps fifty miles away, knowing full well that if anything happened to one of the children or to themselves the crisis would have to be faced without medical help. If this purchasing power is placed in the hands of our people it will enable all districts to be better served as far as medical attention goes.

It is well known that there has been great disparity between the income of the rural areas and that of the urban areas. It is also well known that families in rural areas are larger, on the average, than those in urban areas. This measure will tend to overcome that disparity in income, and for that reason also I welcome it. It will help substantially in redressing that balance. In western Canada we experience crop failures from time to time, and our- people are most grateful for the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which gives them a certain amount of security in the event of the occurrence of that disaster. But the payments are not large, and these additional allowances will give them an even greater feeling of security. This will greatly add to the joy of living on our western prairies.

I have been discouraged and surprised by the attitude of a few labour leaders in this country who have opposed this measure. They may feel that by organizing they can drive up wages; but dto they not realize that great numbers of people, including the casual wage-earning class, the so-called white collar class, and the people on our farms, cannot be assisted by their organizations? Surely their opposition to this measure, if we look at it

purely from their own point of view, should have been tempered by the thought that, after all, the greater part of the population of this country cannot organize in labour unions but is going to receive a tremendous benefit under this legislation. When they study the figures which have been given in this debate I hope they will withdraw the opposition they have expressed toward this most statesmanlike legislation.

In moving the second reading of this bill the Prime Minister referred to the Atlantic charter. I well remember when the Atlantic charter was signed and the suggestion was made that we were going to devote ourselves to bringing about freedom from fear and freedom from want among our people. At that time we felt that if we could bring about some amelioration of those conditions among our people it would be perhaps some compensation for the measureless misery and suffering of this war. If now, having held out those hopes to this nation, we do not follow through with measures which will bring about freedom from fear and freedom from want, we shall create a feeling from one end of this country to the other that our leaders have not been sincere with the people. I rejoice that this spirit of following through in connection with those hopes and promises which were held out to our beleaguered people in the dark days of 1940 has been made manifest as the star guiding this administration in the measures it is now taking looking to the well-being of our people.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):

Order. The hon. member's time has expired.

Mr. TUCKER:

Surely, Mr. Speaker, the sacrifices made by our people at home; their willingness to devote themselves to the welfare of their country; the spirit in which many have left their loved ones, their children and gone forward into the hell of battle; the willingness with which our young people have risked everything they possess, all merit the support of this house and of future houses for all measures which will ensure -that this devotion is properly requited by a grateful people.

Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):

Mr. Speaker,

it is with a measure of pride that I take this opportunity of supporting this most humanitarian piece of legislation, and also supporting my distinguished leader in this measure which I believe is dear to his heart. May I congratulate the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker) upon the vigorous and splendid manner in which he marshalled his thoughts when speaking on this measure. I must con-

Family Allowances

fess some jealousy of his ability along those lines, but I would also say that it was most pleasing to listen to him.

In the short time I have at my disposal I shall endeavour to express my views, the views of a common person, one who has never experienced poverty, who has never enjoyed luxury, who has always had plenty to eat, plenty to wear and plenty to do. I have always, however, understood the positions of those who have not been as fortunate as I have.

I am inclined to the view that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), my dis-guished leader, has taken his present attitude because of his memory of things which might have happened in his early family life. Only recently I had occasion to look into the early history of Canada, particularly as it relates to the Indians in my constituency, and the manner in which those who held legislative positions in the country at that time, a time when my leader's grandfather was endeavouring to champion the rights of the common people to responsible government, filched from the Indians $160,000. That was the same group which probably was responsible for the exile of the grandfather of our present leader. Because of that, the birth of his mother took place in .poverty-stricken conditions, and under circumstances which almost cost her life. Had that happened we would not have had in Canada to-day this distinguished Prime Minister. I am inclined to the view that the fact we all cherish championing contributions our forefathers have made in the past prompted him to give consideration to that which is so near to him.

I mention this because, in my d\jty as a member of parliament, I discovered these things. That is what prompted me to think this legislation is the product of that experience, and I believe it is what prompted my leader to advance it. From the point- of view of the farmer, as the hon. member for Rosthem has pointed out, this legislation is something which the farmers, and those others who obtain a good share of their living in kind, but not in money, will accept readily. It will enable them to secure for their children some of those better things in life, and possibly make it possible to give a more balanced ration, and thereby to develop healthier children.

I am inclined to think this is one of the first measures in which the farmer has been permitted to share and share alike with urban folk. I was interested in the comment of the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence). Had I been a Conservative, myself. I think I would be opposing this legislation, on the grounds of paternalism, charity, and all the things that go with it. Fortunately, however,

I do not happen to be a Conservative, and I cannot accept the view of a former speaker to the effect that a division has been closely drawn in orthodox thinking. I still say that Liberalism is a state of mind, and I do not think it can be changed. It is, in fact, a progressive state of mind, one of those things with which we are born. We all have in us the positive and negative sides. At times there are places for Conservatism, times when we must consolidate the ground won by advanced Liberal thought.

But in these times we are looking for further advancement. When the hon. member for Saskatoon City made the claim that the solution of our problems was to be found in increasing wages-

Mr. BENCE:

I said one of them.

Mr. WOOD:

Well, all right, one of them. I have not been able to accept that view. It would be a very nice one to accept, of course, because everybody likes to have more money either in wages or from the sale of his produce. But we must remember that increased wages increase costs of production and the purchasing power of the dollar is immediately destroyed. There is just so much national wealth, and when one person gets more than his share the other fellow has to do with less. If we are to compete in the open markets of the world in the disposal of our surplus products, we must remember that we have to consider costs of production. People who are buying our produce are not going to consider our standard of living. It will be a clear-cut business proposition, and we would be wise to keep that thought in mind. After all, if the labouring man can buy the necessities of life at a lower price, he is already enjoying an increase in wages by virtue of that increased purchasing power.

Another reason for my acceptance of this legislation is the encouragement it must give to Canadian-born children. It has been my experience that men bom and reared in this country generally enjoy a certain standard of living and of ideals. Those who come in through a method of immigration import with them many of those characteristics and ideas which infect the country to-day. It might be wise to make an analysis of our parliamentary guide. I believe, if we did that, it would be found that my statement is borne out to a very great extent.

Those old pioneers, people who thought in the orthodox fashion, came to this country and cut down the stubborn forests. They did not ask for any special privileges; they did not ask to have things other people had. They took over their land, and produced those things

Family Allowances

which would increase their standard of living. They did not ask for a share of the production, or for a share of what other people had already earned. They did not become socialistic, or place themselves in a position to take what generations had sacrificed to develop.

I believe we can maintain a Canadian standard of ideals by encouraging more Canadian-born children. As the hon. member for Rosthem said, many people ask, How are we going to finance this? Because of advanced systems of transportation and communication we have to-day large companies, some of which have developed on an international scale. Sometimes they corral to themselves a monopoly of business, and by virtue of that fact create great volume of wealth. I take the view that because the law has protected those great companies, and has permitted them to continue in the enjoyment of their great possessions, the same law should enable them to share some of their wealth with those who are less fortunate. It is only just and reasonable to expect that they will take those who are not so fortunate by the hand and help them over the rough places of life. It seems to me that this legislation is visionary in that respect. We have in Canada to-day three thousand more factories than we had when the war broke out. Many of them have developed into large businesses and by virtue of that fact they have been able to get for themselves a great deal of wealth. The weapon of taxation will be used to see that that wealth is redistributed to those who need it most, to the homes with the greatest number of children and where the need is greatest.

Another argument in favour of this bill is that quite often when the family is young the earning power of the father is at its lowest point. He has not yet come to that age in life where he is able to realize upon his efforts and experience, and that is the time when he finds his burden is the greatest.

There is one thing I deplore, the argument that this legislation will create national disunity. It is unfortunate that attention is drawn to people who live within certain boundary lines. After all, the choice of where we are born or who our parents are to be is not our own. I think it is up to us to be broad-minded and fair enough to realize that at least all people are entitled to their share of the good things of life.

The Globe and Mail quite often print a column entitled, "In case you are interested." I do not know whether the local representative of that paper is in his place, but I should like to call his attention to something which possibly he can have printed to-morrow in the Globe and Mail. Jf there is one column in

any paper that has done more to bring about disunity it is that column in that morning paper. Quite often they refer to Quebec in a roundabout way. Here is something I should like to draw to their attention.

Being a farmer I have always been interested in the federal farm loan legislation. I placed a question upon the order paper, and the reply I received indicated that there were 5,527 farm loans in the province of Quebec, and 2,530 in Ontario, less than half. The total amount of the loans in Quebec was S13,500,000, while those in Ontario totalled a little over $6,000,000. Here is the point I want to draw to the attention of the editors of, "In case you are interested." I am bringing this out because I am an Ontario farmer. In spite of the fact that Quebec has twice as many loans totalling more than twice the amount of the Ontario loans, the arrears of payments in 1943 were $70,040 as compared with $164,000 for Ontario.

I do not publish that information with any measure of pride, but when it came to my attention I felt that there must be something about the philosophy of the people of Quebec, something about their family life which made them honest enough to try to pay their debts. That, in my view, is a worth-while object and one which enhances their integrity.

There is another thing I should like to draw to the attention of the Globe and Mail in case they run out of material for the column, "In case you are interested." No nation is particularly great because of its material wealth, a nation's greatness is measured by the quality of its people. I consider that this legislation will enable our people to maintain their families in a standard better than they would otherwise be able to do.

I see my time is limited, but there is one thing I should like to direct attention to which came to my mind recently. It may be considered crude for me to refer to this matter but I think it is quite important. We subsidize many other things, so surely our children are entitled to consideration for they are the most important. In Ontario the farmers receive a subsidy for producing bacon hogs. First we receive $3 from the federal government for producing a grade A hog; we receive $1 from the province; we receive $2.25 in freight on the 1,000 pounds of grain we feed per pig; we receive another $3 for the twenty bushels with the fifteen cent per bushel ceiling price that is granted; this totals to a little over $9 per pig. I always read the Globe and Mail when I have breakfast-

Mr. MAYBANK:

The hon. member would not suggest for a moment that there is as much fun in a little pig as there is in a child?

Victoria Cross-Lieutenant Homell

Mr. WOOD:

I am just trying to show which is the most important. I noticed on page 19 of the Globe and Mail a little item referring to a prolific sow that produced a litter of eighteen pigs. If that could be duplicated every six months that family of pigs would earn a subsidy -of S324 per annum. If we can do that for our swine production, surely there should be no objection to this legislation.

On motion of Mr. Wood the debate was adjourned.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Hon. members will recall that, during the discussion of the Department of External Affairs estimates under the war appropriation bill last year, reference was made to the development of direct diplomatic relations between Canada and certain Latin-American countries, and that I informed the house at that time that we hoped to exchange diplomatic missions with Peru.

I have pleasure in informing the house that Doctor Henry Laureys has been appointed the first Canadian ambassador to Peru.

Doctor Laureys returned in the spring of this year from South Africa where he served as the first High Commissioner for Canada for over four years. Doctor Laureys had a distinguished academic career as dean of the school of higher commercial studies at the university of Montreal before he entered the public service, and has made a wide study of international, economic and commercial problems.

The Peruvian government has appointed Doctor Humberto Fernandez Davila as charge d'affairs ad interim at Ottawa pending the appointment of a Peruvian ambassador.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

I have also pleasure in announcing that Mr. L. B. Pearson, minister-counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Washington, has been appointed minister at the embassy.

Mr. Pearson has already had a long and distinguished career in the Canadian external affairs service, both in Ottawa and abroad. For the last two years he has been second in com-ma*vd at the embassy in Washington, and

charge d'affaires when the ambassador is absent. Since his appointment to Washington he has represented Canada at the first meeting of the council of the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration and has served as chairman of the supplies committee of that organization. He was also a member of the Canadian delegation to the Hot Springs conference on food and agriculture, and has served as chairman of the interim commission set up to complete plans for the establishment of a united nations food and agriculture organization.

Hon. CYRUS MACMILLAN (Parliamentary Assistant to Minister of National Defence for Air):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

Minister of National Defence for Air it is my proud privilege and honour to inform the house that the highest decoration for valour, the Victoria Cross, has been awarded posthumously Edward David1 Hornell, of Mimico, Ontario, formerly residing at Harbord street, Toronto.

With the consent of the house I should like to place on Hansard the citation referring to the gallant and distinguished conduct of Flight Lieutenant Homell, on the night and day of June 24 last.

Flight Lieutenant Hornell was captain and first pilot of a twin-engine amphibian aircraft engaged in anti-submarine patrol over northern waters.

The patrol had lasted some hours when a fully-surfaced U-boat was sighted travelling at high speed on the port beam. Flight Lieutenant Hornell at once turned to the attack. The U-boat altered course. The aircraft had been seen and there could be no surprise. The U-boat opened up with anti-aircraft fire which became increasingly fierce and accurate.

The front guns of the aircraft replied; then its starboard gun jammed, leaving only one gun effective. Hits were obtained on and around

5508 COMMONS

Victoria Cross-Lieutenant Homell

the conning tower of the U-boat, but the aircraft was itself hit, two large holes appearing in the starboard wing.

Ignoring the enemy's fire, Flight Lieutenant Hornell carefully manoeuvred for the attack. Oil was pouring from his starboard wing; and his petrol tanks were endangered. Meanwhile the aircraft was hit again and again by the U-boat's guns. Holed in many places, it was vibrating violently and became very difficult to control.

Nevertheless, the captain decided to press home his attack, knowing that with every moment the chances of escape for him and his gallant crew would grow more slender. He brought his aircraft down very low and released his depth charges in a perfect "straddle". The bows of the U-boat were lifted out of the water; it sank, and members of the crew were seen in the sea.

Flight Lieutenant Hornell contrived, by superhuman efforts at the controls, to gain a little height. Fire in 'the starboard wing had grown more intense and the vibration had increased. Then the burning engine fell off. The plight of aircraft and crew was now desperate. With the utmost coolness, the captain took his aircraft into the wind and, despite manifold dangers, brought it safely down on a heavy swell.

Badly damaged and blazing furiously, the aircraft rapidly settled. After the ordeal by fire came ordeal by water. There was only one serviceable dinghy and this could not hoid all the crew, so they took turns in the water holding onto the sides. On one occasion the dinghy capsized in rough seas and was righted only with great difficulty. Two of the crew succumbed from exposure. An airborne lifeboat was dropped to them but it fell some 500 yards dowm 'wind.

The airmen struggled vainly to reach it and Flight Lieutenant Hornell. who throughout had encouraged them by his cheerfulness and inspiring leadership, proposed to swim to it, though he was nearly exhausted. He was with difficulty restrained. The survivors were finally rescued after they had been in the water twenty-one hours. By this time Flight Lieutenant Hornell was blinded and completely exhausted. He died shortly after being picked up. Flight Lieutenant Hornell had completed sixty operational missions, involving six hundred hours flying. He well knew the danger and the difficulties attending attacks on submarines. By pressing home a skilful and successful attack against fierce opposition, with his aircraft in precarious condition, and by fortifying and encouraging his comrades in the subsequent ordeal, this officer displayed valour and devotion to duty of the highest order.

The members of the crew who died with him were Donald Stewart Scott of Almonte, Ontario, and Fernand St. Laurent, of Father Point, Quebec. The surviving members of the crew are Bernard Charles Denomy, of Chatham, Ontario, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Order; Graham Campbell, of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, who was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross; Sidney Edward Matheson, of Nelson British Columbia, who was awarded the Distinguished

*lr. Macmillan.]

Flying Cross; Flight Sergeant Israel Joseph Bodnoff, of Ottawa, who was awarded the Distinguished Flying Medal, and Sidney Reginald Cole, of Long Branch, Ontario, who was awarded the Distinguished Flying Medal.

May I add just one word, Mr. Speaker? We rejoice, I am sure, in the rescue of the living; we deeply sympathize with the kindred of the dead. This story of courage which I have just read is typical of the spirit of Canada. May it live forever as a perpetual inspiration in the heart and memory of the land they loved, Canada, the land they died to save!