April 29, 1949

LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. Pouliot:

My friend the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont says, "Who is next?" The same question is in my mind. Every time that the Conservative party has chosen a new leader they have beat the drum for his election, describing each one of them as a semi-god, and all others were puny people compared to the new Moses who was to lead them to the promised land. The only one who did so did it during four or five years of depression, but afterwards, in spite of his bags of gold, he was rejected by the Canadian people. I know something about that, because I had my share in discussing public questions with him in the House of Commons.

The Conservative party now has a new leader, and one who has something in common with the Prime Minister because each of them has a charming wife. They are great ladies, but the social question is entirely apart from the programs of the parties and from the pronouncements that are made by the respective leaders. The reason I give my unqualified support to the Prime Minister as leader of the Liberal party, and as Prime Minister, is the reasonable and sensible way in which he has been acting as leader of the party, leader of the house, and leader of the government since he assumed office in the late summer of 1948. It is most important that the leader of the government should be well versed in the law. As you know, our primary purpose in being here is to pass legislation which affects every man, woman and child in the country. Therefore the one who leads the government, who is the first

Party Policies

citizen of the land, should be thoroughly conversant with the law and with the effect of the law, so that no one in the country will be prejudiced by the law. The Prime Minister is one of the most prominent lawyers in this country. He knows and understands the law, and that is one reason for supporting him. I pay the same compliment to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), to the financial critic of the official opposition, the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdon-nell), and many others.

Each party should have a definite policy, and should not cater to other groups for support. There is nothing that will appeal to the people more than a red-blooded Canadian policy. I can see the day, although it may be distant, when the Canadian people will no longer have an inferiority complex, when they will consider themselves to be the equals of any in any other part of the world. It is unfortunate to realize that up to the present time there have been those who call themselves Canadians but who are no more Canadians than Chinese or Africans because of their inferiority complex in connection with the British empire or the so-called commonwealth.

I consider myself-all hon. members of parliament should be in the same position- the equal of any sitting member in the House of Commons at Westminster or in any parliament in any part of the empire. It is only by the acceptance of all public men in Canada, or at least a majority of them, of a conception of equality, that we can have a truly Canadian policy. We are gradually going forward to that conception.

When Mr. Bennett announced the slogan of "Canada first" he was simply trying to fool the people. After his defeat, and when he was leaving for the shores of Great Britain, he said, "I am going home." He forgot that he had been born in New Brunswick. He forgot the support he had received from the Conservative party, a party that had been very good to him.

I have many friends among the different parties and groups in this house. I have no complaint to make about individuals, but I disagree entirely with some of the policies of the Conservative party. There is so much bluff in the pronouncements that are made at times by those in charge. They speak of bureaucracy, but what will they do to stop bureaucracy? Where will they start? Nothing is said. They are denouncing abstractions. They are denouncing straw men that they set up themselves. Then they dare to say that those who are Liberals at heart, those who are good Canadians, can be compared to the straw men that they burn in effigy in their own imaginations.

Party Policies

We shall go forward. I am ready to forget the errors that have been made by my party in the past, provided that the Prime Minister continues with the policy he announced west of the lakes; provided that that is the policy that he will preach in each province, city, town and hamlet of Canada where he will be invited to speak and where he will be greeted by our own people.

The Conservative party cannot expect to have the confidence of the majority of the Canadian people as long as they keep a large painting of Arthur Meighen in their caucus room. They should break with the past and go forward. They should stop denouncing evils that do not exist. They should make constructive criticisms that will be helpful in the good government of this country.

What are the prospects for the next election? An able journalist who accompanied the Prime Minister on his trip through the west has said that the chances of the leader of the opposition and his party west of the great lakes are nil. Then what do we read in one of the best papers of Canada, the Montreal Gazette, under the signature of one of the ablest members of the press gallery, about the trip of the leader of the opposition to Newfoundland? He is a man of culture; he knows the Einstein theory. I never could understand Einstein's theory. One day I asked a learned mathematician to tell me if it was of practical use, and he answered that it served in the discovery of the undulation of light. I asked him if the undulation of light was a practical thing, and he said, "Not yet."

When the leader of the opposition went to Newfoundland he spoke in the birthplace of one of his great grandmothers, but he spoke a language that was not understood by his audience when he referred to dominion-provincial relations. In his article this able correspondent of the Montreal Gazette said that the explanations of the leader of the opposition about dominion-provincial problems were just as clear as Einstein's theory- or, in simple language, just as clear as mud. If the leader of the opposition thinks that he will have any success in getting the support of the good people of Newfoundland by using, perhaps purposely, such nebulous language, he is labouring under a delusion.

Let us look at the maritime provinces. By all reports the Liberal government in Nova Scotia will be returned by an increased majority. The government in Nova Scotia is strong. Then we come to the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I am sure that when the Prime Minister goes to Toronto and Hamilton he will have the same reception he received when he went to Windsor and Oshawa. He will be greeted not only

with sympathy, but with affection, by the Canadian people, who will have the advantage of meeting him both before and after the meetings that he holds there. I am not afraid of the province of Ontario. My contention has always been that since I have been elected as a member of parliament I am responsible to my electors for any information they request from me concerning dominion business. If they wish some information, they have a right to have an answer from their member. When it comes to provincial business, however, it is entirely different. I say that a member of parliament is responsible to his electors for any action taken in parliament, but is an entirely free man with regard to provincial matters. He becomes an elector, and he speaks and votes in provincial elections, not as a member of parliament but as a private citizen. He does so as an elector who is on the provincial electoral list.

What would be the objection if any one of the old supporters of Mitchell Hepburn or Conant, the old Liberals in the province of Ontario who put Mitchell Hepburn in power and who voted for the Liberal government in Ottawa, voted provincially for another party? Most of those who elected the present leader of the opposition as premier of the province of Ontario were precisely those who had elected Mitchell Hepburn. They were Liberals who for the time being changed their minds about provincial business, but always gave their support to a large number of Liberal candidates for Ottawa. A larger number of them will do the same thing at the coming election.

Speaking about the province of Quebec, I know in my own constituency many persons who have voted for the Union Nationale in the provincial election but who will nevertheless vote for the sitting member for Temi-scouata. Why is that necessary distinction not made? Personally I have great respect and sympathy for the present premier of Quebec, who is a lifelong friend of mine. Owing to the fact that the dominion and provincial jurisdictions are entirely different, I see no reason why the majority of the people of the province of Quebec cannot make that elementary distinction and consider provincial problems when they are called upon to vote in provincial elections, and consider dominion problems when they are voting in dominion elections. Well, sir, that is that.

I rely on the people of my province because I know them well. Because I know them well, I respect them. The reason I have had their generous and unqualified support for so many years is that I always tell them the truth. I have never hidden the truth

from them. I consider them my friends. They know very well that when anyone in my constituency, whatever his political colour, is in trouble, he may come to me for help, and I am always ready to do what I can for him. In this post-war period, when difficulties have arisen for which the government cannot be held responsible, it is important to have at the head of the state, as the first citizen of the land, a good Canadian who can be relied upon in the grave decisions he has to make quickly for the benefit of the country and the welfare of our fellow citizens.

Having said that much, I am sure that the Liberal party will come to power with a large majority after the next election.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
PC

Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fraser:

You ought to wake up; you are asleep.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. Pouliot:

Do not tell me I am asleep; I am not a somnambulist. I shall tell the hon. member for Peterborough West that he will have to be very careful if he is not to arouse the anger of his constituents and be sent back to his beautiful home. The last day of the election of 1935 I told the supporters of the late R. B. Bennett-each one, and I named them-who v. ould be defeated. My guess was ninety-nine per cent correct. During the campaign for that election I had occasion to go to Toronto and other centres in the province of Ontario. I went to Huron, Perth, Essex and other counties of Ontario to preach the Liberal doctrine. Two weeks before the end of the campaign I was in Toronto, and I told the people who were listening to me-I spoke in French on that occasion, but the reporters were bilingual, so they understood what I said-

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
CCF

John Oliver Probe

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Probe:

You knew that, of course.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. Pouliol:

It is a great privilege to be bilingual. I told them that the Liberal party would get sixty seats out of sixty-five in the province of Quebec. My statement was put on the wires from coast to coast; it was a message of cheer and confidence. The guess was correct, because it was based on reliable information. We can see what is happening. The small groups are disappearing. There are many Liberals amongst them. I do not say that they are not able parliamentarians. They are good members of parliament, but often their doctrines are wrong. Their doctrines are not accepted by the Canadian people, and I shall tell you why. Sooner or later-I hope in the near future-we will have two parties in Canada. We will have a Canadian party, and a party composed of all other groups.

We have only to look at what is going on in the world to see that there is a spirit of

Party Policies independence prevailing in all countries. So long as some of the hon. members keep that inferiority complex which I mentioned a moment ago, they are gradually losing the confidence of the Canadian people, who are opening their eyes just as the Irish and Indian people have opened theirs. They should rather think of those who are close to them, those who live in their vicinity. They should think of all those in their country whom they want to be happy. Then if they put their ears to the ground, they will hear the clamour that is arising for the Liberal party and the ultimate benefit of the Canadian people.

I have said enough. Although I did not speak much during this session, I followed what was going on, and I obtained some exceedingly valuable information as to what is going to happen on the date that will be set for the election in the last days of June.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
CCF

John Oliver Probe

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Probe:

How will Temiscouata go?

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. Pouliot:

First-class.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
CCF

William Irvine

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Irvine:

It is too bad that you are going to be defeated.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. Pouliot:

I say "first-class", because I have been honest with my people from the start of my political life, as was Sir Wilfrid Laurier. When I was eighteen years old I spoke at his meeting. I have known Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Few other members have. He was a great man.

With regard to the fixing of the date of the election, I regret one thing. I regret that it will be on a Monday and that it will not be June 23, the day that my father was elected as a supporter of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the great election of 1896.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
SC

Robert Fair

Social Credit

Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):

It is no

wonder, Mr. Speaker, that many people are surprised that democracy has survived as long as it has when we listen to much of the political nonsense that is being discussed here instead of some of the country's business, which is being shelved.

I had intended to discuss a number of questions on the budget address, but because of the fact that parliament will be dissolved in the near future I intend to confine my remarks to just a few moments; and when I say "a few moments" I mean just that.

First of all I want to deal with the question of the trans-Canada highway. We have heard about this project for a number of years. It is peculiar that after the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) had denied, last June, any responsibility or any connection whatever with that work, last December the-then minister of mines and resources (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS

Trans-Canada Highway MacKinnon) was successf ul in having a meeting here in Ottawa with the provincial representatives, and as a result of that meeting we were led to believe that legislation would be passed at this session providing for money to build the trans-Canada highway.

But then there comes another hitch. There is again the division of responsibility between the dominion and the provinces. Perhaps after the election is over some of the promises that have been made in this connection will again be forgotten. In my opinion that would be one of the greatest mistakes that Canada has ever made. Before you can have a prosperous Canada you must have some method of transportation by road from one end of the country to the other. It is amazing that we have lived up to the year 1949 and yet have not a road that we can travel on from east to west or from west to east. Because of the fact that the provinces of Canada have the right to say where the highway shall go, it now seems that west of Winnipeg there is considerable difference of opinion. My colleague the non. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) yesterday set up a number of arguments as to why it should go through his particular country. Today I am going to suggest that we bring the highway through the central part of the western provinces and follow up where we have production of oil and gas, abundant agricultural products, salt deposits, national parks, and, finally, the population to use those roads.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. Low:

That is perfectly logical.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
SC

Robert Fair

Social Credit

Mr. Fair:

We do not intend to build this highway entirely for United States tourists. But, again, if we build the road up where it should be built, from Winnipeg to Saskatoon, Lloydminster, Vermilion, Vegreville, Edmonton, and on out over the Yellowhead route, then we shall also connect with the Alaska highway. In my opinion that is one of the strategic routes that should be followed, because of the threat of armed forces using that road-perhaps in the near future; I do not know, but I hope not.

Again we have been told about all the miles of road in the southern part of the province and the lack of population to use those roads down there. I do not think we can disagree with that. On the southern route I understand we have ten or twelve feet of snowfall annually. What is the use of building a road, one that a snake could hardly follow in many places for a number of miles, which in the winter will be covered with snow and the people will not be able to use it? My suggestion is to go up into that part of the country in which you will have far less construction difficulties, where you will have far less snowfall, and will have the use

of the road almost the year round. With some work I believe it can be used all the year round.

In order that there may be no hold-up because of this dispute between the provinces and the dominion, I am making a suggestion -and I believe it is backed up by a delegation from the Trans-Canada Highway Association, Yellowhead route, which presented a brief here not many days ago. The suggestion is to set up a highway commission to decide where the road should go. But before that decision is made, that commission would secure the advice of men who are in the engineering business, who would know the cost of building the road, and know the most desirable and feasible route to follow. As time goes on, we can have roads in the other more difficult places. I am appealing to the government here today to set up that commission, have it get the advice of experts in that particular line, and have the highway built without further delay. In the United States I understand there are national highways. If the dominion and the provinces cannot get together on this trans-Canada highway, perhaps they might build two or three national highways all across the country at federal government expense.

I wish to refer to one other matter that I have dealt with on a number of occasions, one on which there is practically unanimous agreement. Apparently the treasury board and some of their friends are dissenting from a decision which has been arrived at on many occasions. I am now dealing with our old friends, the soldier settlers of world war I. I am not going into the details, because many of us have placed them on the record time after time, and the case has been so strong that the special committee set up to deal with veterans affairs last year unanimously recommended that title be granted to those still remaining in debt to the soldier settlement board. The government apparently did not see fit to adopt that resolution, but they started in on a skim-milk program of appropriating $150,000 a year so that some of the needy cases would be taken care of. I have said that that is not good enough; and I am satisfied that if the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) had his way, all those soldier settlers would be taken care of before the election is held.

I believe the treasury board, or some of the other higher-ups, or those who are supposed to be higher-ups, are holding back this program and keeping these old settlers, who fought for Canada many years ago that we might have the good time we have here today, from getting that to which they are entitled. This soldier settlement scheme was, as described by the former minister of mines and

resources, Hon. T. A. Crerar, who now sits in a happy place at the other end of this building, a hastily improvised scheme. I think that that properly describes it, because there was no common sense or judgment used in the set-up, and the old settlers have had to bear the cost of the poor judgment used by some of the people in office at that time. It is up to us to spend the amount required- less than $3 million-to clear up all these debts.

Yesterday the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Caouette) told us of the more than $5 billion which has been paid in interest on our national debt. I believe that the interest on that national debt amounted last year to $455 million, and yet we cannot find less than $3 million to release these men, who farmed for close to thirty years, from the millstone which hangs around their necks.

I appeal again to the government to set this matter straight before the date of the election.

There is just one other matter I want to deal with, namely, the oil fields in the Lloyd-minster district. On many occasions representations have been made to the government to remove the discriminatory legislation against that particular oil field. We want to get many more United States dollars. That seems to be one of the restrictions on trade, and yet because of this we find that there is an inequitable and discriminatory eight per cent sales tax levied on the oil from that particular field. In addition there is a discriminatory freight rate which is preventing the development of that field. Production is much less than one-third of the potential.

I have appealed to the Minister of Finance;

I have taken the matter up with him personally and by letter, but so far we have not had those wrongs rectified. I am making this appeal this morning, and I hope the government will listen to the few appeals that I have made during the session.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
CCF

Ronald Stewart Moore

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Ronald Moore (Churchill):

Mr. Speaker, the matter to which I wish to refer could have more properly been brought up in the budget debate, but because of the fact that the budget debate may not be resumed I wish to put it on the record on the motion which is now before the house.

In Manitoba there has been a problem which has been of some concern to the people. I refer to the decision of the directors of Trans-Canada Air Lines to remove their operating headquarters from Winnipeg to Montreal. I think it should be said that in the past two months all the Manitoba members have received communications from various civic bodies in that province, and from the chamber of commerce as well, asking us to oppose any move which would tend to

Trans-Canada Air Lines transfer T.C.A. from Winnipeg to Montreal.

I answered these communications and assured the bodies in question that I would do everything I could to prevent such a move.

When the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, controlled and operated by the government was in session, a delegation from the city of Winnipeg interviewed that committee and presented a brief for its consideration. In that brief the chamber of commerce outlined the reasons why, in its opinion, T.C.A. headquarters should not be moved from Winnipeg to Montreal. Following the presentation of that brief, the directors of T.C.A. also presented a brief in which they outlined their position. The brief presented by the directors of T.C.A. made it plain that no matter what the committee did, it was the intention of the directors to move the headquarters from Winnipeg to Montreal. When I say that it was their intention to move the headquarters I am referring to the statement in the brief where it was said that the superintendent, his five assistants, and the office staffs, involving 159 employees in all, would be moved from Winnipeg to Montreal. The brief then went on to say that because this move was to be made, it should not be assumed that it was the policy of T.C.A. to move all of its operating staff from Winnipeg to the east.

On the following day a session of the railway committee was held in which it was decided to hold an executive meeting of the committee. It will be recalled by hon. members of the committee that the directors of T.C.A., the press, and all those not on the committee, were excluded from that executive meeting. In that meeting a motion was moved which asked that the decision of the T.C.A. directors be deferred for one year. I decided to vote against that motion. I decided to vote against it because in my opinion it was more of a political move than anything else. At the end of one year the election would be over and T.C.A. employees would be moved anyway. If the employees of T.C.A. mentioned in the brief presented by the board of directors were to be removed, they should know about it now and not a year from now. Hence I voted against the motion. I am not going into what took place after that, but it has been stated editorially by two newspapers in Manitoba that it was my vote which is permitting T.C.A. headquarters to be transferred from Winnipeg to Montreal. That is not so. I am perfectly willing to see T.C.A. retained in Winnipeg. I want to see it retained in Winnipeg.

I want to put on record a telegram which I have received from E. C. Gilliat, managing secretary of the Winnipeg chamber of com-

2748 HOUSE OF

Trans-Canada Air Lines merce, in connection with this matter. It reads as follows:

Manitoba is counting on you in co-operation with its other representatives in the Senate and house to make supreme effort prior to dissolution to prevent the removal of T.C.A.'s operating headquarters to Montreal. The immediate effects of such removal would be very serious to our economy. The long-range effects if move is consummated could be calamitous. We are satisfied Manitoba's case has not been successfully challenged on the merits; hence this earnest appeal for action now.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
CCF

William Irvine

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Irvine:

It might be better for T.C.A., though.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
CCF

Ronald Stewart Moore

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Moore:

If any private member of the government or any member of the cabinet cares to take the attitude toward this problem as outlined in the telegram I have read, and move such a motion in the house, I shall be pleased to support it. Again I want to state that merely deferring the matter for one year 3oes not in any way assist the T.C.A. employees in Winnipeg.

In order to keep the record straight I think I should put on the record a letter which I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a day or two ago. This is a copy of the letter:

Dear Mr. St. Laurent;

As you are aware, the people of Manitoba are united in their insistence that the proposed removal of T.C.A.'s operating headquarters, together with another group of employees, from Winnipeg to Montreal should be abandoned. Organizations representing the people of Manitoba are continuing their efforts in this connection, but it has been drawn to my attention that my vote against a motion dealing with this matter, when the same was before the committee on railways and shipping owned and operated by the government, might be interpreted as justifying the announced intention of T.C.A.

In view of the above, I wish to make my position perfectly clear. Had the motion made by Mr. Maybank, in the above-noted committee, called for the complete abandonment of the proposed removal, I would have voted for it. Actually the motion called only for a deferment of the removal for one year. Quite frankly I regarded this motion as merely a political one, and I felt that if it were passed in the terms in which it was phrased it would simply add confusion to the present situation. I need not go further into this phase of the matter. But I do wish to make it clear that I wholly support the request of various bodies and organizations in Manitoba that this removal be completely abandoned, and I wish to add my support to the representations being made to you in *connection with this matter.

It seems clear to me that this issue is not just an administrative detail. It is rather a national policy in a good many respects; and I urge as strongly as I can that you see to it that the operating headquarters for T.C.A. remain at Winnipeg.

I understand that members of other parties from Manitoba are making representations to you in connection with this matter. I am authorized to say that all five C.C.F. members from our province,

namely, Messrs. Knowles, Bryce, Stewart, Zaplitny and myself, are in complete support of the request for the abandonment of the proposed removal.

Hoping that you will give this matter immediate and favourable consideration, I am,

Sincerely yours,

R. S. Moore

I am not going to say anything further on the subject at this time. I wish simply to make it clear that the motion which was before the committee, and which I voted against, was in my opinion but a political one which would not in any way meet the requirements of Trans-Canada Air Lines employees in Winnipeg.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
PC

Wilbert Ross Aylesworth

Progressive Conservative

Mr. W. R. Aylesworth (Fronlenac-Addington):

Mr. Speaker, I propose to confine my remarks largely to matters of trade. I do so because the question of trade is one of vital importance to the people I represent, and one in which perhaps more than any other there is less confidence in the government.

In 1939 Canada embarked upon a policy of state trading between the government of this country and the governments of other countries, chiefly the United Kingdom. Today, after ten years of this socialistic trading policy, we find ourselves facing the most serious agricultural economic problem we have perhaps ever been called upon to face, namely, the question of agricultural export markets, and particularly the retention of our market in the United Kingdom for our surplus agricultural products.

Export markets for agricultural products have been falling off during the past two years, and the trend is continuing. Unless something is done soon, the agricultural industry in Canada will face a major crisis arising out of a loss of markets and falling prices. Today our assured markets for the products about which I shall speak in a moment are no longer existent under the state-selling plan we adopted ten years ago. Those products are being secured by the United Kingdom from sources other than Canada.

Let us look at some of these products. First, with respect to barley, in the 1938-39 crop year we shipped to the United Kingdom 11,028,532 bushels of barley. That market is now gone. But barley imports by the United Kingdom increased from 4,701,416 bushels in 1947 to 32,538,013 bushels in 1948. Of this increase in barley imports into the United Kingdom the Argentine supplied 12,215,056 bushels, and 17,917,608 bushels came from eastern Europe.

With respect to oats, in 1947 we supplied 93 per cent of the total British imports, and in 1948, none.

With respect to beans, we lost this market in 1948, while at the same time British imports from eastern Europe increased from 51,666 bushels in 1947 to 521,666 bushels in 1948.

With respect to bacon-and this is important-we find that while the British contract for bacon from Canada was cut from 350 million pounds to 160 million pounds, her imports of bacon under state trading deals with eastern European countries increased from 341 hundredweight in 1947 to over 231,000 hundredweight in 1948. Since 1948 Britain has made five-year contracts with Poland, The Netherlands and other countries for additional millions of pounds of bacon.

With respect to cheese, our 1949 contract with the United Kingdom is for 50 million pounds. This is a very small amount-indeed it is lower than our shipments of cheese to that market in any year in the last fifty years.

As to poultry, last year our shipments fell off entirely when Britain secured these supplies elsewhere, particularly under barter contracts with Hungary and other European countries.

With regard to eggs, our contract this year to the United Kingdom market, totaling 46 million dozens, is about half the amount for which we had contracts in 1946, 1947 and 1948. At the same time British imports from foreign countries increased by 39 million dozens in 1948 over the 1947 figures. Further contracts have been entered into in 1949 for the purchase of eggs by Great Britain in return for coal, steel products, machinery, and other things which the United Kingdom agreed to ship to Poland, Hungary and other European countries.

Turning to apples, in 1947 we sold 1,150,000 bushels of Canadian apples in the United Kingdom market. In 1948 we had lost that market entirely, notwithstanding the fact that British imports of apples increased from 2,048,333 bushels in 1947 to 3,250,000 bushels in 1948.

Potatoes, which today are surplus on the Canadian market and are now assisted by the government under the prices support program, were sold in the British market in 1947 to the extent of 2,500,000 bushels. Today we sell none to that market although last year Britain increased her purchases of potatoes from the continent of Europe and elsewhere from 4,436,666 bushels to over double the volume of imports in the previous year.

In 1946 we sold to the United Kingdom almost half her imports of canned tomatoes. Today that market is gone entirely for Can-

Trade

ada-and not because Britain has discontinued importing these products. British trade figures for 1948 reveal that she increased her imports of canned tomatoes from 311,000 hundredweight in 1947 to over 621,000 hundredweight in 1948.

At one o'clock the house took recess.

The house resumed at three o'clock.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink
LIB

Louis Stephen St-Laurent (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. St. Laurent:

I ask leave of the house to revert to motions.

And the house having reverted to the order for motions:

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF REOPENING JARVIS, ONT., AIRPORT
Permalink

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN

REPORT OF JACQUES GREBER-MEMORANDUM OF COMMENTS

LIB

Louis Stephen St-Laurent (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

I should like to table copies, in English and French, of the preliminary report of Mr. Jacques Greber, consultant to the national capital planning committee, on the plan for the national capital. With the report I am also tabling a memorandum by the national capital planning committee containing comments relating to the proposed plan.

The present preliminary report by Mr. Greber has been endorsed by the national capital planning committee and by the federal district commission. It was forwarded by the commission to the government only this week, and there has not yet been an opportunity for the government to study it. However, in view of the frequent indications there have been by hon. members of interest in the report, and of a desire to have it made public at as early a date as possible, it seemed best to table it at this stage. Certain parts of the plan have been submitted to the government separately from time to time and approved in order that some preliminary arrangements might go forward. Information about these has been communicated to the house at various times as approval was given. The present preliminary report will be followed later by a final revised report, which will contain additional plans and maps, but which is not expected to differ in substance from the preliminary report.

Hon. members will recall that the idea of developing the capital of Canada, so as to take advantage of its splendid natural location and to produce a city appropriate to the stature of Canada, has engaged the attention of Canadian statesmen ever since this country became a nation. Even before confederation a step was taken to make the best use of the location of Ottawa, when Sir John A. Mac-

National Capital Plan

donald had the vision to seize upon the commanding site of parliament hill for the three central buildings of the capital. Sir John's plan to use the entire hill in that way was attacked at the time as excessively grandiose and costly, and beyond the then needs of the country. If his critics had been listened to, the parliament of Canada would not occupy the impressive site on which these buildings are located. Sir Wilfrid Laurier established the Ottawa improvement commission, which subsequently became the federal district commission. Then Sir Robert Borden, in 1913, set up the Holt commission to prepare plans for the capital, but the advent of the first world war prevented the execution of those plans. Since that time the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been the moving spirit in the project to create a better national capital. He has certainly given generously of his assistance, his counsel, and his encouragement, and the present report is the outcome of his initiative. I mention the interest of these four great leaders of Canada in the development of the national capital to emphasize that this is not in any sense a political or controversial matter. The plan I am tabling is not a government plan. It is a report based upon objective and expert study in an effort to determine how we can best use what nature has here provided to build a capital of which Canadians may be proud.

Perhaps I should also emphasize the fact that the production of the present plan is a beginning, not an end. It is a guide to help in the long-term development of the capital as it grows in response to the needs of the Canadian nation. Plans for the national capital have been produced before, and the capital has certainly suffered because they have not been followed. Each year's unplanned growth has made the right kind of development rather more difficult, and certainly more costly. It is to be hoped that the present plan will ensure that future development is on a surer basis. Co-operation from the provinces and from the municipalities will be needed, because proper zoning is essential, and only the municipalities can provide it. With such co-operation, and with the foresight to appreciate the great development that Canada, I think, will achieve, I feel sure that we shall get the kind of capital here of which future Canadians may be proud.

Topic:   NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
Subtopic:   REPORT OF JACQUES GREBER-MEMORANDUM OF COMMENTS
Permalink

April 29, 1949