Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the motion for the adoption of the speech from the throne I first want to pay the usual tributes. I desire to pay a tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in that last December by a vote of several of the newspaper editors of our country he was selected as Canada's man of the year. I am happy to state also that running him a close second was an hon. gentleman to whom we listened with great interest this past week, none other than the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I regret that my tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, is rather belated; but while late, it is none the less sincere, and I take this opportunity of congratulating you upon your elevation to your high office and the manner in which you are carrying out your duties. I am sure the message you gave us last session on the occasion of the visit of the Prime Minister of India will long linger in our memory.
Since coming here for this session I have heard that there was an election in The Battlefords constituency just a month ago. I am not going to say anything more about that election; enough has been said already. Speaking of elections, however, early in this debate something was said about ballots and ballot boxes in the last election, and there was some reference to ballot boxes as they are used in Russia and ballots as they might be used in China. Well, Mr. Speaker, I contend that there is not and never will be any comparison between the ballots we use in this country and the ballots used in Russia or China, and that is so for one great reason. We have a great pillar of the democratic system which I believe will prevent anything like that happening in this country. That great pillar is none other than the Canadian press. As our press operates from day to day, during election campaigns, between campaigns, and even in this very, chamber, with its piercing eye and ever-listening ear, it will see to it that the ballot continues to mean just what it should mean. '[DOT] .
The Address-Mr. Bater a snowplane, but on horseback. On several occasions the policeman stayed tor dinner, fed his horse, and before leaving asked my father to sign his patrol book to show that he had been looking after the settlers to see that no one was going hungry or suffering. These are the men who, today, should not be allowed to want for the comforts or necessities of life. I hope that something will be done for them. Just prior to coming down here I was speaking to the wife of one of those members who is eighty-two years of age. She informed me that they were not in want but she knew others that had been in the forces along with her husband in the early days who, she thought, could well do with assistance. I hope the government will give consideration to these men. There are not many left and they should not be allowed to want.
should like to ask what price must be paid to attain a world of peace and plenty. The terms are easy and are such as will finally benefit all and harm none. We shall not have to surrender any greater measure of our national identity, aspirations or ideals than you and I have to surrender as individuals in co-operating to maintain law and order within the nation; but we shall have to abandon the fallacy which teaches that we can become prosperous by limiting production and restricting trade, because political co-operation and economic isolation cannot exist side by side. What is required does not involve some new and untried scheme of social relationship or fantastic economic theory; it is simply the removal of those artificial barriers between men and nations that have been at the root of all our international differences, and the restoration to all the people of that most valuable privilege of organized society, the right to trade freely, one with another. Freedom of trade and intercourse between men and nations goes hand in hand with understanding and good will, and provides the only way in which all can be assured of that equality of opportunity that should be the inherent right of citizenship.
As our ship of state takes to the high seas of nationhood and international affairs, with the Prime Minister as the captain, his cabinet colleagues as his officers and the hon. members who support him making up the crew, I think I can safely say that our Prime Minister is well aware of the fact that in order to reach a port we must sail, sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it. We must, however, sail; we cannot drift or lie at anchor.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a poem by Will Allen Dromgoole, which in my opinion should express the outlook of this parliament. I should also like these words to be my personal tribute IMr. Bater.]
to one whom it was not my privilege to know for a long period of time; I became acquainted with him during the last session. On a few occasions we walked together from this building down to the hotel. The person to whom I refer and to whom I wish to pay tribute is the late T. L. Church. The poem is as follows:
An old man going a lone highway Came in the evening, cold and grey,
To a chasm vast and deep and wide Through which there flowed a sullen tide.
The old man crossed in the twilight dim,
The sullen stream had no fears for him,
But he stopped when safe on the other side And built a bridge to span the tide.
"Old man", said a fellow pilgrim near,
"You are wasting your strength with building here;
Your journey will end with the ending day, You never again will pass this way.
You've crossed the chasm deep and wide,
Why build you this bridge at evening tide?"
The builder lifted his old grey head,
"Good friend, in the path I have come," he said, "There followeth after me today A youth whose feet must pass this way.
"This chasm which has been naught to me To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be.
He, too, must cross in the twilight dim.
Good friend, I am building the bridge for him."