November 14, 1951

CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

Excuse me, I did not interrupt the minister the other night when he was taking to himself all the credit for this.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

I still take it.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

I remember those days and I made up my mind that I would go into this Saskatchewan river irrigation project. On February 21, 1938, I moved the following resolution:

That, in the opinion of this house, the government should place before parliament at an early date plans, or proposals, for a comprehensive and authoritative survey of water conservation, irrigation possibilities, and other feasible projects for the permanent rehabilitation of the drought stricken area of western Canada and its people.

I well remember that debate and I looked over it again in Hansard during the last day or so. My recollection of that debate is that it received a fairly unsympathetic reception from the government and many hon. members in this house. I remember describing the situation that existed then in the western provinces and being told that I was belittling the province from which I came. I know that Saskatchewan, like Alberta and Manitoba, given the right conditions can produce enormous quantities of new wealth. That has been demonstrated again quite lately.

The history of the prairies warns us that while we may have years like those we have just had, years of bountiful rains, they are always followed by periods of great drought. When I was discussing this resolution in the house I submitted reports that had been made by Palliser and Hind, both of whom had travelled the prairies in the 1850's making surveys of the conditions at that time. From their reports we know that the conditions in the period 1930-38 were not

nearly as bad as the droughts prior to 1858. The records of the trees and of other kinds indicate clearly that from time to time the prairies provinces, particularly that part known as the Palliser triangle, have been subject and will be subject to drought conditions.

Yet in that same Palliser triangle there are two mighty rivers, the North Saskatchewan and the South Saskatchewan, one touching the north and the other cutting across the triangle to the south. In those days of great drought, as the minister and other hon. members from the prairie provinces know, when the land was parched there were millions of cubic feet of water running down those rivers wastefully to lake Winnipeg and on to the sea.

I want to emphasize something the minister said the other evening. He said that the drought conditions that existed from 1930 to 1938 had cost this country $186 million. We are now discussing the building of a dam across the South Saskatchewan river and this, together with at least some of the channels to convey water on to some of the land, will cost approximately $100 million. I say that that is one of the best investments Canada could make. It is one of the best premiums we could pay against the time when we may have to face another drought comparable to that which faced us in the 1930's. It may not come for ten, fifteen or twenty years, but those who have lived on the prairies for fifty or sixty years know that these periods do come.

I remember quite well losing my way one night when driving across the prairies in the constituency represented by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith). I came to a stone house where I was given shelter for the night by a Mr. Warner who has since passed away. This was during the drought period and in the course of our conversation he told me that shortly after he had established himself on that land, in the early 1880's, a man drove up one night and stayed overnight with him.

There was a pretty dry period at that time and this visitor said that many years before he had camped right in the middle of the nearby lake. Mr. Warner said that that was impossible. The visitor said, "You may think it is impossible, but I did camp right in the middle of the lake and I will show you". It was a bright morning, the water was clear, and they rowed out into the lake and they could see that the bottom was covered with stumps and roots of trees. There was at least some evidence to show that there had been many years before a prolonged drought when

The Address-Mr. Coldwell it seemed some bush had grown in what had been the bottom of a dry lake, but that once more water came with wetter years. I say that the South Saskatchewan river scheme is most necessary, and at the same time may become one of the most profitable investments that this country has ever made. I should like to quote from what I said on a former occasion, as recorded at page 638 of Hansard of February 21, 1938, as follows:

Hence it is not a question of large quantities of water, but of being able to deliver at the right time to the growing crops the comparatively small amount of water often required. For this purpose I believe there is sufficient water in the rivers and streams of western Canada.

I went on to say:

A friend of mine last summer, when the days were hot, stood near Saskatchewan Landing-

That is where the bridge has recently been built.

-and watched the South Saskatchewan, incidentally lower than usual, roll by. He told me that the river was in flood-not a great flood such as we have known in the past, but comparatively in flood-at a much higher level than normal last year, and flowing at about eight miles per hour in a channel one quarter of a mile wide. He estimated that if the water were diverted it would cover many sections of land one foot deep within twenty-four hours.

I do not think you need water one foot deep, but he was computing it on the flow of the water and the level of the land in the plain at that point. I continue:

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Grote Stirling

Mr. Stirling:

What month was that?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

That was in July. I do not know how correct that estimate is, but I do know that vast quantities of water are flowing through the parched lands both from the North and South Saskatchewan rivers to the Arctic seas without being utilized in any way whatever.

I went on to say:

I have endeavoured to discuss these matters with engineers and others who have looked into the problem; I have gone carefully over the contour maps of the dried-out area, and as a layman I would say that wide-scale irrigation seems to present no insuperable difficulties, either physical or financial, on the northern side of the Missouri-Coteau divide.

Then, as the minister said of it the other day, I made this remark:

The valleys of both the Saskatchewan rivers lie between great banks and there are several places where dams could be conveniently located and power generated if desired. If it were necessary to divert some water from the North to the South Saskatchewan river-

That is what the old Pearce plan suggested. -and to supplement the latter, irrigating the intervening country as it flowed, I believe that could be done.

I am not saying that would be something we should or could undertake at the present time. I want to say to the house that I believed at that time and I am still persuaded

1034

The Address-Mr. Coldwell that this project is desirable and feasible. As a matter of fact I went to a great deal of trouble because of the lack of interest in it by the government and because of the lack of support for it in this parliament to see some of the most competent engineers I could find in this country, even one who is a very competent water engineer but whose political activities I have criticized from time to time, and to secure their advice on this particular matter. The advice I received at that time was that the project was feasible and I have never lost my faith in it. I have been told by engineers that dams placed at intervals along the South Saskatchewan river right back to the Red Deer river would irrigate a very much larger area of land than we contemplate irrigating under the proposed South Saskatchewan scheme. However, at that time it received very little support. Even my good friend, Mr. MacNicol, a man who subsequently did so much to assist us in popularizing the project, at that time knew virtually nothing about the South Saskatchewan river scheme. He made a speech discussing water conservation, at that time a problem in the province of Ontario.

What was the official stand of the government at that time? It was given during the course of the debate by the minister who spoke for the government, the Hon. Mr. Crerar. What did he say? As recorded at page 682 of Hansard for February 21, 1938, he mentioned some small schemes and then said:

There were several others, including finally one known as the North Saskatchewan project. That project contemplates the diversion oi the waters of the North Saskatchewan river-*

He discussed the North Saskatchewan; I discussed the South Saskatchewan.

-somewhere west of Prince Albert, bringing them down over the countryside of which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar spoke this afternoon to irrigate the lands lying beyond. They hoped in that scheme to embrace some 1,410,000 acres but the cost would be about $75 an acre. There is no question that engineering science could solve the problem of irrigation.

Then, sarcastically, he added:

As an engineering question, it is not an impossible thing I suppose to take the waters of lake Superior and put them on the prairies of Saskatchewan.

Near the end of his remarks he said:

I think the facts I have given are sufficient to indicate certain conclusions: First, that there is

today a complete body of information available along the lines suggested in the resolution of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. In the second place, extensive surveys have been made as to the possibility of utilizing the water available for irrigation in Saskatchewan and Alberta. May I say in passing that these reports indicate that of the acreage which could possibly be benefited by irrigation over 90 per cent is in Alberta. So that if we look for relief in undertaking vast and costly schemes of irrigation on the prairies I am afraid we are doomed to disappointment. That, however, does not mean

IMr. Coldwell.]

that in certain localities irrigation projects cannot be undertaken but such projects must be on a modest scale such as those being undertaken today, which are situated almost entirely in Alberta.

That was the attitude, and consequently when I hear a good deal of credit being assumed by members of the government, the government party and even by the opposition, for popularizing this great scheme, I want to say that there are others in the country who have spent a good deal of time and energy and have done a great deal of talking in order to try to get support for this great irrigation project. It is not often- I do not know when I have done so before-[DOT] that I have risen in the house and have made something of a protest against the assumption on the part of hon. members on the government side, or even in the opposition, of all the credit for everything that they subsequently are forced to do or support by public opinion in this country.

That is why I am saying something about the matter this afternoon. There is no question whatsoever that the project is feasible. I think it was unnecessary for the government to appoint a new commission to review all the reports that other committees and commissions have made on this project in the past. May I say that I was very much surprised to note the composition of the commission. This is primarily an irrigation project. Indeed, to the extent that it may become a power project, and I hope it will, that is more or less not the concern of the federal parliament because power is under the control of the provincial governments of Canada. Nevertheless a project that is primarily an irrigation project is being reviewed by a commission consisting of three gentlemen, for whom we have respect, only one of whom is primarily an irrigation expert, Dr. Widtsoe of Salt Lake City. As the minister has said, he is one of the outstanding authorities on irrigation on this continent or indeed throughout the world. In fact, I have seen some writings of his concerning irrigation in various parts of the world. The other two gentlemen were both primarily power men. I was rather surprised that we had a commission composed of one irrigation man and two power men to make an investigation of what is primarily an irrigation project.

This is a big project. As the minister has said, it will be the largest project of its kind on this side of the Canadian-United States border. Before I moved a resolution in the house in 1938, I made it my business to see the great earth dam at Fort Peck, Montana. I also went down to the State of Washington and saw the Coulee project. I say immediately that the Fort Peck dam was not primarily an irrigation project but

only incidentally so. It was a flood control project, but when I saw that great earth dam being built across the Missouri river I thought that, from the nature of the country, it would be a much more difficult project than the South Saskatchewan river project. After all, on the South Saskatchewan river we have steep banks, while at the Fort Peck project they had to build banks all around that great lake which I believe is some 1,500 or 1,600 miles around the perimeter. So, an earth dam of that description could be built, and a great lake could be created. There is sufficient water in the South Saskatchewan I believe to irrigate a larger area of the prairie than the estimate given by the minister and by the engineers, if it is undertaken in steps. I am not asking for anything greater at the moment than the situation seems to demand now.

I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that many of us have worked throughout the years for consideration of this project. We hope and we trust that we have now everyone's support. I was interested in hearing the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) support it the other day. I was interested also in hearing the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), and the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson), eastern members, support the project this afternoon. I am very happy about that, but it has taken a long time. I remember when the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was head of the Conservative party-I have the reference to the page in my notes, but I am not going to give it at the moment- he warned the house against some of these big projects. I recall that he said the irrigation that had been undertaken in the province of Alberta up to that time was one of the darkest pages of prairie history. May I just say that one of the first speeches I heard in this house, in favour of these large scale irrigation plans, was made by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), who is still with us. He had had experience with large scale irrigation both around Salt Lake City and in southern Alberta, and knew how beneficial such projects could be to the communities. Most of all, I want to say this. Let us go ahead with this project, because as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow morning the day will come again when we shall have a shortage of moisture; when the heavens will not drop the beneficial rain. This has been the history of that great country, which is worth preserving, and worth developing.

There was some criticism of what was being done to relieve the distress in western Canada at one stage, but the late R. B. Bennett said that no group of people in the

94699-66a

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank history of the world ever produced more new wealth per capita in a shorter space of time than the men and women who settled the prairie provinces. That is true. We sometimes hear it said perhaps we bring these prairie problems to the House of Commons frequently. We do, but let us not forget that upon the prosperity of the three prairie provinces and their ability to produce new wealth largely depends the prosperity of this entire country.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):

should like to take a short time, Mr. Speaker, to join in this debate. I want to assure you that I personally am not worried as to who claims the credit for anything that we may accomplish in Canada. It seems strange to me that, possibly for political reasons-I do not say it is-some members seem to be worried about who gets the credit for this or that. I am in the unfortunate position of having to follow one of the most distinguished speakers in this house, a man for whom I have the greatest admiration, I would have preferred to follow the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) but I did not have that privilege. I have to follow the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) for whom, as I said, I have the greatest admiration. I think that sometimes he is right, but unfortunately more often he is wrong.

I have heard about this irrigation scheme. Like the hon. member who preceded me, 1 have had the privilege of motoring through nearly every state in the United States during the past few years. I have seen what they are doing by way of flood control and irrigation. I found that, in most cases, they are endeavouring to combine those two features. I am not going to enter the debate about the Saskatchewan project. I personally do not care, and the people of my riding do not care, whether the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar gets credit for bringing a certain portion of Saskatchewan into production or whether the credit goes where it should, to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), so long as that portion is brought into production.

You have irrigation problems, but one of my Quebec colleagues has introduced a resolution concerning river bank erosion. I remind the hon. member for Broadview that there is such a thing as river bank erosion. To some of us in western Canada, . and those along the St. Lawrence, it is just as important as irrigation on the prairies. In the old days it was said that river bank erosion was a local matter. In the old days, that may have been true. I am glad to see that my hon. friend and

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank genial colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), who knows how to say no better than any man in this house, is present. What might have been true of river bank erosion in the past is not true today. Those of us who come from the province of British Columbia, which as you know is a great timber country, would remind hon. members that we produce approximately 55 per cent of the soft timber produced in Canada. Naturally, in logging off that country as we have done in the past, we have changed the entire water course of the mighty Fraser river. In the old days it was said that it was a local matter, one either for the municipalities or for the province. But through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to submit to the Minister of Public Works that that principle no longer holds true; and I believe the same thing may be said with regard to the St. Lawrence. We as local taxpayers-and I know of no better word to use-are not capable of protecting our river banks from erosion. This is something which affects not only the lives and the homes of farmers and industry, but also affects navigation both on the St. Lawrence and on the Fraser rivers. I submit that it is of vital importance to the inhabitants along both these rivers-in exactly the same manner as it is important to the people in Saskatchewan that they have irrigation-that the larger course be pursued, and that the matter of river bank erosion be recognized as a federal matter and not be one confined to local taxation purposes.

I want to admit that in the past the federal government have been fair within my own riding, as I know they have in other ridings, to a certain extent. But I know that it is not realized, I am sorry to say, by my colleagues from my own province, how important it is to the province of British Columbia-not only to Fraser Valley but to the city of Vancouver -that the main navigable river on the Pacific coast is maintained as such; and that cannot be done unless some attention is paid to the matter not merely by the Department of Public Works but by what I have been given to understand is the more important body, namely the Department of Finance. Apparently certain boys over in that ivory tower do not realize or so far have not appreciated how important this matter can be.

Mr. Speaker, although I have until 6.15 in which to speak, I do not intend to take that long. As you will notice, I do not speak from notes; and I have never yet read a speech. I want to refer for just a moment to my friend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. COMMONS

Low)-I believe that is the riding he represents-in connection with his remarks and his apology for being opposed to the co-operative movement.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Robert Fair

Social Credit

Mr. Fair:

It was no apology.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Frederick Davis Shaw

Social Credit

Mr. Shaw:

No apology at all.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Robert Fair

Social Credit

Mr. Fair:

Do not say that when he is not in the house. You know it is not right.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. Cruickshank:

I am glad to have some assistance from some of my friends from that district. If the hon. member for Peace River was not apologizing for his attack upon British Columbia Tree Fruits, I do not know what he was doing.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Frederick Davis Shaw

Social Credit

Mr. Shaw:

He did not attack the British Columbia Tree Fruits, and you know it.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. Cruickshank:

May I say that British Columbia Tree Fruits, who happen to be the most representative body of agricultural distributors on the American continent outside of California, think it was an attack on them and have so stated publicly.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Frederick Davis Shaw

Social Credit

Mr. Shaw:

That does not make it an attack; you know that too.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. Cruickshank:

The hon. member made this statement and he made it in my own riding. It is convenient to make statements at the time of an election when you hope to get a few votes. I hope the same statements are made in my riding again. Incidentally I want to say to my friends in that great province that I endeavoured, with little support from them, to get the pipe lines through a Canadian route, although I must admit support from them until the big stick apparently said: Thou shalt not speak; we must not have the pipe line through a Canadian route. That is a great province, and it is one of the wealthiest. If it associates itself with the province of British Columbia, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing), we will be the two greatest provinces in the Dominion of Canada. But apparently you must depend on the guidance of those in British Columbia to achieve that end.

In my own riding at the time of an election it was stated that small fruits-strawberries and raspberries-were rotting in Yarrow, British Columbia. This statement was made publicly by the leader of the Social Credit party. But he did not recognize the fact that these strawberries and raspberries were in SOa, were already not only purchased but paid for and were not rotting. But no retraction was made. In apologizing for the statement and for the excessive rate charged for the frozen wheat from Red Deer, I should like the hon. member to explain away that fact.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Frederick Davis Shaw

Social Credit

Mr. Shaw:

He explained it so that anyone could understand it if he wanted to.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. Cruickshank:

He might have explained it so that anyone could understand it, provided he did not want the true facts. But I am not referring to that.

I now want to refer for a moment to the hon. member for Broadview. I have been on the veterans affairs committee since I came back here in 1940, and I want to admit frankly that I have not made a particularly good job of it. I have not done all that I should nor accomplished all that I should on behalf of the veteran. But through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this to the veterans and the members of every Canadian Legion; and may I say that I have a letter from nearly 2very branch in the Dominion of Canada. The opposition at no time forced me to take the stand I took on behalf of my fellow veterans; and that is a matter of record in Hansard and in the veterans affairs committee, and is something of which I am exceedingly proud. I rather resent being told that I and my friend the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) were dictated to in any way, shape or form by anybody in the stand that we took.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I regret the fact that the government have not as yet seen fit to do what I think they should have done, particularly in behalf of recipients of the war veterans allowance. But at least we have obtained the promise that at the next session of the house a committee will be set up to review those cases which must of necessity be interlocked with those under the new Old Age Security Act which has been brought into force at this session. I resent any injection by a gallant member with a distinguished war record and, I know, a generous nature-I refer to the hon. member for Broadview-of a remark to the effect that we were coerced or forced into the action we have taken. Rather, I would prefer to believe that the action of the government to date was taken largely on the advice of men of more mature judgment than some of those who criticize the most.

I believe that the government are making a mistake in the present session in not bringing the war veterans allowance up to the proper rate at which I believe it should be. I believe that this amount could be arrived at in twenty-four hours by a meeting of the previous committee, under the same chairman, and with the same members, if necessary. I believe we could arrive at a figure that we think should be allowed these recipients of war veterans allowance. I am pleased that the government has announced, through the minister, that legislation will be brought down this session raising the basic

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank rate of pension of disability pensioners. I want to make myself perfectly clear. I do not believe that the civil servants will be overpaid when they get the new increases that have been mentioned. I want to make that perfectly clear because, after all, there may be a few civil servants in my own riding. But if the government admits that in order to cope with the present cost of living the civil servants need the increase as announced, proclaimed, advertised, and I will not say boasted of, by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) two days ago, then these poor war veterans are entitled to an increase not next year, but this session, and it should be made retroactive immediately.

I want to say one more thing, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the province of British Columbia-and I am speaking only for my own riding because I was reprimanded once before for speaking for other ridings. But I have the definite authority to speak on behalf of my own riding. Not only can I speak for my own association, which embraces every local from one end of the riding to the other, but in this particular instance I have the confidence of the people of all parties in my riding. If we can find a surplus, which I am proud to say we have found, of half a billion dollars, we can find the money necessary not next year but this year to see that no veteran or dependent goes short, no matter how bountiful the present pension may be.

I should like to touch on one other thing, Mr. Speaker. I will have to revert to irrigation on the coast, but I am particularly interested in my own riding and I frankly admit it. I should like to refer to the matter of river bank erosion. It has been often said by an hon. member from my own province that we in British Columbia will, as we see fit, support the St. Lawrence waterway because we believe it to be for the benefit of Canada as a whole. Along with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), we are prepared to say that there should be no discussion about the irrigation of Saskatchewan. We are prepared to go along with the St. Lawrence waterways, remembering, as was pointed out by both the premier of Ontario, the leader of the opposition of the province, and by other leading statemen, that the St. Lawrence waterway development is not merely a ship canal but a power development. Let there be no mistake about it. The main reason the St. Lawrence waterway development is to be undertaken is not to build a ship canal but to build power lines. Mr. Saunders has openly said so; Mr. Frost has openly said so; Mr. Thomson has openly said so. Every other leader in that province has said so and we in British Columbia- and I speak only for the Fraser Valley-are

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank willing to go along with that because the development of power within the two central provinces will ultimately build up the province of British Columbia. But I want to point out that we in British Columbia, the Pacific gateway to your great commercial and manufacturing provinces, built up our hydroelectric system on a free enterprise basis without one dollar's worth of assistance from any government, either federal or provincial. We were not successful at it at first, but eventually we put a young Canadian in charge. The only black mark he has against his name in the great advancements he has made in our hydroelectric development in British Columbia, the leading and the greatest province in Canada, is that he is a Rhodes scholar, but he is living that down and building our hydroelectric without assistance from any government or any source other than free enterprise. When my hon. friends over there in the comer talk to me about socialism I say let them look to my own province, the province that has increased more in population and more in industrial strength per capita than any other province in Canada in the last ten years without one dollar of assistance from any government at all. Let them try that.

One thing more, Mr. Speaker; I want to be very brief in this because I may be accused of harking back to an old subject. Let me say this in deference to a certain friend of mine in whom I have the greatest confidence and whose ability I recognize. I did not have the opportunity of hearing his talk today because I had to go to the radio station to make a speech. I will not call it a speech because I know there will be some dispute about it from my friend and colleague the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair). I had to go and say something at the radio station. I would have much preferred to stay and listen to the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker), but preferably to listen to the football game. I am not going to say anything about civil defence at this time other than to say I do not think any real attempt has been made to deal with civil defence. I have listened to great men such as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States. Frankly, what I might say about national defence is of no more significance than what might be said by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew); we are both amateurs. But when these three great gentlemen speak, what they say is of importance. I believe the time has come when we in Canada must realize we are going through most critical times. I believe, sir, that one

way in which we can say to the people of Canada, to the veterans of Canada and through the veterans of Canada to their sons, that we are not hesitating, that we are not asking them to wait until next year, is to bring down suitable legislation enabling those receiving war veterans allowance to receive their just dues. Do not let us wait until next session; let us bring it down now.

As I see it, I can do nothing to help them that would be of any material benefit. Should I vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), it would not help. I think that is one of the fallacies of our system. We talk about reforming the rules and regulations of the house, and we bring in those ten-minute and fifteen-minute periods, which I am sorry to say was instigated by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) for whom I have the greatest admiration. One thing we could do to reform the rules of this house is to see that a matter as important as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia is voted on on its merits, and not as a motion of confidence in the government. 1 have confidence in the government, and-as the minister of external affairs knows I have in the past-I will refrain from voting.

On motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was

adjourned.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we intend to proceed with the two resolutions in the name of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), one concerning amendments to the National Defence Act, and the other to approve an agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic treaty regarding the status of their forces. Then we will take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) concerning amendments to the Government Annuities Act, followed by the resolution in the name of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) concerning public printing and stationery. Then if we have time left we will take up the bill which received first reading today, concerning the amendment to the Bills of Exchange Act. Then we would resume debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) for second reading of Bill No. 10, to approve the financial agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom.

At 6.15 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.

Thursday, November 15, 1951

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

November 14, 1951