1948-03-04

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in view of the many references recently made in the press to certain art treasures which were brought to Canada by the Polish authorities in 1940 and in order that there may be no misapprehension about the position of the Canadian government, I think I should give the house a rather full account of the circumstances.
On July 11, 1940, the Consul-General of Poland, Mr. Victor Podoski, informed the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the Polish ship Batory was en route to Canada carrying Polish national art treasures from the Wawel royal castle in Cracow. He requested that arrangements be made to permit the entry, free of customs inspection, of these articles, as Polish state property. On July 16, 1940, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was informed by the assistant commissioner of customs that free entry of these items had been arranged at Halifax and Ottawa.
Subsequently, at the request of the Polish consul-general, the Department of Public Works provided storage space for the treasures in the records storage building at the central experimental farm. These facilities were granted to the Polish authorities on the clear understanding that the Canadian government assumed no responsibilty for the safekeeping of these articles. No inventory of the treasures was given to the Canadian government. From the time that the treasures were deposited the representatives in Canada of the Polish government had sole access to the room where the treasures were stored, and they alone were responsible for the safekeeping of this property.
In 1945. after the retreat of the German armies, a new government was established in Poland. This government was unconditionally recognized by the government of Canada on July 16. 1945, on which date recognition was
automatically withdrawn from the Polish government-in-exile which had its headquarters in London.
On May 16 and again on May 18, 1946, a representative of the legation of the newly recognized government of Poland called on the Department of External Affairs and stated that not all the Polish treasures were in the room which had been made available for the use of the Polish authorities at the central experimental farm but that parts had been dispersed to various places in Canada. This was the first indication to officials of the Canadian government that some of the treasures had been removed from the records storage building, presumably by the Polish officials originally in charge of these articles.
On June 21, 1946, the Polish legation in Ottawa informed the Department of External Affairs that, in the spring of 1945, a large part of the Polish art treasures which had been stored in the records storage building at the central experimental farm had been removed to certain places in Ottawa and in the country, and requesting the Department of External Affairs to protect these treasures.
The attitude of the Department of External Affairs was fully set forth in a reply sent to the Polish minister in Canada, on August 2,
1946.	It was pointed out that, while a place of storage had been provided for these treasures, the Canadian government had not accepted responsibility for their safekeeping, and that, from the original date of storage until May, 1945, officials of the government of Canada had had no access to them. The Polish minister was also advised that, after information had been received that some of the treasures had been removed, a new lock had been placed on the door of the storage room at the public records building where the treasures had been placed, and that since that time access to the room had been permitted to no one but Canadian officials. As a courtesy to the Polish legation in Canada, and without accepting responsibility in the matter, the Department of External Affairs had communicated with various companies and institutions where, according to an officer of the Polish legation, certain of the Polish art treasures had been stored. As a result of these inquiries the Bank of Montreal stated that it was holding in safekeeping two locked
Polish Art Treasures
[Stage Direction]
steamer trunks which, it was understood, contained property of the Polish state. Other inquiries failed to reveal the location of other missing articles. In this note it was also suggested to the Polish minister that he should arrange as soon as possible to remove those art treasures still stored in the records storage building, experimental farm.
On November 12, 1946, the Polish minister called on the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs and asked for the help of the Canadian government in locating the missing treasures. The Polish minister stated that he had been unable to obtain any information from the institutions in Canada to which the articles had been removed, concerning their then location. On this occasion it was again pointed out to the Polish minister that the only connection the Canadian government had had with the storage of the Polish art treasures was that the Department of Public Works had made a room available to the representative of the Polish government and had handed over to him the keys of that room. At no time prior to the arrival of the representatives of the new Polish government did the Canadian authorities have an inventory of the art treasures, and at no time had the Canadian government undertaken their safekeeping.
On November 13, 1946, the Polish minister, in a note to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, gave detailed lists of the treasures, part of which it was stated had disappeared from a monastery at Ste. Anne de Beaupre, and another part of which had disappeared from a convent in Ottawa. In the note the Polish minister again requested the assistance of the Canadian government in locating the missing treasures.
Following the receipt of this note, the Department of External Affairs made further inquiries in an attempt to learn where the missing treasures were located, but without success.
On December 16, 1946, a lawyer who had been consulted by persons having possession of the missing articles called on the Undersecretary of State for External Affairs. He suggested that an arrangement might be made by which the property in question could be restored to the Polish state by agreement at the end of a five year period. His suggestion was that in the meantime the treasures would be placed on public exhibition throughout Canada. He proposed also that as a gesture of good will between the people of Canada and the people of Poland the Canadian government might arrange with the Polish authorities for an exhibition of Canadian art in the cities of Poland during the period that the Polish treasures were on display in Canada.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Who was the lawyer?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Does my hon. friend wish me to state his name here? I have no objection to doing so.


Gordon Graydon: I suppose the public would like to know who he is.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member wishes me to state his name, I have nothing to withhold. But I do not see that it would be of any assistance to the public generally. Perhaps the hon. member will think that over, but if he insists I will state it.


Gordon Graydon: You had better give his name.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Then I will. It was Mr. Leonard Brockington, who is a gentleman usually recognized as a lawyer of high standing.
It was further suggested that certain articles included in the collection of Polish treasures which it was claimed were the property of individuals, churches, and other institutions, should, at the end of the five year period, be returned to their beneficial owners. Officials of the Department of External Affairs stated that the department could not recognize any other than the present Polish government as entitled to property which had been brought here and entered as belonging to the Polish state, but nevertheless they undertook to explore with this lawyer the terms upon which agreement might be reached and the Polish legation in Ottawa was informed of this development. Eventually, after prolonged discussions concerning which the Polish legation was kept constantly informed, a proposal was submitted informally to the Polish authorities for their consideration. According to the terms of this proposal the Canadian government would have accepted custody of the art treasures for a period of five years, defraying during that time the costs of insurance, maintenance and transportation.
The Canadian authorities had no particular desire to accept custody of the treasures, nor to bear the expenses involved in holding them for a period of five years. They offered to do so merely because this appeared to be a necessary condition of securing an agreement whereby the treasures might be restored to the Polish government without further dispute. It was hoped that the government's willingness to accept this responsibility would be regarded by the Polish government as an evidence of the good intentions of the Canadian authorities and of their desire to assist in settling the matter.

Polish Art Treasures
The Polish government rejected this basis of settlement as, of course, it was fully entitled to do. No Canadian official at any time suggested that the Polish government should choose to settle this question by agreement if it would prefer to seek a solution otherwise. The charge d'affaires of the Polish legation subsequently addressed a further note to us on September 29, 1947. This note was accompanied by a statement in which the circumstances leading to the loss of the treasures were outlined and in which a formal request was made that legal proceedings be initiated to apprehend those responsible for the removal of the treasures. A request was also made for action by the police authorities to locate the objects themselves. The statement further requested that steps be taken to prevent the missing articles or any part of them from being removed from Canada.
I replied to his communication that, while the government of Canada had no responsibility for the safekeeping of these treasures, it had been decided, in order to assist the government of Poland in the recovery of the missing objects, and since the efforts to bring about the return of the treasures by agreement have not been successful, to request the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to undertake a search in an effort to ascertain the location of the missing articles.
As regards the request that legal proceedings be initiated against those in possession, or thought to be in possession, of the missing property, the Polish charge d'affaires was advised that the government of Poland was at perfect liberty to proceed itself in this matter through the Canadian courts. '
In the note to the Polish charge d'affaires attention was also drawn to the inaccurate statements concerning the treasures which had been appearing in the Polish press, some of which were attributed to officials of the foreign ministry. It was pointed out that the Department of External Affairs had been, glad to lend its assistance to the representative of Poland in Canada in order to secure the earliest possible return of the treasures to Poland. It was therefore regretted that these efforts had been incorrectly interpreted to the people of Poland and the hope was expressed that steps would be taken by the Polish government to correct misapprehensions which had arisen as a result of reports originating in Poland.
What was done afterwards appears from the following statement issued to the press last night by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police:
On December 21, 1947, the Minister of External Affairs requested the Minister of Justice to
instruct the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to ascertain the then location of the missing Polish art treasures and further, if the missing articles were located, to endeavour to keep the same under surveillance until a decision could be reached as to what action might be taken by the Polish legation.
The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was so instructed and in January, 1948, was in a position to report that a portion of the treasure consisting of 23 trunks and one box had been located stored in l'Hotel Dieu, Quebec City, a hospital and religious institution. The trunks and box had previously been stored in the Redemptorist monastery at Ste. Anne de Beaupre, Que.
When information was received by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that the articles had been removed to the Hotel Dieu, a competent and experienced non-commissioned officer, Corporal J. R. R. Oarriere, accompanied by another member1 of the police, Constable Houle, interviewed the Mother Superior in charge of the institution, stating that they had been requested to locate the missing Polish art treasures.
The Mother Superior on learning the purpose of the visit quite readily informed the members of the police that the treasures were still in the basement of the convent andi offered to show them to the members. The offer was accepted and the room containing the treasures was visited by the two members of the police, accompanied by the Mother 'Superior and her assistant.
It was the Mother 'Superior who directed the police through the cloister, although in fact the police offered to proceed' to the basement by an outside entrance.
The purpose of the interview was to seek information and the R.C.M.P. made no demand to enter, much less was there any suggestion that they had a right 'to search. They were received most courteously by the Mother Superior.
At a later date Inspector Rene J. Belec again interviewed the Mother Superior and was received in a most co-operative and understanding manner.
The police were fully aware that there was a dispute as to the rightful ownership or possession of the articles and the Commissioner of the police had specifically instructed that they should be treated as missing property and that no demand could be made to produce the property nor if located should any seizure action be taken.
As to the statement to which I referred yesterday as having been handed to me just before I came into the house and as being so extraordinary in its terms and inaccurate in its assertions that I wished to ascertain whether or not it really had been made before dealing with it, I have now found that it was made and I must repeat that it contains many assertions which are not true. Thus in the first paragraph it is said that a short while ago members of the federal police without search warrants and in an illegal manner, forced their entrance not only into the convent of the Sisters of the Hotel Dieu but also into their cloister.
1S62
Polish Art Treasures

This is an untrue statement and hon. members will have seen in this morning's papers that the Reverend Mother Superior of the convent has given it a dignified but no less unqualified denial. I think her statement should also be made a part of their record. As reported in the press, it is as follows:
A few months ago we were asked to receive from a very respectable gentleman of Polish nationality and to safeguard parcels containing, we were then told, 'articles of 'art and value.
In ordler to oblige we accepted the task and the packages were brought here. Things remained: thus for a while and we took all care possible of the deposit in- our custody to ensure their safety.
During the month of February another gentleman, also of Polish nationality, under' the title of "agent" for the Polish republic, claimed that said parcels should be entrusted to him.
Informed of this task, the first person, who had put the deposit in our charge, strictly forbade ua to give the said parcels away; he strengthened! his order by reminding us that according to law we were not allowed to remit the deposit in question'-a deposit in trust-to anyone but himself, ,and ordered the removal of the parcels to the provincial museum.
We then addressed ourselves to the Prime Minister1 of the province of Quebec, who consented to the transportation- of the aforementioned 'articles to the museum. We believed the museum a safe place for the valuables.
We are willing to admit that our religious community had no reasons at all to permit a trial between the two gentlemen in question to implicate us. The provincial government, on its part, had told us of its intention to conform itself to the tribunal's decision.
We wiant it noted and understood' that there was never a "saisie" (seizure) in our monastery by the provincial government, and that the deposit was never at any time under the protection of the R.C.M.P.
We accepted the deposit in good faith and we returned it according to instructions received from the person v-ho had entrusted the valuables to our care in the first place.
That is the end of the statement which I was very happy to read this morning in the newspapers and about which I can assure the house I had no previous intimation. The suggestion in Mr. Duplessis' statement that there was a violation of the cloister is quite ridiculous. His statement further says:
We are much grieved that the federal authorities of our country, particularly the ministers representing the province of Quebec in. the country's government, made themselves the collaborators of Stalin and his Polish government to the point that they ordered their police to ignore the laws -and to violate the cloister of that noble order.
When one notes that this clumsy but deliberate attempt to smear the ministers representing the province of Quebec in the country's government, and remembers that he is preparing for a provincial election, one can only

deplore that Mr. Duplessis should expect such tactics to win for him from well informed sources anything but contempt.


Mr. BURTON:: The minister probably now knows that others may feel the same as he does when they are unjustly accused.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not sure that I understand fully the purport of the hon. member's interjection, but as I understand it, I thank him for it. I am glad to hear that he agrees that not much else but what I have said could be expected from such a course.


Joseph William Burton: What I was saying was that we also do not like these accusations when they come to us unduly from other sources.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The statement goes on to say that the government of the province of Quebec "has seized and impounded these treasures." This is what the federal government had been asked to do but had refused to do, informing those who made the request that in this country the executive government did not seize and impound objects to which there were disputing claimants; that all we could do would be to ascertain if possible where the objects were and the disputing claimants would then have to resort to the courts for an adjudication upon their rights if they saw fit to do so.
Now whatever may be the views of individuals with respect to the present government of Poland, the fact is that it is and it has been for over two years the legal government of that country recognized as such by all civilized nations, and the federal authorities have never felt and do not feel that they are acting as "accomplices" of that government in saying to it, as they would say to the government of any other sovereign state, that it is free to resort to the courts of Canada to assert and enforce any rights it may have as such to .property actually situate in Canada.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the house will regret that there has been any loss of articles from the place of storage provided by this government for treasures from another country. We also regret it if there has been any misunderstanding thus created between these two nations through this loss or the movement of these articles. I wish to ask only one question. It arises from three statements of fact which I put down as the minister spoke.
The first was that the government accepted or allowed to be stored at the experimental farm about the year 1940 these Polish treasures. The second was, as we are all aware, that in

Polish Art Treasures
1945 a new government assumed power in Poland, which new government was recognized by this government as the legitimate government of Poland at that time. The third fact was that in 1946 this government was advised that certain of these articles had disappeared from the place of storage at the experimental farm.
So far as I am concerned the question I intend to ask is the only pertinent one. If through any action on our part, even though we took no responsibility for these treasures, if through any sin of omission or commission some of these articles have been lost, we regret it and perhaps deserve some censure. My question is this: Were any special steps taken after 1940 to protect the treasures stored at the experimental farm? Particularly after the change in government in Poland in 1945 were any special steps taken to see that they did not disappear?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No other steps were taken than those I have indicated in the statement I made to the house.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister admits that the mounted police were used for civil purposes, he can have no objection to producing the reports given by Corporal Carriere and Constable Houle, either to himself as minister of external affairs or to the Minister of Justice, and I would ask whether or not those reports will be tabled.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I received no other written report than the one I included in the statement I have read to the house. I was informed orally when the information came to the police that some of these treasures had been removed to the Hotel Dieu, and I immediately had that information conveyed to the Polish ministry.


John George Diefenbaker: Who gave the minister the information?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The information was given to me, in fact, over the telephone by the deputy minister of justice.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I would ask the Minister of Justice whether he would produce these reports, because they deal with a civil matter, and the mounted police do not deal with civil matters.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) :: I shall be glad to give consideration to my hon. friend's request and give him an answer tomorrow. I am strongly under the impression that police reports to the commissioner, if there are any, are not under any circumstances producible in this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I might add this word, ordinarily that would be true if the police reports had to do with criminal matters.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I cannot permit any debate on this question.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister of external affairs a supplementary question arising out of the statement he made? I am merely trying to understand what the real position is. After the articles were removed from the experimental farm, according to his statement a gentleman came and asked the Mother Superior to store them at this place in the province of Quebec. Was that person

we have not his name and I do not want it- representing the old Polish government, or have we now moved into the position where it is just some individual who made the request?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I can only state what I understand to be the fact. I understand the gentleman in question had been connected with the Polish government at the time the deposits had originally been made and that he was the same person. I am not in a position to say what happened in the meantime as to the connection between himself and the Polish government in exile in London.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I take it the assumption is that he was acting for the Polish government in exile. Is that the minister's assumption?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We repeatedly said we could not, after the recognition of the Polish government of the republic of Poland, recognize anyone else but its accredited representatives as speaking on behalf of the Polish state.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West) moved:: That the second report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Indian Act, presented to this house on Tuesday last, the 2nd of March, be now concurred in.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: This committee has been in existence for two years. The only question, as I see it, is: Are the Indians citizens or are they not? If they are citizens they are entitled1 to all the privileges of citizens.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
On. the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, there have been few occasions in the last few years when public opinion has been more disturbed by the dangers lurking in the international situation than it is at present, and I wish to ask the government if it will provide an early opportunity, next week if possible, to discuss international affairs.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I outlined to the house a month ago, I think, the procedure it was intended to follow. I feel that we should hold to that procedure. When we have concluded the emergency measures and debate on the address, the government will then consider what other measures should come forward and the order in which they should come, but until there has been an opportunity to consider this in cabinet I am not in a position to say in what order other measures will be brought f oi-ward.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: There is a motion on the order paper on which foreign affairs could be discussed, It is the motion standing in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the approval of certain treaties. I warmly support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) that such a discussion should be had. I think most of us, and this applies as well to the country generally, would like to have a great deal more information on international affairs than we have at the present time.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will .the minister consider setting aside in the near future a day to discuss foreign affairs and the united nations? He might refer the Polish art treasures to that work of art and tower of babel, the UNO. It will get us into a third war if we don't look out.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I am sorry, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs has no jurisdiction over the internal affairs of this house.



FIVE-POWER CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN REPRESENTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. R. THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Canada has a repre-

sentative or observer of any kind at the five-power conference which opened today in Brussels to discuss defensive matters. If not, was she invited to send one? If not, is the British government keeping Canada informed in any way as to the proceedings and developments?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I was unable to follow the hon. gentleman's question closely enough to venture an immediate answer, but I will read it in Hansard and try to have an early answer for him.



RENT CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which arises out of a long telegram which I received last night from the Retail Merchants Association of Alberta. When the government's policy with respect to decontrol of commercial rents becomes effective, will the minister leave with the rental division of the wartime prices and trade board authority to deal with each case on its merits when application is made by the tenants for a board ruling?
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: My hon. friend did not have time to give, me notice of his question, but I will take note of it and probably be able to give him an answer shortly.



INQUIRY AS TO REIMPOSITION OF PRICE CEILING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or to the Minister of Finance if the question more particularly pertains to his department. On February 26 I asked when the house might expect an announcement of the government's decision as to whether or not and when the government intends to reimpose ceilings on beef. Will the minister bring the house up to date concerning the matter of the reimposition of ceilings on beef?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I had better answer that question. The situation with respect to ceilings on meat, including beef, is this. The government announced late in January, I think, that it intended to reimpose ceilings on meat and

The Address-Mr. Stephenson
on butter; and it was pointed out at that time that the imposition of retail ceilings on meat involved quite a technical operation in working out what those ceilings should be with respect to, I am told, nearly 200 items. That work has been proceeded with and it is now completed; but in the meantime the retail prices of meats are somewhat below the prices which were prevailing at the time the announcement was made, and therefore there has been no necessity to impose the formal ceilings. As I say, the technical work has been done, and in the event of its being necessary to do so, ceilings can be reimposed promptly.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Dion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. C. E. STEPHENSON (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last evening I noticed that many hon. members were present, and I wondered whether it was a compliment' to myself or because a vote was expected- I am inclined to think it was the latter.
When we adjourned I had mentioned the need in Canada of a real immigration policy, and had said that I thought this should be brought about because of the help that was needed in agriculture. In view of the fact that it is our basic industry I believe everything should be done to provide labour for the farms. We seldom stop to consider that every hon. member, and indeed every individual in the world, depends on the basic industry of agriculture for his very existence; yet in many places agriculture is regarded more or less as a necessary evil. Many people go into the grocery stores and butcher shops and think-


James Horace King: Order. There is too much noise in the house.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I should like to make a suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I notice that when questions on the orders of the day have been concluded there is a great exodus from the house, and a lot of talk is carried on. I am not speaking on behalf of myself alone, but on behalf of all hon. members. When the order of the day is proceeded with and a member rises to speak, it is not fair to have to compete against so much confusion, but that is what happens every day when an hon. member rises to speak. So far as I am concerned what
I have to say may not be very interesting, but I think any hon. member who rises to address the house should be extended some courtesy and consideration.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that in many circles agriculture is looked upon as a necessary evil; that many of the people who go into the grocery and butcher shops think that the products there grow on the shelves of the shops. Large amounts of money are being spent in research in order that farming may be carried on more scientifically, and yet at the same time no encouragement is being given to the young people of Canada to stay on the farm. It is the young people who will put these new methods into operation, and not the older farmers of today.
It has also been said that farmers will not or do not pay good wages. I maintain, sir, that the farmers of this country will pay good wages for good help if they are given good prices for their products.
I should like to refer to a few matters particularly affecting my own constituency. The apple industry is one of the large industries in the county I have the honour to represent. An outline of it might be given from a letter which I received from some of the growers. It reads as follows:
The first commercial orchards in, Northumberland and Durham were started -around 1885. Since that time this district has forged steadily ahead until now it is well over a million-dollar business with a production of three-quarters of *a million bushels annually. In keeping with consumer preference the varieties have changed from- chiefly Ben Davis and Spy until now McIntosh, iSpy and Delicious make up the major portion of the production.
A new trend) in marketing is developing. The more progressive commercial growers now realize they must get their apples to the consumer in a more direct fashion and with less overhead than has been the practice in the last few years. This trend which has been started now will have a very beneficial effect both on the grading and the consumer acceptance of apples from this district.
That is to say, our growers realize that they will have to present their apples to the consumer in a much better condition than they have in the past. Canadian Canners have a factory in my constituency. Realizing this year that there was a market for such products as apple juice and apple sauce, they established a line, using much of the equipment that they had put together for canning peas and various other vegetables. The result was they finally installed a line by which they processed apple juice and other products of the apple. For that purpose the firm bought 90,000 barrels of apples and processed them. This naturally took off the market poorer grades of apples
The Address-Mr. Stephenson


Mr. J. R. KIRK (Antigonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house for long, but there are some observations I should like to make. First may I express a word of congratulation to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I make special reference to .the young member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), who seconded the address. He spent many of his younger days in my home town of Antigonish, and naturally I have followed his career with interest.
For the most part my remarks this afternoon will deal with matters that affect the maritime provinces, and perhaps more particularly the constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough, which I have the honour to represent. This constituency has varied interests, with an extensive shoreline along the rock-bound coast bordering the Atlantic ocean from the Halifax county line to the strait of Canso, thence along this strait to St. George's bay and thence to Northumberland strait and the Pictou county line. It is but natural, therefore, that fishing should play a prominent part in the lives of many of my constituents.
At this point I should like to make some reference to the recent appointment of the new Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacKinnon). I am sure he will give this department the same careful attention that was so characteristic of his efforts on behalf of Canada when he was Minister of Trade and Commerce. If the Department of Fisheries develops under his able administration as his former department did during his tenure of office, I look forward to great strides being made by the fisheries of Canada.
But our fishing industry cannot develop single-handed, without more modern fishing methods. Only those who go down to the sea in ships know the rigours of the industry and the hardships endured by our seafaring men. One of the first suggestions I would like to make to the government is that improved aids to navigation should be provided as quickly as possible. By this I mean increased buoy service and the installation of power fog alarms which can be heard for some distance, rather than the numerous hand-operated fog alarms now in use that can be heard only a short distance away. Then, too.
The Address-Mr. Kirk

I think better protection can and should be given our fishermen in the matter of what I shall call a mother ship. This is something I have been advocating for a good many years with the various ministers of fisheries. It is true that during the war the supplying of many needs of the fishermen had to be deferred, but there is not the same excuse for not taking action now. This need is recognized by the Department of Fisheries; for I have a letter written only a year ago by the then minister in which he advised me that it was appreciated by the department that our patrol service needs to be built up, but as far as I can find out no progress in this direction has been made.
In connection with the suggestion of a mother ship, it seems to me that a proper coastguard marine service to a large extent would 'take care of the hazards with which the fishermen are faced every day they pursue their activities. I was sorry to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) say a few days ago that the cost of a coastguard marine would be prohibitive. I wonder if this statement was made after the situation had been thoroughly canvassed. It is reported that more than a year ago the R.C.M.P. were studying the possibility of establishing a new coastguard, not only for the east and west coasts but also for the great lakes, which would incorporate in one service the various seagoing activities of the government, dealing with customs, immigration, hydrographic sendee, fisheries patrol, transport inspection, air-sea rescue, and so on. As it is now we have these government marine services operating under various controls but unable to function in connection with rescue service with the efficiency that a well organized coastguard service could effect. I would say to the minister that his statement will not meet with much if any approval on the part of anyone in Canada. I believe those living inland, making their livelihood by other means than the sea, are genuinely interested in the welfare of our seamen; but particularly will his statement be met with something bordering on hostility by the families of those living by the sea and making their living on the sea. I suggest that the minister or the government have a thorough investigation made into the possibility of combining the services I have mentioned into one efficient organization. This combined service ordinarily could carry out the usual duties; but in emergency cases, operating under the direction of one authority, the most easily accessible rescue crew could be instructed to proceed to the assistance of those reported to be in danger.

I now turn to a subject which I think should be dealt with by the Minister of Fisheries, that is the matter of assisting groups of fishermen who have organized themselves into co-operatives which buy, process and sell fish, by giving them financial assistance in the matter of equipping their plants with mechanical freezers, cold storage plants and mechanical fish driers. The same assistance could well be given to other fish buyers who are not financially able to provide the modem equipment which is needed if we are to keep abreast of the times and provide the quality of fish demanded by the consumer.
While speaking on behalf of our fishermen I naturally think of the benefits the Department. of Public Works can render these people. I am speaking, of course, of wharves, breakwaters and dredging that should and must be done if our fishermen are to continue to pursue their calling. In all fairness I think I should say the department has been pretty fair to our fishermen in the matter of keeping in repair the structures built in days gone by. But I do not think I will be unfair if I go so far as to say that in the matter of new wharves and breakwaters which are sorely needed along the coastline the department has been holding back too long. In the matter of dredging I can only endorse, in effect, what I have said on the floor of this chamber before, and on many occasions by personal conversation and by letter to the minister. The Department of Public Works either owns too few dredges or too many. I say this because at the present time private enterprise concerns are short of dredges. One of the reasons may be that dredging has to some extent been unprofitable, inasmuch as private enterprise had to compete with the Department of Public Works estimates or costs, which costs I am satisfied were not their actual dredging costs, inasmuch as many overhead charges did not enter into the cost of operation.
About a year ago I suggested to the minister, when his estimates were before the committee, that the department get busy and build dredges that would be capable of doing a certain type of dredging required along the shores of the maritime provinces. The minister, if I remember correctly, intimated that was the intention of the government. To date, however, as far as I can find out, there have been no dredges of this type built, nor indeed are there any being built. All this is a delay which should not occur, and postpones the time when the necessary dredging will be accomplished. I urge upon the minister that he see to it that orders are placed as quickly

The Address-Mr. Kirk
as possible for a number of dredges sufficient to do the required dredging within a reasonable period of time.
Perhaps the minister will feel like telling the house that steel is in short supply, and that until such time as steel is more readily available the construction of these dredges will have to be deferred. To this I would say- yes, steel may be in short supply, but I think that' which is available should be directed into channels where it can be made best use of. I am thinking now of steel used in the construction of theatres, bowling alleys and other construction work which is not necessary to the economy of the country. What I have said of steel applies also to wood, which has been in short supply. I am thinking now of timber needed in the construction of the wharves and breakwaters that I have been talking about.
Having dealt briefly with the problems of the fisheries, I want to discuss some of the problems of our farmers. In the more sheltered portions of the two counties of Antigonish and Guysborough, the uplands and meadows provide very fertile soil for the pursuits of agriculture, and many of our people live comfortably, though not extravagantly, on the mixed farming which is there carried on with a measure of success.
Last week the members from Nova Scotia had a call from the Hon. A. W. Mackenzie, minister of agriculture for Nova Scotia, who with his deputy minister discussed with us the proposals for reclamation of marshlands in Nova Scotia, freshwater soil erosion, rehabilitation of the apple industry, and feed grain freight assistance. To Canada's Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) I can say that the members from Nova Scotia strongly recommend the acceptance and carrying out of the proposals made by our provincial minister of agriculture. The proposals are perhaps the most comprehensive ever placed before the government for consideration by representa-tivs of maritime interests. We feel we are not asking for anything but what is needed, and can be justified, and is within our rights.
At this time the most urgent information required by our farmers is to know whether or not the feed grain freight assistance is to be continued beyond July next so that they can make their plans accordingly. This uncertainty must be eliminated, and very soon. Otherwise I fear many of our farmers will make plans that will be detrimental not only to themselves but to the country as a whole, to the extent that they supply our own food requirements, plus a surplus for export, either to other provinces in the dominion, to the United States, or overseas.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, I have been dealing with two of our primary industries, agriculture and fisheries. At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the work being done by the university of St. Francis Xavier, situated in my home town of Antigonish. Through its extension department, its adult study clubs and its short courses, this university has done much to assist our farmers and fishermen to improve their methods of production and their standards of living
The university has also been a pioneer in the promoting of the Rochdale principles of cooperation; and indeed its fame in this respect has spread far and wide, as witness the students from all parts of the world who crowd its halls. From South America, from the United States, from Newfoundland, the West Indies and the British isles, even from far-off China, have come those who are anxious to learn the principles of co-operation as taught at St. Francis Xavier, in order that they may carry to their own lands this program of adult education and economic co-operation.
As one result of the work being done by the Antigonish movement, many co-operative industries have come into being among the fishermen and farmers of our maritime provinces. These industries, owned by the "little people" themselves, have steadily progressed.
This brings me along, Mr. Speaker, to a subject which is uppermost in the minds of our co-operatives today, that of taxation. The cooperatives object to the present income tax act as applied to them. I do not think there is anything further that I can add to the arguments used last year when this matter was discussed in the budget debate. It is my opinion however that these co-operatives should be given every assistance possible by governments, both local and federal; and I would suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that, before bringing down the budget this year, he consider again very carefully this matter of co-operative taxation. He will, I believe, find reason to exempt from taxation bona fide co-operative enterprises which are profit-sharing rather than profit-making.
The counties of Antigonish and Guysborough also contain fine stretches of timber, both hard and soft wood; but the lumber industry has been greatly handicapped by lack of suitable means of transportation.
As I have pointed out on various occasions, the whole county of Guysborough is practically without any railroad. This Guysborough railway has been used, by both old-line parties, as a political football ever since confederation. True, no government is bound by anything a candidate may say at election time or between
The Address-Mr. Kirk

elections; but this case is somewhat different, for the Liberal government has in effect promised the people of Guysborough a railway, inasmuch as a contract was let and construction work begun in 1029. Unfortunately before the contract was completed there was a change of government and the new Conservative administration under the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett cancelled the contract, and from that day to this, nothing further has been done about it.
Naturally, during the war years, the good people of Guysborough county were satisfied to wait, believing that every available dollar should be expended in fighting the enemy. But now that the war is over, and we have gone through the transition period from war to peace, they do expect this government to fulfil the promise made to them, as I have said, away back in 1929.
I was pleased to learn that a three-man board of engineers will shortly begin study on the possibilities of improving transportation facilities across the strait of Canso. If the industries of Cape Breton are to develop, a more modem transportation system is essential. If a bridge or causeway in structurally possible, I submit that the government should proceed with the building of this link just as quickly as possible. The construction of a bridge or causeway will benefit not only the people living on the island of Cape Breton, but those in the rest of the province of Nova Scotia and other parts of Canada as well.
I would not wish to complete my remarks today without saying something in support of increases in old age pensions, blind pensions and pensions for disabled veterans. I will go so far as to say that if the revenue of the country will not provide for these increases in pensions or, if you will, bonuses scaled to meet the cost of living as it rises and falls, then in my opinion there should be no reduction in income taxes until these groups of people have been granted such increases as I have indicated.
From time to time we hear some people give their views on subsidies, some in favour, some opposed. My opinion is something like this. Theoretically, there should be no subsidies, but factually there are times when they are justified and there is no dollar sign that can determine this. The need is and should be the determining factor. The direct or indirect benefits, as I said before, cannot be computed in dollars and cents, but no doubt play a commensurate part in the country's economy. When subsidies are asked for I suggest that the government give very careful thought to the over-all benefits, before

saying either yes or no, but particularly before saying no without most careful consideration.
In conclusion, I wish to say through you, sir, to the government of the day, in fact to any government at any time in charge of Canadian affairs, that they will have to give, not only consideration but favourable consideration supported by deeds and not words, to the various phases of our maritime economy, some of which I have already enumerated.
I know, Mr. Speaker, it is probably much easier, for some of us at any rate, to be nasty than to be nice, and speaking for myself I do not want to appear nasty when I use the word "warn". But I do wish to warn the government that the people in the maritimes who have given this country such loyal support in any and all endeavours for the general good and welfare of Canada expect that the Liberal government, which has done more for Canada under the leadership of our present Prime Minister than any other government has done since confederation-I repeat, those in the maritimes expect that this government will see to it that they are given equal opportunities with those residing in other parts of this great dominion. Failing this, I fear we will not continue to enjoy the unity which our Prime Minister has always stressed and which is so desirable and so necessary if Canada is to continue to progress.
Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the last speaker and, as you will find out in the latter part of my remarks, I have particular reasons for doing so. I do not agree with everything he said. He suggested that the Liberal government have done more for Canada than any other government in history. Of course I do not agree with that because I think they have done more harm than any other government, and the people of Canada realize that at the present time.
I want to compliment the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson) upon the remarks he made at the conclusion of his speech when he suggested that something should be done about communists. In Toronto there are something like 30,000 known communists. When a known communist such as Smith who was educated at the school of Stalin in Moscow can command 47,000 votes when running for controller it seems to me it is about time to take cognizance of the danger of communism in this country.
I do not intend to detain the house long on this occasion. As a matter of fact, I had not intended to speak, but there is one thing which I think every hon. member has had

The Address-Mr. D. G. Ross
thrown at him in the last little while, something which affects every member of the House of Commons, and I did not think I should let this opportunity go by without saying a few words about it. I refer to the reading of speeches in the house. The prohibition in this regard is contained in standing order 41, citation 293. I shall have more to say about this later on.
Debate on the address gives hon. members an opportunity to state the grievances of their constituents. All the arguments are heard by hon. members and at the conclusion of the debate a vote is taken. The government stands or falls by the result of that vote,. In other words, it is a vote of confidence in the government. I am certainly' not going to vote for this government.
This debate gives hon. members an opportunity to tell of the advantages of their constituencies and to tell of the accomplishments of their constituents. I do not need to do that because my riding is the most important riding in Canada. I do not intend to give my reasons for saying that at the present time; I do not need to discuss it because everybody knows that it is. The constituents in my riding certainly have grievances and I intend to mention a few as I go along. The constituents in other parts of Canada also have grievances. Under this government there are plenty of grievances, and I shall mention just a few.
First of all, there is the inadequacy of veterans' pensions. Even the new scale does not provide the standard of living which a veteran should have. There is also the inadequacy of widows' pensions and the inadequacy of the civil service superannuation. Those people paid into the superannuation fund when a dollar bought a dollar's worth of goods, but now when they are getting their pension the same dollar buys only about fifty cents worth of goods. There is also the question of the lack of housing accommodation and the scarcity of shared accommodation.
There is the iniquitous tax of two cents on pop and chocolate bars for children, and there is also the iniquitous luxury tax on many necessities of life. As an example, take a watch selling for 82.69, the kind of watch a boy wants, a utility watch for a man. The tax on that watch is 25 per cent, or sixty-seven cents. That is only one instance in hundreds of cases.
Everybody' is affected by the lack of vision on the part of this government in the development of our natural resources. The government have shown great tardiness in respect to its immigration policy and in respect to the *obstructions which were placed in the way of the province of Ontario when they wanted to 5849-1194
bring in immigrants to this province. Then there is the stubbornness and stupidity on the part of the government in the handling of the United States dollar shortage. It is hard to believe that there could be anything more stupid or lacking in foresight than that. There are many more grievances which I could mention and which I shall have an opportunity of speaking about at some future time.
I come now to a matter which affects every every member of the House of Commons, the reading of speeches. I know there are varied opinions with regard to this. I do not wish to criticize any member for reading his speech or delivering it otherwise just as he likes. The rule against reading speeches originated in the distant past when some members perhaps did not have the educational advantages which the present membership of the house has, and sometimes they would get someone outside the house to put down their thoughts on paper for delivery in the house. Some perhaps did not have their own thoughts but somebody else's put down on paper for them to read, and so the rule against reading speeches was made. But today it is a relic of the dark ages. I doubt if any member today gets an outsider to write his speech for him. It is not necessary because, despite what might be said in some quarters, I have a very high opinion of the intellectual ability of the members of the House of Commons.
Today if an objection is made to a member reading his speech, Your Honour points to the rule which says he must not read his speech. Often a member reading his speech will be interrupted, as was the case the other day when one of our French-speaking members attempted to read his speech in English. I think he should have been allowed to do so without interruption, but he was interrupted and there was a delay in consequence. Finally he bow'ed to Your Honour's ruling and said that he would stick closely to his notes.
I suggest that a member who reads his speech in the House of Commons should not be interrupted. I do not like reading my speeches, but when you want to be careful in what you say you have to stick closely to your notes. Many speeches delivered in the House of Commons have been read; there is no doubt about that, and there is an unfairness about the thing because one member reading his speech will be interrupted and attention called to the rule, while another is allowed to go on reading without any interruptions. I think a change should be made in this rule. If the speeches generally were more carefully prepared and read they could be made much shorter and more concise. All
The Address-Mr. D. G. Ross

of us are not so gifted in oratory that we can say briefly what we want to say in clear and concise language. There is a certain amount of fumbling and stumbling and repetition. I have heard long speeches made in this house containing much repetition and perhaps some of the main points the speaker intended to make were overlooked.
I do not think all' prepared speeches which are read in the house are mechanical or lifeless. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) rose in his place this afternoon and said that he was making a statement, but he was really reading a statement. It is certainly true that some speeches which are read are lifeless. On the other hand, I have heard many able speeches read in the house.


Mr. ISNOR:: That was a statement which the Secretary of State for External Affairs made this afternoon.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: He said he was making a statement, but he read his statement. There is quite a difference. If he had said, "I am reading a statement", all right; but, as it was, he was breaking the rule by reading his statement. The rule does not allow that.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Except by practice.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: No one would say that the great speeches of Mr. Churchill are lifeless or mechanical or wooden; yet nearly all his major speeches were read from prepared manuscript, and the same was true of Mr. Roosevelt. Many ministers of the crown read their speeches in this house; we all know that. Sometimes they are called statements, but they are speeches just the same. If we are to have one rule in this house for ministers and another rule for the other members it is time we got rid of the rule. I feel strongly about this. In past times the rule may have been wise, but I doubt if it serves any useful purpose today. The purpose for which it was made has gone. A farce is made of the rule today.
I have heard some very good speeches read in this house, as, for example, that of the hon. gentleman who preceded me. His speech was a very thoughtful one and a compliment to the membership of this house.
With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, I have a few constructive suggestions to make on this subject, one of which I have made before.
First, I would say that if a member so desires he should be allowed to hand in any written, non-controversial speech, and if, upon examination, it is found to be such, let it be

printed in an appendix to Hansard. That would take care of members who wish to extol the advantages of their constituencies.
Second, if a member desires to read his speech he should so announce to the house, and be limited to a shorter time for its delivery, say thirty minutes. I think that would make for speeches of shorter duration, or else.
Third, the rule ought to be rescinded or enforced. It is not being enforced at this time; therefore it is a farce. I am sure some change is necessary to prevent delays and to ensure respect for this house. I am not speaking on behalf of hon. members alone;
I am speaking on behalf of the general public of the country. I think the public would be far better served if hon. members were allowed to have their speeches prepared in typewritten form, everything put in a concise form, and then to deliver them to the house.
(Translation):


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Lapraixie):: Mr. Speaker, for quite some time our people have been worried, and rightly, over the economic conditions of our country and the trend of our public policies.
They are worried, notably, over the gradual and steady rise in the cost of living ever since the war ended and which has now reached a point where many families are deprived of the necessaries of life in a country where production is abundant, while we are selling a large part of that production to strangers at ridioulously low prices or giving it to them outright. In other words they are worried over this poverty in the midst of plenty. They are further disturbed by the shortage of housing and the insanitary condition of houses where large families are being crowded, in a country producing almost twice its normal timber requirements.
They view with apprehension the unprecedented extravagance with strangers while they themselves are subjected to an austerity program and crushed under a burden of taxes causing special hardships to large families.
Another reason for concern is our financial situation which causes us to borrow from our neighbours while lending to others without any hope of reimbursement.
In spite of the many warnings by competent authorities, that a country cannot forever at the same time buy cash and sell on credit or simply give away its goods overseas, our government has ignored this simple truth and maintained its policy of lavish gifts to foreigners and of hardship for its own people until the time came when something had to

___________The Address-Mr. M. Raymond
be done and our whole economic structure was threatened with collapse. Such are the conditions facing us at the beginning of 1948.
The measures proposed by the government to restore the equilibrium of our economy are not such as to allay our fears. An investigation committee cannot stop the increasing cost of living; the government should have used every available means to prevent that increase. On the other hand, we cannot hope to lower the cost of living by restricting imports of American goods, as this will only create a greater scarcity of much needed consumer goods. On the contrary, scarcity of goods will cause prices to rise.
A 25 per cent excise tax on consumer goods is not the proper way of lowering the cost of living.
It is not sufficient to state in the speech from the throne that "Canada has continued to enjoy general prosperity" and to boast that our help to devastated countries has been unequalled by other nations. Such statements cannot make us forget that in Montreal, for instance, thousands are living in squalor and *without proper shelter, and do not relieve the government of responsibility in the matter.
Misery and austerity in a land of prosperity and plenty are dangerous and paradoxical contradictions that can only beget communism.
Any evil must be quelled at its source. What is the basic reason for our economic muddle? It can be summed up in a single sentence:	All our policies, internal as well
as external, hinge on favouring British interests at the expense of Canada.
To anyone who cares to review the government's actions during and since the war, it is clear that the main concern of this administration has been to serve the empire first without any regard for Canadian needs or interests. Our economic, commercial, financial, domestic, and immigration policies, as well as our policy of assistance to war-ravaged countries all are subservient to British interests.
While the war lasted, the slogan we went by was:	"To the last man and to the last
cent for the protection of British possessions". Since the end of the war, our new motto has been : "To the last cent so that Great Britain
may rebuild her economic might and recover her world market at our expense."
When we declared war in 1939 it was not, as a lying propaganda would have us believe, to defend Canada, or civilization, or the freedom of smaller nations, or democracy, or the respect of borders and treaties, but only because England had gone to war to protect her world supremacy, her trade, her various interests on every continent.
Can we protect civilization by means of an alliance with the most barbarous people that ever lived, the Russian people? Can we maintain fredom by uniting with the country now crushing surrounding small nations underfoot? Can we uphold democracy by uniting with the greatest of all dictators? Can we defend treaties with a country that has broken all treaties? Can we protect the territorial integrity of small nations with a large country annexing all neighbouring small nations?
No. Let us not fool the people any longer.
To be brief, I shall only mention a few official statements quite significant as far as the tendencies of our foreign policy under the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) are concerned.
When England declared war on Germany, on September 3, 1939, prime minister Neville Chamberlain indicated that this action had been taken to honour a signature to a treaty, ensuring the territorial integrity of Poland.
Mr. Churchill, addressing himself to this house on December 30, 1941, stated:
We plunged into this war all unprepared, because we had pledged omr w-ord to stand by the side of Poland which Hitler bad feloniously invaded.
Such was the reason given by England to their entry into the war with Germany. There was no mention of civilization, of Christian ideals, et cetera.
But Canada, who had no obligations towards Poland, could make no such claim. We learned later, in 1944, from the Prime Minister himself, that despite many claims to the contrary made in this house, and without the knowledge of parliament, he had committed this country to participating alongside Great Britain in a war against Germany, should the occasion arise. That was as early as 1937, at the time of the Imperial Conference. (See Hansard for 1944, page 6268).

The Address-Mr. M. Raymond
More than that, to show his devotion to the empire at the expense of Canada, the Prime Minister declared at a luncheon in Prince Albert on July 7, 1941, that at the time of the Munich conference in 1938, though the country was divided on the question of Canada's participation, he would have favoured the latter. Here is what he said:
(Text):
If wair had come at the time of the Munich conference, the country would' have divided on the question of Canada's participation.
I am sure even my own cabinet would have been divided. But had war come my advice to the government would have been what it was a year later when war came-to stand at the side of Britain.
(Translation):
Yet, in 1938, Mr. Chamberlain found that there was no point in fighting Germany over the claims of the Sudeten Germans of Czechoslovakia, which he believed well-founded. Sir John Simon even added:
Munich ensured the return to the Reich of a region which should never have been incorporated into Czechoslovak territory. In fact, we have, by our action in this matter, corrected one of the errors of the peace treaty.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister was ready to launch Canada into war, had England entered an armed conflict. It was the carrying out of the imperialistic policy he expounded in the house on January 16, 1939. "When England is at war, we are at war,'' a slogan which Mr. Churchill took up once again in the British house on April 21, 1914, when he said that in 1939 the great principle whereby "When the king declares war, the empire is at war" had been upheld.
Our stand is determined according to the interests not of Canada but of the empire.
After war had been declared, we put forth a war effort proportionately greater than that of any other country. Yet, we did not have like Britain possessions to protect in Europe, in Asia or in Africa.
We went even further. We financed Great Britain which, however, owned and still owns investments in many parts of the world, and even in Canada.
Here is how Mr. Churchill acknowledged our contribution to the imperial effort, as he said, since it was the empire's war.
On December 30, 1941, speaking in this house, he said:
The contribution of Canada to the imperial war effort, im troops, in ships, in aircraft, in

food and in finance has been magnificent . . . The Canadian government has imposed no limitation upon the use of the Canadian army whether upon thq continent of Europe or elsewhere.
After this we are still expected to believe that when we went to Hong Kong, for instance, we fought for the defence of Canada.
But all this was not enough to satisfy our leaders' imperialistic fever. So we set out making first outright gifts then gifts disguised under various forms.
Gifts of money, gifts disguised under the form of mutual aid, cancellation of debt, subsidies on our export products, loans without interest and security, loss on the sale of our products at a price below world prices, etc., all of which adds up to a total which may reach seven or eight billions of dollars and which the Canadian people will have to pay in taxes.
The Canadian people are being bled white to allow England to restore her economy and resume her pre-war trade, at the risk of ruining this country.
Our policy is essentially imperialistic and anti-Canadian; our present diflfiieulties are the consequence of it all.
Why are we short of American dollars? First of all, because we have made loans beyond our means; then because it is forbidden to export to the United States certain farm products and other commodities, such as beef, that we could sell at quite profitable prices instead of giving them or selling them on credit and at lower prices to Great Britain.
The cost of living has greatly increased because we export most of our foodstuffs to Great Britain at a lower price than that paid by Canadian consumers.
As goods become scarcer here, prices rise. Since the end of the war, the cost of living has climbed steeply in Canada while it has remained practically unchanged in England.
Since it is now forbidden to import various consumer goods from the United States, there is a still greater scarcity of available commodities; further, the 25 per cent excise tax collected on a large number of products raises the cost of living. Such provisions, however, are in the interest of the British, as was explained by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), and this seems to be the main consideration the present government keeps in mind.

The Address-Mr. M. Raymond
United Kingdom consumers are better off than Canadian consumers since they pay less for our products.
Government subsidies on commodities sold in Great Britain have been maintained and in some cases increased, while those that were paid on goods consumed in Canada were removed.
In 1946, for instance, we did away with the subsidy on liquid milk, step that raised the price of milk to the local consumer, but at the same time, we increased the subsidy on the milk required for our cheese production which is almost entirely sold to England. Who pays those subsidies? The Canadian taxpayer. Canadian consumers are taxed to help foreign consumers. But in order to make gifts of billions of dollars to Great Britain, we must have large revenues.
There is a housing shortage. In Montreal alone, 70,000 more houses would be needed and the speech from the throne refers to a lack of building materials. Why, for instance, this shortage of lumber? Too much of it has been shipped to England.
It is all very well to ship building materials to other nations that they may provide shelters for their people, but it is better still to provide homes for Canadians who are without them. There are people in Canada who are dying from the cold.
According to Le Canada of February 16, a citizen of the British Isles, who came to settle in this country, went back to England and stated on his return that the housing problem is more acute in Canada than in Great Britain. While duty bids us be charitable to others, we have, towards our fellow citizens, not only duties of charity but specific obligations.
There is no hesitation in taxing our people for the benefit of other countries but the government becomes stingy when it comes to provide services for our own nation.
Thus as a measure of economy-I see the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) is in his seat-rural postal service was abolished in certain districts because it cost too much.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Nowhere has it been abolished.


Mr. RAYMOND (Beauhamois-Laprairie):: It has been claimed that the tenderers were asking too much. The hon. Postmaster General knows about it, for I called certain cases to his attention.
When the state lends to Canadian farmers, it asks an interest of 4) to 5 per cent, depending on the type of loan, but to the British, it lends without interest when it does not give.
One who serves the empire has more rights than one who serves his country. Thus a man who answered the call for military service in Canada does not have the same privileges as the man who served overseas. Why such discrimination? Why should it be more praiseworthy to defend a foreign country than one's own? This proves that our policy is fully and firstly at the empire's service. Canada comes next.
To justify our excessive lavishness towards the United Kingdom the government has heaped fallacy upon fallacy.
Some contended that the money loaned to Great Britain without interest and probably without security was good business and constituted a sort of insurance against unemployment. Knowing the facts, I have never been able to understand that argument.
1.	It is the only country to which we loaned money without interest. We did so in order to allow her to purchase from us at a price lower than the world price-and at a time when we had to do with rationing-foodstuffs and raw materials which we could have sold anytime and anywhere at a much higher price, because those commodities were much in demand.
2.	We will not find employment for our city workers by selling raw materials which will be transformed into manufactured products and compete with our own goods.
3.	In addition, those sales do not benefit us, since we are being paid with our own money, while we could sell to other countries for cash.
Others have said that our gesture was bound to ensure a future market for our products if and when the general demand decreases.
Facts have proven the fallacy of that argument. First, Great Britain will not buy our manufactured products because she herself depends on the export of her own manufactured goods.
As to buying our natural products and our raw materials, we are aware of the trade agreements she has made with several countries, including Russia, Poland, Denmark, Australia, Argentina and others. She buys raw materials which she processes for export. It is her right, which nobody can deny her. She tries to secure the best bargain. Hers is a truly national policy.
Thanks to our gifts and interest free loans, she is getting back on her feet and is out to

The Address-Mr. M. Raymond
win over various markets while stepping up the production of wheat and other foodstuffs.
Here is what we are told in a release handed out in December, 1947, by the United Kingdom Information Service:
(Text):
Before the war, Britain produced only one-third of its food . . . and today one-half of Britain's food is produced at home. The target is 'to raise this proportion to sixty per cent... Wheat output was more than doubled . . . British agriculture is to increase output by $400,000,000 or twenty per cent during the next five years.
(Translation):
Far from securing a future market for us, our making interest free and no doubt irrecoverable loans to England in order to sell her our goods at less than world prices, while we were making interest bearing loans to countries like China, Holland, France, Belgium and Norway who pay us world prices, will probably cause us to lose our markets in these countries and elsewhere.
There has been an unfavourable reaction to our contracts with Great Britain for the sale of our wheat at less than the world price and of the greater part of our other foodstuffs to her to the exclusion of almost every other country.
Here are the remarks heard last Spring by a Canadian travelling through France, Holland. Belgium and Denmark:
(Text):
"Why is it that Canada supplies Britain with wheat at $1.55 and charges us from $2.75 up to $3?" "We, they stated, were your allies during the war equally with Britain, and moreover we endured the hardships and terrors of the German occupation, which Britain did not, and all during that period we continued fighting underground to help you. Why, therefore, are we not entitled to wheat at as cheap a price as you give it to Britain for we are in just as much economic distress and lost to the Germans, cattle, horses and machinery which Britain did not?" "Do you think, they asked, that such an action on the part of Canada is conducive to goodwill in the future when Canada will be looking for markets for her wheat?"
(Translation):
Were it a question of helping the starving nations of Europe, no one would object, as long as we did not go beyond our means, and as long as we considered the need of those who ask for our aid. But Britain is not all Europe. It is not the only starving nation. On the contrary, it is possibly the most fortunate in this regard, according to Red Cross and other reports.
The British Food Minister, Mr. Strachey, stated last October:
(Text):	.
"When I look at the dreadful difficulties in most of Europe today, I think we must have
rMr. Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie).]
something to be thankful for in this country." The food situation of western, Europe is far, far more serious than, anything we had to face here.
(Translation):
A bulletin issued by the Information Office of Great Britain stated the following in December 1947:
(Text):
A large section of the people ate better than pre-war ... In 1947, food available for consumption yielded an average of 2,870 calories a day per person . . .
(Translation):
It has been established that the normal ration to feed one person is 2,400 calories. In many countries of Europe, there are millions of people who do not receive half of that normal ration.
Our policy of assistance, as far as that is concerned, is based on the interests of Great Britain and not those of the starving nations.
Practically all of our exports of food products are earmarked for England, who benefits thereby by helping herself first and then making a distribution to other countries at our expense.
Thus does England make friends and strengthens her future trade at our expense.
To rebuild the United Kingdom's economy our own is put in jeopardy.
Now is there any reason to wonder overmuch at the trend of our policy on behalf of British interests, when we know that the Cabinet, whose duty it is to run Canada's business, include five members of Great Britain's Privy Council, namely: our Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), the Minister of Reconstruction and of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner-), who, according to their oaths of office, pledged their word that the empire's interests will be protected and promoted against any country. These are excerpts from the form of oath taken by members of the imperial privy council:
(Text):
I do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful servant unto the King's Majesty, as one of His Majesty's Privy Council ... I will to my uttermost bear faith and allegiance unto the King's Majesty, and will assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences and authorities, granted to His Majesty, and annexed to the crown by acts of parliament, or otherwise, against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states or potentates. And generally in all things I will do as a faithful and true servant ' ought to do to His Majesty.
(Translation):
Here is a further brief excerpt from the form of oath taken by members of the Canadian Privy Council.



194S

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. M. Raymond
(Text):
You ... do solemnly promise and1 swear that you will serve His Majesty truly and faithfully in the place of his council in this His Majesty's Dominion of Canada ... In general you will be vigilant, diligent, and circumspect in all your doings touching the King's Majesty's affairs.
(Translation):
It should be noted that a member of the Privy Council in Canada is not the equal of a member of the Privy Council in the United Kingdom. The former is styled "Honourable" and the latter "Right Honourable," which seems to indicate the degree of superiority attached to the position.
Our five ministers who are also members of the imperal privy council hold key positions in the Canadian cabinet; in fact they direct the government's policy.
There is first the Prime Minister, whose imperialistic feelings were revealed during and since the war. It was he who in 1941 said in Prince Albert that he had been ready in 1938 to engage Canada in a war in which England *was involved, even at the risk of breaking away from his party, which was divided.
Was he then furthering the interests of Canada or those of the King of England? Were his thoughts those of a member of the Canadian or of the imperial privy council?
What is the explanation for the persistence in maintaining the privy council as an appeal court, for our dependence upon London for amendments to our constitution, for the right of disallowance of our legislation which the Statute of Westminster has not abolished, and finally, for the persistence in appointing as Governor General a stranger, and his refusal to give us a truly distinctive flag. Those are so many colonial ties.
It is not surprising that Mr. Neville Chamberlain, in his memoirs, should have judged our Prime Minister to be "a good and loyal imperialist" and that the King of Great Britain should have awarded him a medal for signal services to the empire.
Then we come to the Minister of Justice who seems to have forgotten the Statute of Westminster.
This right hon. gentleman, stated in this house, in February, 1942, that he was representing in the government those who felt duty bound to fight for the British empire in all parts of the world and, again in 1947, claimed that whenever the economic stability of Great Britain was threatened our national interest was at stake.
Then also there is the Secretary of State for External Affairs who opposed a request of our Canadian bishops for a tax exemption on incomes up to 83,000 a year giving as a reason that the government would be deprived of some $250 million and adding that he 5849-120
preferred to pay the same amount of money as family allowances. If he could forget that he is a member of the Imperial Privy Council, he could grant such an exemption and still afford to pay family allowances, by reducing the disguised gifts made to Great Britain. He would then be acting as a member of the Privy Council for Canada.
As to the Minister of Reconstruction and of Trade and Commerce, his chief concern seems to be the economic reconstruction of the empire. His objective in controlling our exports is to direct them towards the United Kingdom. He is much more anxious to find houses for the people of the British Isles than for our Canadian people. He is truly a loyal member of the Imperial Privy Council.
Finally, the Minister of Agriculture holds the key to the granaries that feed the starving who, in his eyes, are found only in London. He practically gives away our wheat; Canadians must resign themselves to eating cow meat because good beef is sent to Great Britain. During the packers strike of last September, he was less concerned with the plight of Canadian families deprived of meat than with the problem of the British Isles whose inhabitants might miss our deliveries if they were not maintained. His attitude is not surprising since he is a member of the Imperial Privy Council.
What are we to think of this abnormal situation? Some cabinet members are bound by a dual allegiance, having sworn to serve another country as well as their own; that is why Canadian interests are invariably sacrificed to those of the United Kingdom. It is inconceivable that such an anomaly, to say the least, should exist in a sovereign state.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the duties of a member of the Canadian Privy Council are incompatible with those of a member of the United Kingdom Privy Council, because it is impossible to serve two masters at a time, the one in America, the other in Europe.
The interests of the two countries are different, as the Prime Minister stated in this house on May 24. 1938. He said:
In times of world disturbance, the policies of no two c-ountzries can be alike, provided they are rooted in their own interests or the ideals in which their interests are sublimated, and 'are not merely echoes of the policies of other countries.
It is therefore obvious that one cannot counsel two parties whose interests are or may be in opposition. May I bring to your attention the statement issued by Lord Tweedsmuir in October, 1937:
Canada, is a sovereign nation . . .
A Canadian's first loyalty is not to the British Commonwealth of Nations but to Canada and Canada's king.
The Address-Mr. Dr ope
[Stage Direction]
(Text)-.
Mr. R. E. DROPE (Northumberland, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate, realizing that it has been some length of time since it was begun. First, I should like to join with other hon. members in expressing my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I have listened to the various speakers who have taken part in the debate, and it has been somewhat of an education to me to learn something more about this great country which we are pleased to call Canada.
I should like to tell the house something about the county of Northumberland, which I have the honour to represent. It may be of interest to know that it is the important part of Ontario located eighty miles east of Toronto. Cobourg is our largest town. It is an all-year port, with a ferry service plying between that point and the city of Rochester in the United States. Much coal ir delivered to the port of Cobourg, and we hope that at some time ocean-going vessels may call there.
There is no trouble in defining our boundaries, because we have lake Ontario on the south and Rice lake and the Trent river on the north. That part of Ontario is considered as being one of the greatest tourist places in the province, if not in all Canada. If you want good fishing come to Rice lake and the Trent river, because we really have the fish there.
During both wars many of the young men toi my constituency turned out in defence of this country. I am glad to be able to say that many veterans have come back and have re-established themselves in Northumberland county. It was a pleasure for me to sit on the veterans affairs committee. A lot of good work was accomplished at that time. We shall never be finished with our veteran problem as long as there is a veteran living. It is my opinion that we should give the greatest consideration to matters affecting veterans. They should be given the best the country can afford. We have been told of some slight increases that are to be given. I realize that it costs a lot of money when you are dealing, not just with one person but right across the board. However, when we are dealing with veterans, especially those who have lost limbs or are maimed in other ways, we should see that they have no worries in regard to financial matters.
I should like to say something about our transportation systems. We used to hear about railways, seaways and highways. First of all, I should like to say something about our railways in so far as they concern the town of Cobourg and the people in the front

part of Northumberland. The railways have adopted schedules to speed up their trains and for some reason or another they go right through the county of Northumberland with their fast trains. Generally these trains are run in two or three sections. This practice affects other counties along the lake shore, because they leave out many important towns. When there are two or three sections of a train operating daily I see no reason why they could not stagger the schedule to permit one section to stop at some of these important places. That would give service to the people. While the trains have been crowded lately, we can remember back when there was lots of room. If we want this system to pay its way we should give service to the people and encourage railway traffic.
The problem of the St. Lawrence seaway is a large one because it concerns the United States. However, I think some progress should be made. It is claimed that water transportation is the cheapest and, if so, we should make more use of it.
We have in Ontario one of the finest highway systems in the country, but we should think along the lines of a trans-Canada highway so that we can travel from coast to coast on our own highways. The minister who is looking after this matter should try to get the various highway departments together to consider a national scheme.
Taxes are of great concern to most people and the eight per cent sales tax certainly adds considerably to the cost of living. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) could see his way clear to reduce this tax it would make a considerable difference to the family budget. To those in the lower income brackets, the exemptions of $750 and $1,500 are much too low with the present high cost of living. I have had considerable correspondence from people in my riding on this matter. Many of our schoolteachers are getting along on fairly modest salaries and they, with many others in the same class, are finding that the present exemption does not permit them to maintain their standard of living. They think they should have an exemption of $1,200 for single persons and $2,000 for married. I hope the Minister of Finance will give some consideration to these people when he brings down his budget.
I think we all realize that it is difficult to lower taxes unless there is a reduction in the money being spent. Recently I asked for details of the Belleville tax office located in Hastings county. I was told that there were so many employees in that office people could hardly get inside. Some farmers who have

The Address-Mr. Drope
attempted to file income tax forms have said that there seemed to be more employees than there were taxpayers. I was surprised at the return I received this morning. This shows that in 1945 in this small office there were sixty-four employees and that the total collections amounted to $10,680,000. In 1946 there were seventy-seven employees and they collected a little over $10,000,000. In 1947 they had eighty-two employees and their collections were down $3,000,000. In 1948 they had just doubled the number of employees they had in 1945, the present total being 121.
My experience in business has been that when your dollar volume of sales go down y-ou must curtail expenses somewhere else. If *this is a fair example of other offices throughout the land; if they have all doubled their staffs in the last two or three years, we can understand why taxes are not being reduced. I suggest that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) look into this matter. Surely, if they needed only sixty-four employees to collect S10.000,000 in 1945 they do not need 121 employees in 1948.
I think I am entitled to say something about agriculture since I come from a large agricultural counts'. Yesterday and this afternoon wc heard something about apples from the county of Durham. We are just immediately east of the county of Durham. Our apple growers are known as the apple growers of the united counties of Northumberland and Durham. We think we grow just a little better apple than they do in Durham.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give us a sample.


Robert Earle Drope: Someone has suggested that I give samples. I have taken note of what the Speaker has said with regard to no exhibits being produced in the house. Probably he thought I might be bringing in a cow some time. Since he has ruled them out I am unable to present any at the present time, but if any hon. members come around to my office I will see what I can do. The apple producers are certainly putting out a good product. If the apples are merchandised properly and the people realize their food value I think more of them will be used in our country . We all seem to think we must use imported oranges and grapefruit in our diet, but I believe it is likely that the medical men in the house would say that apples would be just as good for our health.
We have had some discussion about the vegetable growers. In the southern part of my county we can grow all the vegetables that a good many cities require, but our farmers are hesitant about going into that heavily without some assurance of a market for what they
5849-120^
produce. I have often seen thousands of perishable vegetables, cabbages and so forth, dumped simply because there was no market for them. If vegetable growers were assured of a market for a reasonable length of time they could produce all the vegetables we require in Canada.
The beef cattle producers in this country seem to think they are being deprived of a valuable market in the United States, where cattle prices are much higher. They feel that we should get some shipments of our beef cattle into the United States market, if only so that the people across the line will not lose their taste for our beef.
There has been talk about improving all the cattle herds in this country. I believe that the system of artificial insemination from improved sires should be encouraged by our departments of agriculture. The T.B. testing of cattle has been carried on in various parts of the country, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) promised me last year that this work would be continued in the county of Northumberland. Just a small fraction of the county was covered by part-time veterinaries, and the work there was only started and has not been completed. I trust that this important work will be completed at the earliest possible moment.
A word about dairy products and their distribution. We are realizing that the best food value we can get for our dollar today is what is spent on dairy products. Milk is accepted as one of the best foods a person can use. A great many of our farmers, particularly in the southern part of my county are supplying milk to the Toronto market and other centres. In the eastern and northern parts of my county we have many cheese factories. The cheese industry means more to this country than the average person appreciates. It is one of the main dairy products that we can successfully export, and one of the things that the British people are always desirous of getting is good Canadian cheese.
We consume in this country all the butter that we can produce, and in the next four or five weeks a butter distribution problem will arise, because of the ceiling that has been put on butter. Butter is the only dairy product on which the ceiling has been reimposed. That has held u,p the movement of butter from one province to another. The only place where there is any surplus butter today is in western Canada, and it is found only in small lots, probably fifty to one hundred boxes. In order to ship this to eastern markets like Toronto and Montreal, it would have to be assembled in carload lots, about 400 boxes to a car
The Address-Mr. Quelch

Assembling this butter from small lots into carload lots involves considerable expense and, because of the ceiling on butter, the shipper is unable to recover that expense. Therefore it seems to me that it would be of benefit to the consumers of Canada if the department concerned would see that financial help was given in assembling this butter for delivery to eastern markets, where it will be needed for a few weeks before our spring production comes on.
International affairs are of grave concern to all of us. We should not be like the ostrich, hiding our heads in the sand. We can all see something of what is taking place abroad. Only this afternoon two or three members urged that time be found to have a debate on international affairs in this house. Whatever procedure may be followed, we should certainly be doing something to work out a solution of international problems that would avoid another world conflict, which would cause so much suffering and hardship and destruction. We all sincerely hope that it will not be necessary for the cream of our youth, our young men and our young women, to come forward again to fight in another world war. Surely wiser counsels can prevail. The only thing is to face up to the problem and while we yet have time, take decisive measures which seem to be wise.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the amendment moved by the C.C.F. reads as follows:
That the following words be inserted:
This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to use the powers provided by parliament to control prices, and by their actions have caused alarming increases in the cost of living and a dangerous lowering of the Living standards of the Canadian people.
We feel that the government deserves severe criticism for allowing the price of farm machinery to rise sharply while controlling the prices of other commodities. I mention machinery specifically, because I think it was the action of the wartime prices and trade board in allowing a 12J per cent increase in the price of machinery in 1946 which, first of all, discredited that board in the eyes of the people.
Furthermore, we criticize the government for raising the price of commodities by increasing indirect taxation. The government must bear a substantial part of the blame for high prices due to the high tax content therein, thereby, of course, lowering the standard of living of people in the low-income groups. For that reason we intend to support the amendment to the amendment.
But I want to make it clear that, while we
support the C.C.F. amendment, we do not sup-

port them in their demand1 for the reimposition of all price controls and the rolling back of prices to the 1946 level. We believe that such a policy at this time would create a great deal of confusion. We believe, further, that it would tend to discourage many lines of production and, in addition, would mean a substantial increase in taxation. My reason for saying that is this. In 1947 our exports, according to the report of the Bank of Canada, were in the neighbourhood of $2,800 million. Our imports were in an amount close to that. At the same time, the price of goods outside Canada was considerably higher than the price level within Canada. Therefore, if you are to roll back prices to the 1946 level it will be necessary heavily to subsidize all your imported goods. Iu addition, you would have to subsidize the price of agricultural products if you were to roll them back to 1946; or, on the other hand, of course, get the farmers to take a reduction in price. It is quite obvious that subsidies of those dimensions would mean a heavy increase in taxation at this time.
Some people may argue that we have a fairly substantia! surplus of $600 million or $700 million or more, and1 we could use that surplus for that purpose. On the other hand, most hon. members are advocating a substantial increase in old age pensions, a reduction in indirect taxation, and an increase in the income tax exemption. All hon. members will agree, I believe, that this would more than wipe out any surplus that we may have. If it was the intention to roll back prices to the 1946 level it would mean a very heavy program of subsidization that would be bound to increase taxation, and at this time the people are not asking for increased taxation.
Ever since this group first came into the house in 1936, we have consistently expressed the opinion that it should be the responsibility of the federal government to adjust prices to a level that would be fair to both the consumer and the producer. We all know that the secondary industries have always been in the position where they could sell their products so as to recover costs of production and earn a fair profit. But unfortunately that has not been the position in the primary industries. They generally find that they have to take world prices. In spite of the fact that, with the exception of wheat, over ninety per cent of our agricultural products in the past was consumed in Canada, the ten per cent that was exported invariably set the price of the ninety per cent that was consumed in this country. We all remember only too well what the farmers went through in the thirties as a result of that type of policy. Therefore we have always insisted

The Address-Mr. Quelch
1SS1
that the federal government must assume responsibility for guaranteeing to the primary producers a fair price; and by a fair price I mean a price that will return to the farmer his fair share of the national income, so that the price of agricultural products will bear a fair relationship to the price of other commodities.
We have also urged that the federal government should adjust the price of consumer goods, so that the aggregate of prices of consumer goods would balance with the effective purchasing power of the people. We maintain that only in that way can you hope to maintain your production at an optimum level, because no industry can continue to produce unless it can sell. We therefore maintain that it should1 be the responsibility of the government at all times to maintain an effective demand against the production in the country.
During the war and in the immediate postwar years, special price controls and rationing were necessary, on account of the needs of war; but the time will come in the very near future when it will be necessary to take action to maintain an effective demand against our production. That warning was given to the country by Graham Towers in his 1946 report.
It seems to me that, during this debate, there has been an air of unreality about a number of speeches that have been made on economic conditions in Canada. The impression has been created that we are climbing up an unending road and that we are apt to collapse en route, when in reality the situation is that we are climbing a hill, the top of which may be reached at any time, and then the great danger that will face the country is that we may come down the other side so fast that we shall not be able to stop to level off at the point we would want to, but, instead of that, we may very well crash at the bottom into a depression.
AVe were given a very fair picture of the situation by the governor of the Bank of Canada in his 1946 report. We were given the same picture by the former minister of finance in his 1946 budget, and again we were warned of the situation by the United States economist Beardsley Ruml. Briefly the situation explained to us was this: the immediate post-war years would be inflationary years due mainly to three things: first, to the fact that there was a large backlog of demand created by unspent war savings; second, to the amount of money that would be paid out for reconversion, and, third, to the fact that large foreign credits were being granted, and therefore goods exported under these credits without any imports being brought back in return.
As a result of these things, there would unquestionably be an inflationary trend in this country. But at the same time, when the governor of the Bank of Canada warned us of the situation he also warned that, after that, the main problem which would be facing the country would be to maintain a demand for production.
Some hon. members have ridiculed the idea of prices levelling off. They say we are in the third year of peace; it is the third year since the war and prices have not levelled off. They also suggested that these people who were advocating the lifting of price controls apparently thought prices would immediately level off. I do not believe any hon. member who was advocating that price ceilings should, be lifted thought for one minute that prices would immediately level off. It is quite evident that this would take time.
When I spoke in the house last year I quoted the statement of Beardsley Ruml. Beardsley Ruml indicated that everything pointed to the fact that prices would first break or first show a falling off in the spring of 1948. He made that statement in the spring of 1947. I think his prophecy was a very good one, because we have already seen a break in the price structure, and the extent to which prices will break further will depend largely upon the type of action that is taken in the United States and in this country. If no action were taken there would probably be a further break; but, on the other hand, if large credits are granted under the Marshall plan, no doubt these prices will be maintained. AVhat I cannot understand is this: some people are not ready to wait for a depression to come; they apparently want to push us into one. So far as the experience of Canadians is concerned, most people in this country have suffered far more through depressions than they have through booms. When I recall the thirties and the poverty and degradation that so many people went through, how they lost their life savings, their life insurance, their farms, even their health, and, in some cases, even their lives, I cannot understand people in this country today continually talking as though they were hoping for a depression to come in the near future to bring prices down. I realize that, at a time like this, when we have high prices there are people in the low-income groups who are suffering and suffering severely. We are of the opinion, and we have said so, that government should take immediate action to look after the people in low-income groups, such as old age pensioners and other classes to whom I shall refer later on.
The Address-Mr. Quelch

I wish to say a few words regarding the increased cost of living. The C.C.F. group blames profiteering mostly for the increased cost of living. There is no doubt that part of the reason for the tinereased cost of living is profiteering, since we are still in an inflationary period, and any time you have an inflationary period anybody who has anything to sell tries to get a little bit more, whether it be for his labour or for his commodity. Everybody is out to try to get the highest price for what he has to sell; but it is amazing how many people with high incomes criticizing the high cost of living today do not realize that their own income is part and parcel of the high price level. Therefore, if a fall in the price level occurs, their income will go down as well. I think a very good example of that is given by the governor of the Bank of Canada in his 1917 report on page 19:
The combined effect of upward pressure on our price level from foreign and domestic sources was to increase the general wholesale price index by 28 per cent, and the cost of living index by 15 per cent during 1947. Although the situation with respect to wage nates varied considerably among different groups of wage earner's, average hourly earnings of hourlyrated employees in manufacturing industry rose by about 15 per cent for the year, and their average weekly earnings increased by nearly 16 per cent.
Note that an increase in wages gave rise to an increase in the cost of living. The wage earner, however, does not appreciate that his increase in wages is part of the increased prices.
We in the Social Credit party have always emphasized the fact that you cannot increase the purchasing power of the people by increasing wages, because when you increase wages prices will rise and absorb the benefits of the increased wage. We have always emphasized the fact that if you want to increase the purchasing power of the people it will be necessary to supplement the wage earner's income by additional payments outside the industrial system.
Now the Conservative party, or perhaps I should say the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), who, I believe, is the financial critic for the Conservative party, lays special emphasis on the dangers of inflation. He has referred on a number of occasions to the fact that at the present time the money supply in Canada is three times what it was in 1939, and he has time and again criticized the government for their inflationary policy. With all kindness I would say to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario that if he

is going to criticize any party in this house for that situation he should turn his criticism on his own party.
Let me explain what I mean. He quoted with approval the statement by the then minister of finance in 1939 to the effect that, as soon as we had reached the point of full employment, it would not be wise to have a further expansion of money. He quoted that as I said with approval. I would like to refer him to the attitude of the Conservative party in this house in the first year in which there was a substantial increase in taxation, the year 1942. In 1942 when we were discussing the budget proposal in this house, the then leader of the Conservative party criticized bitterly .the proposals for an increase in taxation and suggested that there might be an easier way of financing the war, and he said, "Page the member for Lethbridge". He was apparently advocating that, instead of financing the war by increased taxation, we should finance it by national money.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Victor Quelch: Certainly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask the hon. member if he is aware that, while I did, as he has stated, speak in approval of the budget speech of 1939, in its hope that it might be able shortly to stop the extension of credit, I went on to point out that at that time we had a phony war, which we hoped would last only a short time. I also indicated that I thought that, with the enormous expansion which came during the war, the steps, though undoubtedly inflationary, taken during the war, were justified up to the end of the war. My criticism rested on what had taken place since that time.


Victor Quelch: Nevertheless the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has referred time and again to the fact that we now have three times as much money in circulation as in 1939. The government's war policy, its financial policy, was pay as you go as far as possible; and yet, when the government of the day tried as far as it could to put into effect a pay-as-you-go policy, the most bitter criticism came from the Conservative party regarding taxation. And, mind you, they went farther than that. They took the stand that if the government were not prepared to adopt some such proposals as those of the hon. member for Lethbridge, they should curtail the war effort to a stipulated amount of money.



[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Quelch
Maybe I should not say that without quoting, because I do not want 'to misrepresent the situation. I will quote from Hansard of 1942, at page 4444, July 20, 1942:
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) :	... I admit
that the sacrifice of a soldier cannot be measured in terms of dollars and cents, but if we are to have anything left in this country, then I say, do not tax us too heavily.
And further down:
The minister has to have money, but I say he has gone the limit in one method he has devised and he must devise some other method. Page the hon, member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) as to the other method.
Then to show that, unless the war could be carried on without increasing taxation to that scale;, or if the government were not prepared to use national money, he thought it might be wise to limit the war effort, I quote again:
Mr. Ilsley:	It is a case of spending whatever the country is capable of spending on war, doing everything the country is capable of doing, and then of adopting some financial method or another to see that that cost is met. It is not a case of deciding how much we can afford' to spend, or bow many dollars we can raise, and1 then adapting our war effort to that number of dollars.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):	Would that
not be a fairly wise thing to do?
Mr. Ilsley:	No, I do not think so.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):	That is what
you have to do in private life.
Mr. Ilsley:	Yes, that is what is done in
business, and what perhaps has been done by governments in former years. But from the very beginning our decision has been to do everything the country was capable of doing, no matter what the cost, and then finance it some way or another. We have been able to do it so far.
The government received the full approval of this group in their slogan that whatever was physically possible and desirable could be made financially possible.
I agree that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has turned his main criticism to the policies since the end of the war, but he will admit that the dangerous situation is the fact that we have large accumulations of savings which would not have been there to the same extent had we adopted a pay-as-you-go policy to a greater extent.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member permit one further word of explanation?/ I also made it clear that I approved the heavy taxation imposed during the war.


Victor Quelch: Yes. I was not saying that the hon. member was to blame, because he was not in the house at the time; but that
was the attitude of the leader of the Conservative party in this house in 1942. That is why I say the hon. member should level his criticism against the Conservative party of that day rather than against the government.


Mr. McCANN:: And not only the leader but others in that party.


Mr QUELCH:: Yes, the financial critic in this house, in the Conservative party, before the present member came in. He also took the stand that they should find an easier method of financing the war by the creation of credit. I refer to the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman).
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Victor Quelch: Before the house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I had been discussing the question of whose was the responsibility for increasing the supply of money during the war. I think we all agree that the expansion of money which took place at that time was essential in order to maintain the volume of production that was required. For the same reason we feel that the present supply of money will also be necessary if we are to maintain production at its maximum level. When you discuss the danger of inflation you must ask, what is. the best solution of the problem of inflation? I would say the best solution is the expansion of production; and if we are to expand production in this country we must maintain an easy-money policy.
I understand that when the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario spoke a few days ago- and I intend to refer to this only briefly, because I understand that the hon. member has to be absent from the house this evening-he suggested that we should increase interest rates at this time. I shall discuss that suggestion some other time; but, in passing, I should like to make this comment. If at the present time it is desirable that we should expand production in this country- and I do not think anyone will deny that statement-then would it be wise to adopt a tight-money policy? Would it be wise to increase the cost of money, thereby increasing the basic cost of production? When you increase interest rates you do increase the basic cost of production; and how can we hope to compete with the other nations of
The Address-M r. Quelch

the world in production if we are going out of our way to increase the basic cost of that production?
I have referred briefly to the C.C.F. contention that profiteering was largely responsible for the increase in prices, and also to the references of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario to the danger of inflation. I would say that in my opinion one of the principal causes of the increase in prices is the fact that Canada is and has been a heavy exporter and importer of goods. As I pointed out, last year we exported in the neighbourhood of $2,800 million worth of goods, and imported goods to a similar amount. Price levels outside Canada are higher than in Canada. Therefore, Canada being a heavy exporter and importer, the price level in this country is bound to rise unless we are going to indulge in a heavy program of subsidization. I know it may be argued that we were able to control prices during the war, and that, therefore, there is no reason why we should not be able to control them at this time. I should like to remind hon. members that during the war we paid heavy subsidies; we maintained heavy taxation; we borrowed heavily, and we imposed rigid controls. I do not believe for one moment that the people of Canada today would tolerate the continuation of such a policy, because on all sides we hear people demanding that there be a reduction in taxation.
The main criticism we hear today is with respect to prices of farm produce. That is only natural. People compare the price level of agricultural produce today with the price level in 1939, and they find that the increase in prices of agricultural products is greater than the increase in other commodities. That is natural, of course; and the reason is that, in the thirties, prices of agricultural products were altogether too low in comparison with prices of other commodities, so what has taken place has been merely a slight levelling up in the relationship between prices of agricultural goods and prices of other commodities. Furthermore, when people criticize agricultural prices today they forget the tremendous losses agriculture suffered in the thirties. Those losses can be made up only by agriculture receiving prices that will not only meet the cost of production but will also return a fair profit.
I understand that the C.C.F. and quite a number of other people favour the payment of subsidies in order to reduce prices of agricultural products to the consumer. I say, why pick on agricultural products? The moment you commence to subsidize agricultural products, people will get the impression that
	|
agricultural prices are too high in relation to prices of other commodities. Furthermore, why should we sell agricultural products at less than the cost of production, to people in the high-income brackets? Look at the people who today are receiving large incomes, people who are selling their own products at high prices. Why should they be allowed to buy agricultural products at less than the cost of production? So personally I am opposed to subsidizing the consumer at this time to permit him to buy agricultural products at lower prices, because immediately people will get the impression that agricultural prices are too high.
We in this group believe in subsidies; we always have believed in them, but for a different purpose. First of all, we believe in subsidies for the purpose of establishing a basic income, raising the income of the people in the low-income brackets to a level which will permit them to live decently. Then we have advocated for a long time that the old age pension should be increased to $50 a month. In the first place, we should reduce the age from seventy to sixty-five; then, as production increased in relation to demand, we could reduce it further to sixty. We recognized the need of paying pensions to people who are blind; and we reduced the age to twenty-one. We advocated this because these people are largely physically incapacitated. But I could never understand why we drew the line at people who are blind. Surely the people who are totally disabled from other causes need pensions just as much as the people who are blind, and I think it is high time the government brought down a policy whereby pensions would be paid to all people physically incapacitated. Another way of taking care of people in the low-income brackets-and I am referring to these people because they are the ones who are suffering today as a result of the high prices, not the people in the high-income brackets, who can easily afford the higher prices-would be to increase the rate of family allowances; and to the extent that those in the high-income brackets did not need this help, the income tax would deprive them of it.
Then, let us take the question of disability pensions for veterans, and the war veterans allowance. I understand that the government has agreed to increase the disability pensions by sixteen per cent. That is all to the good; but, generally speaking, the veterans' organizations consider that the increase should be at least twenty-five per cent. In view of the fact that we shall be discussing this matter in the house in the near future I am not going

to say more on this question, but at the moment I should like to say a word on the war veterans allowance, which was introduced as a recognition of the fact that the veteran had pre-aged by ten years, and should, therefore, be given a pension at sixty instead of at seventy. Well, today we find that people in receipt of the war veterans allowance are getting less than the old age pensioners. Most members of this house are, I think, acquainted with many pitiful cases of people in receipt of war veterans allowance, who are finding it practically impossible to exist. So, when this matter comes up in the house I hope the government will find it possible to wipe out the means test; or, if they are not prepared to wipe it out, at least let the veteran have an income equal to the amount of the exemption under the income tax. Why not try to make the income tax exemption the basic income level to which we shall try to raise all incomes?
Now, of course, the question comes up as to whether we can afford to do this. Just before six o'clock I praised the government for their war policy, under which they said they would not allow any financial restrictions to handicap the war effort. They subscribed to the idea that anything physically possible and desirable could be made financially possible. If that were true in war it can be equally true today. We fought the war to defeat the enemy and to bring into being the new social order we heard so much about those days. If we were prepared to adopt a realistic financial policy to achieve that objective then, how much more important it is that we should maintain a sound policy in these times in order to win the peace for which we fought and sacrificed so dearly.
There has always been an excuse in the past for doing nothing. In the thirties we were told we could not do this or that for the simple reason that we had not the money. No one suggested for one moment in those days that we had not the goods. In those days we had 500.000 unemployed. Our industries were running at less than fifty per cent of capacity. It would have been a simple matter to put the unemployed to work and to provide the things the people needed; but we were told we could not do that because we could not get the money. It took a war to waken the government to what could be done under a realistic financial policy.
The people expressed amazement that, as a result of a changed financial policy, we were able in a short space of time to double the country's production. But those same people are now taking it for granted that we must
The Address-Mr. Quelch
have reduced production. I think the government will find it pretty hard to give us an excuse today for not making anything that is physically possible and desirable financially possible. What excuse can the government give today for not dealing adequately with old age pensions, for not increasing family allowances where required, and for not dealing with war veterans allowances?
I should like to hear the reasons. If war were declared tomorrow-and we hope it will not be for many years-would the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) suggest for one moment that the government would reverse its former war policy? The minister knows very well that if we had another war in the near future, exactly the same financial policy that we had in the last war would immediately be brought back into operation.
We financed the last time to take the lead in our war effort. I say to the Minister of Finance that at this time it is necessary for us in Canada to set an example to the world by now maintaining the same realistic attitude toward financial policy that we maintained in those years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And go back to wartime tax levels?


Victor Quelch: I am glad the minister said that: He referred to going back to wartime tax levels.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know I should not have interjected.


Mr. PROBE:: I should say not.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should have not interjected. But does my hon. friend think the people of Canada would be willing to go back today to wartime tax levels?


Victor Quelch: No, and it would not be necessary; because in wartime fifty per cent of production was going for the war, while today that fifty per cent of production is available to the people.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Still you have to tax.


Victor Quelch: During the war the government time and again said that the main reason for taxation was not that of providing revenue but rather that of curtailing spending, because the war was withdrawing from Canada fifty per cent of production. Today that production is here, and there is a totally different situation. You have the total production available for the people to consume today and, therefore, you do not need to tax to the same extent.
The Address-Mr. Quelch


Douglas Charles Abbott: Certainly it is an entirely different situation; I agree with my hon. friend there.


John Horne Blackmore: The same old ideas, though.


Victor Quelch: I would again remind the house of the position about which the governor of the Bank of Canada warned us, a position where the present under-production, will expand and we shall not be able to maintain an effective demand against that production. That time will come. The governor of the Bank of Canada warned us it would come. We have already seen a price break, and this may be a warning that that situation may come in the near future. When that situation develops, then we maintain that it will be the responsibility -of ihe government to establish a policy which will make it possible to maintain an effective demand against our production at all times. When that time comes we believe the government will be justified in paying a price discount on the price of all goods to the extent necessary to balance demand with supply.
For example, if the demand is only 90 per cent of supply, then the government would be justified in paying to an industry a ten per cent discount on its sales of goods so as to equate demand and supply. Industry would be able to sell goods at a ten per cent discount. The sales slips would be taken to the bank and a credit of ten per cent would be allowed, the bank being reimbursed by the government. In that way at all times there would be a balance so as to equate demand with supply.
Furthermore, in order to maintain a high level of production, the government must guarantee parity prices to the farmer. For the past eight years the farmers have been required to sell for less than they could have, due to a policy of government intervention. Then, for a period of ten years before the war they had to sell at world market prices, which were then low. Therefore the farmers have every right and justification for demanding that in future, as a basic principle, they should receive a guaranteed price, and that that guaranteed price should be based upon parity, that is a price which would bear a fair relationship to prices of other commodities. The federal government should reorganize the Agricultural Prices Support Act, so that it would be made a permanent piece of legislation. And it should be made quite clear under that act that prices to be paid in the future will be parity prices.
The all-important question today is that of maintaining a maximum degree of production. As I have already pointed out, the 
best way to end inflation is to increase the production of consumer goods so as to satisfy demand. But we insist that one of the chief deterrents to increased production is indirect taxation. It increases costs 'to the producer, while at the same time increasing costs to the consumer. Furthermore, we feel that the government should increase the rate of exemptions from income tax. That is probably the best way to encourage labour and also to encourage the farmer to increase production.
While I am on the subject of taxation, I should like to say a few words regarding the prairie farmers' income tax form. I happened to see it only the other night and I have felt bitter ever since reading it. This is supposed to be a simplified form. I am not taking any special exception on that score. It is a bigger form. But what I am taking definite exception to is what appears at page 6, where it asks for the farmer's net worth statement. I believe farmers will bitterly resent this form, particularly this page, as being discriminatory action against them.
On this page the farmer is required to show the cash on his person at December 31, 1947, and December 31, 1946. He is also required to show cash in bank, cash in safety deposit boxes, the amount of government bonds and shares that he has either on the farm or, apparently, in a safety deposit box.
I would draw this fact to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), that no other occupational group is required to disclose this information. Then, if no other occupational group is required to provide this information, why should the farmer be required to do so? I have been told by certain officials that the reason is that they have to catch up with the farmer. That is the reason given by some of the officials. In other words, they are insinuating that the farmers are more dishonest than other groups. Let me say to the minister I am satisfied that the farmers of this country are just as honest as the members of the profession he represents, or those of any other profession.


James Joseph McCann: So am I.


Victor Quelch: Then, why insinuate that the farmers are not honest, by requiring that this form be filled out? By doing that, you are definitely insinuating that the farmers are not honest. And I, as a farmer member of parliament, bitterly resent the fact that I am required to fill out that information, information which any other member of parliament who is not a farmer does not have to fill out.
I suggest to the minister that, even though this form has been sent out, it would be a

The Address-Mr. Fleming
good thing for his department to notify the farmers that whether they fill out the information on that page or not is purely optional. If it is made optional I do not think there would be any objection. You say to me, "You do not need to fill it in unless you want to," and I would not mind filling it in, but when you tell me that I have to fill it in when nobody else has to fill it in, then you accuse me of being dishonest and I resent the imputation.
Before taking my seat, I should like to say a few words with regard to my constituency. The constituency which I represent in east central Alberta is sparsely populated. Over 70 per cent of the original settlers have left because of drought conditions. Surveys of an irrigation project known as the Red Deer diversion have been completed and approved. This project provides for the irrigation of 500,000 acres. The land is good, and services have already been established in the area in the form of roads, railways, towns and schools. The project would make it possible for the district to support an additional population of over 30,000 people.
Canada has embarked upon an expanding immigration program and Europeans would be ideally adapted to settling on irrigated farms. Therefore, in closing, I urge upon the government the desirability of going ahead immediately with the construction of that project in order to make self-supporting a large area which could help other countries by providing homes for people in displaced persons camps.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, at this final stage of the debate on the address I do not for a moment pretend that I can bring something new to the debate. After all, just about every issue before the Canadian people today has been traversed. In my effort tonight I should like if I can to bring into focus what I conceive to be some of the issues at stake in the want of confidence motion which is embodied in the main amendment
We meet today in perilous times. Czechoslovakia has gone under. She is swallowed up behind the iron curtain. Freedom there is gone and the iron curtain has marched farther west. The pattern has been the same everywhere. Revolutionary Marxism and Russian imperialism are going hand in hand, bound upon world revolution. France and Italy are next on the list. The pattern has been the same all the way through. The Russian forces of occupation have been used as a cover for political activity. There have been coalition governments and the seizure of key posts in those governments by communists; then has come the control of the police and security
forces, the control of the labour unions, and when the time was ripe the well organized communist minority struck and the forces of freedom were engulfed.
Time is of the essence. If there should be delay in implementing the Marshall plan, if the communist forces should strike in France and Italy, a situation will arise that will challenge the freedom and security of every man, woman and child on this continent. Let no one think Canada is not on the list. You have only to read the more recent utterances of that redoubtable communist, Tim Buck, to know that Canada in her turn is placed on the program of revolution.
When we look at what has passed we can only shudder when we think of what may happen if Russian forces are used as occupational forces fn other sections of the world.
But the threat of communism is not confined to Europe. We have communism threatening us and our freedom and our security right here in Canada. It has been very interesting to those who have sat in this house, even in the short space of time since 1945, to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) picturing the dangers of communism in some of their recent utterances. They do well to picture those dangers, but surely this is a belated awakening on the part of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was barely two years ago when we had a disclosure of intrigue and espionage being carried on here in Canada by agents of revolutionary communism, that the Prime Minister on March 18, 1946, uttered these words:
I did think at one time of going to Russia myself and of speaking with Generalissimo Stalin with reference to it.
That was with reference to the espionage which was going on right here.
What I know, or have learned of Mr. Stalin from those who have been closely associated with him in the war, causes me to believe that he would not countenance action of this kind on the part of officials of his country. I believe that when these facts are known to him and to others in positions of full responsibility, we shall find a change will come that will make a vast difference indeed.
That was a pathetic speech coming from a man who had been pictured before the Canadian people by the Liberal carpet-baggers in the 1945 general election as the man who had all possible knowledge about external affairs, as the man who was on terms of intimacy with the leaders of other countries, as the man who would steer this oountry past all the shoals that confronted us in our external relations in the post-war period. That was the substance of his
1SS8
The Address-Mr. Fleming

speech in this house in 1946. You can see just how realistic was the appreciation of the Prime Minister of the dangers of communism right at our door.
Here is what Tim Buck, the No. 1 communist in Canada, had to say in Vancouver last November. He was addressing a meeting of students at the University of British Columbia, and in reply to a question by a student he said that if Canada should be drawn into a war with Russia he would not defend this country, but "would go into hiding the same as I did at the start of the last war."
There is no doubt about where the higher loyalties of communists lie. It is not to Canada.
What of the present government's relations to the communist party? There is an old saying that if you lie down with dogs you will get up with fleas. The Liberal government lay down with the dogs of communism in 1944 and 1945, and it has not been able to shake off from itself the communist fleas that have been clinging to it ever since. In 1944 Tim Buck and other communists were released from prison, at which time Tiro Buck as their leader made an offer of co-operation to the government. He offered to join forces with the Liberal government of the day, the same kind of government as we have now. What was the answer given on behalf of the Liberal party? Here is the answer of A. G. McLean, director of the National Liberal Federation, speaking with reference to that barefaced offer of the union of forces coming from Tim Buck. As reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 26, 1944, he said:
The Liberal party welcomes co-operation from everyone in Canada in, putting into effect Liberal principles and policies.
If there is such identification of Liberal principles and policies with the creed of Tim Buck as it was proclaimed at that time, then all I have to say is that the Liberal party are welcome to that kind of support. If they can maintain themselves in office only by submitting to and receiving that kind of support, then it is high time that the people of this country have an opportunity of saying at the polls whether they approve.
Of course that kind of co-operation began to burst into flower in Grey North. After that generous offer of co-operation by Tim Buck you will remember, Mr. Speaker, the endorsation of the Liberal candidate in the Grey North by-election by the communist forces and the fact that communist leaders, working through the ranks of labour in Canada, had their pictures taken and inserted in the Owen Sound paper, proclaiming their wholehearted support of the Liberal candidate. Of

course, at the bottom of the page appeared these words, "Published by authority of the Grey North Liberal Association". Yes, the Liberal forces in that campaign were glad to welcome support from that doubtful quarter, and if there is attaching to the Labour Progressive forces in Canada since 1944 any badge of respectability it is the Liberal party and the present government here which lent that badge of respectability to the communist forces.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Will the hon. member-


James Horace King: Order. Does the hon. member rise on a question of privilege?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would like to ask my hon. friend a question.


Mr. FLEMING:: What is the question?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would ask him to quote Churchill when the Germans invaded Russia.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know what on earth that irrelevant interruption has to do with what I am talking about.
Today it seems as though the communist forces in Canada are able to see in the C.C.F. platform enough resemblance to their own to be able conscientiously to offer their wholehearted support to the C.C.F. in any contest that may be coming. The communist forces have offered their support to the C.C.F. Here is Tim Buck in a recent pronouncement in Massey Hall, Toronto, offering to throw the full weight of the communist forces behind the C.C.F. in the next election. Here are the Liberals and the C.C.F. jockeying and vying with one another to enjoy this doubtful support. So far as we of the Progressive Conservative party are concerned, they are welcome to that support.
It would be very much more to the point if this government would make some serious endeavour to meet this insidious challenge of the communist forces in Canada, the insidious; propaganda and the falsehoods that are inherent in communist propaganda. One of the first things needed in combating this propaganda is to tell the rank and file of the Canadian people just how much better their lot is than that of the people who are enjoying the doubtful privilege of living under communism in Russia today. The lot of the workers on this continent is so infinitely better than the lot of the workers in Russia that that factor should be brought home to our people at eveiy opportunity.
Not very long ago the New York Times compiled a table indicating a comparison of the real wages of workers in "Russia and in.

The Address-Mr. Fleming
the United States. It is a table which I think bears a fair relation to conditions in Canada. The table lists many items and gives the man-hours of work necessary to earn them in the two countries. For example, take milk. In the United States the average worker in industry works 10 minutes to earn one quart of milk; in Russia, 1 hour, 18 minutes; eggs, one dozen, in the United States, 38i minutes; in Russia, 4 hours and 57 minutes; tea, one pound, in the United States, 39J minutes; in Russia, 11 hours; coffee, one pound, in the United States, 22| minutes; in Russia, 14 hours, 6 minutes. There are many other illuminating items in this table, and if I might have the approval of the house I would ask the privilege of putting it on the record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Other hon. MEMBERS: Read it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Another factor which I think needs emphasis at the present time is our priceless heritage of individual freedom. There is no such thing in the countries behind the iron curtain today. Raise your voice in opposition to the government there, and you are on your wray to the concentration camp. It should1 not be lost sight of, Mr. Speaker, that our modern conceptions of individual freedom based upon the guardianship of parliament grew up in the past three centuries hand in hand with our modern free enterprise, and that necessary relationship needs, I think, always to be borne in mind.
What of the parliament of Canada in this present situation, parliament which should be the guardian of freedom, parliament which should stand up to this government and resist governmental attempts to make inroads upon human freedom and upon the privileges of parliament? If headway has been made, and I think some has in the past three years, in reasserting the supremacy of parliament against the inroads of the executive branch of government, the credit for that progress is due to those who sit on this side of the house. It has been an uphill fight, Mr. Speaker, against those on your right who have regarded themselves as entrenched in power, and the Progressive Conservative party intends to carry on that battle until it is won. We intend to expose and resist the studied contempt in which this government holds parliament-its insatiable appetite for power, its enthronement of bureaucratic methods, its withholding of information to which parliament is entitled; and Mr. Speaker, if you want the latest example of the contempt in which this government, far too long in office, holds parliament you have only to
recall events of recent weeks: the calling of parliament together in December, with its hands tied so that it could do nothing and simply was made a laughing-stock in the eyes of the Canadian people. If you want more recent evidence of it look at the statement made in the house by the Prime Minister last week in which he said he would ask this house to adjourn on June 30 whether the business of the country and of parliament was concluded or not, in order that the Liberal party might unimpeded hold its national convention this summer. The interests of the party first, the interests of the country and the parliament second-that is the record of this government all the way through. They have always got an excuse for situations arising out of their own dilatoriness, as we have seen very recently. Here is the latest episode, the attempt to impose taxation without any reference to parliament, the levying of imposts in the form of taxes before parliament is even in session to hear the minister's announcement. Yes, Mr. Speaker, well may we recall the words of William Pitt:
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Those who want to submit to that can cheer the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to the echo, if they like. I note the applause of the Minister of Finance by those who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker.
It is high time that this government was told that government is not to be carried on any longer simply by wise-cracking. We expect something more serious from government than the way in which it has been carried on of late from the government benches.
Let us recall the Declaration of Right, 1628, and the Bill of Rights, 1689, with their assertion of the right of parliament and parliament alone to levy taxes and their denial to the executive branch of government of any right to impose levies of any kind without the authority of parliament. This government has torn them up, just as in earlier days it tore up the rights of Canadians under Magna Carta. With all this has gone the breaking of the government's promises. I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the way in which the government recently tore up the representations made to this house by the present Minister of Justice two years ago when the foreign exchange control bill was introduced. What has been the best the government has been able to do? The best has been to offer quibbles through the Minister of Finance to try to find some minute distinction between a statement of the government
The Address-Mr. Fleming

and an undertaking by the government. Apparently undertakings by the government have some greater validity than mere statements. Therefore we are on our guard in this chamber, that mere statements by members of the government, speaking with the full authority of the government, are not to be regarded by the house as binding on the government when it suits the government's purpose to ignore them.
When we are talking about the preservation of freedom in parliament let us be on our guard against the attempts that are being made under the guise of this delightful expression "planning" to foist socialism on this country, because the socialists find that the word "socialism" has not the appeal that they thought it had in 1933 and 1934, and so now they are calling it planning.
Well, planning is not all confined to the C.C.F. An exponent of planning is today a member of the government, the government leader in the senate. Speaking for the Liberal party on free time over the CBC, last August 6, Senator Wishart Robertson said this:
My guess is that any future government in Canada, whatever its political complexion, will resort to some type of economic planning.


Mr. IRVINE:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course the C.C.F. will applaud that; of course they will. It is right down their alley; and these vociferous people to your right, Mr. Speaker, who are applauding, are falling right into the hands of the C.C.F. Unfortunately they are so blind that they do not see they are on the slippery slide into socialism. They are just playing into the hands of the socialists, if only they could see it. They are the people who are contributing so much to the inroads of socialism in this country. Do not let anyone ever think that you can play fast and loose with this economic planning without risking the loss of individual freedom.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh nuts!


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will only remind some forgetful gentlemen down yonder of the words of Mr. Laski who was chairman of the executive of the British labour party and who not so many months ago expressed doubt-these are his words-"whether in a period of transition to socialism a labour government"-by which, of course, he meant a socialist government- "could risk the overthrow of its measures as a result of a general election." It is no historical accident that modern individual freedom, conceived m terms of our parliamentary institutions and the duty of parliament to stand as the guardian of the rights of the individual, has grown hand in hand with our modern 
system of free enterprise. You knock the props out from under any system of free enterprise and do not delude yourself that you can hold on to individual freedom; you cannot.


William Irvine: Down with the props.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the amendment to the amendment there is the suggestion that the time has come to reimpose certain controls. Everyone who will be frank about this knows perfectly well that you cannot have an overall system of price control without controlling wages and salaries, and we of the Progressive Conservative party are absolutely, flatly and resolutely opposed to the state stepping in and putting ceilings on wages. We will fight that, and we are fighting against the sort of thing that is going on in the United Kingdom today in the form of direction of labour, the first time since parliamentary institutions and cabinet government came into effect in the old country that you have direction of labour in time of peace.


An hon. MEMBER:: Everybody is working.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are working, are they? Let anybody leave his employment who is not engaged in agriculture or coal mining today and where does he go? He has to go to a government bureau and they will put him in coal mining or agriculture. That is how the control over manpower is enforced. An Associated Press dispatch from London of October 3, which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail of October 4, says this:
Directed labour must take jobs. Isaacs warns.
Labour Minister Isaacs warned today that workers who become "sticky and nasty" when directed to a job under Britain's new manpower regulations would be told, "You will have this one, whether you like it or not."
Is that freedom? It is socialism.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Did you ever hear of direction of labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Anyone who has followed the tortuous course of the socialists, knows that those of the socialist creed are bound to regard the constitution of Canada, with its division of powers as between the dominion and the provinces, as a bar to socialism. That is why they are the sworn enemies of the federal system in this country. But they do not stop there. They regard the courts which are, of course, the interpreters of the constitution, the interpreters of the law of this country, as a bar to their aims. It is only natural that the Premier of Saskatchewan should have attacked the courts, as he did on January 14, complaining that these courts were

The Address-Mr. Fleming
giving judgments adverse to the government of Saskatchewan. That kind of speech might well have been made by any fascist or any communist.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Read the speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The idea that the courts should be criticized was because, as the Premier of Saskatchewan said, "We have collided head-on with the courts." He criticized them as not having fought on the side of the government. He said that the government was fighting on the side of the people and they were running slam-bang against the courts all the time. Well he might run into the courts, because they are interpreting the laws of this country, although not to the liking of the executive branch of government in that province; interpreting the constitution, but not to the liking of the socialists in that province, and of course the socialists, in consequence, attacked the courts. The courts were the subject of the first attacks by the nazis in Germany.
Then there is the freedom of the press. The freedom of the press is the sort of thing that is a thorn in the side of the socialists, as you see them attacking it through the inquiry into the press of the old country today, and also on the part of those neo-socialists whom you find masquerading under Liberal colours.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Neo-socialists masquerading under the Liberal colours. That is why you were surprised, I am sure, at the dangers to the freedom of the press in this country when you learned that certain journalists were recently arrested in Ontario and carried west under the nose of the Minister of Justice, if 3'ou please.


Angus MacInnis: By socialists, I suppose.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nothing was done about it by the minister.
It is only natural to expect, too, that the government that is tarred with the socialist brush and is seeking to perpetuate itself in office would bring the civil service into itn political orbit. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this government has been using distinguished members of the diplomatic service and senior officers of the civil service to serve the ends of the Liberal party. I have before me a publication called "Politique." It is issued by the National Liberal Federation with headquarters at 172 Wellington street, Ottawa. The committee in charge is composed of Joseph A. Blanchette, a member of this house, Georges-E. Lapalme, M.P., Guy Roberge, M.P.P., Me. Leon Lalande, Me. Jean-Marie Nadeau.
We are told on the cover that this is a publication coming out four times a year, issued by the National Liberal Federation. Here is volume 1, No. 1, and what do we find? The very first article is entitled "L'Ame du Canada devant l'histoire", and this is written by Mr. Edmond Turcotte, who is described as consul general of Canada at Chicago. In this article-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Does the hon. member assert that that was written after Mr. Turcotte was appointed consul general in Chicago?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am
saying-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Is he not aware that this manuscript was delivered before Mr. Turcotte was appointed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This publication was published this winter, 1948. It is dated 1948.


An hon. MEMBER:: Published, not written.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And the author of this article is described, as he then was, as consul general at Chicago. But that is not all.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Is it a fact that the hon. member does not know that manuscript was prepared by Mr. Turcotte while he was still editor of the journal Le Canada in Montreal?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am glad the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said what he has, because it reflects all the more seriously and shamefully on this Liberal federation that published it. If on the eve of this man's appointment to the diplomatic service of the country the Liberal federation got him to write such an article and then published the article after his appointment as consul general it is even more shameful.
And that is not all. This same party has other publications as well. Here we have one entitled "The Canadian Liberal," whatever that is. It is called "A Survey of National Affairs, volume 1 No. 2, winter 1948". It is also published by the National Liberal Federation with offices at 172 Wellington street in this city. The editorial advisory board consists of: Hon. Norman Lambert, Hon. Gray Turgeon, Hon. Charles Bishop, John Stirrett,
K.C., II. E. Kidd, Esq., Mrs. Nancy Hodges, M.L.A., and J. Gordon Fogo, Iv.C. There is an article entitled "Jobs for All," written by Arthur MacNamara-not the leader of the band, but the deputy minister of labour, a senior civil servant-in a publication put out by the National Liberal Federation of Canada. This represents a shameful prostitution of the
The Address-Mr. Fleming

civil service of the country. It is a shameful prostitution of the diplomatic service and the senior civil service of the country to serve the ends of the Liberal party.
I have not the time, Mr. Speaker, to go into some of the subjects that I wished to discuss. I should have liked to say something about the shameful record of the government in the matter of housing, the shameful breach of promises, the repudiation of promises by the government, great glowing promises on which they were elected in 1945. Now that these promises have served their purpose of getting the government elected, of course they repudiate them.
Take the treatment of veterans under the Veterans Land Act. I urge the new Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg), who has fallen heir to a sad legacy in that department in connection with the Veterans Land Act administration, to read the revelations of scandal in that administration, exposed in the public accounts committee last summer, which were debated in this house last July 16, beginning at page 5795 of Hansard-the exposure of a situation that is nothing short of a scandal in, this country.
Of course the government saw fit to dispose of the director of the Veterans Land Act after the former minister of veterans affairs, Mr. Mackenzie, that night stood up and defended him to the hilt and said that the charges against him were so much twaddle. They fired him, and now the new director is saying, "The thing to do is to have the Veterans Land Act do a better job of public relations and tell our story to the people."
I have time to say two things in this regard. In this matter of telling the Canadian people, I hope the Veterans Land Act administration will strive to have a very much better record to put before the Canadian people than hitherto. Before they go out with a program of informing the public, I hope they will have a better story to tell; and, in the second place, I hope that if there is any semblance of a sense of fair play left in the government they will give the veterans who are affected the same opportunity of putting their story before the public.
The government denied us the reasonable request for a royal commission last year. They rejected it contemptuously. These veterans are clamouring for an, opportunity to tell their story, and the reason they have not been given that opportunity is that the government has steadfastly and obstinately refused them the opportunity in the one way in which the veterans could have told their story, namely,

to a royal commission. It is a thousand shames to the government who have betrayed the veterans.
It is quite apparent that this government is falling apart. Of course we are coming closer to the national Liberal convention in August. Now here is the Minister of Finance having his department issue statements about this great current budget surplus of $750 million, and along comes another contender for the crown, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and punctures the balloon. He says, "Oh, well, that is not a real surplus at all. You have to take out all the loans we are making; we shall not be repaid these". And so, by that jab, he cuts that surplus by about $500 million. That was not a very kind thing for one rival candidate to do to another, was it, Mr. Speaker?
The Minister of Agriculture has been conducting quite a campaign. He has been running up and down the country discussing immigration, and in Toronto he said this:
Canada should set its immigration objective at 500,000 a year and within ten years increase it to 1,000,000 a year. We can more than double our population in fifteen years.
And there was the Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie, who has now gone to his last resting place in the senate, who stated on October 3, in Toronto:
We should aim for 25,000,000 immigrants in the next twenty-five years.
Apparently the Minister of Agriculture wishes to bring all the immigrants he can into this country, but there is the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and of other portfolios, saying at the same time, "How can Premier Drew do this sort of thing under our nose? It is an impossibility to bring in people in the way the Ontario government are doing." And there is the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) going all the way to Halifax today, looking over the steamer Aquitania to see if he can find room in her for a few immigrants.
This is the month of March, 1948, and the government is talking with such a variety' of voices on the issue of immigration. This government is just falling apart. The leadership contest is on.
(Translation):
And now, I should like to say a few words in French, mother tongue of His Honour the Speaker, and that too of some ancestors of mine who were born in the beautiful province of Quebec.

The Address-Mr. Bracken
The time has come when the Canadian parliament must readjust its thinking in keeping with sound Canadian principles. Nearly three years after the war the philosophy of dictatorship, which took hold on the federal government during the war, still prevails at Ottawa. Interference by the Ottawa bureaucrats with the affairs of the people has jeopardized the political rights and the economic future of Canadians.
Last November the Ottawa government, after sitting back idly for seventeen months and watching our supply of United States dollars melt away, announced measures so drastic and so dictatorial that they place all business in Canada at the mercy of the government. One minister wields more power than has been possessed by any man in the history of this country. He may grant import licences to some and refuse them to others. He has been given the power to bring businesses to ruin with the complete loss of the life's savings of many small businessmen.
The Progressive Conservative party says that no such vast powers should be given to any government or any minister. The Canadian parliament should be ashamed to abdicate in favour of a dictatorship.
The government announced heavy new taxes in a radio broadcast made by the Minister of Finance last November 17. He did so without any authority from parliament. Only parliament has the right to authorize the levying of taxes. The government at Ottawa has defied parliament and torn the constitution into ribbons.
This is the same government which is so ready to over-ride the constitutional powers of the provinces and to centralize more and more power and authority at Ottawa at the expense of the provinces. The Progressive Conservative party has consistently and resolutely opposed this centralizing movement, for it is a direct challenge to the freedoms of the Canadian people. If these trends under the present Liberal government toward dictatorship, toward abrogation of the rights of parliament, toward the imposition of taxes without authority of parliament, toward centralization of power at the expense of the provinces, toward the reduction of the constitution to a scrap of paper-if these trends continue they can result sooner or later only in a socialistic
tyranny. The Progressive Conservative party will fight these trends without compromise and I am confident it will in the end win its battle.
(Text):
In a word, Mr. Speaker, this government has been in office too long. It has forgotten to be responsible to parliament; it has forgotten to be responsible to the people of Canada. Its attitude toward the people today is, "Well, don't we rule them?"
There is only one way of settling this issue; that is, to leave it to the people of Canada. This government has allowed three constituencies to remain without representation. Why? Is the weather adverse again, as it was last year? We are not asking simply that there be by-elections in those three constituencies to permit them to be represented in this house. Our challenge to this government is to let this issue go to the people in a general election at once.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, it is expected that in a few minutes we shall be asked to record our vote on the immediate question before us. I am rising now to take just a moment of the time of the house to state the position we find it necessary to take in connection with the amendment to the amendment.
The main motion before the house is the motion always moved at the opening of a parliament, on behalf of the government; a motion to approve the policies and administration of the government. This party moved an amendment to that motion, whieh reads:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers do not possess the confidence of the Canadian, people.
To that amendment a further amendment was moved by the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), in these words:
This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have flailed1 to, use the powers provided by parliament to control prices, and by their actions have caused alarming increases in the cost of living and a dangerous lowering of the living standards of the Canadian, people.
Under our procedure the amendment to the amendment must be voted upon first. That is the first motion upon which we shall be asked to record our votes. With respect to this amendment I want to say that if one word in it had been altered this party could have supported it wholeheartedly. That is the word "prices" in the third line. If instead of "control prices" the amendment had said "control inflation" we could have supported it. That is, if it had read:
This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to use the powers provided by parliament to control inflation . . .
The Address-Mr. Bracken

If it had read in that way we could have supported it. But, as the amendment to the amendment now reads, while it expresses the views of the members of the party whose leader moved it-and I respect them for the views they hold-it carries the implication that by controlling prices-to use am example, by controlling prices of farm products at a time when costs of production are mot controlled-we could thus keep down the cost of living. We cannot subscribe to that thesis. We supported price control during the period of the war, as everyone else in this house supported it, at a time when the whole economy was controlled. We believe that price control can be made to function when the whole economy is controlled and regimented as it is or may be in some other countries. But we do not believe that prices of farm products cam be controlled by freezing them at the top and then letting costs of production go up; and we would mot be frank with the house, with the public or with our own convictions, if we said anything different.
I am going to bring at this time only two pieces of evidence with respect to the position we take. One of them comes from a report of a decision of what is perhaps the most realistic socialistic government of which we in this country are aware, namely the British government. The other is the position taken by one of the greatest and most enlightened organizations of workers on this continent, the American Federation of Labor.
First, I should like to read just three or four sentences from a radio speech by Matthew Halton, delivered two or three days ago. Speaking of conditions in the British isles, he said;
During the last ten days in Great Britain we've seen a political phenomenon. We've seen a Labour government pegging the level of wages, and Socialist M.P.'s asking for longer hours.
The next sentence is not essential, but I shall read it so that there will be no omission. He states;
If a Tory government had done this tliere'd have been uproar ini the country and probably a great wave of strikes.
Then he goes on to say:
In the last ten days Britain lias decided bo peg not only wages, but also profits, and the prices of all goods ini the shops. It's a drastic step in the fight for economic survival. Britain's fighting for her life; and1 the immediate enemy is inflation.
I have read that extract only because the British government., which we all respect, and with which we sympathize in its economic

problems, has said that it cannot control the cost of living by controlling prices alone, without controlling costs.
The other bit of evidence comes from the American Federation of Labor. I shall quote this brief extract from the monthly survey for January of that great labour organization;
Price control cannot dam ian ever-growing flood of money inflation. This has been proved again and again, in country after country. We must attack the root cause of inflation, the excess money supply.
We have had, Mr. Speaker, a long, interesting and, I am sure, informative debate on the speech from the throne. I arose only to say why we cannot support the amendment to the amendment. The only new light brought to bear , upon it was the experience of the socialist government in Great Britain where, to meet their problem, they have used not only price controls but wage controls as well. I have quoted, too, from one of the leading labour organizations in the vrorld, an extract in which it states that price controls alone will not cure the difficulty we are facing.
For these reasons we consider it necessary to vote against the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. MacINNIS; Before the leader of the opposition takes his seat, I should like to ask a question. In order that I might know, and so as to clarify my mind, do I understand that the leader of the opposition and his party are opposed to all price controls, rent controls and all those things?
Mr. BRA0KEN: I did not say anything of the kind.


Angus MacInnis: Make clear what you are opposed to.


John Bracken: I am opposed-


Angus MacInnis: Everybody wants to know what you stand for.


John Bracken: I am talking about the amendment to the amendment moved by the leader of the party to which the hon. member belongs. I am dealing with that, and dealing with that alone. That amendment to the amendment reads:
This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to use the powers provided by parliament to control prices . . .
What I have said is this, that price controls alone, in an economy which is not fully controlled, will not accomplish even what my hon. friend wants it to accomplish. That is our view. His view is different.

I have produced two pieces of evidence to bear out my contention. One of them comes from the party which enjoys the respect and support of the hon. member and his friends; and the other is from the greatest labour organization on this continent.


Angus MacInnis: I thank the hon. member
for answering my question. I understand that the Progressive Conservative party is opposed	
to all controls.


John Bracken: That may be the hon.
member's understanding; buh, if it is, then his understanding is very faulty.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Farquhar) owing to the fact that he is ill. Had I voted, I would have supported the amendment to the amendment.
The Address-Mr. Bracken
Dickey
Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval)
Dionne (Beauce) Douglas Drope Dubois Emmerson Eudes Ferguson Fleming Fontaine Fournier (Hull) Fournier (Miaison-neuve-Rosemont) Fraser Fulton Gardiner Gariepy
Gauthier (Nipissing) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gibson (Comox-Alberni)
Gibson (Hamilton West)
Gingues Gladstone Golding Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Grant
Graydon
Green
Gregg
Hac-kett
Halle
Harkness
Harris (Danforth)
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Hartt
Hatfield
Hazen
Ilealy
Henderson
Heon
Hodgson
Howe
Ilsley ,
Isnor
Jackman
Jean
Jutras
King, Mackenzie
Kirk
Lacombe
LaOroix
Lafontaine
Lalonde
Langlois
Lapalme
Lapointe
Laurendeau
Leger
Leonard
Lesage
Little
Lockhart
McCann
The Address-Mr. Shaw

(Translation):


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. McDonald). That is why I did not vote.


An hon. MEMBER:: How would you have voted?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: According to my own will.
(Text):


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, now that the subamendment has been disposed of, there are certain observations which I should like to make. I am not completely oblivious of the mournful dirge we have had from quarters opposite, but I should like to remind hon. gentlemen over there that many of them have participated in this debate and a number of them have extolled the virtues of such a debate, laying particular emphasis upon the fact that it provides a general opportunity for all hon. members to participate, and it also points the way for bringing in of, and the consideration of, a wide variety of subjects. All I am doing now is taking advantage of the opportunity which they have reminded me is open to me.
It was just three months ago that hon. members first became acquainted with the contents of the speech from the throne. It is my earnest conviction that, had we been able to debate the speech in December we could have disposed of it upon that occasion. What we actually did was in my estimation utterly to waste a period of two weeks. No doubt those responsible for the procedure which was adopted on that occasion have learned a lesson, and undoubtedly there will be no recurrence of such a practice.
Much has taken place since last December 8. However, little has occurred to change certain convictions which I established in my own mind at that time. In fact, as a consequence of certain developments during the past three months, I am more thoroughly convinced than ever before of certain facts which I laid down at that time. Speaking in this house on December 9, the leader of this group (Mr. Low) asserted that there existed widespread dismay in Canada as a consequence of skyrocketing living costs. I should like to emphasize, and I believe it is quite clear to all, that, despite certain actions which have taken place since that time, one, the establishment of the prices committee, the developments have served only to heighten and intensify that feeeling of dismay to which he referred.
Only today it came to my attention through the medium of the press that the cost of living index has now' reached the very high figure of 150-1 points; that is, as of Febru-

ary 2, 1948. According to the dominion statistician, the increase in the index in the month of January was 1-8 points. It was pointed out in the reports that we are now just within half a point of the all-time high established during the so-called inflationary period following world war I. I should say, in passing, that this index is determined by using the base period 1935 to 1939 as 100.
A thought which has passed through my mind is this. Within a very few days, if not at the present time, the cost of living index will have exceeded the all-time high following the first world war. At that time what will certain hon. members opposite have to say, because frequently they have emphasized the fact that, even though conditions may be a bit bad, we have not yet reached the condition resulting from the Conservative party which was in power at the end of the first great war? There will be some red faces on the other side within a very very short time.
I cannot help but marvel at the way in w'hich certain government members rise to their feet and endeavour to varnish over so many things which are so completely obvious to the Canadian people. It is a sort of political clear varnish which our Canadian people are quite capable of seeing through. It is true, and I shall give credit where credit is due, that certain government members have been impressed by the general public reaction and have risen to their feet in this house and in a mild sort of way, it is true, criticized the government because of certain conditions which it has permitted to develop. The odd one of independent complexion, as it were, has displayed a bit more boldness in his criticism of government policy.
When the throne speech was debated in December the leader of this group emphasized that, among those who have been hit so hard because of prevailing conditions, are our old age pensioners and our widowed mothers. Can it be argued by anyone that these persons find the misery of their day-to-day existence any less severe than it was in December? In fact the figures which I have already given with respect to the increase in the cost of living would indicate that they are suffering much more at the present time than they did when the hon. member for Peace River was speaking. I would say further, respecting the aged, it is obvious that minor concessions, if concessions they were, of 1947 have already been gobbled up by the intensified whirlwind of cost increases. We recall that last year they did permit the single old age pension recipient to have a total income of, I belie re it was

The Address-Mr. Shmv
$625 a year; that is, including pension, and the married recipient to enjoy as it were a total income of $1,080 a year. On top of that I realize that there were quite a few thousands who were able to secure old age pension for the first time, but I am sure that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) would be the first to agree with me that these benefits acquired last year have completely disappeared as a consequence of the change in living costs.
Still struggling in this country and still hopeful, but rapidly losing hope, are those who have not yet reached the eligibility age. It need not be emphasized that one within this country must attain the age of seventy years before becoming eligible; but it is also becoming increasingly more obvious that those between sixty and seventy years of age are finding the struggle much more grim as each day passes. We have observed the number of persons within Canada drawing unemployment insurance benefits. We have examined the statistics indicating unemployment among able-bodied persons within Canada. How then can it be expected that those between sixty and seventy years of age are able to go out and compete in the labour market with the many physically fit unemployed today who are drawing the unemployment insurance benefits? In fact, among these persons we find a losing of faith, as I say, if faith they ever had.
The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch)
made reference to another class of persons to whom I had intended referring anyway, but I am glad he did. I should like to emphasize the point he made. I refer to non-pensionable medically-perhaps I should say physically-[DOT] disabled individuals. We have them within all age groups, persons who find it utterly impossible to leave home and search for employment, much less able to take such employment were it to be found. I suggest that those persons be eligible for the same pension that is made available to the blind today, because one who is totally incapacitated physically is certainly no better able even at the age of twenty-one years, to procure his living than is a blind person. Moreover, such persons should not be subjected to the humiliation of public relief.
During the last year I have received quite a number of personal and pitiful letters from such persons. True, they are proud. They worked during the years in which they could; but today, because of that incapacitation, they find themselves utterly deprived of the opportunity of procuring a living.
We have also laid stress upon the white-collar worker, the man in unorganized labour
who is witnessing an ever-shrinking pay cheque, with a corresponding decline in his living standards. His cry could well be, "How long,
0	Lord, how long." It is not a matter of doubt at all that within these groups we do find a great deal of hardship.
I should like to digress for a moment. I have referred to the disabled, and naturally the question of health comes to my mind. In dealing with health, I should like to refer to a newspaper report that appeared this afternoon. I am dealing with this because two years ago I had occasion to bring the same matter before the house, and, second, because the need within Canada of extended medical service is so great that every consideration must be given to an extension of these services. This article, appearing in the Journal of this afternoon, refers to the fact that refugee doctors are not eligible to enter Canada as such and are not recognized as being qualified either to practice medicine or to engage in surgery within the country.
When I spoke on this matter a couple of years ago I asserted in strong language that we had within our country many fully qualified medical men who had entered Canada either shortly before or immediately after the outbreak of the war, graduates of some of the most outstanding universities on the continent of Europe, and yet they were being forced to do clerical work in government offices in this city at a time when we were short more than 2,000 doctors, at a time when so many of our doctors were in the armed services. I thought it was a tragic thing and I pleaded with the government. I did not ask that these persons should be able to practise without an examination here; I fully recognized that this would be most essential. But here is the situation today. It is a fact that we are short 2.000 doctors in this country. I would say that, in order to establish a minimum of medical services, we need that many more doctors.
The prospective number of graduates from our medical schools cannot possibly meet the demand within a number of years. Then, of course, we find, as I have said on previous occasions, that our medical schools are making it more and more difficult for our students to take medical courses within our universities.
1	have in mind certain specific eases where, after long months of fighting, brilliant students have been permitted to enter university and forced to take two years pre-medical or science courses, and are told point-blank that, no matter where they stand in their studies at the end of two years, they cannot be guaranteed that they will be permitted to carry on and secure a degree.
1S98
The Address-Mr. Shaw

1 should like to point out what is stated in this report. I make the qualifying statement that these are not necessarily all facts contained in the report; but, whether they are or not, the onus is on the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), who is in charge of immigration, to do some explaining. It is said there are many applications from European doctors, refugees who desire to come to Canada, naturally as medical men under that category. In the report it is stated that, after a survey made with the various medical associations in Canada, it was decided that these persons cannot be accepted. Now the first thought that comes to mind is this.


Mr. MARTIN:: What is that report?


Frederick Davis Shaw: This report is based on a statement given today by the commissioner of immigration, C. E. S. Smith, to the Journal. It is stated that the medical associations were consulted and, as a consequence, the doctors cannot be accepted. It is said that notwithstanding the degree of training or the fact that they may have been specialists in certain fields, they still lack the qualifications required to practise in Canada.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that such an assertion as that strikes me as being particularly queer, knowing what I know about certain universities in Europe.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not wish to convey the impression that the federal government has any power to allow any individual to practise medicine. That lies within the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am conscious of that fact, but I am also conscious of the fact that immigration is federal; it is the federal authorities who lay down the categories of persons who are admissible under the act, and the commissioner states that they are not eligible as admissible persons if they are categorized as doctors.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: And that is federal.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I realize that when it comes to the licensing of doctors-I have stated that I expect them to write their examinations- it falls within provincial jurisdiction. But the thing I am wondering about is this. On what did they base their evidence that the graduates of these European medical schools have not the qualifications to make them eligible to practise in Canada? I happen to know a little bit about the history of medical schools in Europe, and I know it is the great ambition of medical men to take post-graduate work in Europe at some of those most outstanding

universities, and, I will even go so far as to say, some of the German pre-war university courses that were given there.
The thing I am concerned about is this. Is the Canadian Medical Association laying down regulations to the Canadian government with respect to the admission of medical doctors to this country. If they are-and I suspect that is the case-I issue this warning to them, that if they wish to escape the charge of operating one of. the most vicious closed shops in this country, or any other, then they had better change their attitude toward medical men from other countries. Moreover, if they value their personal freedom, and if they desire to escape what is taking place in England today, about which so many of them are complaining, then I warn them to change their attitude toward these immigrant doctors. If they want to retain their prestige and escape the wrathful indignation of the Canadian people they had better change their attitude. I realize that if tomorrow the Minister of National Health and Welfare were able to enter into an agreement with all the provincial governments of Canada for the purpose of establishing any kind of medical scheme, hospital scheme or general health scheme, one of the first problems with which they would be confronted would be the availability of doctors within this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just want to tell my hon. friend that the report to which he now refers-comes to my attention for the first time, and I shall look into the matter at once.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Then I shall leave it at that point. Certainly I hope the report is not correct, because I know what the reaction of the Canadian people would be to it. Possibly I should say I shall leave the matter until another time, but I assure the Minister of National Health and Welfare I do not intend to permit it to be dropped. He has given me the assurance that he will check it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What page of the Ottawa Journal is it on?


Frederick Davis Shaw: It is on page 16 of the five o'clock edition of today.
To add to the difficulties confronting the Canadian people as a consequence of low-incomes in many groups together with high costs, we have the ever-present question of taxes, both income and indirect, of which we-have always said the indirect taxes were the most soul-destroying. Of the two classes of taxation, direct and indirect, undoubtedly the greatest single factor entering into increased living costs are the indirect taxes, which have been referred to as the sales tax, as a hidden tax which includes sales tax as well as certain.

The Address-Mr. Shaw
turnover taxes and processing taxes, but which is certainly the most damaging of all. It did not escape me yesterday that the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant) made a plea to the government to abolish the sales tax. I admire the courage he showed in standing up and practically demanding that the government take this action. It has been emphasized that the government of Canada are siphoning off more than a billion dollars a year through these indirect taxes. They are taking money out of the pockets of old age pensioners, of the blind, of the incapacitated; they are taking it from the widowed mother and from the low-salaried worker, by virtue of the fact that these taxes are wrapped up in the prices of commodities these people must purchase. Of course I include also the veterans in this category. It was a former Liberal minister of finance who, in condemning the Conservative government for raising the sales tax-[DOT] I will not say I am quoting him verbatim, but this was the general tenor of his observations in the thirties-said: "It involves the imposition of every kind of tax in whatever way the wit of man can devise". Further, he referred to the cumulative effect of the tax, and emphasized the fact that the deeper one goes into this indirect tax, the more one explores the tangle it creates, the more complex that tangle becomes. It is deadening as it applies to the consumer; there is no question about that. It is even worse when applied to the machinery which goes into industry as capital goods, because there you find it charged on the new price; you find it charged every time the machinery moves from one owner to another and, as I say, in its cumulative effect it is most deadening on industry. As the hon. member for Acadia pointed out, any deadening effect an action has upon industry retards the production which is so essential at this time.
I have gone back through the records of the late twenties and early thirties. I have read some of the Liberal speeches with respect to indirect taxes, specifically the sales tax. I found that by 1929 the Liberals had reduced it from four per cent to one per cent. Of course there was an election coming up the following year. They were very proud of the fact that they had brought about this reduction and, believe me, they made it known to all the people of Canada. Then the Conservatives came into power in 1930, when times were a bit difficult. I sometimes wish the Liberals had had to conduct the affairs of state during that period; probably they would not make some of the statements we hear so frequently today with respect to the government of that time. In any event, the Conservatives found it necessary to
increase the sales tax from one per cent to four per cent and, as we sometimes say in a crude sort of way, the opposition, the Liberal party of that day endeavoured to take their hide off as a result.
What is the situation today? I should add this, perhaps. Mr. Ralston, as financial critic of the opposition of that day, said, with respect to the sales tax, "It is a detriment to trade. It is a brake on the wheels of industry." Then he went on to say that it was the men and women who were hard pressed to make ends meet who had to pay the tax. Yet we have seen that sales tax more than doubled from 1935 to the present time, and that, of course, under a Liberal administration which is collecting six times more than was ever collected1 before through the medium of that tax. In six years the records reveal that the revenue has increased some thirty times over, while at the present time the national income has increased by approximately three times. We in this group have asked for the tabling of prices of certain stable commodities in this country, showing the indirect tax content. One or two speakers from this group have stated that this information would startle the people of this country. It has been pointed out that this has been done in the British House of Commons, and we feel that it should be done here also.
On December 8, during the course of his speech, the hon. member for Peace River charged that the government's livestock policy had been little less than a national calamity. He urged the stabilization of farm income and stabilization of farm outgo. The need for that is just as great today as it was last December. In the course of his observations, the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby) indicated the disastrous effect the policy of the government had upon the livestock industry. Coming as I do from a constituency predominantly agricultural in character, of which the raising of livestock is perhaps the backbone, I have witnessed the dissemination of basic herds as a result of government policy. When the hon. member for Edmonton East stated that during the four-year period from 1943 to 1947 the number of hogs in this country declined by 2,675,000, I was completely shocked; and when he advised us that during 1947 some 300,000 brood sows were sent to market to be butchered, I was further staggered. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) may state that certain corrections have been made, but I emphasize that irreparable damage was done at that time, and it will take years to recover, if ever we are able to do so. In other words, the institution of a policy such as that of last fall, and then some effort to right it in January, 1948, is very much the same as deliberately breaking a man's
The Address-Mr. Shaw


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be as brief as possible. First of all, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the previous speaker. I think the amendment he has moved is so obviously desirable and was put so well by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) that it needs no further words of mine to commend it to the house.
However, there are a few subjects I wish to touch upon as briefly as possible. First of all, I should like to refer for a moment to two public servants who were recently, according to the press, removed from office in Alberta. Of course this is neither the time nor the place to indulge ini political recrimination. 1 merely desire to say that both these public servants have been among my intimate friends for a number of years. I would not say anything at the present time were it not for the fact that the incident has received considerable publicity in the press. I merely wish to say that it. would be impossible to find two more, honourable men or two more faithful public servants. I believe each of them has sacrificed $6,000 a year for his principles. They could have retained office, but rather than compromise on their principles they sacrificed their jobs and emoluments. Such action is not too common in these days; and were there .more men of that character in public service in the world today, I venture to say the world would not be in such peril as it is in at the present time.
Mention has been made recently of the Hong Kong affair. I am not going to bring that subject up, but I wish merely to say that, instead of digging up this corpse, we might be better employed in discussing the question of whether we may not be creating a greater Hong Kong in Palestine.
On February 17, on the orders of the day, the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) asked

The Address-Mr. Jaques
a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). The hon. member's question was as follows:
In view of the grave warning made by the Palestine commission to the security council yesterday that "a tragic and dangerous precedent" will be established if force or the threat of force is allowed to thwart the decision of the united nations, is the government prepared to accept its share of responsibility in such action as may be taken by the security council with a view to averting further bloodshed in Palestine and implementing the assembly decision?
The reply of the minister was as follows:
I listened with care to the question the hon. member has just put, because it was not quite in the terms of the notice I was handed just before I came into the house. In answer I can only state that Canada accepted full responsibility under the charter of the united nations and has at all times been pressing to have all the organs of the united nations set up in accordance with the chanter and in such a manner as to make the charter fully effective. There is no intention of not complying with the requirements both of the letter and of the spirit of the charter.
I have read that reply a great many times and I am none the wiser. I do not know what it means and I am quite sure that people who have read it do not know what it means. What I should like to know, and what I think the people of Canada would like to know is just to what we are committed in Palestine through the united nations. It is true that the united nations was supported in this house, but surely it was on .the understanding that it meant peace, not war. I think it is realized by more and more people that we are starting out on a path which may lead to war, not a local war but a world war.
I submit that the Canadian people have not been told much, if anything, about the Palestine question. I find it impossible to get the truth over to the people. The other day I made a speech on Palestine and I think it was a very fair presentation, but it received no notice whatever in the press. I made a record of a broadcast which was based on my speech and the broadcasting station in Edmonton refused to broadcast it. The other day, I think it was Sunday, I was listening to a CBC commentator. He remarked that he could find only two statements on external affairs that had been made in this house, one by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and the other by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). He must have seen my speech had he looked. I am pretty sure that the reason he did not mention it is that I did not speak in favour of political zionism and of partition.
I may say that on each occasion that I have been down on the speakers' list this 5849-121
session the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Hartt) has come over to this side and threatened me if I dared to speak on Palestine. That is true not only in this house but all over the country. How many men, how many members, how many public men and servants have attended dinners given by the Canadian Arab friendship league? I have attended two or three myself, and I know that on those occasions the key citizens in the city where the dinner took place were invited but practically none attended. They told me afterward that they did not attend because they were afraid of the smear of anti-Semitism. That is true and it is time the Canadian people understood it.
I should like to refer briefly to Czechoslovakia. I am not going into that matter in detail; I mention it merely as proof of the threat of communism, not only in Europe but on this side of .the Atlantic. I should like to know what is being done in Canada to offset that threat. Just recently a Doctor Condon was exposed by the congressional committee on un-American activities. The report of that committee states that his is not an isolated case. These people are everywhere. So far as I can learn, they always get the best and most responsible jobs. In fact I will go as far as to say that in the united nations and in the departments of the secretary of state and of external affairs to be a fellow traveller is almost the sine qua non of securing a really good job. I remember reading some time ago that the department of state of the United States had been combed and over 800 communists removed from their jobs. Of those 800, 200 were not even citizens of the United States. I should like to know how they secured those jobs.
This country is no exception. The government has information if it wishes to use it. I am not saying that in these days it is illegal to be a communist or a fellow traveller, because I know it is not, but I do say tha men who are known to have records of communistic association have no business occupying responsible jobs in this government or in any other government which is free and which hopes to remain free.
I should like to see set up in this parliament a committee on un-Canadian activities, just as they have a committee on un-American activities across the line, which has done very useful work and no doubt will do more useful work in the future. If we are to preserve our freedom I say that will have to be done, and these communists and others who are working to destroy our freedom must be put in places where they can do no harm.
The Address-Mr. Jaques

What is communism but international socialism? I came across a quotation from Mr. Attlee in October, 1934, in these words:
We-
I suppose that is the socialist party of Great Britain.
-have absolutely .abandoned any idea-


Mr. GILLIS:: Is the hon. member quoting the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) ?


Norman Jaques: No, I am quoting the present Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Right Hon. Clement Attlee, who said in October, 1934, according to the information I have:
We have absolutely abandoned any idea of national loyalty and we are deliberately putting a world order before loyalty to our own country.
When that doctrine is preached, how can you expect people to have loyalty to their own country? Does it not open the door to the international socialist or communism? Was that not exactly one of the reasons given by the royal commission on espionage for the behaviour of Canadians who seemed to think they owed a higher loyalty to international communism than they did to their own country of Canada, in spite of the fact that they were in highly paid positions of responsibility.
I think hon. members will credit me with not talking politics.
I do not think hon. members can say that I am politically biased. I seldom, in fact I never criticize any party for political reasons, so what I am going to say now I am not saying by way of political criticism. May I ask hon. members opposite wTho, I know very well, are not in favour of socialism this question: Do they realize that the economists employed by this government, by your government, in the work of economic reconstruction were trained in the London School of Economics? And may I impress upon their minds that the London School of Economics was founded for one purpose only. It was founded by the Fabian socialists-


An hon. MEMBER:: They were not socialists then.


Norman Jaques: Oh yes, and they are headed where all Marxian socialism ends, namely, in the totalitarian state.


Mr. MARQUIS:: All the members on this side are against socialism.


Norman Jaques: That is what I said, and
I am quite willing to believe that. I am only pointing out that you Liberals are being led down the path by expert economists who have

been trained in the London School of Economics, which was founded by the socialists of Great Britain about 1870 and was endowed with a million pounds sterling by Sir Ernest Cassel, who, when asked why he gave that sum to that institution, said: "It is to train the bureaucrats of the, future world socialist state." That is worthy of the consideration of all Liberals, because I am sure that all true Liberals believe in freedom.
One word about San Francisco. It came to my notice the other day-and this is an illustration of the amazing things that happen today-that the speeches of Mr. Stettinius, then secretary of state of the United States, at the San Francisco conference were written by a man named Dalton Trumbo, who has been exposed by the committee on un-American activities as a communist. Can you beat that? And that is true. There was the secretary of state of the United States making speeches that were written by a communist.
I should like to quote from a little book on Czechoslovakia, which was written some years ago. It is easy to be wise after the event, but, as I say, this book was written some two or three years ago, and it deals with the part which Mr. Benes has played in the disaster which has now overtaken that age-old democracy. It says:
But Mr. Benes had undergone a subtle transformation. In place of being a mediator for the Soviets in his capacity as Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia, he had become, as an emigree, a Soviet agent. His "Czechoslovak Liberation Movement" was simply a camouflage for an impudent communist conspiracy against the west. The British relief committee for Czechoslovak refugees, which was operating in Poland from the time of the nazi occupation of Prague (15th March, 1939) to the outbreak of the roar (1st September, 1939), wtas headed by an American communist named Field, and was composed of the following prominent members of the Czechoslovak communist party:	Comrades Jonas,
Zmrhal, Spurny, Novy, Fich, .Frichl, and Kahan.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take them as read.


Clarence Gillis: You are not doing so bad at it.	[DOT]


Norman Jaques: I continue:
They concealed their true character behind their chairman, Mr. Bernasek, who formerly belonged to Benes's socialist party. This committee sent some thousands of unpolitical Jewish refugees to Great Britain and the U.S.A., but they rvere merely the necessary cover under which were also sent hundreds of agents of the Third International, all of whom had been provided with Czechoslovak passports.


Clarence Gillis: What is the hon. member quoting from?



[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Jaques
Norman Jaques: As the first Czechoslovak "Martyrs of Democracy"-


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: I would suggest that the hon. member should tell us what he is quoting from.


Norman Jaques: I can do that if I can pronounce the name. I am quoting from a little booklet called, "The Protectorate of Czechoslovakia", by Vladimir Lezak-Borin.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Now, do you know?


Norman Jaques: I continue:
As the first Czechoslovak "Martyrs of Democracy" they soon found niches for themselves in Britain, and America as expert advisers to various liberal and conservative elements, and ,to the press and radio corporations in both countries. They wheedled their w,ay into the British and American intelligence services. They penetrated everywhere.
Yet not one single Czech or Slovak political refugee received the slightest 'assistance from the British relief committee for Czechoslovak refugees; and when a few of them reached Great Britain after the collapse of France, they were immediately interned by the British authorities, following false denunciations made by Benes' confederates that they were pro-nazi.
How many men have been murdered or liquidated?


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear that for the last fifteen minutes the hon. member has been quoting from a document which he has read into the record, and it would appear to anyone reading the record that it was his own opinion. It is not his own opinion. It is merely something that he has read into the record as coming from some other authority.
M i', JAQUES:	I expect that my own
personal knowledge of Czechoslovakia and Europe is probably as


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Limited.


Norman Jaques: limited as is that of the hon. member for Cape Breton South. At least I was born in Europe, and I have some knowledge of it.


Clarence Gillis: That is what I wanted to make clear.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask hon. members not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Norman Jaques: My own opinion would
not, of course, be of any value. I have read 5849-1214
the opinion of a man who made a report two years ago, and we have now found that what he said then has come true.


Clarence Gillis: Hear, hear.


Norman Jaques: That is what I am trying to get over to you people.


Mr. HARTT:: These are counterfeit Czechs that the hon. member is talking about.


Clarence Gillis: Question.


Norman Jaques: You just said he was a Jew.


Maurice Hartt: I did.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask hon. gentlemen not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member who has the floor to address himself to the Chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Norman Jaques: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I shall do so in the future. I am going to close with a brief quotation from one of the oldest and most respected socialists of Great Britain, Mr. Rees Davies, who said this during a recent debate in the British House of Commons:
I have always believed that under socialism the people would have more freedom. Now, we are told that a planned socialist state means control of workers. If that be so I do not want a planned socialist state. If I am told I am opposing the government I say that better this government should fall than that individual freedom should perish from this land.
(Translation):


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words before the house votes on the amendment to the amendment. During the debate, it has been held by members of the party in power that everything was fine and dandy in Canada. To display such callousness, they are surely not very hard to please. The situation is so alarming that we are showered with countless protests, from all parts of Canada, against the negligence, laissez-faire and carelessness of the government. The cost of living has become a calamity; the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) admits that unemployment is increasing. Yet, although over a hundred thousand Canadians are unemployed, we are letting in immigrants by the thousands. There is a lack of housing for our own people and veterans cannot find shelter for their families. After all the dazzling
The Address-Mr. Laenmbe

promises it had made the Liberal party now rewards their heroism by giving them a shack. The faithful hound is given a bone to chew on. The government gives only huts to our veterans. That is the way it chooses to fulfil sacred promises. "We had promised you the moon, but you must be content with a shack in which to hang your tatters. That is our way of rewarding those who have fought for Christianity, liberty and right." The government seems to talk that way to those who, by its insidious propaganda have been drawn into a horrible war which has solved nothing. Tomorrow godless Russia, with her satellites, will dominate Europe. She stabbed Poland in the back while the German hordes subdued that country, and now she continues to defy every nation, to sow the seeds of violence, misunderstanding and revolution. She organizes civil war everywhere. Missionaries have to stop preaching because the cruel and despicable communist police force places them under arrest. What is the government waiting for to ban the communist party in Canada? We must uproot the evil. Time and time again, over the years, I discussed this matter in various debates, but in view of the complicated situation and the impending threat, I felt it my duty to deal with this subject again.
Coming back to the housing problem, I contend that the government has failed in its duty. Since it raised billions of dollars for war, when will it find the few hundred millions required to build houses for our people? It becomes a national duty to deal with the housing crisis. We have had more than enough cardboard houses built at great expense to the people. What are we to think of these slums where too many families are wasting away? A hovel is not necessarily an old house. Some new barracks, where children slowly peter out or burn to death, are worse than slums.
A government who has seen fit to spend $12,000 million on the war is bound to spend at least $1,000 million on family homes. It cannot shirk its responsibilities. In all fairness, the provinces should not be left to shoulder the whole burden. The dominion government collect large amounts of revenue which, according to the constitution, rightly belong to the provinces. Let them assume their proper responsibilities and provide the Canadian people with the family homes essential to the moral and physical well-being of all. Statistics are of little avail. Let us stop fighting with figures. The time has come for

action. Let the government launch immediately an over-all housing scheme. Let them spend $500 and even $1,000 million on it. They may rely, in solving this vital problem on the support of all those who have at heart the welfare of our families and of our whole society.
Mr. Speaker, I feel highly indignant at the regrettable words which have been uttered in this house by an hon. member who is wont to carry discussion on a higher level. When a hero of the last war expresses his frank opinion on our war effort, he is showered with abuse.
Well, I cannot find words scathing enough to describe the untimely interference of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois). I shall not compare the work of the hon. member with that accomplished by the hon. Paul Sauve. Both have distinguished themselves in their respective fields. Strangely, however, his attacks on him, who at every moment was risking his life at Falaise or on the beaches of France, recalls to my mind other utterly despicable charges. At a time when hon. Sauve was fighting in France for the great principles so extolled and often dreamt up by the Liberals, that same party was shooting him in the back. The Liberals nominated an opponent in Two Mountains. My hon. friend may speak of courage all he wants. True courage I find in the hon. Mr. Sauve's heroism and steadfastness. I vainly look for it in the ill-advised statement of the hon. member for Gaspe or in the shameful attitude of tire Liberal party towards a great soldier on a firing line, which the government itself had long prepared by taking part in a war which was supposedly free, voluntary and moderate. There are none as qualified as Hon. Mr. Sauve to describe Canada's part in the war. He is no drawing room officer. His decorations and titles are well earned; he laughs at attacks of this kind. They are only scratches inflicted with a wooden sword. "What can a wooden sword do against granite? It becomes blunted and breaks."
A few moments ago I called the attention of the house to the menace of communism. The press recently informed the public of the final result of the chase after the Polish art treasures. Some of our people are really affected with a strange mentality. Instead of rejoicing, as everybody should, that these priceless works of religious art should now be safe, there are some who sympathize with the discomfiture of the illegal communist Polish government.

The Address

I/)-. Lacombe
Is it because Great Britain has important commercial relations with this atheistic, persecuting regime? The present Polish government outdoes in injustice, in usurpation, in cruelty the arrogance of Hitler. It would like to lay hands on the religious art treasures that the premier of Quebec has protected from the cupidity of this band of communists. The Polish government, which has continued to rob the Polish church of its property, would lose no time in gaining possession of these artistic treasures, which, to a great extent, belong to that church. It has found the right man to block its path. The minister of External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) claims that the Polish government is legal. It is therefore not surprising that the communist party in Canada is considered as legal and remains so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock!


James Horace King: Since it is eleven, does the hon. member intend to move that the debate be adjourned?


Liguori Lacombe: I only intend to speak for a minute or two longer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No!


Liguori Lacombe: I therefore move that the debate be adjourned.
(Text):


James Horace King: Mr. Lacombe moves the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


James Horace King: I must point out that it is eleven o'clock, unless it is the pleasure of the house to proceed with the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Mr. Speaker, it is
eleven o'clock and I hope you will call it eleven o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Bracken: Will the Prime Minister indicate the work for tomorrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Tomorrow we shall continue with this debate. If it should be concluded, there has been a pretty general expression of the desire to have the committee on veterans affairs set up at an early moment, and we might decide to take up that resolution. I would point out, however, that if the debate were a lengthy one the government would wish to go on with some other measures first; but if we can have the committee appointed within a short time it should have precedence.


John Bracken: Can the Prime Minister indicate the other measures that would be gone on with if the veterans motion were not brought forward?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is the
excise tax resolution of the Minister of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 5, 1948