1948-06-21

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the chief electoral officer certificates of the election and return of the following members, viz:
Of Owen Lewis Jones, Esquire, for the electoral district of Yale.
Of Arthur Williams, Esquire, for the electoral district of Ontario.



NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Owen Lewis Jones, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Yale, introduced by Mr. Angus Maclnnis and Mr. J. H. Matthews (Kootenay East).
Arthur Henry Williams, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Ontario, introduced by Mr. Angus Maclnnis and Mr. Clarence Gillis.
Rodney Young, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Vancouver Centre, introduced by Mr. Angus Maclnnis and Mr. H. G. Archibald.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the joint committee on the printing of parliament.-Mr. Emmerson.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk),

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has any action been taken to compensate the 18,000 merchant seamen who aided the transport of food on the Atlantic during the battle of the Atlantic?
2.	If not, what action will be taken this session ?


Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	This information may be found in the answer given to a question at page 1651 of Hansard of March 24, 1947.
2.	The question of additional benefits to merchant seamen is under discussion by the special committee on veterans affairs.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-HOTELS
Mr. MOORE:: 1.	What is the estimated cost of the new hotel being built by the ChN.R. adjacent to the central station in the city of Montreal?
2.	What is the estimated tonnage of steel planned to be used in its construction?
3.	What is the cost per ton of this steel?


Mr. WINTERS:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	The C.N.R. is not engaged in the building of a new hotel adjacent to the central station in Montreal.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.


INDIANS-TUBERCULOSIS-USE OF VACCINE
Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: 1.	Has any scientific research been made in Canada concerning the effect of the B.C.G. vaccine against tuberculosis upon Indians?
2.	What use rvas made last year of such vaccine in the case of the Indians of the province of Quebec?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1. \es. A study financed by an annual grant from the national research council was started in 1932. It has been carried on by a medical officer of the Department of National Health and Welfare, Dr. A. B. Simes of the Fort Qu'Appelle Indian hospital, under the direction of Dr. George Ferguson, medical superintendent of Saskatchewan Anti-Tuberculosis League. Since 1932, every other baby born in the area served by the Fort Qu'Appelle Indian health unit has been vaccinated with B.C.G. and records and frequent X-rays of all these cases have been carefully studied. The vaccine itself was obtained through the co-operation of Dr. Armand Frappier, of the university of Montreal. Results indicate that the vaccinated children are not as susceptible to tuberculosis infection as the unvaccinated, and of the vaccinated children who developed the disease, a higher percentage of cures is obtained than in the unvaccinated.
A report was made this year at the annual meeting of the Canadian Tuberculosis Association by Doctors Simes and Ferguson, which showed that 600 Indian children had been included in this study and that infection occurred approximately five times as frequently among the unvaccinated as among the vaccinated.
Orders for Returns

2. With the co-operation of Dr. Armand Frappier, director of the Institute of Microbiology, university of Montreal, and his assistant, Dr. Roland Guy, helped by the personnel of the directorate of Indian health services, eight reserves with a total population of 2,479 were given a tuberculin test and all the negative reactors amounting to 837 were vaccinated with B.C.G. Coinciding with this program, six field nurses of the directorate of Indian health services were given instruction in B.C.G. vaccination, so that this program can be carried on at other reserves this year. All newborn babies of these reserves were vaccinated with B.C.G. at birth. There were about 50 newborn babies who received this vaccination.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
H.M.C.S. "tEMERAIRE"-ACCIDENT AT TORONTO
['Carried as amended by the minister.']
Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Return
tabled.



Mr. BLACK (Cumberland) :: 1.	Did the government or the Department of Labour have a "dispatching building" or "hiring hall" at the port of Halifax during the war to accommodate men employed in loading cargo or for other work?
2.	If so, from whom was such building secured and what was the cost or yearly rental, stating period?
3.	What has been paid yearly for (a) equipment; (b) caretaker; (c) fuel, and to whom have payments been made?


LEGAL SERVICES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What lawyers practising in (a) city of Montreal; (b) city of Toronto; have performed legal services or have been retained as solicitors or counsel by any department of government since the 1st of January, 1947?
2.	How much has been paid to each of said lawyers?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. ISNOR:: For a copy of all letters and other communications which have passed since January 1, 1947, to the present time between the Minister of Transport or any of his officials or members of the Canadian maritime commission, and any board of trade organization, group or individual respecting appointments to the Canadian maritime commission.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I understand from the hon. member that the information he requests has to do with appointments to membership of the Canadian maritime commission and not to its personnel. If that is what is in the hon. gentleman's mind, there would be no objection.
Mr. ISNOR; The reference in the motion is to appointments to the Canadian maritime commission.


James Horace King: Carried as amended by the minister.



OATS AND BARLEY-AMENDMENTS TO WHEAT BOARD ACT

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: For a copy of all letters and correspondence that passed between the federal government and the governments of each of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba since the 1st of January, 1948, respecting the amendment to the Wheat Board Act in any manner relative to the handling of oats and barley.



PURCHASE OP FORD HOTEL BUILDING, MONTREAL

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all letters, documents, memoranda of telephone and other conversations since the 1st of January, 1947, in possession of the dominion government, regarding the negotiations concerning the offer to purchase or the purchase of the Ford hotel in the city of Montreal?



EXPENDITURES BY GOVERNOR GENERAL'S WARRANT

Mr. HANSELL:: For a copy of all governor general's warrants for expenditures other than- moneys voted by parliament as from March 31, 1947, to date.



APPROVAL OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT OPENED FOR SIGNATURE AT WASHINGTON, MARCH 6, 1948

Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved:: That it is expedient that parliament do approve the international wheat agreement opened for signature at Washington on March 6, 1948, and that this house do approve the same.

International Wheat Agreement
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution I am asking the house to approve Canada's participation in the international wheat agreement which was opened for signature at Washington on March 6, 1948, and signed on behalf of thirty-six countries, including Canada. No additional legislation is required to implement this agreement so long as the present authority remains under the Canadian Wheat Board Act or under the Export and Import Permits Act.
Formal acceptance of this agreement is required by July 1 of each of the countries whose legislative bodies have been in session since the agreement was signed. For example, I understand that the agreement is now before the United States senate for ratification as a treaty, in order that the United States government may give its formal acceptance by July 1, and in order that the agreement may become operative commencing with the new crop year on the first of August.
I think that members will be interested in hearing something of the background leading up to this agreement. I need not dwell on the pre-war period, or on the international agreements and proposals of those days, beyond pointing out that the terms of those earlier agreements were quite different from the terms of the agreement we have before us for approval today. The old idea was to influence prices indirectly by regulating or restricting supplies. The present agreement is a multilateral contract covering the sale of wheat. It is a price and quantity agreement drawn up between three exporting countries and thirty-three importing countries, and does not in any way affect additional wheat transactions, either between member countries or with non-member countries once the transactions provided in the agreement are met.
Since the end of the war, this government has consistently supported the objective of obtaining a measure of stability in international wheat prices. With the hearty support of our wheat producers' organizations we instructed our officials to further these views with other governments, both through the international wheat council and through the food and agriculture organization.
By the spring of 1946 it was apparent that an international agreement on wheat prices could not be reached in time to affect the 1946-47 crop year, and in lieu thereof Canada concluded a bilateral contract with its principal wheat customer, the United Kingdom. In the meantime, negotiations toward an international wheat agreement were continued, one conference being held in London in the spring of 1947, at which agreement was almost
reached, and the second conference being held in Washington early this year, at which the present agreement was concluded.
The agreement involves the annual sale of 500 million bushels of wheat over a period of the next five crop years, of which Canada's share is 230 million bushels. This figure represents our normal export surplus from crops grown on our existing acreage. The agreement provides for a range of prices all based on No. 1 northern wheat, in store Fort William-Port Arthur, with a uniform ceiling of $2 over the five-year period and floors commencing with $1.50 in the first year and declining by ten cents per year until the floor of $1.10 is reached in the fifth crop year. Each of the importing countries is assigned a share of the total 500 million bushels, and they have the right to buy and the exporting countries have an obligation to sell these quantities at the ceiling prices. Conversely, the exporting countries have a right to sell and the importing countries an obligation to buy these same quantities at the floor prices. In brief, this means that the importing countries have an assurance of supplies at not more than ceiling prices, and the exporting countries have the assurance of a market at not less than floor prices to the extent of the agreement quantities.
As I mentioned before, the agreement in no way affects wheat purchases by the memberimporting countries in excess of their commitments under the agreement from any source whatever, nor does it affect the sales of the member-exporting countries if they have wheat for sale in excess of their commitments. The 500 million bushels in the agreement by no means exhausts the current volume of the world wheat trade, which is running upwards of 850 million bushels per year.
It has been frequently mentioned that Argentina and Russia are not parties to this agreement. They were given every opportunity to join, but they declined. Because the agreement is in the form of a sales contract, its operation and the interests of its member countries are not affected by the absence of these two countries. Under surplus conditions, it can be assumed that Argentina and Russia will offer their wheat below the floor prices set out in the agreement. Canada, Australia and the United States, however, have the protection of floor prices on their normal export surpluses, and are free to meet Argentine and Russian competition on any additional quantities they may desire to sell. On the other hand, should the importing countries produce more of their own Wheat, their imports will be maintained from Canada, Australia and the United States, while diminishing from other sources.
International Wheat Agreement

The international agreement does not limit our rights under the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement. The fixed price of $2 per bushel for the third year of that agreement will continue in force for the 1948-49 crop year on our sales under the contract to the United Kingdom. The price for the fourth year of the contract is to be negotiated under the terms of the contract before December 31 of this year.
The agreement is noncommittal on the issue of state versus private trading between the member countries. Under the same agreement the Canadian and Australian wheat boards will continue for the present to make wheat sales for their respective countries, while wheat sales from the United States will be made by the private trade. Flour exports from each of the three exporting countries are to continue under private trade. Because of the breadth of the price ranges there is ample room for the operation of markets within the limits of the price ranges. What the agreement accomplishes is to rule out the extreme situations beyond either end of the price range which have hitherto brought undesirable consequences in their wake and which have been the main source of resentment against the open market system as it has operated in the past.
Because of the variations in our crop yields and consequent uncertainty of supplies, it has been impossible for us to deal as a single exporter with a number of our other wheat customers on the same basis as we have been dealing with the United Kingdom for the past two years. By combining the resources of the three wheat exporting countries under an international agreement, it will be possible for us to deal with all our wheat customers alike in return for like obligations on their part, and on the same terms in which they are being dealt with by the United States and Australia, if the international wheat agreement is formally accepted by the countries concerned.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this wheat agreement is very much in the interests of Canada, and I recommend its acceptance.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution
before us asks us to approve a wheat agreement between three exporting countries and thirty-three importing countries. So far as the facts are concerned the minister's statement, I think, covers the situation very well. I do not propose to take up very much of the time of the house, but the situation does deserve some comment, even though the measure will no doubt pass the house unanimously.
No one in Canada, I think, would have any opposition to the objective of this agree-

ment. The difficulty in connection with w'heat in the past has been its wide fluctuations in price, due partly to widely differing volumes of production, and sometimes to international interference. Within a very few years the price of wheat has varied from 40 cents to $3.40 per bushel. When the price is $3.40 a bushel our wheat farmers are prosperous, while those who import wheat feel very differently about the price. When it is 40 cents a bushel, or anything approaching that figure, our wheat farmers go broke and our economy becomes disturbed. It is for this reason that for more than two decades efforts have been made to lessen these wide fluctuations in price, but for the most part, I am afraid, not with much success.
The objective, I say, of this measure is most laudable. But the plan now before us is in my judgment inadequate and unfinished, and far from being a perfect instrument to meet the situation. The results, therefore, from its passage are likely to be disappointing to Canadian producers if they are expecting large results from this measure in its present form.
The minister has referred to the background leading up to the present situation. I should like also to refer to that background. As the minister stated, this is not the first wheat agreement into which Canada has entered, and it is not the first wheat agreement into which this government has entered. The experience of this government in connection with international wheat agreements has not been such as to offer much promise in the way of good results. Nevertheless, that is no argument against our continuing to try to get an instrument that will get us the results we want.
What have been the experiences of recent years? In 1942 the Canadian government entered into a temporary wheat agreement seeking to achieve some price stability when the war was over. One provision of that agreement was that if a final agreement as to price had not been completed by six months after the end of hostilities, the price charged for export wheat would be the amount received per bushel by the largest exporter for the last bulk shipment to the chief importer. It turned out that that was a shipment from Canada to the United Kingdom and the price was $1.55 a bushel. This agreement of 1942 was agreed to by several different nations, but what happened? The Canadian government alone adhered to that agreement, and no other party to the agreement did. The result was that other nations sold their wheat at much higher prices, and

International Wheat Agreement
Canada and Canadian farmers thereby lost scores of million of dollars. There were no doubt other reasons why that particular price was accepted by the Canadian government, but that agreement to which Canada alone adhered was the initiation of this price of $1.55 a bushel.
Then in the year 1946 this government entered into another international wheat agreement called the United Kingdom-Canada agreement, commonly known as the British wheat agreement. It was an agreement between those two countries providing for the sale by Canada of four crops of wheat, or the huge volume of 600 million bushels, at a price starting at $1.55 a bushel and subject during the four-year period to adjustment, but never to go below, I think, $1 a bushel. No other nation followed that policy. Every other nation sold its wheat for what it could get, and many of them got in different years twice as much, and some of them nearly three times as much, for certain sales of wheat as Canada got. Yet Canada sold at $1.55 and let her farmers take the loss.
Now we come to the present agreement of which the minister has spoken. Three exporting countries, Canada, the United States and Australia, undertake to deliver 500 million bushels of wheat per year to thirty-three importing countries under certain conditions with respect to price and amounts.
My first observation with respect to this agreement is that the Argentine is not in it. There was an earlier wheat agreement entered into in 1933, not only Canada, the United States and Australia were in that agreement, but the Argentine was in it too, and certain of the Danubian countries. That agreement of 1933 collapsed. Why? It collapsed, according to report, because the Argentine broke the terms of the agreement. Well, if the Argentine's withdrawal from that agreement, caused its collapse, what prospect is there of an agreement with the Argentine not in it at all? Not only is the Argentine not in it, but as the minister pointed out, the Danubian countries are not in it, and Russia is not in it. I am not aware that Russia was ever in any of those agreements, but certainly the Danubian countries and the Argentine were.
Let me refer now for a moment to the 1933 agreement, which was made before the present government came into power. The discussions regarding it started in 1929, almost twenty years ago. The agreement itself was consummated in 1933. The discussions arose at that time not because conditions were similar to those of today, but surpluses were depressing prices. Prices were low; the producers were concerned, and even purchasers in Europe were concerned. Because of those low prices, certain governments over in Europe, which used to import large amounts of our wheat, had put tariffs against our products until in certain of these western European countries they were paying tw7o or three times as much to their own growers to produce wheat as they needed to pay to Canada to get our wheat.
It was under these circumstances that these discussions took place. If my memory serves me correctly, five groups of exporting countries, the chief exporting countries of the world, entered into an arrangement with about tweny-five others which I might call importing countries. It might be more correct to say that the surplus-producing countries entered into an agreement with the deficit-producing countries, the countries that did not produce enough of this commodity to feed their own people.
Let me refer now to this immediate agreement. We are told that Australia has approved of this agreement, subject to the United States approval later on. I do not know whether Australia gave its approval subject to Canadian approval also, but probably that is so. Of the three exporting countries in it, only one has given it qualified approval.
With respect to the United States-now probably the most important member in this agreement-because if that country does not come into it, it will never be consummated- the matter is before the senate committee of the United States. Reports would indicate that the senate committee is not likely to give a favourable decision on the matter in time for it to be approved before July 1. I think that is the date the minister gave.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Bracken: That is ten days from now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


John Bracken: If it should not be approved by the United States within the next ten days, it will not go into effect for the present crop year.
What are the points we should examine in an important agreement such as this in order to arrive at a wise decision as to our attitude with respect to it? I suggest there are three. First of all there is the question of the price to be received by the exporting countries, and to be paid by the importing countries. The second important point is the amount to be delivered by the exporting countries and to be taken by the importing countries. The third, of course, is the prospect of its success or failure.
International Wheat Agreement

Let us look for a moment at the question of prices. We are told that during the life of this agreement the maximum price of wheat will be $2 a bushel, and that it may be as low as $1.10 a bushel. We are talking about selling one of Canada's greatest export commodities over a long period of future years at a price between $2 and SI.10 a bushel at a time when the actual price of wheat is much higher than the highest of these figures.
In the year 1946 we entered into an agreement to sell wheat at $1.55 a bushel. In one year it got up as high as $2 a bushel. In the first year of that agreement we found that the average price of wheat which was not locked up in this agreement was $2.44. In the second year of the agreement the average price of wheat not locked up in the agreement was around S3 a bushel, and we are now undertaking to tie this nation to the acceptance of a price between $2 and $1.10 a bushel when the price today is much higher than that.
In addition to that I want to draw attention to one other feature. Wheat at $2 a bushel today, with the prospect of going as low as $1.10, would be equivalent to what on the basis of pre-war values of money? Today we have a 60-cent or a 63-cent or a 65-cent dollar, or whatever it is. On the basis of prewar prices this would mean a maximum of $1.20 or $1.25 and a minimum of 66 or 70 cents. I ask hon. members, if we had been entering into an arrangement such as this prior to the war would we have agreed to a maximum price of say $1.25 and a minimum price of 66 to 70 cents a bushel? Would we have done it? I respectfully suggest that we would not. No one has any doubt as to that. The facts speak for themselves. In 1935, under a similar situation, this house approved of a policy of paying not 66 cents to 70 cents as a minimum, but paying 87i cents a bushel as an initial price. That was the price decided upon when there was a surplus burdening the market and the dollar was worth one hundred cents. At that time we said we should not sell our wheat at less than 87^- cents a bushel. If we translate the present inflationary figures to pre-war values we would be agreeing to sell our wheat at a price of somewhere between $1.25 and 70 cents a bushel. That would not have been high enough.
The agreement sets out also that Canada will provide 230 million bushels out of the total of 500 million bushels from the exporting countries. I do not think any reasonable man will criticize the share allotted to Canada. United States w'as allotted 185 million bushels, and Australia 85 million bushels, making a total of 500 million bushels. In the early agreement away back in 1933 the United States was mot the important exporting country that she

is today. She then occupied about fourth place. Today she is up to second place, and the action which that nation takes will largely determine whether an agreement of this kind will ever be consummated or whether, if it were consummated, it would be any good.
What is the chief weakness of the agreement? Some people say there is a joker in it, but I do not like that term. I do not think anyone is joking about this thing. I believe the government and the people of Canada want to find a way to lessen the wide fluctuation in prices of this commodity, which has such an important- bearing upon the stability of our economic life. But the weakness of the agreement is that some of the large exporting areas of the world are not in it. I refer to the Argentine, and to the Danubian countries, and to Soviet Russia. The chief weakness is that the Argentine is not in it.
There is another weakness in bringing this proposal forward at this time. I regard it as being in an unfinished state. I believe that any proposal that this nation is prepared to accept prices ranging from $2 down to $1.10 for wheat, suggests to the world that the price of wheat will go down, and go down pretty far and maybe pretty fast. And I am not one who believes that it is inevitable that prices will go down like that.
If the world wants this commodity it can have it, provided it is prepared >to pay the producers enough to grow it; and if it is not prepared to do that, a lesser supply will be produced, and the price will be high. I am wondering if we are not bringing on ourselves the worst of two worlds, suggesting to others that the price will go down, without the assurance that this agreement will even be entered into or that it will be successful if it is entered into. In that respect it is a shortsighted procedure.
I can summarize our position briefly on this matter. We will not- stand in the way of any efforts to arrive at some international agreement to provide some insurance against surpluses depressing prices. We will not stand in the way of any endeavour to get an agreement that will prevent these wide fluctuations which play such havoc with the economies particularly of exporting nations. We must keep on in that effort.
My second point is this. In my judgment this measure is far from a finished product. There are not enough nations in it, and particularly not enough exporting nations. The fact that the Argentine is out makes it, I was going to say, impossible to expect success from it. The fact that Russia and the Danubian countries are out makes it difficult. I am not hopeful that Russia will ever be in it, but

International Wheat Agreement
certainly the Danubian countries were in it once, and it may be difficult to get them in again. With the United States now ten days from the final date of ratification, and there being considerable doubt whether that country will ratify it this year, the chances are very slim that the agreement will go into effect this year. That is not an argument now against our indicating that something of this kind is wanted. In the position in which I find myself, it does raise doubts of its immediate need' or its eventual success. It is moving in the right direction, but I am afraid its weaknesses are not very promising for its success.
The third objection in my judgment is that the prices agreed to under these inflated conditions are too low.
If producers in Canada are counting on this agreement, in its present unfinished state, to provide anything in the way of better conditions for them, I want to be on record as indicating that, in its present state, I do not think we can expect much advantage from it. Nevertheless I agree that we must continue in these efforts and hope to reach the time when, if not all the nations, at least enough nations will stand together to see that these wide price fluctuations, which we cannot prevent unless we do stand together, are lessened.
These four or five points outline our general position on this resolution.


Mr. E. G. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I wish to speak on this subject because I think it is of greater concern than any other topic that has come before the house this session. I do so because, since I am both a producer and a consumer as well as a citizen of Canada, I think we recognize it as one of the great problems to produce and allocate food throughout the world, so that where we have a surplus it can be moved to places where food is needed.
Some of us have been greatly concerned about press reports which indicate that some of the signatories to the agreement may not ratify it before the close of the session. I speak particularly of the United States government, which has indicated that it may not sign the agreement before the close of the session of congress.
As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) has said, there have been attempts over the past fifteen years to reach some sort of international agreement between producer and consumer countries so as to allow for the intelligent flow of agricultural products to the countries that need them, and at the same time maintain a decent price to the producer.
In the western provinces we have often been forced to take our grain to the elevator and deliver it far below cost of production. I myself have delivered many thousands of bushels of oats, wheat and barley for less than it cost to produce them. As far as our own Canadian economy is concerned, we have seen in many parts of our province, as a result of low prices, that though the people did get large crops they were as hard up as other parts of the province where there was not a large production, the land being dried out.
We as producers rightfully ask that we be given cost of production for our commodity, but at the same time we wish to have these products go to the consumer at a fair price. In dealing with this whole intricate subject we have to realize that there are many phases of our economy which are interdependent in the production and distribution of foodstuffs. As I have indicated since coming to the house, one of the things we need is to put into practice the principle of the ever-normal granary. To do that we would need' to store in years of plenty at least 1,000 million bushels of wheat and other grains.
When there were short crops in the dominion we could live up to some of our international agreements, and that would be one deterrent to resistance on the part of importing countries to any sort of international agreement. However, in the past, under the open market system, we have found that when 'we had 200 million or 300 million bushels on hand, the product became a drug on the market, and prices were depressed.
In an effort to break down the negotiations for an international wheat agreement we have seen certain interests in Canada, namely the Winnipeg grain exchange, attempting to undermine those negotiations. A letter came to my office this morning from the Winnipeg grain exchange, a portion of which I intend to read to the house. The last paragraph, which makes reference to the agreement now under discussion, reads as follows:
For fifteen years a plan along those general lines has been actively promoted, but at every stage final action has failed to result because of disagreement among the nations or from nonobservance of the conditions laid down. It is a hard thing to get agreement among sovereign states and these states are bound to follow certain constitutional processes which take time. Another failure on this occasion will be but another evidence that governments are not suitable agencies for operating the details of a great commercial business like the wheat business.
If, Mr. Speaker, we are to get any basis of stability for our producers, the government must take a hand in this great operation in.
International Wheat Agreement

our country. It cannot be left to free enterprisers, or to the fluctuating markets of the grain exchange; rather we must enter into commodity agreements, preferably on a multilateral basis; whereby we can export to and import from other countries on a true value basis. It is just not intelligent to expect other countries to accept our wheat and other farm products unless we are ready to import from .those countries on a decent and equitable basis. If we try to export our commodities, as has been done in the past, and ask for a price structure which is out of line with the price we are prepared to pay for commodities from those countries, we cannot hope for any sort of workable international agreement.
I am also concerned because of what is taking place in the United States. I have in my hand a report which appears in this morning's Globe and Mail headed "U.S. wheat export will be returned to private hands." It says that the Commodity Credits Corporation are to put back in private hands the handling of wheat exports in the United States. The latter part of the article reads as follows:
A spokesman for the ECA-[DOT]
Which is the economic co-operation administration, in the United States, administering the Marshall plan for aid to Europe.
-says the move to put wheat exports back into private hands -would be completed within a month. The committee is agreed that the change should be made as soon as possible. The report of a fairly large wheat crop in the United States has encouraged1 the committee to act more quickly.
Here we have seen perhaps some success on the part of private individuals to thwart the efforts toward international agreements handled by governments. I think that if once more this international agreement is washed up, so to speak, we shall be back into the cutthroat competition we had prior to the last war; indeed, it will be a large factor in creating world conditions which tend toward another world war.
Among the people who want such agreements as this wheat agreement, we have the international federation of agricultural producers. At their second annual conference, held in Paris this year, they unanimously passed a resolution calling on all governments to sign the agreement, and the agreement now under discussion is the one referred to. That conference passed three resolutions which I intend to read to the house. They are as follows:
(a)	It is essential that effective machinery should be provided to deal with surpluses which may develop, to ensure that they are directed to the areas of the greatest need, and that such surpluses should not be allowed to undermine the world price structure.

(b)	In conformity with these aims IFAP should exert the utmost influence with the appropriate international authorities, and through its members, with national governments, in order that such machinery should be in a position to operate before such a situation arises.
(c)	For this purpose the executive committee and the secretary-general are requested to initiate immediate studies in an effort to develop a practical plan capable of accomplishing these aims as nearly as possible.
I am in full accord with those resolutions.^ I feel that unless we can plan, both in Canada and in the international picture, for such agreements as are indicated in those resolutions, we cannot hope for world peace.
I remember that when I was attending high school, one of the things that history taught us *was that the first great war was caused by a fight for world markets. That is what we shall have again unless we can truly say that we are a Christian nation. Unless we can say that we want to move our surplus food from Canada to other countries so that hungry people may get it at reasonable prices, and at the same time protect our producers by handling this matter on a national basis, we cannot truly say we are a Christian nation. If -we once more allow the Winnipeg grain exchange to operate, then once again the producers of this country will be at their mercy.
I want to give full support to this measure. I am convinced that there are many dangers connected with it, simply because we have not seen fit to set up our own internal economy, and to establish appropriate import-export boards to handle such commodities as wheat and others which enter into the field of world trade.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that we in this group believe in the principle of long-term international wheat agreements. We believe that such agreements are essential to the welfare of both the consuming and the producing nations. We believe they are in the interests of the consuming nations in order to guarantee adequate supplies of food at fair prices, and we believe they are in the interests of the producing nations in order to guarantee markets at fair prices. Moreover, we believe that under such a program it should be possible to build up adequate reserves of food in good crop years to cover shortages that may occur in short crop years. It should be possible, moreover, to build up those reserves without allowing them to be used as an excuse to force prices down, as has invariably been the case under the open market system in the past.

International Wheat Agreement
When the minister spoke in this house upon the introduction of this measure, as reported at page 2004 of Hansard, he concluded with these remarks:
By balancing the interests of both producing countries and consuming countries in an agreement covering the bulk of the world's trade in wheat, the agreement represents a major development in international economic co-operation.
I do not think there is any doubt that this agreement represents a major development in international economic co-operation. It represents many years of striving on the part of farmers to obtain an international agreement. No matter what may be said about this agreement, I think most farmers will be glad to know that for the next five years at least they have a guarantee of a minimum price, even though that price may be considered too low.
On the other hand I think it would be a great mistake for the farmers to place too much reliance upon this agreement, because it has a number of major weaknesses. I wish to deal with what I consider to be two of its chief weaknesses.
In the first place, there is no guarantee that the importing nations will be able to buy the wheat that they undertake to buy under t'he agreement. In the second place, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the interests of the producing and consuming countries under this agreement will be balanced, as stated by the minister.
The main essential of sound international trade policy is the right of a nation to pay for its imports with its exports. No agreement can succeed which flouts that fundamental economic principle. That is why the Bretton Woods agreement has failed, and that is why it will fail in the future, as all previous multilateral trade agreements have failed- because they compel the importing nation to pay either in gold or in the currency of the exporting nation, instead of allowing the importing nation to pay with its own goods.
If the nations desiring our wheat under the agreement are unable to secure dollars, they will be unable to pay for that wheat; and they may very well seek to get that wheat elsewhere, using the currency of soft currency countries. On the other hand they may seek, as they did after the first war, to become more self-sufficient.
It is true that under the agreement provision is made whereby the quota of a country which cannot meet its commitments may be allocated to other countries. But suppose Great Britain were unable to meet its commitments, and we had to redistribute its quota of 170 million bushels; obviously the
whole agreement would collapse. Yet Great Britain has had great difficulty in finding the dollars to pay for food under agreements we have already made with her, and it is probable that that same situation may develop in the future and become aggravated.
Then, on the second point-does the agreement balance the interests of the consuming and producing nations?-I would say that if it does, it will be purely accidental, because the whole international agreement as laid down at the present time is nothing more or less than a gamble. The nations under this agreement are guessing future values instead of establishing them on a basis of fact. By their haphazard methods they may very well discredit what is in reality a sound principle. Because if this agreement fails and becomes discredited, we all realize it will be very difficult to get another wheat agreement in the future.
The agreement establishes the following basis for the price of wheat; For 1948-49 a minimum price of $1.50 and a maximum of $2; that maximum continues throughout the agreement until 1952-53; the minimum price is reduced ten cents each year, so that by 1952-53 the minimum will be only $1.10 a bushel. How do we know that that will be a fair basis or a fair price upon which to establish prices? If the price levels of other goods remain up in 1949, 1950 and 1951, why should the minimum price be dropped ten cents in each of those years? The price level may go higher, or it may drop; but to say that the minimum price shall be dropped ten cents each year, without any regard for general price levels, is gambling upon the future, and it is not a sound basis upon which to establish a minimum price.
On the other hand, if the price level rises, why should the ceiling be held at $2 during that period? Many people today are comparing this agreement with the British wheat agreement. I should like to emphasize one essential difference between this and the British wheat agreement. This wheat agreement is supposed to be a straight business deal between nations, while the British wheat agreement was not. The government asked the house to support the British wheat agreement more or less as a moral obligation, in order that we might give Great Britain wheat at a fair price, or at a low price, having in mind the great sacrifices that country made during the war. At the time the British wheat agreement was discussed in the house, we in this group said that we would support it as a moral obligation, but as a moral obligation of the Canadian people as a whole,

International Wheat Agreement
and that any losses suffered under that agreement should be borne not by the farmers only, but by Canadians as a whole. We pointed out that it would be Canada's responsibility.
On the other hand, at that time the government said that the losses of the first years would be offset by the gains in later years. I do not think anyone would care to argue that way today. It is evident now that as a result of the British wheat agreement the farmers of this country will have suffered losses amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. I have in my hand a letter I received from H. G. L. Strange, date March 15, 1948, in which he says:
My department has recently figured them out-
He is referring to losses.
-from August 1, 1946 to March 4, 1948. The difference between the $1.55 for our wheat sold to Britain and the price at which our class II wheat was sold 'by the board to all countries of the world comes to $306,62)1,592', and the additional losses for the same period on wheat sold to our millers to be made into bread and flour for domestic consumption comes to $157,338,060 or a total of $463,959,592, because of the low' price set under the British-Canadian wheat agreement. The loss will be still greater I fear by July 31, next, which will be the end of the second year of the British-Canadian wheat agreement.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Could we have got the price for all our wheat that we got for our class II wheat?


Victor Quelch: That is based upon a comparison between $1.55 and class II wheat.


George Hugh Castleden: Is there any indication that we would have got a higher price for all our wheat than we got for class II wheat?


Victor Quelch: In view of the fact that Great Britain needed wheat, she would have been a bidder for it, and that would have held the price up. There is no reason to think that the world price would have been less, because if Great Britain had not bought wheat from us under the agreement she would have bought it on the open market. Wheat was in short supply.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Britain is buying wheat from other countries today at a price greatly above the price of Canadian class II wheat.


Victor Quelch: Yes; the world price is considerably higher.


George Hugh Castleden: Great Britain would
have had to pay it.


Victor Quelch: Yes; therefore we sold her cheap wheat as a moral obligation, and I say it is the responsibility of the Canadian people.

The cost should be borne by the Canadian people, and not by the Canadian farmer, as has been the situation up to the present.
It is evident that if the losses suffered by the farmers during the first two years of the agreement were to be offset, the price of wheat during the last two years would have to fall far below a dollar. That is obviously impossible, in view of the fact that the nations are agreeing to a minimum of $1.50 for this year.
Some may say: You must admit that it was as a result of the British wheat agreement that nations agreed to the new w'heat agreement. But the reason we are getting this new agreement has nothing to do with the British wheat agreement, because Britain was the only country which got cheap wheat, while all other nations had to pay world prices. So that we could have got this agreement just as easily, whether we had embarked upon the British wheat agreement or not. It cannot be argued therefore that this has to be taken in conjunction with the British wheat agreement.
As the Canadian government entered into the British agreement undoubtedly in order to give Great Britain cheap wheat, it is up to the government to pay to the farmers the difference between the price obtained from Great Britain and that obtained for class II wheat. Of course the same applies to wheat sold for domestic consumption, because it is being sold at the same price as wheat sold to Great Britain.
In signing the British wheat agreement and giving Great Britain cheap wheat, the government no doubt expected that the price of wheat would fall. They had in mind what happened after the first great war, and no doubt they expected that the same thing would happen after this war. It is now up to the government to pay the farmers the money they lost in the gamble. I urge the government to stop gambling in that way. Mind you, I am not criticizing the idea of a long-term international wheat agreement, but I am criticizing the basis upon which the price is being established. We feel that in a long-term international agreement the price should be established on the basis of parity rather than by guessing at future values. Under the agreement there is no relationship between the guaranteed price and the future price levels of other commodities.
We feel that an international wheat agreement should be a sound business proposition based upon realities and not upon guesswork. We feel that there is a sound basis for agreement. Nations can agree upon fair prices for the first year; seldom is there any difficulty in arriving at a fair price for the first year.

International Wheat Agreement
because you know the prices of other commodities and you can reach an agreement. But just as soon as you try to set a price for future years you run into guesswork unless you use some yardstick. We insist that in establishing a price for future years it should be tied to the general price level of the importing country; it should be based on the rise and fall of the price level of the importing country. That would unquestionably be parity. Then our exports of wheat to that country would buy from year to year a comparable amount of that country's goods. For instance, if we export wheat to France and in the first year the agreement price is set at 12 per bushel, then the price for future years should be based upon the price level. If the price level in France went up ten per cent, automatically the price of our wheat would go up ten per cent. If the price level in France went down ten per cent, then the price of wheat would go down ten per cent. The result would be that the exports of wheat to that country would bring back the same amount of imports. In other words, you would be establishing the future price upon parity instead of guesswork.
We feel that such a policy would help to insulate the Canadian economy against external fluctuations in the price level, and would thereby facilitate the setting of a parity price for wheat internally, which of course might vary from that obtained under the international wheat agreement. The internal price would not necessarily be the same as the price externally, but there would be a relationship between the price level in Canada and the external price level.
If the objection is raised that that proposal would mean bilateral agreements when we are trying to get multilateral agreements, let me point out that there would be nothing to prevent the exporting countries from trading the credits obtained in any one country for those of another country-that is, where it was not feasible to take payment of goods from the country to which the wheat had been exported. There is nothing unique about the proposal I have been elaborating. It is similar in principle to that which has been proposed for many years by the London, England, chamber of commerce, a body which perhaps has had more experience in international trade than any other commercial body in the world.
There are many points in this agreement which I think need clarification. I understand that the agreement will not be passed this year in the United States, and I cannot see the need for rushing the matter. So far as Great Britain is concerned, we are tied up for another two years, and we would have no difficulty in that regal'd. Therefore I urge the minister to send
this resolution to the banking and commerce committee in order that we may have a thorough discussion of some of the points to which I have referred, and also other points which I have not mentioned.
The question of price is most important. We in this group do not consider that the basis upon which the price in this agreement has been established is sound. It is purely a gamble. It may work out all right, but on the other hand it may place great hardship upon the farmers of this country. No doubt the government hoped that the prices guaranteed in the British wheat agreement would work out fairly well. I have had talks with different members of the government, and they admit frankly that they expected that the world price of wheat would fall. It did not fall, and as a result the British wheat agreement has cost the farmers of this country around half a billion dollars. That is too great a sum to expect any body of workers in this country to pay. The farmers still hope that the government will make up that loss, but so far we have not had any statement.
We should not make a similar mistake with this new agreement. I have indicated one way in which we can avoid doing that-by tying the price of our wheat to the price level of the country to which we export, so that our exports will at all times bring back to this country a comparable amount of imports, which in reality means nothing more or less than parity prices on an international level.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, no doubt hon. members from the western prairies will wonder why a member from the maritimes is taking part in a discussion on the wheat agreement, but I can assure them that this wheat agreement is of real interest to all parts of Canada, particularly the eastern section, of which I have the honour to represent one portion.
The international wheat agreement is really a sales agreement which has been entered into by thirty-six countries, thirty-three of which are importers and three of which are exporters. I was at a loss to understand the remark of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) to the effect that there were too few exporting countries in the agreement. I would have thought that the fact that there were just three exporting countries would make our position that much stronger, because we would have thirty-three countries to which to sell. In making a sales agreement of any kind the endeavour is usually to cover as great a field and to secure as many customers as possible.
I rose more particularly to discuss the matter of transportation. On June 11, when the estimates of the bureau of statistics were

International Wheat Agreement
under consideration, I endeavoured to bring up this matter of transportation as it affects the wheat agreement. I was quite properly called to order by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and I accepted the ruling that I was wrong in attempting to bring it up at that time. I am therefore taking advantage -of this opportunity to place before the minister and the house one or two points that I have in mind.
The first point I should like to draw to the attention of the minister has to do with the basis upon which the prices are established, that is, No. 1 northern in store Fort William-Port Arthur. While the prices are based on Fort William-Port Arthur, I think there should be a definite relationship to the Atlantic and Pacific ports for shipping purposes. We should at all times have a sufficient quantity on hand at those ports to avoid a situation similar to that which arose last year and which was referred to in the British house by Conservative members of parliament.
I shall refer to that in just a moment, but before doing so I should like to ask the minister to take into consideration one or two points which I wish to mention specifically in connection with the clauses of the agreement.
The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), who is always interesting and presents an intelligent picture of matters pertaining to wheat and the west generally, is in accord, I was pleased to note, with the general principles of this agreement, and favours the action being taken by the government. From a business standpoint Canada is indeed fortunate in being able to enter into an agreement under which she will sell twenty-three fiftieths of the total 500 million bushels.
I wish to refer the minister to clause 7 of the agreement, to be found on page 10, which deals with the records to be kept. It says.
The council shall prescribe the records which shall be kept of the transactions reported in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6 of this article.
I am anxious to know whether that clause will be interpreted as applying to the total grain on hand in the various elevators, including, as we would naturally expect, the elevators at Atlantic ports. To us that is an important thing which should not be overlooked in this agreement. It should be clearly understood that the records shall be interpreted as referring to the elevators at the shipping ports, particularly in the extreme eastern section of our country.
I want to couple with that the definition of "f.o.b." in article XIX on page 34 of the agreement. Paragraph 7 of the definitions says:
" 'F.o.b.' means free on board." If that means

the price quoted at any Atlantic or Pacific port, it answers one of the questions I have in my mind, and perhaps the minister would be good enough to say later whether or not my interpretation is correct.
Paragraph 11 of the definitions defines "marketing costs" thus:
"Marketing costs" means all usual charges incurred in procurement, marketing, chartering, and forwarding.
I again contend that this wheat should be transported direct to the nearest port to Europe, in other words to the nearest port on the Atlantic which will give the cheapest transportation by water. I need not point out to the minister that Halifax to Liverpool is the shortest route; under this agreement, therefore, the port of Halifax will expect a greater shipment of wheat than we have had in the past.
Paragraph 13 of the definitions defines "stocks":
"Stocks" means in Australia, Canada, and the United States of America the total of the stocks of old wheat held at the end of their respective crop-years in all elevators, warehouses, and mills.
And so forth. Again I urge upon the minister that he make use of that clause to see that we on the Atlantic coast have our elevators at all times filled to take care of the requirements of ships which enter our ports from time to time and which sometimes have been unable to procure the shipments we so urgently require.
This shortage of wheat shipments from Atlantic ports was brought up in the British house, as reported in the Halifax Herald of June 8, 1948:
Critical of at least two phases of the British government's policy of buying wheat in bulk to meet national needs, the Conservative party in Britain raises one point of particular interest to Nova Scotia generally and to the port of Halifax in particular.
After discussing the arrangements covering a four-year period, in the course of which a tribute is paid to the Canadian farmer who receives less than the market price for his wheat, the party's statement says Canada fell short on deliveries in 1945, though other countries received proportionately more than their share. Then it adds:
"When the St. Lawrence froze, the government had to make frantic efforts to ship wheat from Pacific ports, which must have meant an addition of 10 to 15 cents a bushel to the cost."
I think the minister was aware of that situation last year. It was treated with a certain amount of humour by members from the east, but at the same time it was serious. Of course there is no such thing as the freezing of Halifax harbour. The same thing applies to some extent to Saint John, but so far as Halifax is

International Wheat Agreement
concerned we do not know what it is to have an ice-bound harbour. I urge upon the minister that he take into consideration and make provision in the agreement by which we shall have proper protection.
The article goes on to refer to that official statement, that we were unable to ship from eastern Atlantic ports, and says:
At that the gap was such that wheat purchases had to be made in the Argentine at $3 a bushel!
Nova Scotia will recall the situation, as it developed in the autumn of 1946, as it was disclosed in the British House of Commons by Food Minister Strachey. He said at that time that he had pressed the Canadian government to hasten deliveries. He said that he had urged the Canadian government to use Canadian Atlantic ports because shipping was short and it was costly in terms of shipping alone to move the wheat by way of the Pacific and Panama.
I recall that at that time I took the liberty of personally wiring the Hon. Anthony Eden, pointing out that Halifax harbour was always free of ice, that I hoped this fact would be made clear to the British food minister and others interested, and that we would have no more official statements such as that so far as Halifax was concerned. The article goes on:
But no wheat moved. Finally the situation became so grim that the British government had to appeal to the United States transportation authorities to expedite shipments of Canadian wheat by way of United States railways and ports.
Again I take exception. There is no need of that. From time to time I have advocated, and I emphasize this point, that there should be a clause in every wheat sale agreement made by Canada that the shipments be made through our own Canadian ports. If we are selling the goods, surely we are in a position to say: Yes, we will give you the agreed price at an Atlantic port. I would urge upon the minister that he take that into his serious consideration as an amendment to the present agreement.
Again I say I am pleased that Canada is not waiting for the United States but is now taking steps to seek the approval which I feel sure the house will give to this agreement. Some have advocated that we should wait until the United States has made its position clear. But I say this is a good, clear-cut sales agreement, covering a four-year period, and representing 230 million bushels of wheat, and that we should by all means take advantage of the agreement by approving it as soon as possible.
Hon. members have brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) this matter of shipment through
Canadian ports. Had the present Minister of Trade and Commerce held the office that he holds today we might have had more definite action, and action which would have helped us. No explanation was ever forthcoming from Ottawa in respect of the complaint I raise as to why shipments of wheat were made over United States railways and through United States ports. Perhaps even at this late date the Minister of Trade and Commerce will tell us why that happened, and guard against such occurrences in the future.
I think I have accomplished what I had in mind. I did not deal with the question of the price of wheat. I am not in a position to do that. There are wheat growers in the house who know whether these prices are fair and whether a long-term policy is a good one. I ask the minister to give every consideration to the transportation of Canadian wheat through Canadian ports.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the presentation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) this morning in respect to the international wheat agreement. He pointed out that it was necessary for the various countries to ratify the agreement not later than July 1 in order that it may operate for the 1948 crop year. He said that this agreement provided for a ceiling price of $2 a bushel, and that the floor price ranged from $1.50 down to $1.10 a bushel. That is not the net figure to the farm producer. I would judge it would average about 20 cents a bushel less than that, net to the farmer, if the agreement is carried out.
It seems rather strange that we should be tying into an agreement such as this at a time when there is a great scarcity of wheat in the country and prevailing wheat prices are much higher than $2 a bushel on the world market. In fact during the past year wheat has sold at considerably over $3.40 a bushel, which is a great deal higher than $2 a bushel.
In recent days I have been in touch with a number of millers, especially in western Canada, whose plants are closed down because they cannot purchase wheat to mill into flour. This is a serious state of affairs for these mill operators. The majority of the small private millers have their plants actually closed today because they cannot purchase wheat in the country with which to make flour. That is also true of the flour export business. It proves that at this particular time there is a great demand and a great shortage of wheat in this country.
The minister said that Australia and Canada would handle all their wheat through their wheat board. That means that under present

International Wheat Agreement
government legislation, all wheat in Canada will be handled compulsorily through the Canadian wheat board. The farmer has no choice other than to deliver his wheat to the wheat board at the prices set by the board. Of course these prices are agreed to or set by the cabinet committee, which is in charge of the Canadian wheat board. I repeat, it is a compulsory method; the farmer has no choice. On the other hand, the United States government has told its people that the open market will be continued in that country, and if the price in that county, or the world price, is considerably over $2 a bushel, the wheat producer of the United States of America will receive the existing price at whatever figure prevails over the $2. In fact, in that respect the United States Department of Agriculture on May 25 announced a government loan or support price for the 1948 crop as follows: Chicago, S2.25 a bushel; Minneapolis, $2.22 a bushel; Kansas City, $2.20 a bushel, and Portland, Oregon, S2.15 a bushel. This means an average loan rate on wheat to farmers on their farms of $1.96. The farmer in the United States is guaranteed that, no matter where the price may fall, because he receives the loan, and he receives on top of that at a later date whatever is obtained over and above that figure. He may receive a great deal more than the $1.96 that he is guaranteed. Therefore hon. gentlemen will readily see how much more fortunate the wheat producer in the United States is than the farmer in this country is and has been throughout the crop years.
I have to agree almost entirely with the speech delivered by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Queleh) this morning. He handled the situation very well. I agreed with him when he said that the wheat farmers of this country have made altogether too great a contribution to the consumers of Great Britain, and also to the consumers of Canada. He pointed out that it was not a straight business deal, that we had to do something to assist Britain. With that we all agree, and I have always agreed that that contribution should be made. Let me repeat what I have often said: the contribution should have been borne by all the taxpayers of this country, and not by one class of people.
In another debate on May 26 I gave a list of figures showing what it would cost the farm producers of this country. For the first nine months of 1947-48 crop year alone, under the United Kingdom wheat agreement, our farmers lost $191,891,763. That is the difference between what they received and what they might have received, had they received the average class II price of wheat. The prices were averaged month by month from August 1, 1947, to

April of this year-nine months. On the same basis, on the flour and wheat used for consumption in Canada they lost another $8,401,104, a total of $274,292,867 in the first nine months of this crop year. No other producers in Canada are asked to contribute on that basis, nor were they throughout the war years. That policy is continuing, and we do not know how long it may continue in the future. It has been most unfair.
I also pointed out, then, that if the proposed wheat agreement went into effect, it would be absolute proof that the farmers, who continue in the future to operate under this policy would never have an opportunity to regain that very great loss running into many hundreds of millions of dollars. I am satisfied that that is the situation. I agree that over the past fifteen years these nations have been trying to work out an international wheat agreement, and that many farmers of this country want something of that kind. I do not think any farmer will be satisfied wdth these prices under these conditions.
I remember the argument we had on the United Kingdom wheat agreement. Along with many other hon. members of this party I argued that with the rising costs at that time it would be disastrous for the farm producers of this country, and as I read the statements over and over again I find that every word of the prophecy has come true, and much more. The costs of the wheat producers are rising daily. Not long ago an average increase of 21 per cent across the board was granted in freight rates. I will admit that that increase does not apply to wheat, but this parliament permitted that increase.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Not parliament.


James Arthur Ross: Parliament stood by the board which passed it. Parliament did not do anything about it. The board, under this government, passed the freight rate increase. I agree that all of the opposition parties tried their best to prevent it and have something done about it. That increase will enter into the cost of everything that the wheat producer buys in this country. The cost of the oil that he uses in his tractor has increased at least fifty per cent in the past year. These costs are increasing all the time. Every time somebody talks about another inquiry into freight rates or something of the kind, the oil companies increase the cost of their products. There have been periodical increases right along. I am sure we have not yet reached the peak. Every few months sees an increase in the cost of farm machinery.
I want to see the farm worker get everything possible. I have always been in favour of the

International Wheat Agreement
workers of the country obtaining all they can, but all these things enter into the cost of production. According to the bureau of statistics, the farm labourer receives three times as much in farm wages today as he received in 1939. There are many other items I might mention, the prices of which the economists of this country say have not yet reached the peak in Canada. These must all be taken into consideration.
I say, therefore, that when you ask people who have borne such a heavy loss since 1939, and who are bearing the burden today, to sign this international wheat agreement, under which the maximum they will receive will be $2-and even that not net, since it will be twenty cents less than that, with a minimum of $1.10-you are providing that these wheat producers shall continue to suffer this great loss for many years to come.
I am sure that, while they want an international wheat agreement, the people who ask for one will not be as satisfied with the prices set forth in that article. If the government are determined to ratify this agreement at the present time, I must say that I see no urgency about it; because, as was pointed out by my leader this morning, the United States, through its senate committee, is now considering the matter, and if that committee reports favourably, -which I doubt,.it will require a vote of two-thirds of the senate of the United States before the agreement can become law. Only ten days are left to the first of July, and according to press reports they do not intend to have a report in before that date. Therefore I fail to see the urgency of ratifying this agreement.
Australia has ratified the agreement with the proviso that its signature stands only if the United States government ratifies it by the first of July. Surely, if this government is determined to ratify the agreement at this time, it will adopt a similar proviso. I suggest to the minister that he amend the resolution by adding a clause, "subject to ratification and approval by the senate or other competent legislative body of the United States of America". I hope the minister will do that. I was prepared to move such an amendment, but I have suggested similar amendments in the past and they have been ruled out of order at a stage in debate corresponding to this. I understand that this resolution is not going through committee stage. We are merely discussing it on this motion. Judging from past rulings of the Chair, I think I would be out of order in moving such an amendment, but I appeal to the minister as earnestly as I can to insert in the resolution a proviso such as I have suggested. I do not think the agreement should be ratified without some such safeguard. I hope the minister will adopt that suggestion.
I have no wish to take up much more time.
I have pointed out how unfair it will be to the farm producers of the country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Are you going to vote for it?


James Arthur Ross: No, I am not; not personally as the measure is now drafted. I have also pointed out that when the minister intimated to me before that we had voted for the United Kingdom agreement he could not show me in Hansard any record of the fact. He could not point out where we had ever voted for it, and at the first opportunity, under his predecessor's estimates, we argued against the agreement. I repeat that assertion now. He has not been able to find in Hansard anything to show that we acted at that time as he suggested.
I wanted to bring these points to the attention of the house. Many members, I suppose, are tired of hearing me discuss wheat, but I was sent here to represent the people of one of the finest wheat producing constituencies in the west, and my first duty is to my constituents. They are divided on the subject. Many are not satisfied with the agreement as drawn; even those who favour an international agreement embodying some general principle are opposed to this particular agreement as drawn.
If the minister and the government are determined to pass this agreement, I hope they will consider a proviso such as I have suggested. a proviso which I would have moved myself if it were in order for me to propose such an amendment at this stage.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the agreement before us is to assure supplies of wheat to thirty-three countries and to assure a market to the three countries which, under the agreement at the present time, will be the producer countries. I would like to point out to the last speaker, who suggested that Canadian legislation will be passed, subject to ratification of the agreement by the United States government, that at page 36 of the international wheat agreement there is this provision:
This agreement shall be subject to formal acceptance by the signatory governments. Instruments of acceptance shall be deposited with the government of the United States of America by July 1, 1948'; provided, however, that an additional period shall be allorved by the council for the deposit of instruments of acceptance on behalf of those importing countries which are prevented by a recess of their respective legislatures from accepting this agreement by July 1, 1948,

International Wheat Agreement
We support any move which will assist in the proper distribution of foodstuffs throughout the world. It is significant that the international federation of agricultural producers of the world has supported this agreement. It is an effort on the part of producers and consumers to distribute properly the essentials of life without the gambling that goes with the open market system, of which we have had too much in the past, and still have. We regret the news items which indicate that this agreement will not likely go into effect at all because the congress of the United States will not sign it.
The world is moving away from the old ideas which prevailed in connection with the grain exchange open market and the cotton exchange. It is moving towards the place where distribution of the essentials of adequate living shall be made to all people, and privileged groups shall not have the power to gamble with these essentials and extract for their own benefit large profits to the detriment of producer and consumer. Because, therefore, this is a step in that direction, we support it with everything we have.
World prices are becoming a myth. People talk about the losses Canada has suffered because of failure to sell commodities at world prices. These have not been world prices. What are world prices? Prices quoted on the Chicago stock exchange are not world prices; and as for what Canada has lost in this regard, I would like those people who have been talking about the loss to Canadians in the past under the United Kingdom agreement to compare the prices at which producers in Canada sold their commodities on the grain exchange with prices on the world market over the past fifty years, adding up all that was produced and sold at the low prices to the line elevators. Compare the prices there with the prices at which the Winnipeg grain exchange sold the produce, not to mention prices which might have prevailed in the United States. The Canadian producer never got the grain exchange prices of the United States.
This agreement commits Canada to a five-year distribution or export of 230 million bushels a year, the United States to 185 million bushels a year, and Australia to 85 million bushels a year. The producers support this principle, because, in spite of the fact that prices are low, there is an element of stability which they never had before.
I am not satisfied with the prices, cost of production being what it is today. The Canadian producer stands to lose heavily by it if costs continue to rise. I would point out,

however, that there is an arrangement for adjustment in the last three years of the agreement. The world has not been producing foodstuffs to the extent that we expected after the last war, but it is possible that within the next five years we shall see a great deal of production. I do not think the farmers should have to take the risk of the loss involved in the difference between their cost of production and the prices which may prevail here. I believe, with the hon. member for Acadia, that Canadian prices should be tied up with cost of production and commodity prices within our own country. That is a valuable suggestion, and I agree that it would be a good thing for the Canadian government to guarantee the Canadian producer a tying-up of the domestic market prices and the foreign market prices so as to afford him cost of production with a little margin. If we have not this agreement, are we going to allow the grain exchange to handle our produce? That is the alternative to which the average producer objects, and that is why he supports this move in the direction of stability such as he has not had in the past.
Those who oppose the agreement do not offer any satisfactory alternative. If things are left as they are, what guarantee has the farmer? He will go back to the old conditions. The grain exchange give him a price one day and get him to deliver his produce. He has now sold it. They manipulate the market, and the price goes up. The grain exchange buyer sells the commodity to the consumer at a high price, pockets the difference, so the Canadian consumer and producer lose. That is what makes producers in Canada and producers all over the world support something which will give them stability. On the basis of that principle we are supporting this measure with everything we 'have. If those who oppose it have something else, let them bring their proposition forward and let us support it.


James Arthur Ross: How much wheat are you going to market through that agreement?


George Hugh Castleden: How much wheat are we going to market?


James Arthur Ross: You.


George Hugh Castleden: How much am I going to market?


James Arthur Ross: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Just about as much as the hon. member for Portage la Prairie.


Mr. MILLER:: I take issue with that.


George Hugh Castleden: I regret that the board has not been assigned the handling of the flour portion of this agreement. The agree-

International Wheat Agreement
ment provides that Canada can export flour in place of wheat. I think it operates on the basis of some seventy-two pounds of flour in place of one hundred pounds of wheat. I do not see any reason why we should not do the same thing with flour as we do with wheat- link the two together and let the Canadian board handle the whole thing.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Before I say what I wish to say in connection with this bill, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal first with one or two points that were raised by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden), and also with some raised by the minister.
In the first place, most of the objections I take to this agreement are based on the fact, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), that the farmer is being tied to a maximum price fixed over a period of five years for the commodity which he has to sell, without any assurance that the commodities which enter into his cost of production will not rise to greater heights than those to which they have risen today. It seems to me that I, as a lawyer, or the hon. member for Yorkton, as a school teacher, would hesitate to enter into a contract for the next-five uncertain years. I think he, as a school teacher, if he were not a member of parliament, would hesitate to take a contract, for the sake of security and stability which provided that he should be paid only $200 for his teaching year. That would mean security and stability, but it would be a mighty poor living for the hon. member for Yorkton. I know of no lawyer who would wish to contract himself, for the next five uncertain years, into the position of working for fees below the cost of doing business, as the farmers are now being asked to do if this international agreement ever becomes an actuality.


George Hugh Castleden: It would be better than what he got under the grain exchange.


Calvert Charlton Miller: The hon. member for Yorkton refers to the grain exchange. I can remember earlier days when my hon. friend was not so much concerned about the rights of farmers. I can well remember the days of the pioneers in the area from which I come-and it is a splendid area-when the people did not have the benefits of the grain exchange; when they brought their grain thirty or forty miles to Portage la Prairie and offered it by the box load or the sleigh load on the streets. I know of many old timers in Portage la Prairie who do not join with the hon. member for Yorkton in condemnation of the grain exchange. I know of men of just as good
5849-354J
judgment as the hon. member for Yorkton, but with greater farming interests than he has, who even in this day and age of the wheat board, or anything else that we have, would hesitate to see the grain exchange put out of business.
I never traded one bushel of wheat on the Winnipeg grain exchange or on any other exchange. I hold no brief for them. But in my judgment, formed from talking to men who have lived in my area since the pioneer days, it would be a mistake to put it out of business. I know there are many who condemn the grain exchange. But I have heard some of these old timers say that they would hate to see the day come when they would not be able to go to some place where they could be sure of selling their grain instead of having to peddle it by the box load and take what they were offered for it or else go back home with it.
I do not know whether the grain exchange is good or bad, but I know that it is not always deserving of the unfair condemnation of some hon. members of the C.C.F. party. I know they are delighted that I am making this speech, and I know it will be represented that I am a supporter of the grain exchange. They will likely say that in my constituency. But the people who live in my constituency know where I stand. They know that I have supported, and still support, the Canadian wheat board, and that I have never wavered from that position. They will believe me when I say this from the public platform. I have said in the by-election and at other times, regardless of whether it got me votes or lost me votes, that if it ever came to a vote in the House of Commons I would not vote for the abolition of either the Canadian wheat board or the grain exchange.


James Arthur Ross: Neither will the wheat pools.


Calvert Charlton Miller: And I still say that. That was just a little by-play into which I was deflected, I imagine much to the appreciation and delight of hon. members in the C.C.F. party.	*	*
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I was just going to deal with one or two matters referred to by the minister. Press reports this morning indicate that both houses of the United States congress have risen, with the result that it would appear completely improbable, if not impossible, that the agree-
International Wheat Agreement

ment will be ratified by the United States; therefore there will be no sufficient degree of ratification by the signatory powers before the deadline of July 1.
The United States senate will probably have a committee dealing with this matter; nevertheless it cannot be dealt with by the whole senate. I notice the minister said that the senate of the United States had the matter in hand. This only serves to strengthen the argument we have made today, that there is no haste in dealing with the matter, particularly in the dying days of the session.
I agree, and I think hon. members of this party agree, with what was well said by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), when he pointed out that the proper way to dispose of this resolution would be not to pass it now but to have it referred to the committee on banking and commerce, there to be further studied and dealt with. That is what we now urge upon the government.
I should like to deal with another statement of the minister. He said that the price range really operates to give importers the right to buy, and exporters are obliged to sell at ceiling prices, if a deal can be consummated at those figures. On the other hand, importers are obliged to buy, and exporters have the right to sell at the floor price. In other words I do not see where there is any certainty about it. There is still the matter of dealing between exporting and importing countries as to the price to be charged between the maximum and minimum prices each year. I maintain that the price spread between maximum and minimum is completely out of line with the necessities of the occasion. I do not think this should be. Actual sales, if there are any, and if this agreement ever comes into force-which I doubt-will likely take place somewhere between the maximum and the minimum in each year. And as between exporting and importing countries, if we cannot agree on a price between maximum and minimum, there will be no deal, unless the importers will say to the exporters: We will give you the maximum; or the exporter will say to the importers: We will accept the minimum.
In other words, if there is any certainty about this entire agreement, it is that it is completely uncertain. There is no stability and no certainty. And there is another uncertainty in it too. With that large spread between maximum and minimum, large exporting countries outside the agreement altogether can put the pressure on the market and without any question can put our countries in such a position that if they wish to deal at all

with importing countries, they will have to deal with those importing countries at the very minimum rates set out in the agreement. If we are driven to the expedient of relying on these minimum rates, there is no minimum in the agreement which by any stretch of the imagination can be deemed proper and sufficient for our farmers and for our people generally in western Canada. There is the great danger, I repeat, that countries which are normally exporters of wheat can put such pressure on the importing countries, by means of offerings, as to compel us, if we wish to deal at all, to accept the minimum. In other words, instead of helping ourselves we shall establish a minimum and betray ourselves.
The minister did not tell us this morning- at least I did not hear him tell us-the number of countries which have initialled the agreement. I believe it was twenty-two or twenty-eight.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thirty-six.


Calvert Charlton Miller: The minister did not tell us, either, how many countries have actually ratified it. So far as I know, only Australia has ratified it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; there have been others.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Perhaps the minister will tell- us, when he closes the debate, how many of the importing countries have already ratified the agreement. In any event, the minister and I are united in this, that if the United States does not ratify it, the agreement will not be of any worthwhile benefit and will not come into operation.
When the minister speaks again he should clear up for us unequivocally -this question: If we sign this agreement, and if it is filed with the registering party, the United States government, are we bound by its terms to offer our wheat for export regardless of how many importing and exporting countries actually ratify the agreement by legislation? There are so many pitfalls which have not yet been explained that it is the part of folly, in my humble judgment at least, for us blindly to ratify this agreement, simply to be the first, second or third among the countries ratifying it. It affects a commodity that is important to our whole economy, and we should give it the closest study.
Tire trouble is, particularly with those of us who come from the west, that we still remember the scare we got in 1929 and succeeding years when huge surpluses were piled up and had to be offered at almost fire-sale prices. The government and its advisers, perhaps, and many of us in the west, are fearful that again we may have a surplus piled up at low prices.

International Wheat Agreement
I submit that this agreement, and some other agreements which have been made with regard to wheat, have been entered into because of that great and underlying fear. We should not enter into improvident agreements with respect to wheat, because while an ageement may be right in principle, it may be very wrong in details as to prices and the like.
The time has come when, as a large exporting country, we should take our courage in our hands in dealing with our wheat supplies and endeavour to get a decent price for our farmers. So far as the United States farmer is concerned, probably this does give him some security. I understand their government will continue to buy wheat on the open market, and anyway their exportable surplus is not a substantial part of their crop. But even then they will be getting more benefit than our farmers will be getting, unless our government also provides that if our farmers have to sell their wheat cheaper, they will protect the farmers by .buying it in the open market, or at least giving an additional price to the farmers for their grain; because our farmers cannot get along at present proposed prices.
Even if that were done, there are two things to consider. The first is that our farmers took the low prices at a time when- they could have had high prices, and when the United States farmers got their high prices. It is not so bad for the United States farmers to say: Oh, well; we had good prices during the war which the Canadian farmers did not have, and we will now take low prices for security's sake. Our farmers had to take low prices, and now we do not get any more security or any greater price-in fact not as much as the United States farmers will get if their government enters into this agreement.
It is true that most of our people want some sort of agreement like this. It is the duty of the house to see that we do not ignore the body of the agreement that we sign, just to secure an agreement which we approve in principle; let us also seek an agreement that will be fair to the people who are chiefly affected.
I would like the minister to say, when he speaks in closing the debate, what the effect will be if no countries ratify it other than those who have already done so. Is it or is it not to be enforced this year? According to the agreement, it should be enforced this year, but it cannot be enforced until it is ratified. In order that there may be no confusion I think the minister should tell us whether this agreement will be in operation this year if we ratify it. How many nations must ratify it before it will be in force?
The various countries can get out from under if they have exchange difficulties. For
instance, if Great Britain decides that she is having exchange difficulties, and goes to the council and says that she has a contract under the agreement to buy 180 million bushels of wheat, the council can reallocate that wheat. But I ask the minister to whom could they reallocate Britain's huge share of 180 million of the 500 million bushels under the new agreement? Who would have the money to buy Britain's ISO million bushels if Britain cannot? What countries among the thirty-three can be expected not to have exchange difficulties? These important problems should be settled, and that is why this resolution should be referred to a committee, as I have suggested.
There are no means of enforcing the agreement. It depends simply on the honour or good faith of the countries involved.
There is another point which has not so far been referred to. Article VI, section 9, restricts to some extent our own control over the domestic price of our grain, and perhaps over grain which we might sell outside the ambit of this agreement.
The agreement presumes that there will be disputes, because elaborate machinery is to be set up for the settlement of disputes between countries. I contend that the elaborate and roundabout and indefinite machinery that is to be set up will not settle any disputes. If there is a dispute, it will involve delay in the marketing of our grain, and before these tortuous methods of arriving at a settlement are carried through to a logical conclusion, our grain will be piling up. In the meantime our farmers will have no money, and there will be the gravest insecurity.
Under an annex to one of the articles in the agreement we undertake to retain at the end of each crop year 70,000,000 bushels of old wheat in reserve. Will that 70,000,000 bushels include what we have to keep in reserve for domestic requirements, or will it be in addition to those requirements? If so, it will be most difficult for us to carry out that section of the agreement. I should like that question cleared up when the minister replies.
Article XVI deals with expenses of the secretariat, council and so on, which are to be apportioned among the different governments according to the percentage in which they share in the exports, and so on. Those expenses will be paid first by the government, but will they then be charged up against the operations of the wheat board? I hope they will not constitute an additional burden upon the western Canadian farmers.
Article XX provides that the United States or any other nation may ask for additional

International Wheat Agreement
time if their legislature is in recess. How long must we wait until the various recesses have expired? How long will it be before our farmers know whether we are to have this agreement? How many legislatures are now in recess, and when do those recesses conclude? When will this agreement come into force? When will the western Canadian farmers know that their grain is to move to the markets of the world under this agreement?
Even the importing countries seem to be getting a little shaky about whether this agreement will come into force. Why are we spending time debating an agreement that might never see the light of day? Are we doing it simply for the sake of notoriety and publicity?
If this agreement comes into force, the undertakings of the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), both on the hustings and in this house, will go by the board. Under the United Kingdom agreement, undoubtedly the grain produced by the fanners of western Canada has been sold at a lower price, but the minister has promised that the farmers would be reimbursed in the final years of the United Kingdom contract by being given a price exceeding the world price. If this agreement is to be put into force, I ask the minister to tell us how the farmers are to be reimbursed for the low prices they accepted for their grain during the war years. At the best they can be reimbursed only to the extent of $70,000,000 to $100,000,000, or possibly $140,000,000, even if grain goes down to the minimum provided by this agreement. They cannot possibly get those hundreds of millions of dollars which they have lost already and which they were told would be accounted for in the last great accounting under the United Kingdom agreement. It looks to me as though that great accounting which we were promised has already been submerged in the Atlantic ocean under the terms of this new wheat agreement.
If this agreement comes into force, there will never be enough as between the United Kingdom and our government to reimburse the western farmers for the losses they took during the war when they compulsorily delivered their wheat at less than its true value. The problem will be solved for the government if this trade agreement is finally adopted.
I agree with some of the other speakers, and I think it is a self-evident truth, that the prices of our grain have been fixed at the lowest point that was discussed by the

importing and exporting countries. I am not minimizing the difficulty faced by the government in marketing our grain. The thirty-three importing countries would try to get grain as cheaply as they could, while the government would try to bargain to get rid of as much grain as they could. But- apparently this government, along with its agricultural advisers, are still labouring under the delusion from which they suffered in the days when we had those terrible prices and those large grain surpluses.
Frankly, I hesitate to vote against this resolution. I have studied the agreement as well as I can. We can only study it to the best of our individual ability. I submit again that a matter as important as this should be sent to one of the standing committees- I suggest the committee on banking and commerce-so that we can get all the facts and not have to decide a matter so important, not only to the farmers of western Canada, but to their children and their children's children. The government should give us every bit of available information when they ask us to make such an important decision as this.
There is no need to be hasty. If we go on like this, we will regret our haste. I cannot see how any harm could be done to any person, to importers or exporters, or to any government, or how our position could be in any way prejudiced, if this matter were referred to a committee where all the facts could be brought out and we could ascertain whether there was any danger in delay. We from western Canada do not want to do anything that would be prejudicial to the farmers of western Canada. We do not want to be hurried into a decision unless we are confident that it is the right one. Without a full knowledge of the facts, and without further study, I shall be inclined to vote against this resolution unless the minister agrees to refer it to a committee.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the people of Canada realize the importance of this international wheat agreement. Many people do not realize how great a loss the farmers of western Canada have suffered through the British wheat agreement, As has been often stated, we have not objected to the low price which was given to Britain under that agreement, because we realized that there was a moral responsibility, which was pointed out at the time. But it should have been the responsibility of the whole Canadian people to supply that wheat to Britain, and I ask whether it is the inten-

International Wheat Agreement
tion of the government to make good to the farmers the loss imposed upon them by that agreement.
It would seem that by this international agreement we are again tying up the farmers of the prairie provinces, because in it no consideration is given to the costs of production to which the farmers of Canada may be subjected-no consideration whatsoever.
Under the terms of the agreement the minimum price for the first year of the contract will be S1.50 per bushel, and in the remaining years the price will be allowed to drop ten cents a bushel. Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) tell us on what sound business these stipulations are made, and the reason for the $2 per bushel maximum price in the contract, which runs for five years? That price is much better than the price that prevailed during the depression years, but in view of the market price for class II wheat, even the price of $2 a bushel is not as high as it should be. Why should our farmers be deprived of the rightful price to which they are entitled for their produce?
It has been agreed by everybody that our farmers have been taking the rap since 1929, almost twenty years. Why tie them up again for another five years under this agreement? The farmers are not against a long-term agreement in respect of wheat and perhaps other farm products, but I do not know of any farmer who will sacrifice price just for the sake of a long-term agreement.
The member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) placed our position clearly before the house this morning, and I do not think I can improve on what he said. It was stated this morning that the British wheat agreement in the first two years will cost the prairie farmers half a billion dollars on wheat alone. That is quite a lot of money. Many people do not realize that while there was a price ceiling on coarse grains, it was based on the price of wheat in the British wheat agreement. They do not realize that the price of our pork and beef was based on the price of coarse grains, thus tying the price of all these products to the price of wheat in the British wheat agreement. That has cost the farmer many more millions of dollars than anybody in the house realizes, and here we are being tied again by a contract which is vague in the extreme. To me it does not look like good business.
I ask the minister whether he is agreeable to sending this measure to the banking and commerce committee, where definite information can be secured so that we shall know what we are doing. This agreement is of vital interest to all the people, not to the farmers
of Canada alone. The money the farmers received for their products is spent in Canada, and for that reason all Canada benefits when our agriculture is prosperous.


Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this question of an international wheat agreement is essentially a western problem, but as it will affect the economy of the whole of Canada I should like to say a few words about it.
The agreement involves 500 million bushels of wheat a year, of which Canada's share will be 230 million bushels, or 46 per cent; the share of the United States 185 million bushels or 37 per cent, and the share of Australia, 85 million bushles, or 17 per cent. So far the minister has not told us how many governments have ratified this agreement. He has told us that Australia has, with a rider that if it is not ratified by the United States the agreement will be voided by Australia. There are two great wheat-producing countries still outside of the agreement. Probably 800 million bushels of wheat is the yearly world trading figure, but the total production is much greater. What will happen if 100 million bushels, or even 50 million bushels of this 800 million, are traded outside of this agreement at five cents a bushel less than the amount stipulated in the agreement? Does the minister think that the nations approving the agreement Will hold to it and pay the extra price in the face of that offer? How can we expect a foreign government, or even a government of a sister nation in the commonwealth, to guarantee our growers what we feel to be fair prices?
I contend that only our own government in co-operation with our own growers can possibly bring about this stability. 'Obviously in any agreement of this kind which seeks to stabilize World prices, the importing nations must realize that they will have to pay a little more than the world price when there is a large surplus of wheat in the world. Why? Because under the agreement they are buying wheat at 'less than the world price. The ceiling price in the agreement is thirteen per cent below the world price of wheat today. Why is the ceiling not fixed nearer to the world price?
I wonder whether any labour union in this country would sign an agreement for five years with the maximum wage twenty-two per cent below existing rates? I base these figures on the fact that the guarantee to the farmer will net to him only $180 of the existing $2.31 world price, or approximately 22 per cent below the world price. Would a union sign an agreement on the basis of a possible drop of forty-five per cent in wages within the next
International Wheat Agreement

five years? Would any manufacturer sign such an agreement? It is my belief that they would not do so. Why, therefore, should we ask the farmers of this country to do something that we know the unions or the manufacturers would not do?
I believe, and it is the belief of many hon. members who have spoken in his debate, that during the war the farmers of this country took a great deal less than the world price for their products. In view of the fact that the farmers have taken this loss during the past five years, it would appear to me that the government is asking us to ratify, in the dying days of the session, an agreement which asks the farmers to turn the other cheek and let it be slapped also.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: Before the question is put I should like to ask the minister, who will close the debate, to explain the basis upon which the agreement was arrived at, in respect to the actual amount that is to be paid to farmers for the wheat. Was any thought given to the price in Canada itself? It is conceivable, for example, that our farmers might not be able to produce wheat at SI.10 a bushel if the costs of their production were as high, or any thing like as high, as they are today. Therefore it would appear to me that we ought to have some assurance that the farmer's costs will go down as it is expected the price of wheat will go down. I would like the minister to give us some idea of how the amounts to be paid were arrived at. In asking that question I wish to say that, like hon. members around me, I am in full accord with the principle involved in this agreement, and should like to support it, because I believe it aims at stability for agriculture.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Charlton) bemoaned the prices that the farmers received during the war. If we were to abandon all this regulation and price fixing, would he guarantee to the farmers that two, three or five years from now they will be getting as much for their wheat as they are now? He would have to take a great risk to do that. This is the only sensible way to go about the thing; but, I do insist that there ought to be some relationship between the costs of producing wheat in Canada and the floor price which is expected under this agreement.


James Horace King: Is the house ready for the question? If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As hon. members are probably aware, the question before us is

whether we shall or shall not ratify an agreement that has already been made. The agreement was made by delegates of the government, among whom were included the leaders of the three largest wheat marketing organizations in Canada, as well as other men whose reputation as market experts is well established. The unanimous recommendation of Canada's delegates was that the agreement be ratified, as being in the best interests of the Canadian producer. It is significant that the favourable report was not confined to farm organizations in Canada. The leading farm organizations in the United States also recommended to their government that the agreement be ratified. The leading farm organizations of the United Kingdom made the same recommendation to their government. The farm organizations of other countries supported this agreement as being a satisfactory outcome of the efforts of the thirty-six countries which during the past several years have met together in attempts to bring about stability in international wheat trading.
What is the purpose of the agreement? The purpose is to take out a mutual insurance policy. The three producing countries obtain a firm guarantee, first, that they will be able to dispose of the quantities allocated to them under the agreement-in the case of Canada 230 million bushels-and second that they will be able to dispose of that quantity of wheat at a price. It is interesting to hear people laugh off the idea that there may be surpluses in this country, and that there may be difficulty in disposing of surplus wheat. Memories are very short. I was around in the thirties and I know that the most difficult problem of the country in those days was the disposal of our wheat. I know that if any minimum price had been available there would not have been much question as to what the minimum was; if we could have moved the quantity and got any price that seemed reasonable even in those days, that privilege would have been a very welcome insurance policy indeed.
As I say, the insurance policy for the producing countries is that they will be able tc sell a definite quantity of wheat at a definite price. The insurance to the consuming countries is that they will be able to buy a definite quantity of wheat at a maximum price of $2 a bushel. As I say, the experts of all these countries believed that that is a desirable arrangement. I believe it is a desirable insurance policy. I believe that it will do a great deal to stabilize world markets and world price. I believe that Canada should ratify the agreement.

International Wheat Agreement
The question has been raised as to how many countries have ratified the agreement. I cannot say the number; I do not know how many. The date of ratification is the first day of July, and we have not as yet reached that date. We have had informal but definite advice to the effect that the United Kingdom intends to ratify the agreement. Several countries on the continent already have ratified the agreement. Australia has done so. The United States senate has adjourned temporarily without ratifying the agreement, and it is obvious that that country will not ratify it before July 1, but indications are that there is a fair chance that it will be ratified later this year.
As far as the position of the Canadian farmer is concerned, based on whether the agreement is or is not ratified within the next month, may I say that it does not make the slightest difference. Canada's export of wheat is contracted for, for the 1948 and 1949 crops.
The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Miller) says it is obvious that the promises of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and the promises of the Minister of Agriculture of the United Kingdom, would not be carried out if the agreement was signed. I may tell him that he is mistaken about that. Conversations have taken place with the United Kingdom government, and it is clearly understood between the two parties to the United Kingdom wheat agreement that the settlement of the current wheat agreement will be made whether the multilateral agreement is signed or not.
It is all very well for hon. members to make speeches about the price of wheat, and to compare the prices obtained under the Canada-United Kingdom agreement with the domestic price in the Chicago market; for the latter is the price they are talking about. They can call it the price of No. 2 wheat if they like. The price of No. 2 wheat has been the price in the Chicago domestic market. Our No. 2 wheat price is the quotation from day to day on the Chicago grain exchange. The quantity of No. 2 wheat that Canada had to sell was small, and as a price had to be fixed, the day to day Chicago price was adopted as reasonable in the circumstances. We know that dentists, doctors, oil men and persons engaged in various professions were dabbling in the Chicago market at that time, and that the United States government was itself alarmed at speculation in that market. Nevertheless hon. members opposite like to talk about $3.20 wheat and compare that with the price obtained for Canadian wheat. We never hear the fact mentioned that the price already paid the western farmer for the 1945 Canadian crop is higher than that obtained for the 1945 crop 5849-355
by any other country in the world, and the final payment on that crop has not yet been determined.
No one knows what will be the final price
for the pool wheat of the crops of 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949, and I suggest it might be well to wait for the determination of that price before comparisons are made. I say that any man who attempts to base a comparison on the peak Chicago price for domestic United States wheat is attempting to deceive his listeners, and I say that without qualification.
It has been suggested that this resolution should go to the banking and commerce committee. If there were any possibility of varying the terms of the agreement, that might be worth while; but when it is a simple decision, whether Canada will or will not be a party to the agreement, it seems to me the question is sufficiently clear to make unnecessary any reference to a committee.
Questions have been asked about the details of the agreement. The agreement requires no great comment. The price fixed is the price between countries. It does not interfere with the policy of any country regarding its domestic wheat. We know that the United States intends to fix wheat prices for the current year somewhat above the maximum price provided for in the agreement for wheat sold to any export markets. Any country can do the same. I think that covers the situation.


Calvert Charlton Miller: What about stocks?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The 70,000,000 carry-over at
July 31 includes domestic requirements. That is not wheat available for export. It is the smallest carry-over, I believe, this country has ever had at the end of a crop year. Last year it was about 75,000,000 bushels. It is necessary to have some carry-over to take care of requirements before the new crop moves into all domestic markets.


George Hugh Castleden: Is it not true that
under article VI the minimum price for the last three years is subject to negotiation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the minimum price is subject to negotiation. If it appears that the minimum is too low, it is possible to reopen the subject, but we have definite assurance that the minimum prices stated will be the minimum. Any renegotiation will be upwards.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Would not the two other years also have to be negotiated? How would you fix a price between the maximum and the minimum?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would be fixed by the law of supply and demand, between the upper and the lower limits. In the old days trading had no upper and no lower limit. Now it has both.


Calvert Charlton Miller: You might have a spread of fifty cents, and you might have the minimum of $1.10.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly, and we might be glad to take it.


James Horace King: Is the house ready for the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. McCUAIG:: May I ask a question?


James Horace King: The debate is closed.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is only a question.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


James Arthur Ross: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JULIAN H. FERGUSON (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday evening last I spoke on the question of coal mines, and a certain gentleman met me in the halls of this building and threatened me by saying that for what I had said in the House of Commons, on behalf, I believed, of the people of Canada, he would come into my riding and defeat me. I do not think this man should make such assertions or threats. Furthermore, if he is not more successful in defeating me than he was with his coal project, I shall be a member for a long time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the whale meat pow being sold in Vancouver subject to the same federal inspection as good Fraser valley beef?


Mr. ROBERT McCUBBIN (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: No notice has been given me of the question, though I have been around all day. When I get notice I will look into the question and give an answer.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You have notice now.
fMr. Miller.]



OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION-REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. ROSS THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell the house whether, should the prices committee report or even if does not, this house will have an opportunity to debate the matter before the session ends?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Unless I am seriously mistaken, the question appears to be one concerning domestic rather than external affairs, and I must confess my inability to answer it.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Is not the right hon. gentleman house leader? I was asking him the question in his capacity as house leader.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the house leader, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), if he is the house leader. Is it the intention of the government to allow a debate, before the session ends, on the matter of prices, whether the prices committee reports or does not report?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: My experience as leader is limited, but I would say that the intentions of the government are generally announced by the government when they have made a decision. I will refer this question to the real leader of the house.



CANNED AND PROCESSED FISH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. He was here this morning but I did not get an opportunity to put the question and I should like to have it on the record now. Has the request of the Prince Edward Island fish canners and packers for compulsory inspection of all their canned and processed fish products, been granted? If not, why not?
A second question I wish to ask is this: Will the fisheries prices support board or the Department of Fisheries endorse and support a participating advertising sales promotion plan for their canned and processed fish products from the province of Prince Edward Island? If not, why not?

Agricultural Prices Support Act

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT H. WINTERS (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, on June 18 the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) asked a question which was taken as notice:
Will the minister provide immediately a tug to assist the ferry boat Charles A. Dunning in docking at the Wood Island pier, as difficulty is found by this boat in docking during the completion of the construction work?
The answer is: The Department of Public Works is carrying out considerable repairs and improvements on the Wood Island pier, and I understand that the nature of these repairs is such that they can only be done in the wintertime. A start was made during last winter by Public Works, and while their equipment was at Wood Island their tug assisted the Charles A. Dunning in docking. Work has been suspended until late next fall and the tug has been removed elsewhere to perform other work.
The ferry company operating between Cariboo and Wood Island is a private concern in receipt of a subsidy through the maritime commission. If and when tug assistance is necessary, the company should undertake to provide it at its own expense. The repairs to the pier at Wood Island were undertaken at the company's request.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT MeCUBBIN (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that section nine of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, dealing with the powers of the agricultural prices support board, shall be deemed to have continued in force after March 31, 1948, and that it may be continued in force for such further period as the governor in council may fix by proclamation.
George Alexander Cruickshank: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss briefly the flood situation in the province of British Columbia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not a motion to go into supply.


James Horace King: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want an opportunity to speak on that matter. If I do not get it now, I will get it later.


James Horace King: This is a motion to go into committee on a resolution dealing with the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


John Bracken: May I ask the parliamentary assistant to the minister whether he prefers to make a statement now, or to wait until we are in committee?
Mr. MeCUBBIN: I would just as soon wait until we get into committee, if that is agreeable.


John Bracken: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Mr. MeCUBBIN: The purpose of the bill to be founded on this resolution is to continue in force section 9 of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, which, through a technicality, expired on March 31, 1948.
Section 9 of the act defines the powers of the agricultural prices support board. This section did not come into force immediately upon assent to the act itself, but was brought into force on April 1, 1946, by proclamation of the governor in council. At that time it was thought that another proclamation could be issued extending section 9 for a further period. In fact, a proclamation was authorized by order in council dated March 25, 1948, but the Department of Agriculture was then advised by the Department of Justice that section 9 could be continued in force only by act of parliament. Consequently this amendment is presented for the approval of the house.
The amendment does not change the act, either in principle or in detail. It merely provides for the continuance of the act as it was prior to March 31, 1948.


John Bracken: I think perhaps at this preliminary stage, in view of the fact that the house wishes to proceed with its work as rapidly as possible, it might be better to defer further comment until the bill itself is before us.
Mr. MeCUBBIN: That is perfectly agreeable.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. McCubbin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 392, to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
5584	COMMONS
Civilian War Pensions and Allowances



WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution :
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to remove the time limit in which an application for pension in respect of death may be made under parts I and' X of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Mr. GREEN:: Does the minister not intend to make a statement on this resolution?


Mr. GREGG:: Yes. This resolution is with respect to two brief amendments to the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act to enable the dependents of personnel killed to obtain pensions as was intended in the original act; owing to certain circumstances, it has not been possible under the act for them to obtain those pensions. The resolution and the terms of the amendments to be introduced have been recommended by the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs, and the bill is ready.


Howard Charles Green: Will the amendment apply to the merchant navy men themselves, or only to their dependents?


Milton Fowler Gregg: These amendments will apply only to the dependents of certain personnel of the Canadian merchant marine, salt-water fishermen and R.A.F. ferry command who are dead, permitting their dependents to come under the act. It does not apply to the living survivors of these services.


Howard Charles Green: I ask that question because the act itself gives these men only one year in which to apply, does it not?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently that one year provision is to be continued; unless the merchant sailor applied within a year of receiving his injury, he still is prevented from making application for pension. Is that right?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No difficulty has been experienced in that regard. Perhaps I might give a little more detailed explanation at this stage.
The effect of the bill to be introduced is to remove the time limit for application for pension in respect of a deceased Canadian merchant seaman and salt-water fisherman. It seems unreasonable to deny pension to dependents, who are otherwise entitled to it, simply because through ignorance of the statutory rights or
fMr. MeCubbin.]
other reasons, they did not comply with the statutory limit of twelve months. That applies to dependents. There are some cases in which they did not know that they were eligible; consequently the date will be extended. The bill should conform to the war pensions act on which it is based. In view of the limitation in section 7, the removal of the time limit in respect of death only will affect a comparatively small number of cases, but will permit of an award in certain instances of hardship. That is the first one.
The other portion of it deals with dependents of deceased members of the R.AJF. transport command. As hon. members will recall, it was necessary for necessitous circumstances to exist for them to be eligible. This amendment is to cover cases where necessitous circumstances may not have been in existence earlier, but now are.


Howard Charles Green: Is the time limit to be removed entirely in connection with the dependents of merchant seamen and ferry command men, or is it simply to be extended?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is a matter of removal, rather than extension, as applied to the dependents.


Howard Charles Green: And also in respect to men in the ferry command?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is right, for dependents.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest to the minister that in all fairness the time limit against merchant seamen themselves should also be removed. Merchant seamen must apply within one year of suffering disability; otherwise they cannot obtain any pension. I suggest that is unfair. There should be no time limit against them, any more than against the dependents of a man who lost his life. It is difficult enough, goodness knows, for either a merchant seaman or his dependents to establish the right to pension, because the disability or death must have been caused directly by enemy action. I do suggest that there is no reason why there should be a time limit against merchant seamen themselves.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In the discussion which took place on this general subject there were no indications that any were suffering hardship because of the time limit. However I shall undertake to follow up the matter in the coming months, and if there should be such cases they will be taken into consideration.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any reason why there should be a time limit of one year or any other period of time against merchant seamen? There is no time limit for members of the army, the navy or the air force; they need

Civilian War Pensions and Allowances
only show that the disability was caused by war service. In those circumstances they can qualify for pension. Is there any reason why the same rule should not apply to members of the merchant navy, particularly in view of the fact that it is so much more difficult for them to establish the right to pension?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should not like to answer the hon. member without looking more deeply into the matter. Like the hon. member, at the moment I cannot see any reason. However I should like to look into the background, and into the discussion concerning this matter, before I reply.


Howard Charles Green: I take it there will be some time between the passing of this resolution and the debate on the bill. Perhaps in that time the minister could give consideration to my suggestion. As he knows, once an act is amended it is difficult to have another amendment in the next year. The tendency is to delay, and the act may not be amended again for several, years.
Here is an amendment which should be brought in, in the same bill which amends the right of the dependents. I would urge that the minister give consideration to extending his amendment so that it would cover the merchant seaman himself, as well as the dependents of those who lost their lives.


Milton Fowler Gregg: While I have no knowledge rf any hardship being experienced with respect to the time limit for the men themselves, I do know of a number of cases of serious hardships which this bill will seek to correct. I would prefer at this stage, therefore, that these amendments now before us might be passed, and that the other matters might be given close attention.


Howard Charles Green: One reason the minister has not seen the effect of such cases is that the restrictions against merchant seamen, and for that matter against the dependents, are so very strict. It must be shown that the disability arose directly from enemy action. According to the figures given on June 15 to the committee on veterans affairs, there are only sixty-six merchant seamen drawing disability pension at the present time, although there were about 18,000 who served. There have been 490 favourable decisions for dependents of merchant seamen. Those figures show what a ridiculously small percentage of these people qualify for pension. As the minister knows, the merchant navy suffered a higher percentage of casualties, speaking relatively, than either the navy, the army or the air force. These men have not had a fair deal. Perhaps that is one reason why now
there are no further applications being made for pensions-simply because they were shut out one year after they suffered disability.
As the minister knows, that is an unfair situation. Men who went out from our ports -from Halifax or from Vancouver-and who were disabled, could not qualify for pension unless disability resulted directly from enemy action. For instance, I know of one man who stumbled during a black-out in England. He fell over the edge of his ship, and was killed. His dependents could not qualify because the death was not directly caused by enemy action. Another young lad went out from Vancouver and contracted a tropical disease, with the result that his health was ruined. He can get no pension because the disease could not be traced directly to enemy action.
Surely that is unfair. Not only should the time limit be removed for the men themselves, but the basis upon which pension is granted should be broadened. It is much too restricted now, when it states that a man must have suffered disability or that death must have been caused by direct enemy action. That portion of the act should be changed. I am sorry this is not being done in this amendment. This is a basic injustice which should be remedied, and now is the time to do so.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps I am completely out of order in continuing with this discussion. The hon. member, who sat on the committee, knows that it has discussed these points raised this afternoon, and many others. At this time the committee is preparing its final report to the house. A request was made that this matter be brought before the house while there was still time to get the amendment through- although I imagine I am out of order in discussing what a parliamentary committee may be preparing this afternoon for presentation to the house.
The point raised by the hon. member is, I know, on the agenda of the committee. I would suggest, therefore, that we permit first reading of the bill and have it stand for second reading, and later the committee will have made its report.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I should like to support the hon. member for Vancouver South on the point he has raised. While doing so, may I compliment him upon his steadfast effort to get a better deal for the merchant seamen. As the minister well knows, merchant seamen have felt all along that they have been discriminated against, as compared with members of the various branches of the armed services.
The minister has suggested that the matter be left until next session, and that if he finds
Yukon Placer Mining Acl

there are cases such as have been described he will be prepared to amend the act at that time. Unless the time limit is removed, the minister is not likely to have any cases before him, because the matter would be closed as far as merchant seamen are concerned. He will have nothing to report or no reasons for reporting at the next session.
I suggest that the time limit should be removed and then, if there are no cases presented, there at least would be no cost to the treasury. If cases are presented they can be investigated and, if justice demands, pensions should be allowed. If the time limit is not removed these men are shut out. I suggest to the minister that, before the bill is up for second reading, he give careful consideration to having the time limit removed.


Mr. FERGUSON:: I should like to add my support to what has been said. If the government of Canada feels that any man who served in the merchant marine is entitled to compensation for injuries he may have received while serving during the war, I am sure that this country will be ready to grant such compensation. To have a time limit of one year is not fair to these people, and it would deprive the country of an opportunity to do what is reasonable and just and fair.
I am sure that the minister, the government and the people of Canada do not want anything placed in the way of a man receiving compensation when he is justly entitled to it because of the services he gave during the war. By having a time limit of one year, this country cannot make the contribution to these people to which they are entitled.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gregg thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 393, to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SASKATCHEWAN NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 362, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Sections 1 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
On section 20-Schedule H.
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: The legal branch of the Department of Mines and Resources was kind enough to submit these amendments to the Yukon Placer Mining Act to me. I discussed them fully with the officials and I consider the amendments are necessary and proper.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 363, to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
George Black: Mr. Speaker, I do not object to the bill receiving second reading, but I should like to say something on certain sections of it. With the consent of the minister, I should like to have this bill considered in committee tomorrow rather than this afternoon.


Mr. MacKINNON:: Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Yukon spoke to me about this, and I am quite agreeable to following his suggestion.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING SALE OF SCHOOL LANDS TO VETERANS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 364, to amend the Saskatchewan Natural. Resources Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaiker, before you leave the chair I should like to say a few words in connection with the floods in British Columbia. I shall not

Floods in British Columbia
go into details as to why the floods occurred or as to what might have been done to prevent them. My personal friend and colleague the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), speaking on my behalf, made an excellent speech in that connection. I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), who protected me during my absence in the way of a pair.
On behalf of my riding in particular and all the people affected by the flood, I wish to express our appreciation to all the people of Canada for the way in which they came to our assistance in what has become a national calamity. To the members of the armed forces and to everyone who has contributed in any way to our assistance, we express our appreciation.
I should like to mention one or two things on which the government should take action immediately. The government should immediately put a ceiling on hay and other feed. Already in British Columbia we have people going around trying to secure what feed will be available for next year and all available feed now for cattle. If the government has not already done so, it should immediately put a ceiling on all feed stuff for cattle in Canada.
I do not think the government has gone far enough in its concessions respecting income tax. I understand that the government has generously extended to the end of June the period during which farmers whose land is now ten to thirty feet under water may file their returns. The government could very well afford to wipe out income tax entirely for farmers in any of the flooded areas. I strongly urge that that action be taken by the government immediately.
I would also ask the government, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) makes his announcement, which I hope will not be later than tomorrow, to state what the eventual financial set-up is to be for the rehabilitation of our farmers. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver North it would have a great effect on the morale of the flood victims if they could know exactly where they stand and what is to be done in their behalf. I realize that the details cannot be worked out overnight, but surely by this time the government should be in a position to say what the federal government will do for the victims in all parts of British Columbia who have been flooded out.
I had the privilege of taking the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) over certain portions of my riding, and I was
very glad of that privilege because I know his sympathy with everybody in Canada and it must have affected him to see those flooded-out homes. I do not think we have ever had, in my time at least, a calamity which has affected the people of Canada so much as the recent floods in British Columbia. I for one shall make no attempt to estimate the damage. When you have from eight to thirty feet of water over your home or farm, how can even an engineer or other expert estimate the damage?
I am particularly interested to see that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is listening to me, because I have been trying to catch his ear in this connection ever since 1940. I am not a diking expert, but I heard
20,000	of them tell me what ought to have been done in my riding, and I honestly believe that if governments of the past had done their duty we would have had no flood, at least in the immediate district in which I live.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and I have consistently endeavoured to have the Department of Public Works secure adequate dredging equipment for the great Fraser river, which is one of the largest rivers on the North American continent. The only dredge we have available to keep that channel clear is a forty-year-old dredge which is constantly busy at the mouth of the river. I remember, as a boy, that where large boats used to go up the river you can now throw a stone across. Last summer at Calamity Point near the mouth of Harrison river I got out in my gum-boots and waded half way across the Fraser river. It does not take any engineer to know that if the water of the Fraser river cannot get out to the Pacific you will have river bank erosion and disastrous floods. I do not think we would have suffered half the damage that was done this year if proper dredging equipment had been secured when it should have been secured. I want the Minister of Public Works to tell me what steps he has taken to secure adequate dredging and other heavy equipment to restore the dikes and repair the damage that was done. One of the dredges that was brought in to construct Sumas dikes came from Panama. If we are to save this fertile valley from floods next year construction on these dikes must be started immediately. We cannot wait for six or eight months. The necessary equipment should be ordered today.
I had the pleasure of showing the Secretary of State for External Affairs how high the water was on the telegraph poles along the great Canadian Pacific railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company have never paid five cents on the construction and maintenance of
Floods in British Columbia

dikes. There have been at least three wash-outs on their line. They cannot deny what pictures show, and I can assure hon. members that I took good care to take plenty of pictures showing the water in front of my own home and throughout that whole area. I have a letter here from the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and I am going to take time to read it. I would not feel so bitter about this if I had not seen neighbours, sixty-five and seventy-five years of age, with their entire investment flooded out, with pianos and everything else floating down the stream, all of which could have been prevented if governments over the past twenty-five years had had any initiative and had taken the proper action. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company have never done anything in western Canada that they were not paid plenty for doing. They have refused to accept their responsibility. Either the president of the Canadian Pacific and his officials were deliberately giving false information to the minister, or he has otherwise been misinformed.
This is a letter sent to me by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) under date of November 3, quoting the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company:
The Mission subdivision extends from the main line at Mission, B.C., southerly for a distance of 10-1 miles to Huntingdon. It was placed in operation in June, 1891, that is, prior to the construction of the Matsqui dike. The company, from time to time, has been requested to contribute toward the cost of the Matsqui dike, but has consistently refused on the ground that the dike does not benefit the lands of the railway company. Under the Drainage, Diking and Development Act of British Columbia, provision is made for the exclusion from a diking district lands not benefited. In 1895, a court of revision, 'because the company's land did not benefit, exempted the company from assessments in connection with the dike.
That information was supplied to me in a letter dated November 3, 1947, and was given to the minister by the president of the company. I shall be glad to give pictures to the minister showing that the company put a dam across by rock filling near the Mission bridge, and did it for years. I asked a question whether rock had been dumped, and the answer I received in an order for return was that the department had no authority and no information. I, as a private member, was told that if I wanted this information I would have to ask the company for it.
The story is a little different this year. I have pictures which were taken in 1938 by a professional photographer, showing the rock being dumped in, rock which caused five feet of silt to flow over the British Columbia Telephone Company cables. They were not able

to raise the cable because of that silt. It also caused the bridge to go out two weeks ago, and took 100 feet of the Matsqui farmers' dike with it.
Apparently the government found out something different in the meantime, because on April 19, 1948, I received this letter from the Minister of Public Works telling me that they could now get this information, but that last year they did not know anybody with authority who could, and that I as a private member, last year, had better ask the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. This is the letter:
During the years 1937 to 194,5, the company has deposited approximately 44,OW tons of rock around' the piers of this bridge and soundings taken indicate that the dumping of this rock has raised the river bottom near the piers, but has scoured the channels between the piers so that the cross-section of the river at this point is approximately the same. Gauges placed above and below the bridge indicate that there has been n,o retarding of the flow due to the placing of the rock.
It was at this spot that a span of the famous Canadian Pacific railway bridge went out, taking with it a hundred feet of our dike. In 1894 or 1896 the Canadian Pacific Railway Company themselves drove the piles, some of which are still remaining, to protect this river bank. I shall be glad to produce these pictures for the minister.
I do not believe in recriminations. In May, 1948, I was not scoffed at exactly, but I do not think I received the entire approval of certain members of the government when I said that the two great trans-Canada railways would be out within twenty-four hours. Actually they were out within ten hours. I pointed out that it was not a Fraser valley matter; that it was a national matter. When you cut off the third city of the Dominion of Canada, which affects the economy of Canada, it must be a national matter. Recriminations will not get us anywhere.
It is up to the government of Canada to make known to the people of my riding and to the people of the Dominion of Canada what they intend to do. They should issue a definite statement now as to what they intend to do to rehabilitate, in so far as money can do so, these pioneers and these people who have lost their all.
What is to foe done for the municipalities?
I should like the government to state definitely, in conjunction with the provincial government, what is to be done. How are our municipal taxes to be met this year? Our schools must go on. I am speaking particularly of the Fraser valley because that is the place I know most about. Other hon. members can speak of the whole of British Columbia. I am

Floods in British Columbia
primarily interested in my own district and know more about it than I do of other districts. How are the municipalities to carry on their schools, how are they to re-establish their bridges, culverts and roads that have all been washed out, to say nothing at all of the personal loss of the individuals concerned? It is up to the Prime Minister to make a definite statement in that connection. He should tell us what action the federal government is going to take. He should make that statement tomorrow.
Perhaps I am a little overwrought. But when you have lived all your life in a district and you see such suffering among the people as I have seen, you are bound to get that way. Fortunately there has been no loss of human life. That is the most fortunate thing that came out of it. It is also fortunate that we have found out who our friends are. We found that the people of Vancouver, and the people of the entire province, responded to our call for help. Since that time, arrangements have been made, in part, by the two governments to recompense the people who have lost their all. I shall give one instance,- and it is typical of others. The Johnston Cartage Company of Vancouver sent their trucks and equipment out there, not knowing whether they would get them back or not, and knowing they would not be paid five cents. One of those trucks is under fifteen feet of water today. They did not ask whether they were to be paid or who was to replace the truck. The people of Vancouver sent equipment and other help at once.
I admit that the government has gone a long way so far in conjunction with the provincial government. What are they going to do to replace the dike? We in the Fraser valley will not be satisfied until we have the river controlled from top to bottom. We will not be satisfied unless we have a proper dike constructed, what we call a two-truck dike. You can stop any break in a dike if you are able to get at it with material and equipment. After all, we are a part of Canada. We demand that this dike be reconstructed, so that we can defend it, not only on behalf of the farmers of the Fraser valley but also on behalf of the entire people of Canada.
Two great trans-Canada railways have to be defended. The British Columbia Electric Railway Company have a railroad to Chilliwack which must be defended. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am urging the government to give an immediate answer, indicating what is to be done by the federal government. I am urging the Minister of Public Works to tell us without further delay whether or not they are endeavouring to procure suitable dredging equipment,
so that such a catastrophe as this may never happen again in British Columbia or anywhere in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: First I should like to compliment the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) on his moving and able outline of the conditions in the Fraser valley. From the descriptions I have had of that area and from what I have seen of it, it is a major catastrophe. One of my friends told me that perhaps it will be the thing that will stand out in his memory as the greatest catastrophe that he has ever witnessed or will have to witness. The suffering is intense and the uncertainty of the people is terrific. They do not know whether to go to their lands and start all over again. Therefore I should like to support the hon. member in asking that rehabilitation measures be announced immediately in so far as replacement of equipment, crops and so on is concerned.
I should like to point out to the government that other areas as well have suffered loss. I have not mentioned my own area before, because of the outstanding difficulties of the Fraser valley. They were of first importance. Not so many people are affected on the Skeena river, but they have suffered just as intensely as the people of the Fraser valley. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Matthews) has pointed out what happened in Kimberley and so on. Areas are affected all over the province. I wish the federal authority would step in and help flood victims wherever they are. It will be noticed how swiftly the United States federal authority steps into the picture when there is flood damage.
In my own area along the Skeena river, especially around the towns of Terrace and Usk there has been suffering. The province simply has not been measuring up to its responsibilities. I do not wish -to be too harsh. I think the thing is too big for them to handle. I know the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) has able and willing men in his department who could step in and assess difficulties and carry out the rehabilitation- measures that are necessary on the Skeena river.
I do not want to hold up the time of the house any longer because the question has been outlined before, but I thought it was about time that I brought in the Sk-eena so that the general picture could become apparent, and that an over-all flood policy would be brought into being by the federal authority and measures taken wherever there are flood victims.
Mr. HOWARD C. GREEN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a vrord in support of the stand taken by the
Floods in British Columbia

hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald). I do not think it can be questioned that this is a national catastrophe. Certainly it is by far the worst situation the people of British Columbia have ever had to face, and we feel that the people of eastern Canada have been wonderful in the way in which they have given help at this time. The people of different cities, Montreal and Toronto, and many other centres, have helped out, and that very action has done more to create good will in British Columbia toward eastern Canada than anything else could have done.
Now, however, we are asking that the government make an announcement with regard to plans for rehabilitation. I believe it is necessary that the lead should come from here. The provincial government has been very good also in the way in which it has come to the rescue of those who have suffered so much, but there is need for the tw'o governments to get together and decide upon and announce some plans for the rehabilitation of these sufferers. We hope that an announcement will be made before the parliament prorogues. The need is great, and it will make all the difference to these people if an announcement is forthcoming before prorogation.
Mr. 0. L. JONES (Yale): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this matter; but, having flown over the area discussed, I am 100 per cent behind the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). I should like to point out, however, that other areas of British Columbia were flooded as well, and therefore, in dealing with this matter, it should be, not only relief for Fraser valley but relief for the whole of British Columbia. There are areas in Yale, such as Keremeos, Hedley and Grand Forks, that have suffered, though not on so vast a scale as the Fraser valley; but definitely, as individuals, men in those areas have suffered as greatly as individuals in the Fraser valley. I suggest, therefore, that any relief to be given should be given to all who suffered in British Columbia.
While this is an act of nature that could have been prevented to a certain extent, there is another danger to which I would call attention, and that is the level of Okanagan lake. This lake is now at least twelve inches higher than it has ever been before at this time of the year, and I would ask the Minister of Public Works whether it is his intention to implement the report that was made on the lake level and flood control about four or five years ago.

This was a splendid report. It covered controls of the Columbia river basin and the Okanagan valley, with all adjacent rivers and waters. If this report were implemented, the danger facing the towns of Penticton, Kelowna and all towns along Okanagan lake would be absent today. But it is greater than it ever was. Five years ago several buildings in Penticton were affected by water. Most of the cellars were full of water and many buildings could be reached only by boat. The condition in the next month will be equally grave, if not graver than it was at that time. In this case steps could have been taken and should have been taken to carry out the report made years ago by the engineers. Had that been done, there would be no danger today. I would ask the Minister of Public Works whether it is his intention to implement the report on flood control in the Okanagan valley in the immediate future.



RECENT BY-ELECTIONS-SUGGESTED TAX CHANGES, COST OP LIVING, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, there are some events of recent days which I think call for some brief comment in this debate. They were given direct point by the fact that three new hon. members took their seats in the house today.
A statement was issued by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the ninth day of this month concerning the reasons for the defeat of government candidates in three byelections held this month. I do not propose to read the entire statement, but the first paragraph is as follows:
The lead which the C.C.F. has gained in the recent by-elections reflects the inevitable dislike felt by persons of all classes for high living costs, and privations and restrictions of any kind.
The statement concludes with this paragraph :
It is, however, the long run rather than the short run which counts for most. It would be a mistake to attach too much significance to C.C.F. gains in the present.
I am no alarmist, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think for one moment that the government defeats in these three by-elections, and the election of twenty-two C.C.F. members in the recent provincial election in Ontario, can be traced to the fact that all who voted for candidates of that party were socialists by any means. Far from it. They were prompted no doubt by unrest, and certainly by the failure of the government to grapple with the twin problems of high cost of living and high taxes. However, the result of the government's failure to grapple with these problems

Policies oj Political Parties
has been that the normal danger from socialism with its policies of regimentation and the peril it presents to our conception of individual freedom, is now accompanied by a further threat. Whether the C.C.F. like it or not-and they have indicated that they did not like it-the fact is that the C.C.F. candidates in those elections, both in Ontario and in the three federal by-elections, did receive the votes of the Labour-Progressive party in all except two provincial ridings in the city of Toronto. That is the fact.
The Labour-Progressive leader in Ontario has already been boasting of the fact that the C.C.F. candidates elected in the provincial election owe their election to communist support. I am not going to dwell on that theme, because I think the situation has been well known for some time, but I do wish to lay the responsibility where I think it belongs.
The responsibility for the apparent rise of the socialist threat in this country, with the assistance of communist support, I should like to trace back to the point where I think it properly begins. I think it began in February, 1942. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in that month there were some federal byelections in this country. You will remember one of them well. There was another one held in the riding of York South, and for the first time a C.C.F. member was elected to the House of Commons from an Ontario riding because he received the full support of the Liberal machine in that by-election campaign. The Liberal party and the government kept a candidate out of the field in that by-election campaign.
['No.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. SINCLAIR:: The hon. gentleman knows that was a courtesy accorded by the government to one of many new leaders of the Tory party.


Mr. FLEMING:: If the hon. member knew the whole story he would not put his neck out with such a silly statement. What he has said refers to the guise under which the -whole trick was planned, but when one saw how it worked out in execution, this is what happened. The government did not put a candidate in the field-


John Ewen Sinclair: As a courtesy to Arthur Meighen.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman professes that they were extending a courtesy to the leader of the Conservative party, as it then was.


John Ewen Sinclair: We offered the same courtesy to John Bracken for three years and he would not take it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The by-election campaign wore on and the Liberal party began to take a direct interest in it. When election day came the whole trick was exposed and we saw the Liberal organization in York South riding lined up bag and baggage behind the C.C.F. candidate. That is why the C.C.F. won that byelection in York South in 1942. Let there be no mistake about that.


John Ewen Sinclair: The Tories were so derelict in policy that no Liberals would vote for them.


Mr. FRASER:: You do not know what you are talking about.


John Ewen Sinclair: I certainly do.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The present Prime Minister of this country saw fit, in the statement he made following the announcement of the result of that by-election, to express himself as being grateful to the electors of York South. If anyone is still so naive as to think the full weight of the Liberal machine was not put behind the C.C.F. candidate in order to elect him in York South on February 9, 1942, it is high time he took the scales off his eyes and woke up.
That was the beginning of the rise of the C.C.F. in Canada. Until that time there had been some slight success in the middle prairies, but that was the beginning of the C.C.F. climb, and it can be laid directly at the door of this government, because it was their deliberate policy to support the C.C.F. there in order to defeat the Conservative candidate.


John Ewen Sinclair: You are mad because the Liberals won.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the beginning of the story; and the story continues through a long series of compromises made by this government with the socialists in this house and outside it, apparently toying with the idea that they could somehow bring the socialists to climb on the Liberal band wagon.


An hon. MEMBER:: What are they doing in Saskatchewan?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is why responsible sources in the Liberal party apparently saw fit in the years 1945 and 1946 to make the now well-known offer of the Liberal leadership to the present leader of the C.C.F. party. What we have been seeing in recent days are the chickens coming home to roost. This government, after that series of compromises, of attempting to play along with the socialists, is now reaping the fruits of its policies. The chickens are coming home to roost.

Policies of Political Parties


An hon. MEMBER:: Coming home to roost with the Tories.


Donald Methuen Fleming: At the moment we see this government going through a process of complete disintegration. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is out in Saskatchewan today fighting desperately to win some seats and making statements out there with respect to which we ask the government for further light in this house, but we cannot get that light.


John Ewen Sinclair: Is he co-operating with the C.C.F.?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course the questions were prompted by reports from the fighting front in Saskatchewan, of statements attributed out there to the Minister of Agriculture concerning the removal of the embargo on the shipment of beef cattle to the United States. We have asked the government day in and day out what its policy is with regard to that question, but government policy is wrapped in silence. We cannot get any information about it. Apparently the government has no policy with regard to this question until after June 24. In the meantime, the untoward effects that could be anticipated from the removal of the cattle embargo have already occurred, because prices of beef have been going up. Producers, on the other hand, have not been getting any benefit at all. Prices to the consumer have been going up.
Then, to complete the picture of disintegration of this government, we are faced with another change a little farther to the east. We see the whole Liberal machine-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Joining forces with the Tory party in Saskatchewan.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and its campaign chest geared to be thrown into the provincial campaign in the province of Quebec in order somehow to try to wrest a Liberal victory in that province. Of course that will not succeed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The attempt will fail, but it just illustrates the degree of desperation in which the government finds itself today. It has had a long series of defeats, a crushing body blow in Ontario, in the provincial elections there, and it is faced with another crushing blow in the province of Quebec. So, in this moment of desperation, all the federal resources of the Liberal party are to be thrown into Quebec in an attempt to redeem the situation there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member
promises to be brief.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, it will be brief. Whom does the hon. member want to win in Quebec?


John Ewen Sinclair: Arthur Meighen.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my hon. friend is interested in that question I shall be glad to give him an answer.


John Ewen Sinclair: Privately.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Certainly, I know quite well whom I should like to see win there.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell us.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not Mr. Godbout.


John Ewen Sinclair: The Orange order in Ontario and the coalition in Quebec.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Some interesting events have taken place within the precincts of this house in recent days. On June 17, six members sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, attended on the Prime Minister and asked him to take certain steps. According to the press dispatch, the statement issued to the press by the six Liberal members after they had waited on the Prime Minister-


Mr. MITCHELL:: May I ask what paper the hon. member is quoting from?
Mr. FLEMING 

 was to the effect that they had asked for the reimposition of food subsidies, removal of the sales tax from foods and the "austerity" excise tax from household goods.


Humphrey Mitchell: What paper is the hon. member quoting from? May I ask him to tell us that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am quoting from a very reliable newspaper, the Globe and Mail of June 18. The statement continues with an extract directly attributed to the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Breithaupt) who, we are told, headed the delegation. These are his words:
In other words, we asked the government to get out of the kitchen.
I am sure that many of us will welcome this evidence of the fact that there is stirring on the government side, even if in only a few bosoms over there, some concern with regard to the problems which we of the official opposition have been putting before this house for a long time past, which we put directly before the house during the budget debate and on which members sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, were eloquently silent at the time.

Policies of Political Parties
That was followed up by a letter written by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) to the Prime Minister and a similar letter written by him to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). The hon. member for Springfield undertook to address words like these to the Prime Minister:
This is a post-mortem of the reasons why we have been unsuccessful in, retaining for the Liberal party the three seats in the federal by-elections. These are the public beefs. The public wants:
(1)	Old age pensions without a means test.
(2)	Some income tax relief for those in the lower income brackets, both salaried workers and wage-earners.
(3)	Repeal of the 25 per cent excise tax on certain goods manufactured in Canada.
(4)	Restoration of at least 30 per cent of the excess profits tax. This would compensate for the loss in revenue resulting from those in the lower income groups being stricken from the federal tax rolls.
(5)	Reduction of the cost of living and reduction of the profits now being taken by wholesalers and retailers.
If some swift action is not taken in the very near future we may look forward to the annihilation of the Liberal party.
Listen to that. Then the letter continues:
Trusting you will take immediate steps whereby the prestige of the Liberal party will be restored.	.
Yours faithfully,
John S. Sinnott, M.P.
The Prime Minister replied to that letter in these terms:
I thank you for letting me have your estimate of the reasons for the results in the recent byelections. I am bringing the representations of your letter to the attention of my colleagues in the government.
With kind personal regards,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
Then the Minister of Finance replied to a similar letter from the hon. member for Springfield as follows:
I am very glad to have your views and j'ou may rest assured that they will be given careful consideration.


Mr. SINNOTT:: They are doing that now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are some things in the letter from the hon. member for Springfield with which I agree, and there are some with which I disagree. But I draw attention particularly to his present advocacy. May I interject this, that I hope the hon. member for Springfield is not alone among those who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, in entertaining these views. I think it is a hopeful sign that at last someone to your right is beginning to wake up to the fact that there is a very serious problem here to be faced. I do hope that a number of other members to your right will
follow his example to try to stir up the government to some action with regard to these tax questions.
Here is the hon. member for Springfield calling for the repeal of the 25 per cent excise tax on certain goods manufactured in Canada. We on this side of the house raised this question and asked for the same thing, not only in the budget debate this year, but in the budget debate a year ago; but we got nothing but silence from those who sit to your right. Now it is interesting to see some awakening on the part of a member or two to your right. One might express regret that the awakening had not occurred sooner.
Then we hear him appealing also for income tax relief on behalf of those in the lower income brackets.


William Ross Macdonald: The house has already decided this year in the budget with respect to the rate of income tax. It seems to me it is not in order to discuss the matter at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not discussing rates of taxation as such. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that this is a matter which apparently is now giving some concern to at least one hon. member opposite, as a result of recent events. I am suggesting that it ought to be a matter of wider concern. And I have drawn attention to the fact that this hon. member, and six other hon. members to whom I have referred, are now concerned. Those people, who are now as brave as a lion on the subject, were as silent as the tomb only a month ago in the budget debate. This being a problem today, it was a problem then. Why did we not have some assistance from those who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, in our demands in the interests of those in the lower wage and salary brackets, when we asked that they be given some relief?
This process of disintegration in the Liberal party has gone a long way. It will be remarkable if the party maintains any semblance of unity until that first week of August when the national convention is to be held.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the Tory
party?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On every side we see such abundance of proof of the fact that this government is out of touch with the people. The attitude of its own members today, in condemnation of government policy, shows just how far the government has become out of touch with the feeling of the people. One could find no better proof of the fact that the government has been in office far too long.
Policies oj Political Parties

Finally, here is the legacy-and what a legacy-to be passed on to the national convention and to whoever will be assuming the mantle of leadership! Here is revolt in the cabinet and revolt in the ranks of the Liberal members in the House of Commons! Here we have the picture of a government and a party, to use the language of the hon. member for Springfield, facing annihilation. Annihilation of the Liberal party is the right expression- you cannot get a better one. This process of disintegration which is going on apace will unquestionably lead to that annihilation of the Liberal party, unless this government wakes up and takes concerted, heroic, vigorous and immediate action to reduce taxes and to combat the soaring cost of living.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak about another matter for a few moments.


Mr. GILLIS:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the subject which is before the house.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Cape Breton South may proceed.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker-


John Ewen Sinclair: Why do you not apply for leadership of the Tory party?


Clarence Gillis: It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) introduced this subject matter at this stage of the session, when we are trying to get through the business of the house


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was why I was brief.


Clarence Gillis: -in order to get away. However, we are in no hurry. We are quite prepared to stay here and to discuss any business which may come before the house.
Actually the hon. member for Eglinton is supposed to be raising a grievance at this point in proceedings. Sitting here and listening to him, to me it did not sound like a grievance. It sounded more like the wailing of a lost soul.


Mr. MARTIN:: Speaking on behalf of a lost party.


Clarence Gillis: No doubt about that; he is speaking on behalf of a lost party.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The missing link.


Clarence Gillis: Throughout his speech he was trying to prove why Mr. Drew lost a certain number of seats in Ontario.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Including his own.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, including his own. He was trying to show that the three federal by-elections went to C.C.F. candidates because
[Mr. Fleming,!
of the failure of certain government policies; and the whole trend of his discussion was to the effect that the government were assisting the C.C.F. to power and that the communist party also was trying to push the C.C.F. to power.
What the hon. member fails to understand is that what he is witnessing today is not the disintegration of the Liberal party or the disintegration of the Tory party; wrhat he is witnessing is the disintegration of a system for which both of those parties stand. What the hon. member did not tell the house is what his party would be doing were they on that side of the house, which would be any different from what the government is now doing.


Mr. JACKMAN:: You did not talk about socialism in the Ontario election, I will tell you.


Clarence Gillis: You do not know what socialism is even. You know only what the Globe and Mail or some of your Tory papers in Ontario tell you.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What about the Daily Worker?


Clarence Gillis: If you have a speech to make, then, when I have finished, get up and make it. At the present time I am trying to put the hon. member for -Eglinton straight, because I believe he is an honest little fellow, and that he is really feeling his way along. He is trying to find out something-and I am trying to tell him something.


An hon. MEMBER:: What a teacher!


Clarence Gillis: And, believing that he is honest about it, I will try to prove conclusively to him that what is happening in Canada and on the North American continent is what happened in Europe. In trying to sell the old machine of profits, you dragged the world down to ashes. The philosophy of the Liberal party in this house and in the country and the philosophy of your party, is the same thing- private enterprise. You cannot divorce yourself from and still be part of that machine; you cannot condemn the government for maintaining the kind of thing for which you yourselves stand.
I wish to focus the hon. member's attention to this point. He talks about the C.C.F. and the government in coalition. The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) put him straight on one point. When the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen left the other place and decided to assume the leadership of the Tory party, or what was left of it, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) was good enough to say, "Well, we will not oppose him. We would like to have him in here, and have

Policies of Political Parties
some fun with him." If the electors in York South at that time were not prepared to go down the line with the Tory machine, they showed good judgment when -they supported an organization they knew was a little more progressive than even the government pretended to be at that time. And in doing that, they sent a C.C.F. member to the House of Commons, and showed good judgment in doing so.
What is taking place today nationally, and what the hon. member for Eglinton does not understand, is that the machine of free enterprise from outside, and pressure from "Jesse James" street in Montreal, and King street in Toronto, is forcing you into a coalition with the Tories on that side of the house, whether you like it or not. Let me tell hon. members a few truths about the whole situation. What have you in British Columbia today?


John Ewen Sinclair: Floods.


Clarence Gillis: You have a coalition. You sit on the same set seats with the Liberals and you pass the same legislation. The people of British Columbia smartened up and got wise. The C.C.F. is driving you into social change; it is driving you out. The same is true in Manitoba. You formed a coalition government there.


John Ewen Sinclair: The C.C.F. were in it.


Clarence Gillis: Was it not the Hon. John Bracken, the gentleman who leads the Tory party in this house, who was at its head? Certainly it was. He put the old machine together; they painted up the old buggy and John became the coachman. Then he rode down here to Ottawa to do the same job here nationally as he had succeeded in doing provincially in Manitoba.


John Ewen Sinclair: He had the C.C.F. with him in Manitoba.


Clarence Gillis: That is the trend throughout Canada today. There is a continuing realignment- of the parties. The people are beginning to think. What the hon. member says about communists electing so many candidates in Ontario is just so much nonsense. Nobody knows who voted for whom. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the people in Mr. Drew's riding elected a C.C.F. member, and in twenty-one other ridings the people of Ontario did the same thing. All this about who voted for whom is just so much nonsense.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier) :: There are things the hon. member does not want to know.


Clarence Gillis: I am assuming that you have a secret ballot in Ontario. You just cannot
use that kind of loose language in the House of Commons where you are supposed to make responsible statements. The parties are no longer in existence in British Columbia and Manitoba; they are coalitions.
What is going on in Saskatchewan today where a provincial election is in progress? The old machines of free enterprise are having to take off their tags. I understand that the Tory leader in Saskatchewan, Mr. Ramsay, has moved into Liberal quarters, because he said it was better to get together under the one roof and it would not cost as much to run the election. But the people are smartening up about that kind of thing, and we are putting more members into this house and into the legislatures who have a social conscience, who realize that you cannot continue to support a machine which has been relegated to the past. It has disappeared in every other section of the world except on this North American continent.
Unless we smarten up in this house and eliminate this kind of thinking, we shall repeat the performances of Europe. I am sorry the hon. member raised this question this after-non, because I consider it has been a waste of time. His talk was completely off base. With his training, I do not like to see him do that kind of thing. There is a future for him if he will just smarten up and get in with the right people and begin to think in terms of progress. I should like to read an article that appeared in what I think is a good Conservative paper, the Ottawa Journal. I want the hon. member for Eglinton to listen carefully, because this comes right from Saskatchewan. It is headed, "Some Fusion of Anti-C.C.F. in Saskatchewan".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Confusion is what it is.


Clarence Gillis: It reads:
The pattern of official nominations for the Saskatchewan election presents sufficient opportunity for a uniting of the anti-C.C.F. vote to give the government a severe set-hack.
Briefly that pattern is:
There are 50 seats to be filled on June 24; two constituencies have deferred elections.
Of the 50 seats, some clear-cut form of fusion has been effected in ten.
In 34 more of the 50 there is no overlapping of Liberals and Conservative nominations. Either one or the other, hut not both, has been nominated. In some of them this circumstance has been brought about by agreement between the constituency organizations, in others it has gone that way because no one tool* the lead in arranging an agreement.
Although there is an element of fusion in them they are not, strictly speaking, fusion seats.
The hon. member spoke about subterfuge, backstage manipulation and that kind of thing in the York South by-election. The set-up in
Policies oj Political Parties

Saskatchewan at the present time proves, whether he or other so-called Liberals and Conservatives of this country are aware of it, that backstage manipulation is going on with regard to the maintenance of the present order of society. Unless we clear our thinking with regard to changes in our whole economy, we also are headed for disaster and chaos.
I think the main reason for unrest in this country today is that we failed to maintain controls on prices in the two years immediately after the war. A measure of responsibility for that must be accepted by the Conservative party. We listened in this house to a continuous barrage on the part of Conservatives urging the government to take off controls, to get back to free enterprise because the law of supply and demand would regulate prices, and all that kind of stuff. Unfortunately the government fell for that line of chatter, with the result that we have the conditions which exist today. We are in hope that, even before this house closes, we may have some indication from the government that a reasonable degree of control will be reimposed, that there will be some roll-back in prices and a re-implementation of the excess profits tax arrangement.
Unless these things are done, all this nonsense about guessing that this section or that section of the country has done this or that, will not correct anything. We have to do something about it, and the responsibility for doing something about it rests with the government. I am sorry that I had to get up and waste the time of the house, but the hon. member for Eglinton provoked this discussion and his remarks required an answer.


Mr. C. E. STEPHENSON (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I think we have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech just made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). At times this House of Commons has been used by the C.C.F. as a sounding board for their C.C.F. political propaganda. Hon. members of other parties have not challenged the irresponsible statements that have been made by members of that party.
We hear them deprecate the free enterprise system. I should like the hon. member for Cape Breton South to name any country in the world which enjoys the freedom and privileges and standard of living enjoyed in Canada and the United States under free enterprise.


Clarence Gillis: Do you want an answer?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: The hon. member can speak when I finish; he had his turn. The statement was made some time ago in the house by one of these C.C.F. members that free enterprise was a non-risk-taking vulture policy. On that occasion I challenged the

statement. I can imagine what we would have in this country under a system such as they propose. Statements have been made by the C.C.F., and I think it is time that the people of this country realized where we are going.
There has been some indication that the people are leaning socially and are following along not realizing where they are going. We should begin to realize what may happen in this country in the light of what has happened in several European countries, particularly in Czechoslovakia. A great number of the extreme Leftists infiltrate into the party aDd eventually shove the other people out of bed and take over the government. I believe that there is a tendency in that direction in this country today and that the people do not realize what is happening. It is interesting to note that the leader of the Labour-Progressive party made a statement some time ago that the communist party which they represent would support the C.C.F. across this country wherever they did not have their own candidates. Using the House of Commons as a sounding board again, the C.C.F. members get up and try to repudiate and dissociate themselves from any communist movement. Following the statement that Tim Buck made, we find the leader of the C.C.F. party in this house getting up and saying, as reported at page 1938 of Hansard:
The C.C.F. will not collaborate with the Labour-Progressive party in any way, direct or indirect. It will not enter into any electoral arrangements with it or with any other party, whether on a national, provincial, or constituency basis.
Further on, he said:
Whatever the future fortunes of the Canadian people and of this particular party may be, it is certain that we shall keep our hands clean and our skirts clear of any association with any totalitarian group.
It is interesting in this connection to note a dispatch from Regina which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of June 19, reading as follows:
A. A. McLeod, Ontario leader of the Labour-Progressive party, said last night the efforts and policies of his party were largely responsible for the gains made by the C.C.F. in the Ontario election.
"We played a big part in the election of the twenty-two C.C.F. members," he said in an election campaign address to approximately eighty-five people. "I say here categorically, they would not be in the Ontario legislature today if it were not for the efforts and policies of the Labour-Progressive party."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since when did you accept him as an authority?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I think that is an indication of what is happening in this country today, and the members of this house and

Policies oj Political Parties
the citizens of Canada should know the answer. I think the C.C.F. has something to answer for and I should like to hear their answer.


Mr. RODNEY YOUNG (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak today, but I feel sure I have some information which should be of value to the members of the house, particularly to the hon. gentleman who spoke last. I have, as you know, recently been taking part in a political campaign, and it is interesting to note that during that entire campaign the official organ of the Labour-Progressive party in British Columbia, the Pacific Tribune, never once mentioned that there was a by-election contest in Vancouver Centre. I would be very happy to show to the hon. member the results of the polls in that constituency and to point out that there are two polls which he would find most interesting. Those were the two polls which voted in the last federal election by very large majorities for Labour-Progressive candidates. The same two polls voted in the recent by-election with the same majorities for the Progressive Conservative candidates. Those polls are 102A and 101. They are situated in the very centre of the slum area in the constitutency which I represent in this house today. All the surrounding polls voted, as they have always done, by large majorities for the C.C.F. candidate, but the two particular polls I mentioned voted respectively seventy-six per cent for the Progressive Conservative candidate and seven for the C.C.F.; and sixty for the Progressive Conservative candidate, and seven again for the C.C.F.
The provincial committee of the Labour-Progressive party, when it gave those instructions in defiance of the national policy laid down by Mr. Tim Buck, received the resignations of two of its members. It is an odd thing that in the very last days of that by-election, large advertisements appeared in the local press on behalf of the Liberal candidate, calling upon Conservative party members to withdraw their support from their own candidate and save the riding from the socialists. By that time it was obvious that the socialist was not being supported by the Labour-Progressive party.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of hon. members, that the position of the C.C.F., well known as it has been made on all possible occasions by members of that party speaking in this house, has had the result of causing the communist party or the Labour-Progressive party to withdraw its support from the C.C.F., and it will continue to do so for
the reason that the C.C.F. is opposed to all forms of authoritarianism.


An hon. MEMBER:: That has been heard before.


Rodney Young: Someone says, "That has been heard before", but it has not yet been heard of the two old-line parties, because the net result of the policies pursued by those two parties leads to authoritarianism, to the possession of economic power in the hands of a few corporations, and to the abolition of private property in the hands of the small holder. For that reason the people in Vancouver Centre, the people in Yale, and the people in Ontario riding, who are anti-authoritarian as most Canadians are, voted in favour of a policy that will preserve and extend for them the rights and privileges which 150 years of struggle have procured for the people of this country. In this matter I would say to the hon. member that there is no such thing as standing still. We either go forward or go backward. There is only one way to go forward; that is, with the progressive forces, and those forces are concentrated in the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation.


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish, in the first place, to congratulate the hon. gentleman to my left (Mr. Young) on his maiden speech, which I am sure the members, irrespective of their opinions, will agree was a very well delivered and creditable performance. I will not say it all sounded unfamiliar. There were passages in it which are familiar to us here; I have no doubt they were familiar to his electors, and I am bound to admit that they must have been not only familiar to his electors, but apparently for the moment somewhat successful. But dealing with the matter which is under discussion, and which was raised by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson), I think it is desirable that we should get the record straight. Therefore I wish to read an extract from the Vancouver Sun of April 28, and after that I shall read an advertisement from the Vernon News of May 13. The headline from the Vancouver Sun is as follows: "C.C.F. asks labour aid in 'Centre' The body of the article is as follows:
Campaign heat will be turned on in Vancouver . Centre by-election, C.C.F. candidate Rod Young promised Tuesday night. Young appealed to Vancouver Labor council delegates for election campaign workers and for financial support.
"If we win this election," he said, "we will influence trade unionists all over the country."
Questioned if he wanted the support of Labour-Progressive party members in his campaign, Young replied, "We do not intend to
Policies of Political Parties

make any alliance with any other party. Speakers from the L.P.P. will not appear on C.C.F. platforms."
Hon. members might notice that, Mr. Speaker, because of the advertisement which I Shall subsequently read. I continue:
If there are any L.P.P. members who have officially stated they have changed their minds, and if they support the CjC.F. candidate and his policy, I do not think any part of the C.C.F. will say these people cannot turn out and work with us.
I want to interject here, and I come back to the words "if there are any L.P.P. members who have officially stated they have changed their minds". I am not quite sure what "changing their minds" means. I continue to read from the article.
The question of union support for the C.C.F. campaign was left to the individual delegates to take up with their unions.
I come now to the advertisement which appeared in the Vernon News, which is published in Yale riding. This is an interesting comment on the statement that L.P.P. members should apparently change their minds before they would be allowed to support the C.C.F. At any rate, this is the advertisement from the Vernon News:
Public Meeting. Minerva Miller, Provincial Election Director L.P.P. will speak at Burns Hall, Thursday, May 20, at 8 p.m.
Subject:	"Why we support C.C.F."
Minerva Miller was an L.P.P. candidate in the provincial by-election for North Okanagan.
The only comment I have to make on that is that I think, when you have people come in and help you to gain a victory, you ought to be very frank and ready to admit the part which they have played.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was speaking I interjected with a question. He had indicated that he did not want to see the Liberal party win the forthcoming election in the province of Quebec. I asked him whom he did want to win. He replied that he would indicate to me privately, but did not do so on the floor of the house. My reason for asking the question arose from something that I read in the Winnipeg papers not long ago about the Progressive Conservative provincial convention which was held in Manitoba earlier this month. I quote a sentence or two from the report of the convention as it appeared in the Winnipeg Citizen of June 12:
During the debate, John McDowell, member for Iberville, who opposed coalition, urged that the Progressive Conservative party make an allout effort to win Manitoba at the next election.
[Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario).)
"Let_ us stand up as Conservatives," he said. "Let's change our name as has been done in Quebec. Let us call ourselves Union Nationale."
Therefore it would seem that it is something of that kind which the hon. member will be vouchsafing to me in private, namely, that his party is supporting the party of Duplessis in the province of Quebec.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not mention saying it in private.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now it is out in public. May I point out to the hon. member that the remark made by Mr. McDowell at the Tory convention in Manitoba was made in the course of what appears to have been the main debate at that convention. If one reads about this convention in all three Winnipeg papers he will find that the main question was whether to stay in or get out of the Manitoba coalition. Those who argued on both sides had the same aim in view, namely, to take whichever course would be most likely to keep the C.C.F. out of power.
Other hon. members have already referred to the fusion candidates or the confusion candidates in Saskatchewan. There was drawn to my attention this morning an advertisement for the two non-C.C.F. candidates in the constituency of Saskatoon. Saskatoon is a two-member riding where there has been one of those saw-offs such as was referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). The Tory leader, Mr. Ramsay, is a candidate there, and there is one Liberal candidate. There now appears in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix an advertisement for these two candidates, one Tory and one Liberal. The whole theme of the advertisement is that both of these candidates oppose socialism. Below the advertisement one reads two lines. First, this line:	.
This advertisement is inserted by a group of independent voters.
Then there is another line which says:
This^ advertisement is not inserted by the authority of either the Liberal or the Progressive Conservative party.
That is a symbol of the confusion that things have reached in Saskatchewan, so far as both old parties are concerned.
The hon. member for Eglinton who raised this matter this afternoon made it pretty clear that his chief concern was not with the question of why the Liberal party was losing ground, as set out by certain members opposite to their leader; his chief concern was why both the old parties are losing ground, including his own.
I have before me a table which I am not going to ask the house to put on the record, because it is not up to date anyway, having to

Policies oj Political Parties
do with federal by-elections that have taken place since 1945. This table was made up after the by-election in Yale, and does not include the figures for the by-elections in Ontario and Vancouver Centre. Up to that time there had been eight federal by-elections since the general election of 1945. This table, which I say I shall not take the time to read, gives the total votes that each of the three main parties, Liberal, Progressive Conservative and C.C.F. had in these ridings in 1945. Then it gives the votes that each of these parties had in the by-elections in these same ridings. When you add them all up you find that the Liberal vote dropped from 92,453 to 87,365, or a drop of 5-5 per cent. When you add up the vote of the Progressive Conservative candidates on the same basis you find that they had dropped from 62,134 to 51,937, or a drop of 16-4 per cent.. Therefore, when the hon. member for Eglinton talks about the disintegration of the Liberal party he cannot but be conscious of the even greater disintegration that is going on in his own party.
Contrast the decline in the total votes of the two old parties in these elections with the figures of the votes for the C.C.F. candidates. These include ridings like Pontiac where, as a matter of fact, we dropped. But when you add them all up-including Pontiac-you find that the C.C.F. went up from 27,218 votes to 43,216, or an increase of 58-7 per cent.
Let me repeat these percentages. The Liberal vote dropped 5-5 per cent; the Tory vote dropped 16-4 per cent, and the C.C.F. went up 58-7 per cent. That does not include Ontario and Vancouver Centre, which would make an even sorrier picture both for my hon. friends opposite and for the hon. member for Eglinton, who raised the question this afternoon, and an even better picture for the C.C.F.
What the hon. member for Eglinton and others of his party, who have spoken, do not [DOT] seem to realize is that the figures I have given of the progress being made by this movement indicate something far more than just a partisan political game. The hon. member for Eglinton, like his colleagues in Manitoba, thinks not in terms of policy, but rather in terms of politics, a case of trying to put the other rascals out so that they can get in.
What is actually happening in this country today is that the people have not forgotten the high hopes expressed during the war that this time, having won the war, we would also win the peace. The people of the country have not forgotten the idealism expressed by the Prime Minister when he indicated during the years of the war that we had to lay then the foundations for a better society after that struggle was over.
The people today want all the freedoms we have had in the past and more. They want those freedoms protected and enhanced in every possible way. They want, with all that, security and justice. They know that if there is not security, if there is not justice, freedom can be lost. The Canadian people think of security and justice and freedom not merely in abstract terms. They realize that security and justice and freedom mean good homes, steady employment, educational opportunities for the children of all, the best care that is possible of the people's health, over-all security against all the things that hit us over which we have no control, and dignified security in our old age.
The people of Canada do not see these things coming under the old, worn-out competitive free-enterprise system. The people of Canada have come to realize that social thinking has been moving away from the competitive dog-eat-dog method to the co-operative method, to the attempt to establish our lives on the basis of a community of human beings whose concern is to achieve, not big salaries for the few and the short end of the stick for the many, but a good life for all our people.
What my hon. friends do not seem to realize -and I do not blame them, because it is inevitable that in this political life we cannot but get into arguments back and forth-is that this conception is very deep in the hearts of the Canadian people, as expressed, Mr. Speaker, by the introduction this morning of three new C.C.F. members who walked up the aisle and were presented to Your Honour. They came to express the hopes, the desires and the determination of the Canadian people *that we turn our backs upon the old dog-eat-dog, cutthroat competition of the past and attempt to achieve the kind of society that we believe to be our destiny in this our Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are you advocating
monopoly?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends would do well, in view of the figures I have given, in view of their decline and disintegration-even worse since that table was compiled-to sit down and think these things over. As my hon. friend the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) says, there is a future for the hon. member for Eglinton and for other parties in the country. They can play a part, too, in the onward march of society. They do not have to be reactionary all the time. They can come up to date; they can wake up; they can smarten up, and my hon. friends would do well to consider the changes that have taken place in social thinking. They would
Policies of Political Parties

do well to consider the progress made by mankind and try to keep up with it, instead of forever trying to hold it back.
Before I sit down I should like to say a word in relation to the part of my hon. friend's remarks which was serious, although I think he trifled with it. Perhaps he was to be pardoned for that, because it does lend itself to that. I suggest that this division among my Liberal friends opposite, which has been widely publicized, is serious and is something that calls for some statement to this house and to the country before parliament prorogues.
The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sin-nott) has written a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), and we have seen six members opposite, led by the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Breithaupt) calling upon the Prime Minister and insisting that the government come out of the kitchen, insisting that there should be a removal of austerity taxes on electrical and other household equipment, dropping the sales tax from any foods or commodities on which it still remains, and the use of subsidies again to bring down the high cost of basic food necessities. In addition to that, there is this quotation from the hon. member for Waterloo North:
Mr. King told us he believed our proposals were very wise.
At another place in the account of that interesting interview, the hon. member for Waterloo North is reported as having said:
Mr. King agreed with us that a housewives' budget would be very much in order.
The other day I asked the Minister of Finance whether it was the intention of the government to take any action to curb the still rising cost of living, and he told me in reply that he had nothing to add to what had been said on former occasions. He indulged in the usual attempt to tie price control and wage control together, and he left the whole thing on a very unsatisfactory basis. In the meantime there has been this wide publicity of a sharp division within the ranks of the party opposite. It is more than that. It sounds like a division between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, because the Prime Minister is reported as having agreed with these six or seven rebel Liberals who want a different policy from that pursued by the Minister of Finance.
With the cost of living still going up, and prices of foodstuffs and the necessities of life still rising-another one was called to my attention a few days ago, namely the price of

textbooks, which will be from 50 to 75 per cent higher by the time the schools open in the fall than they are now-with this sort of thing happening, I suggest that this division in the party opposite is not just something to be trifled with from this side of the house; it is not just something to poke fun at. It is something that lays a responsibility on the government. It lays upon us the responsibility of asking the government for a statement as to which line it intends to follow. Does it intend to follow the line of austerity taxes and no consideration of subsidies, as pursued by the Minister of Finance, or the line of a housewife's budget and the use of subsidies to bring down the cost of living, as proposed by the hon. member for Waterloo North and five or six of his colleagues, and as agreed to, according to the newspaper reports, by the Prime Minister.
These things are of a somewhat different character from the line I was following a few moments ago. I was talking about a long-range idea, coming out of the heart of the Canadian people, as expressed by the C.C.F. victories recently. That trend will continue. There is no doubt about that. This other thing is immediate. The question is more important than whether it involves the disintegration of the Liberal party. It is a life-andi-death matter to the Canadian people now, whether the cost of living will be allowed to soar still higher, or whether some action will be taken to deal with the situation before it is too late. I hope that in this debate we shall have this question cleared up. If not, there should certainly be an answer before this session concludes.
Mr. JULIAN H. FERGUSON (Simcoe North): It has been interesting to listen to the new member of this house for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Young). He has come in here with his new additional theories and has expounded them regarding C.C.F. tactics. They are similar to the tactics and theories to which we have listened before. Practically every member of the C.C.F. advocates something different as long as it is a vote catcher. The hon. member is probably not aware of the fact that many members of his party in the past have advocated the taking over of the small farms of the farmers. That has never been repudiated. One of his members made that statement and it will never be forgotten by the farmers of Ontario. They were to be permitted to hold these small holdings the hon. member for Vancouver Centre spoke of until such time as the farmer's death, at which time they became state property That was the statement made by one of his colleagues who is still a staunch member of

Policies oj Political Parties
the C.C.F. It will be most interesting when all three of the new members introduce more vote-catching ideas. It will be interesting, but they will not amount to much in Ontario. The winning of a seat in Ontario is no criterion of what will be the general reception that will be given in a dominion election to C.C.F. tactics and theories throughout the remainder of Ontario.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I should certainly like to refrain, Mr. Speaker, from having any part in a discussion such as the one we have been having here which is, after all, just washing dirty linen in public. But lest it should appear that Social Credit has nothing to say in a situation of this sort, I think it would be well for me just to say a word or two.
First of all, let me point out to the Liberals and Conservatives in this house and in the country that, in so far as they are advocating a change or making a change, they are going C.C.F.; that is all they are doing. They are increasing taxes in order to find money with which to pay for additional social services, to the extent that additional social services are being provided. I will defy any member of the Liberal or the Progressive Conservative party to question what I say, or to gainsay it. If that is the only conception the Liberals and Conservatives have of reform, no wonder the people say, ''Let us have the C.C.F. and get reform in a hurry"; because the C.C.F., I tell you, have nothing in the world to offer except what the Liberals and Conservatives are working to gradually.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: And are producing.


John Horne Blackmore: That is all there is to it. I am quite positive that the election results which we have seen, reflecting the success of the C.C.F., have been the direct results of Liberal policy, and the direct result of what the Conservatives have advocated. If the Liberals and Conservatives would just recognize that and stop whining against the C.C.F. because the C.C.F. have won a few votes, they would really get somewhere. There must be some form of change which can be brought about without socialism. If there is such a change, why do the Liberals and the Conservatives not find it out and advocate that change? Why do they not do that and not get up and whine like a lot of spoiled school kids because they are beaten by a party that is just a little bit farther along their own way than they are. That is the first thing. There is a change, Mr. Speaker, that could be made.


Mr. POULIOT:: What is it?


John Horne Blackmore: The change is social credit.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: You see, Mr. Speaker, that- is exactly what happens. The Liberals and the Conservatives are laughing themselves into oblivion. They will not listen to a proposal that would get them out of their difficulty. They have men like the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) who have scoffed at the idea of social credit. He said he would not bring in social credit, no matter what happened.


An hon. MEMBER:: Socialism is worse.


John Horne Blackmore: And I think it was this same gentleman who would not favour a subsidy to the railroads to avoid the increase in railroad freight rates! What can you expect the people to do, in sheer dismay?


Jean-François Pouliot: What is social credit?


John Horne Blackmore: I can explain what social credit is. As a matter of fact, social credit has been explained time and time again.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Here is more nonsense again from hon. members who interrupt. Social credit has been explained time and time again, and the hon. member has never done anything but just try to make fun of it. He will keep on making fun of it until the C.C.F. put him out of his position, or until the communists, who are along exactly the same line, do it. I think this attempt to try to blame the communists for the C.C.F. victories is the sheerest kind of nonsense; because in 1940 the Liberals had a good deal of communist support to win their victory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was in 1945.


John Ewen Sinclair: In 1940 it was the C.C.F.


John Horne Blackmore: What we want- to do is to find out the source of difficulty and go after a solution.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not making fun by asking that question. I should like to know how the Liberal party, according to my hon. friend, could absorb the social credit policy.


John Horne Blackmore: In the first place, as I have said time and time again, the Liberal party could adopt a system of the limited creation of debt-free money. The Liberal party itself has advocated that policy for over twenty years, when it has been out of power. But when Liberals get into power, they will not even hear about debt-free money. They
Policies oj Political Parties

will not even allow those in the Liberal party who favour debt-free money to talk for it. Look at the way they treated Gerry MeGeer.


James Horace King: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.


John Horne Blackmore: I move the adjournment of the debate. I will go on after eight o'clock.-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We take that for granted.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, before the house took recess I had yielded to the temptation to express my exasperation, and I mean now to say a few more words bearing upon the discussion going forward.
I was not privileged to hear all the discussion that had taken place but I gathered that there was a certain amount of complaint on the part of certain Progressive Conservatives because the C.C.F. had won some seats. They were endeavouring to say the C.C.F. had won those seats because they had the assistance of the communists. I say to the Progressive Conservatives that is one of the most inane things they could possibly say. If they had proved that the C.C.F. had won every seat because of communist support, where would the Progressive Conservatives have got themselves? Just distinctly nowhere. What, then, is the sense of trying to smear the C.C.F. by trying to make it appear that the communists are behind them?
What this country wants to know is whether anybody in either the Progressive Conservative or the Liberal party has sense enough to know anything they can do that will render communism unnecessary. To me, if the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals, henchmen and leaders, the brain trusts in charge of the two organizations, will go to work on that problem and answer that question for the people, they will be doing something worthwhile in this dangerous day in which we live. The simple fact of the matter is that we have got to a position in which change simply must come; and if we do not have intelligent change we shall have unintelligent change.


An hon. MEMBER:: The C.C.F.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not wrant to be unkind to the C.C.F. I can say this concerning the C.C.F., that the members who have come to this house are among the most earnest and well-informed, conscientious and industrious members of the house-every one of

them. I do not find any fault, except in this respect that the C.C.F. in Canada today are leading the country into a ditch. They are leading the people up a blind alley. I do not hesitate to say that right in their presence, and I challenge them to gainsay it.


Angus MacInnis: I think the country was up a blind alley.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member thinks it was up a blind alley. It has been led far enough up blind alleys by Liberals and Conservatives; it does not need any blundering C.C.F.'ers to lead it up any further. That is where the C.C.F. are going. Let us see if we can find some way out of the difficulty.
I am going to stop for a moment or two to analyse the C.C.F. policy as I see it. I believe I am correct; and I shall ask to be corrected if I am not correct, or if I do not analyse it correctly. The C.C.F., in common with socialism everywhere, every brand of socialism-


John Ewen Sinclair: National socialism?


John Horne Blackmore: Every kind-in common with every kind of socialism, stands for three kinds of development. The first one is government ownership of the means of production. The second one is a taxation structure that tends to level everyone down to a certain dead level. The C.C.F. people will say, "Yes, and level everybody else up to that certain level". We will accept even that. But let us bear this clearly in mind, that the C.C.F. involves taxation, and very severe taxation.
The third trend of socialism everywhere is toward the centralization of power. Socialists may talk about democracy until they are blue in the face, and people may believe them, until they are completely deluded; but the simple fact of the matter is that the application of socialist principles everywhere leads to the centralization of power and ultimately to dictatorship. And regardless of what the men and women who are administering the system may desire to do, the unavoidable trend is and must be toward dictatorship, or the centralization of power. There is nothing more to the C.C.F. than that. There is nothing more to socialism than those three things.
Tell me, now, in what direction the Liberal party is tending today, and in what direction the Progressive Conservative party is following them and pushing them. It is exactly in the direction of the three principles I have indicated-more and more rigid taxation, until motivation tends to be destroyed; more and more bureaucracy, which means the centralization of power-


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.

Policies oj Political Parties


John Horne Blackmore: -and ultimately they will have government ownership of industry, because industry will be entirely unable to carry on under the conditions under which they are now labouring.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are doing
pretty well now.


John Horne Blackmore: Some one of the C.C.F. members has just said, "Well, they are doing pretty well". Yes, just a few at the top are doing well. But even they will find the situation rendered impossible for them if we continue under the present system, exactly in the way in which the Liberals are administering it, and exactly as the Progressive Conservatives would administer it if they were in power over on the treasury benches instead of sitting in opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which they never will be.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not know
whether they will be, because you never can account for what the people will do.


John Ewen Sinclair: They may even vote C.C.F. now and again.


John Horne Blackmore: There is an alternative.
I was telling the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) just before six o'clock that if the principle of the creation of debt-free money, in accordance with the production of the country, were adopted, that would be the key to a solution of the difficulty. I lay this down right now, that if that principle is not adopted by the Liberal party or by the Progressive Conservative party, or whatever party succeeds them, then the country will go toward a socialist dictatorship, just as sure as Canada is Canada. And so will any other country that tries to carry on under the system under which we are now carrying on.
If debt-free money is adopted we shall find that it will then be possible to render financially possible what is physically possible. All a country like Canada needs is to have what is physically possible, in this majestic and marvellous country, rendered financially possible. Then everyone of the fondest dreams of the people of Canada can be realized, because we can use the resources God has given us to accomplish a standard of living such as we ought to have.
I have already told what the C.C.F. stands for. Let me now say that social credit fundamentally stands for the use of debt-free money in accordance with the surplus production of the country, the production which, under normal circumstances, people are unable to obtain the money to buy. If the C.C.F. would adopt that principle, as I suspect a number of them would, they would be able to avoid-


John Lambert Gibson: The only kind of money they will ever have.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no use in mincing matters. I want to be frank; if the C.C.F. did adopt the principle of debt-free money, then they would not be under the necessity of stealing every bit of money they use from the people who have it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


John Horne Blackmore: All they are advocating at the present time is nothing in the world but organized highway robbery. They propose to take from the men who have, the money that they have. That proposal will discourage initiative; it will discourage people from producing. That is the difficulty the socialists run into all the time; they get to the point where they cannot get production and then they are in real difficulty.
If the C.C.F. will adopt the principle of debt-free money they will not have to have government ownership of industry, because they will be able to get their money without trying to take it way from those who have it. If the Liberals and Conservatives will adopt the principle of debt-free money, wisely used, they will be able to overcome the dangers they are running into. I have not much more to say and I am sure all will be glad to have me finish.


John Lambert Gibson: No; it is a good speech.


John Ewen Sinclair: Give the C.C.F. another belt.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go after the Liberals again.


John Horne Blackmore: I think I have been going after the Liberals just about as hard as I have been going after anybody. When we rose for the dinner recess I was pointing out the strange ways of the Liberals. One member of our Social Credit group stated in this house one time that a certain man with great experience in Canada had once said that the Liberals were false to true principles while the Conservatives were true to false principles.


John Lambert Gibson: The C.C.F.
have no principles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just the truth.


John Horne Blackmore: I believe the C.C.F. are true to the principles they have, but those principles are false and will lead them into trouble. I was just pointing out what the Liberals have done with respect to debt-free money. The Liberal Advocate is supposed to be a Liberal party organ, or at least that is what it pretends to be. If you go back to the
Policies oj Political Parties

issues of that publication, from 1930 to 1935 you will find that in every single issue they talked about debt-free money. But just the minute the Liberals took office they stopped talking about debt-free money and they stopped all Liberals from talking about debt-free money.


John Ewen Sinclair: What about Gerry
McGeer?
Mr. QUE'LOH: They made him a senator.


John Horne Blackmore: One of the most striking memories I have is of Gerry McGeer standing up in this house while the war was on and telling the then Minister of Finance, now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley), how to conduct the affairs of this country with respect to money. I can remember the present Minister of Justice standing up and wringing his hands and pleading with the hon. member to stop embarrassing the government-by advocating principles which Liberals had been advocating for ten or fifteen years!


Stanley Howard Knowles: What did they do to Tucker?


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Tucker started talking debt-free money enthusiastically, and he persisted in such talk. I remember how earnestly he used to do so. What did the Liberals do with him? They sent him to the Bretton Woods conference.


John Ewen Sinclair: It was hard to take.


John Horne Blackmore: What did they send him there for? I presume it was done in order to give an air of respectability to the Bretton Woods conference or to try to make people think that, because the Canadian government sent a 'monetary reformer to the Bretton Woods conference, the Bretton Woods conference stood for monetary reform. You could not have a bigger lie put out anywhere than that, for the Bretton Woods conference stood for everything but monetary reform; it stood for reaction, the gold standard and restriction in every direction.
What did they do with the former member for Rosthern, Mr. Tucker? When he came back here they made him parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and that was the end of Walter Tucker. We heard no more from him regarding monetary reform. I could go right on through the list and refer to member after member. You rarely heard a man on the Liberal side rise in his place and talk in favour of monetary reform. Why? They were told, I suppose, to lay off. You can hardly get anywhere with a party that does things like that.

Oh, yes, the Liberals advocate these things like debt-free money in order to get into power, but they desert and betray them as soon as they get in. The Conservatives have not had courage enough to stand up and talk in favour of monetary reform.
What they need in the two parties are new ideas. The ordinary person on the street knows that some new ideas have to be brought in. but he does not know where in the world to turn to for them. So he votes for the C.C.F. because he thinks he can understand them a little better than he can understand anybody else. As I said a few minutes ago, it is easy for anybody to understand highway robbery. Even back in the days of Adam they understood that two or three could gang up on somebody who had some goods and take them away from him. That is all the C.C.F. are advocating. You hear them everlastingly talking about profits, but you never hear them say a word about losses. They pick out a few companies that happen to be fortunate enough in a given year to make profits, and they cry out against those profits as though the making of profit was the greatest crime of today. But they never tell you about the scores of others that made losses; they never tell you what the C.C.F. government would do to help them out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do not have any
losses.


John Horne Blackmore: You do not have any losses because somebody else is running the businesses. Just as soon as you run them yourselves you will have nothing but losses. That is precisely the sort of thing that socialism runs into.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wait until Thursday.


John Horne Blackmore: C.C.F. people think everything will be fine just as soon as they are voted in. They are in that respect just like the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals think that, because they win an election, they must be perfect. If the C.CJL also get the idea that, because they win an election, they must be all right, they are going to run into some terrible disappointments.
The members of the C.C.F. are well-meaning; every single member that is in this house means well. He is just as fine a man as you could possibly meet, but there is not a member of the C.C.F. in this house who has the slightest idea of what it would cost to put into operation the ideas he advocates.


John Ewen Sinclair: He does not know.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, yes, we do, right to the last cent.

Policies oj Political Parties


John Horne Blackmore: What a terrific shock the C.C.F. will run into if they take over the government and discover that there is limit to the amount of money that can be either taxed or robbed from the people of Canada. After they get all the money that can be taxed or robbed from the people, they will find they are far short of having enough money to run the affairs of Canada as they now tell the people they could run them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The only limit is what is physically possible.


John Horne Blackmore: Somebody has been talking about the social credit "printing presses". No one has ever heard anyone in the Social Credit group speak about printing presses, but you find that talk about printing presses taking place among Liberals, who are always trying to delude the people with falsehoods. How can you hope to run the country successfully when members of parliament are that kind of people? You just cannot do it. The people are becoming completely sick of the whole thing, but they do not know what to do.
Almost every country in the world, including Canada, is faced with two alternatives. Either they will have to adopt a system similar to social credit, which is based fundamentally upon the principle of debt-free money to render what is physically possible financially possible, or they will have to adopt socialism. There is no middle way. If they adopt socialism they will ultimately run into the same thing they have in Russia. That is inevitable. You may scoff at it all you like, but you cannot scoff the truth of my statement out of my statement.
This country faces those two alternatives. Either it will adopt the social credit concept, or it will adopt the C.C.F. socialist concept, and the two are diametrically opposite.


Mr. KNIGHT:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: Somebody says, "No", out I tell him that I know just about two things about it for every one he knows. I think I knew as much about socialism as the ordinary socialist in this house when I was twenty-five years old. I knew it then and I know it now. I used to wonder whether socialism was acceptable as a way of life, but I never was able to convince myself that it would lead to a sound state, and I do not believe it will now; not because I have any prejudices against it, but because the principles it advocates are unsound if you want freedom.
Just a word about enterprise. Social Credit stands for individual enterprise, for it says
that individual enterprise will produce goods abundantly. It has proved that it will do so all down through the centuries. At no time was the proof more evident than during the recent war when the nations that were under individual enterprise were able to smother with their production the nations not under free enterprise. I prefer to say "individual enterprise" rather than "free enterprise", because free enterprise suggests that enterprise is free to do whatever it likes, create monopolies and charge what it likes. Social Credit does not favour that sort of thing at all. Social Credit says that if you take individual enterprise, with the wonderful motivation that is in it naturally, set it to work producing goods, and regulate that enterprise by the social credit just price system, which allows for a fair profit, allows enterprise to recover its costs plus a fair profit, you will have a powerful engine, harnessed and controlled as a powerful horse might be, so that it can go ahead and produce abundantly without being able to destroy itself or others. There you have the concept of social credit.
We find our C.C.F. brethren very fond of trying to smear social credit in Alberta by trying to make it appear that social credit stands for big business, monopolies, et cetera.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Where is Mr. Low?


John Horne Blackmore: He is in Saskatchewan trying to tell the people of Saskatchewan some of the truth.


Angus MacInnis: I have been trying to grasp the principles of social credit. My understanding is that it is controlled free enterprise. Is that correct?


John Horne Blackmore: I think you could say "controlled" or "regulated". It is difficult to get a word which will carry the exact truth without an unfortunate connotation.


Angus MacInnis: If it is controlled, how can it be free?


John Horne Blackmore: It can be free just as a man who has been taught good manners and who exercises a certain amount of restraint can move about freely without offending anybody. He does not lose his freedom through such restraint. Just as soon as individual enterprise is taught that the state will co-operate with a company-let us take the Aluminum Company of Canada or the Canadian Pacific as an example-just as soon as the Canadian Pacific would be assured that the people of Canada would co-operate with it in an endeavour to see that it could recover its costs of production, plus a fair profit, and that the people of Canada would be behind it
5606
Policies of Political Parties

right through to accomplish that objective, the Canadian Pacific would become in every respect, one of the finest and most efficiently managed services in the state.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will be the government then.


John Horne Blackmore: That is just nonsense -no attempt to get the truth! What I have said holds. Just as soon as the Canadian Pacific would be assured that it could recover its cost of production, plus a fair profit, and it knew what that profit would be, and everybody knew it; once it was assured that the government and the people would co-operate with it, the Canadian Pacific would have no further, anxiety. It would not have to be afraid that, in case of a slump or a depression, it would lose so much money that it would become impossible for the company to keep on running the road. The same holds true of any enterprise you may take in this country. The Canadian Pacific would be regulated or controlled, not only to prevent it from going too far but to keep it from falling too far short of its objectives.
Now you have the social credit concept of individual enterprise just as clearly as it can be briefly defined, and you know what social credit stands for as regards enterprise. It stands for a carefully regulated price structure which prevents any enterprise from exploiting either the people it serves or employs or buys its raw material from. We say that if you put individual enterprise in a set of circumstances like that it will produce in adequate abundance, and all you will need to do then will be to find a market for what it produces. Social credit says: We will find a market for your goods through the use of debt-free money.
You see how vastly different that is from socialist concept.
I say once more to the Liberals and the Conservatives that if they adopt that debt-free money principle, if they set out with it to build a policy which will commend itself to the people; they can put that policy at an early date into operation. And, once the policy is put into operation, the people will never listen to socialism or the C.C.F. any more, and communism will disappear.
I say once more, Mr. Speaker, that Canada shall have either social credit or socialism. We may just as well recognize that and govern ourselves accordingly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I have pleasure in welcoming the three new members to the house. They have just been elected in by-elections in various constituencies, and I am sure that they will be happy with us and that

they will learn to appreciate being members of this club, the House of Commons. I wish them success. I am not panicky at all about their election. It was due to entirely different causes from those enumerated by the speakers of that party this afternoon.
I have just listened with great pleasure to the entertaining speech of my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). He told us that this country will go socialist or social credit. If the country ever goes socialist, which God forbid, we shall know where we are going, but if the country ever goes social credit, we shall never know.


John Horne Blackmore: Just as we do not know under Liberalism.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have listened attentively to my hon. friend, whom I admire. He tells us of the marvels that will be accomplished by social credit, but he failed to do one thing. He failed to tell us what social credit is. I have been listening to him for many years, and always with a great deal of pleasure. It may be on account of my deficiencies, but I am still wondering what social credit is.


John Horne Blackmore: If my hon. friend would permit a question, does he remember I said it involved debt-free money created by the state?


Jean-François Pouliot: It may involve that, but
my hon. friend did not tell me what social credit is.


John Horne Blackmore: Does he remember that I said social credit involves the creation of debt-free money?


Jean-François Pouliot: That is the same thing.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the hon. member remember that I said social credit involved what is called the just price, which guaranteed to producers the cost of production, plus a fair profit.


Jean-François Pouliot: These are things that my hon. friend has said a number of times, and each time I could not understand the working of it. I remember that one day I asked him, as an example, if the population of the world were one hundred people, how many would work to permit the others to live, and he answered me "two". Two people out of a hundred would make it possible for the others to live happily. It was beyond me. I asked him again how it would be done. He said it would be done by the machine. I asked, what machine? Well, I do not know what machine.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Liberal machine.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: These are things beyond my understanding. I listened with great care

Policies of Political Parties
to my hon. friend, and until he explains satisfactorily to me how two men can. make it possible for the other ninety-eight to live happily-the whole population of the world being a hundred-and with contentment, feed them, clothe them, find shelter for them, I shall not understand him. The machine that can do that must be pretty good, but I do not know if it is invented yet.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the hon. member permit another question? Will he tell us what Liberalism is?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell him what Liberalism is. Liberalism is the thing that my hon. friend believes in. When he makes sensible speeches they are Liberal speeches. When he denounces the socialist party he speaks as a great Liberal. It is unfortunate that he does not do so all the time.


John Horne Blackmore: Will my hon. friend permit one more question? Will he tell the house how Liberalism works?


Angus MacInnis: Backwards.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, Liberalism works
when-*


An hon. MEMBER:: In competition.


Jean-François Pouliot: Very well. Provided that it does not lean on socialist and Tory policies. So long as the Liberal party remains Liberal the policies are always excellent. That is what I want, and that is what they will have to be even before the convention. Having said that, I regret very much to be unable to understand all the points made by my hon. friend.
I will tell the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Young) that if he was elected it was mostly for two reasons: in the first place, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) did not create that vacancy when I asked for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why did you ask for it?


Jean-François Pouliot: For the reasons that my hon. friend used in the campaign. In the second place, because he complained that the official Liberal candidate had been imposed on the people of Vancouver Centre against their will. Parties may make mistakes at times, and when we make mistakes we admit them. This is no discredit to the hon. gentleman who, because he seems to be genial, must be personally popular in spite of the fact that he may have preached-I am not sure of it-wrong doctrines during the campaign. He preached wrong doctrines if he preached the C.C.F. doctrines.
I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg: North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He said that the people thought of security, justice and freedom not merely in abstract terms. That is true. He said that the people of Canada- this may not be textually accurate, but I was careful in taking my notes, and I want to do him justice-generally wished good homes, steady employment, educational opportunities, more of public health and over-all security than that given under the old, worn-out competitive free enterprise system. That is his view. That is the socialist view which is in conformity with the teachings of the late Mr. Woodsworth. On the other hand, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre this afternoon said that the policies pursued by the two old parties led to authoritarianism, the possession of economic power by the few and the abolition of private property in the hands of the people. How can both statements be reconciled? It is impossible. If my hon. friend thinks private enterprise is wrong I do not see how the new member for Vancouver Centre can make himself the advocate of the right of ownership by the private individual.


Clarence Gillis: He was absolutely correct. How much private property is in the hands of the ordinary people of Canada?	:


An hon. MEMBER:: All of it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Ninety-five per cent.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend has only to ask for the list of those who bought victory bonds, and he will see the number of people who have private property and the number of depositors in the banks.


Clarence Gillis: They are all back in the hands of the banks.


Jean-François Pouliot: Anybody who has an
account, provided that he has enough funds, can get his money out at any time. My hon. friend knows that, and he does the same thing himself. In spite of his theories, he does not put his money in the hands of the C.C.F. party. I hope he puts it in the bank in his own name, and when he needs it he draws it. He gets the private property while he draws it.


Clarence Gillis: That is apart from ownership altogether.	.


Jean-François Pouliot: Those who preach common ownership of property are just theorists and are not practising it. They do as the ordinary citizen does. They have what they own. They make use of it as they see fit, and they are happy under that system. It is an old system.

Policies of Political Parties
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) spoke, not of the disintegration of the old parties but of the disintegration of the system for which both old parties stood.


Clarence Gillis: Right.
Mr. POUIftOT: I want to quote him cor-Tectly. He also spoke of the disintegration of free enterprise. He said that pressure from St. James street has forced the Liberal party into a coalition with the Tories. He spoke of the conditions in some provinces and of the continuing realignment of the parties. He said that free enterprise had disappeared everywhere except on the North American continent.
Mr. GIiLLIS: Correct.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is precisely because free enterprise disappeared from other countries that we, the countries in which free enterprise still exists, have to finance them completely for their recovery. That was admitted by no less a gentleman than the leader of the hon. gentleman when he said that the shipments and the advances for North America, from the United States and Canada, were a guarantee of future peace in Europe. That was the language used by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).


Clarence Gillis: With which I agree.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the policies advocated by the hon. gentleman were in force in this country it would be impossible for the United States and Canada to go to the rescue of Europe and of other countries. We have an experience in England. The government there is a socialist government. I have great respect for Mr. Attlee, much more than I have for his colleagues. But that government has been described as a government of incompetents by Mr. Churchill, who is undoubtedly considered a great man, not only by the hon. member for Cape Breton South but by all the members of the C,C.F. party. Then lie advocated controls.
On the other hand, the new member for Vancouver Centre, who represents the new generation of the C.C.F., said that the electors in Vancouver Centre, Yale and Ontario voted C.C.F. because they are anti-authoritarian. How can it work? One says his electors voted for him because they were anti-authoritarian and my hon. friend the member for Cape Breton South says the policy of the party Should be to impose controls.


Clarence Gillis: I hope the hon. member will not mind my putting him straight on that. Surely he does not mean to tell me that the system of controls in effect during the war was
[Mr. Pouliot.l
that of an authoritarian state, does he? He is not really confusing the two?


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely it was.


Clarence Gillis: What you have today is a managerial form of society, and that is what the C.'C.F. intends to unscramble. I have heard the hon. member criticize it so often that I am surprised at the statements he is now making and his complaint about bureaucracy, management of the government from outside. That is what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is fighting against.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for Cape Breton South has been just as clear in his remarks as the hon. member for Lethbridge. They argue the same way. One speaks against authoritarian methods and the other is for controls. I am against controls. During the war I did not insist so much because it was for a common end, to win the war. But immediately the war was over I declared in this house and outside the house, and I also wrote similarly in newspapers, that I was against controls. I do not believe in controls, but- apparently there are different views in the C.C.F. group.
The hon. member for Eglinton started the issue. I like him. I think he is the most brilliant member of his generation on that side and he is well gifted. He made an interesting speech. He said that all those who voted for the C.C.F. members were not socialists, and he spoke of unrest, housing, high taxes. He said one thing that I liked, and that is that he was not an alarmist. It is well not to be an alarmist in these days. He said that the danger from socialism was accompanied by a further threat of communist support, and he said that in York South in 1942 the Liberal organization lined up bag and baggage behind the C.C.F. candidate to defeat Arthur Meighen.
I will tell you, sir, how Arthur Meighen was defeated. He was defeated with this number of Hansard, Hansard of January 30, 1942, which was shown from house to house, not to elect the C.C.F. candidate but to defeat Arthur Meighen. And the success was evident, Mr. Meighen was defeated and the C.C.F. candidate was elected, but only for one term. After the constituency of York South had defeated Mr. Arthur Meighen he took a well deserved rest.
Mr. IvNOWLES: He will be back next time.


Jean-François Pouliot: Even if my hon. friends support him, he will surely not be elected. He is marked for defeat.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I meant that Mr. Noseworthy will be back.

Policies of Political Parties


John Ewen Sinclair: We thought you were referring to Meighen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend knows me better than that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thought the hon. gentleman meant the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.
Now I will say something to the socialist party, a thing I have wanted to tell them for a long time. They are fine fellows and likeable personally, but their doctrine is wrong, and that has been established before. We have only to read what was said by Mr. Woodsworth some years ago when he founded that party to see exactly what the tendency of the party is. If we turn to Hansard of February 1, 1933, we find that Mr. Woodsworth moved a motion to set up a co-operative commonwealth, and he said:
Last year the United Farmers of Alberta, in order that there should be no doubt about their ultimate objective, stated their position in very clear terms, adopting the following short definition of a co-operative commonwealth:
A community freed from the domination of irresponsible financial and economic power, m which all social means of production and distribution, including land, are socially owned and controlled either by voluntarily organized groups of producers and consumers, or-in the case of the major public services and utilities and such productive and distributive enterprises as can be conducted most efficiently when owned in common-by public corporations responsible to the people's elected representatives.
That is the cornerstone of C.C.F. policy, holding everything in common-farms. I remember Mr. Woodsworth said one day that farmers should work an eight-hour day, and they were not familiar with the problems of farms-


William Irvine: Will the hon. gentleman permit a correction? The quotation he has just given was taken from the United Farmers convention, not the C.C.F.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a moment. That is true, but it appears in the speech delivered by Mr. Woodsworth in the House of Commons on February 1, 1933, on page 1687 of Hansard.


John Ewen Sinclair: And the hon. member for Prince Albert made a similar speech not so long ago. He was going to socialize the land.


William Irvine: I am not objecting to the hon. member's quotation, but I am pointing out the source of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Woodsworth quoted it in his speech and he made it his own. He probably had something to do with the drafting of that sentence. I do not know. I am not familiar with the workings of those groups. The hon. member for Cariboo has a very good
memory and he must remember all those circumstances. He must remember also that I asked more than fifty-five questions of Mr. Woodsworth, some of them based on that very statement. He was never able to answer them, and the C.C.F. party has never answered them. For instance, after that statement that all social means of production and distribution, including land, should be socially owned and controlled either by voluntarily organized groups of producers and consumers, and so on,
I asked a number of questions. Take these:
1.	What is the definition of the words (a) "socially ownedi" and (b) "socially controlled"?
2.	What would be the function of the dominion parliament and provincial legislatures in a co-operative commonwealth?
3.	By what process would privately owned lands be turned into societies or become socially owned and controlled property?
4.	How would such groups of producers and consumers be voluntarily organized?
5.	Would such groups be amenable to the laws?
6.	Would the co-operative commonwealth compensate private individuals or corporations who presently own land and property, for their loss, and if so, to what extent?
7.	How many people in each province would be affected by their private property becoming "socially owned and controlled"?
8.	Would such change in land ownership take place in urban as well as rural centres?
9.	What are the social means of production and distribution (excluding land) which should be socially owned and1 controlled?
10.	Would movable as well as immovable property be socially owned and controlled?
11.	How and by whom would socially owned and controlled means of production and distribution (including land) be managed?
12.	How, by whom and for how long would each of the above mentioned managers be appointed?
13.	Who would decide the kind, area and location of the land or property to be assigned by society to each individual?
Those are serious questions and they have never been answered by the C.C.F. party. Then, with regard to another sentence of the quotation from the remarks of the late Mr. Woodsworth:
Major services and utilities and such productive and distributive enterprises as can be conducted most efficiently when owned in common (should be owned'-and* controlled?) by public corporations responsible to the people's elected representatives.
I asked the following questions:
1.	What major public services and utilities could be conducted most efficiently when owned in common?
2.	Would socially owned and controlled social means of production and distribution (including land), and mentioned in the first place, be owned in common?
3.	If so, what would be the difference in ownership between (a) the aforesaid socially owmed and controlled social means of production
Policies of Political Parties

and distribution (including land), and (b) such productive and distributive enterprises as could be conducted most efficiently when owned in common ?
. ,4. Would the voluntarily organized groups of producers and consumers aforesaid mentioned be (a) public corporations and (b) responsible tp the people's elected representatives?
5.1 f so, what would be the difference between "socially owned" and "owned in common"; and "socially controlled" and "controlled by public corporations"?
6.	How many groups of producers and consumers would be organized voluntarily in each province and for what purposes?
7.	How many public corporations would own and control such productive and distributive enterprises in each province, as could be conducted most efficiently when owned in common, and how and for what purposes would each of such public corporations be organized?
Those are serious questions.
Mr. SINCLAIR; They are good questions.


Jean-François Pouliot: We must know about the matter. We must have some information about it. We hear the hon. gentleman saying, "We will make life better for you; we will make you happier; you will have less trouble; you will have oyer-all security; you will have a good house." How will it be done?


John Ewen Sinclair: With other people's money.


Jean-François Pouliot: During the last four years the C.C.F. party was successful in one province just the same as the Social Credit party was successful in another province. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I would be greatly concerned if the C.C.F. made progress in Canada, because I do not know what kind of legislation they would pass, and I fear that legislation would be detrimental to the small holder.
What happened in France? France was the bulwark in Europe against communism. Why did France become a communistic country? It was precisely because-


Mr. GRANT:: Too many parties.
Mi'. POULIOT: -of the devaluation of the franc, because those who were holding property lost it as a result of smart financial policy, and the people who had nothing were ready to accept any dangerous, subversive propaganda. Undoubtedly the hon. gentlemen who belong to the C.C.F. group are honest. They mean well.
I will conclude these short remarks by reading them some other questions which I asked of the founder of their party, Mr. Woodsworth, who was personally a highly respectable citizens but who had a wrong view about general policy. I asked the following questions:
1.	Would the whole retail and wholesale trade be "socially owned". or "owned in common," and "socially controlled" or "controlled by public corporations"?
rMr. Pouliot.]
2.	In the latter case, would such "public corporations" be "freed from the domination of irresponsible financial and economic power"?
3.	By what process and how would all the stores and trades now privately owned be turned into the co-operative commonwealth?
It cannot be half commonwealth and half private property. It must be all private property or all commonwealth. To continue:
4.	Would the co-operative commonwealth compensate the private individuals and corporations who presently own stores or trades, for their loss, and if so, to what extent and how?
5.	Would all natural products be turned from "voluntarily organized groups of producers" to "voluntarily organized groups of consumers," without any profit to the producers?
6.	What, if anything, would the groups of consumers give to the groups of producers in exchange for their means of production and how would it be done?
7.	How; w-ould the social means of production be distributed by the consumers groups to private individuals?
8.	What would be allowed to private individuals forming the groups of producers for their work and how and by what means would it be done?
9.	Who would enact the regulations relating to production and distribution of primary products and what should they be?
40. Would the production of primary products be based upon the annual consumption in order to be distributed only to the consumers in this country?
11.	If so, would such policy prevent any exports of home products?
12.	Without any exports,-
Mark this, Mr. Speaker.
-would it be possible for the co-operative commonwealth to trade vrith foreign or other countries who have not adopted the co-operative commonwealth system: in other words, would it not mean the end of all foreign trade?
Except the trade we practise with England by advancing credits.
13.	What industries would be "socially ow'ned and controlled," on one hand, and on the other hand "owned in common by public corporations responsible to the people's elected representatives"?
14.	Would the system for the distribution of primary products be the same for manufactured products?
45. Would all private and public industries be turned over to the co-operative commonwealth?
16.	Would the co-operative commonwealth compensate the owners of private or public industries for their loss and if so, to what extent and how?
17.	Would it not be the policy of the co-operative commonwealth to abolish and repudiate all federal, provincial, municipal and other public and private debts and obligations?
18.	Would the co-operative commonwealth supply free shelter,, food, clothing and medical attendance to every man, woman and child in this country?
19.	What would be the reciprocal obligations of every man, woman and child to the cooperative commonwealth and vice versa?

Policies of Political Parties


Stanley Howard Knowles: Put them on the order paper.
'Mr. POULIOT: No. It is not for the government; it is for the C.C.F. party; and those questions would not be allowed on the order paper.
It continues:
20.	What would be the kind and length of work to be done each day by each private individual?
2.1. Who would assign same to each one?
22.	What would happen (a) to the amounts of money deposited in chartered banks by private individuals; and (b) to life insurance held by them?
23.	If "the supply of human needs" instead of the making of profits were the basic principle regulating production, distribution and exchange, would there be any necessity for any kind of currency?
24.	If so, what would be the standard of such policy or means of exchange?
25.	Would there be any kind of private ownership in the co-operative commonwealth?
26.	If so, what would it be?
27.	Would the co-operative commonwealth demolish all churches, as has been done in Russia?
That was fifteen years ago, and I do not ask that question now'. But all the other questions should be answered. They are fair questions, and they should be answered so that the people will understand the working out of the claims of the C.C.F. party. Whether some Labour-Progressives have voted for the newly elected members is a matter of no concern. The37 may vote for whomever they wish. But the point is that pure socialism is the ante-room of communism, because it deprives people of private owmership and puts all their wealth in common, as the name of the party implies.
This is why I oppose the very basis of the policy of that party. As I have said, I am not concerned by the election of three new members of the C.C.F. party, any more than I am concerned by the election of a score and two members of that party to the Ontario legislature. It is inevitable that sometimes the people become dissatisfied and elect members who belong to new groups. But in most instances they have been elected, not because of the policy of the C.C.F. party but because of local conditions. That is not said often enough, but the people must be informed. This is why I attach very little significance to the election of some C.C.F. members.
I wish them good luck, however, and I ask them to propound Liberal policies instead of C.C.F. policies, and to urge upon the government the necessity of keeping away from Toryism as well as from socialism. It will take some time, but I hope it will be done.
The basis of prosperity in this country is private ownership; private ownership by the
masses of the people, private ownership by the little fellow as well as by those of larger means. I do not want any excess; I do not want any abuse of the privilege. That is why we have legislation against combines. It must be used in due course. It is a Liberal policy that fights combines; on the other hand, it is a Liberal policy to protect private property, and to protect the small owners of private property, so that they may enjoy the happiness to which they are entitled in this land.


William Ross Macdonald: Before the debate continues, I believe I should draw the attention of the house to t'he rule with respect to raising this question on a motion to go into supply; and I do not do this for the purpose of restricting debate unduly. I thought I should refer hon. members, however, to Beauchesne, third edition, citation 467. I shall not read the whole of it, but the pertinent part states:
When such motion-
And this is a reference to the motion to go into supply.
-is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance.
That, of course, would be grievances which the dominion parliament has power to redress.
It does seem to me that the debate has gone beyond that rule, and I would ask hon. members if they would endeavour from now on to try to confine their remarks to the rule I have read.


Mr. ARTHUR WILLIAMS (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in my first attempt in this parliament I wish to say, in order perhaps to gain your co-operation, that I agree entirely with the quotation you have just made. All through this, if I may term it, "debate", I have been amazed that this kind of thing should have been permitted to go on in a parliament of Canada.
I am a trade union official, and we are often told in our trade union meetings about parliamentary procedure. I know perfectly well, however, that if even the most amateur president of one of our local unions were presiding over a meeting and he heard such an irrelevant item discussed or raised, as was raised by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), the person who raised it would 'have been ruled out of order immediately.
But this, of course, is the parliament of Canada; and I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not going to trespass very long upon the time of the house. I have taken this opportunity only because, being one of the newest of the members of the House of Commons, it would seem that apparently
Policies of Political Parties

everybody else in the house knows why I was elected. Apparently they know also not only why I was elected, but even, who voted for me.
Perhaps I might be permitted to express an opinion as to why I think the people of my riding voted for me in the by-election. One thing I am certain of is that they did not vote for me to come here to waste time in this kind of debate. If there is one thing more than another about which I am certain, it is that the people in my riding voted for me in order that some effort could be made to secure for them the things they want, the things they never had, but the things they hope to get.
I do not care whether hon. gentlemen to my right know the answers to these questions or not. I do not care whether the supporters of the government know the answers. I do not even mind whether the representatives of the Social Credit group know the answers. I do know the people of my riding want a health plan. I do know they want security in their relations with their employers. I do know they are not a bit impressed nowadays by the large advertisements in the newspapers advertising the program of the Progressive Conservative party on behalf of labour, or when they see written into that advertisement item after item that the party says it will do for labour-including the check-off. I say I know they are not a bit impressed by those advertisements, when they find that as recently as last week these very same people, in this very chamber, were not unanimous as they have stated in the published advertisement, even about the check-off. You can fool all the people part of the time; you can fool part of the people all the time; but you cannot fool all the people all the time. That is one reason why the people revolted in the byelection in Ontario and voted C.C.F. It is no good to tell the people in advertisements w'hat you are going to do for them and then show by your actions in parliament that you cannot do it.
I was very much impressed with the ceremony that took place this morning when three C.C.F. members were led up to the Speaker and were permitted to take their seats, particularly since I was one of the participants'.
I knew there would be some rumbling in the old-line parties; I knew they would be disturbed about it, but I never thought for a single moment it would cause the great alarm evidenced by this debate. I know hon. members on both sides of the house will say that that is not true, that they are not alarmed. If they are not, then they certainly are whistling very loudly going past the cemetery.
I feel that my first day in parliament of approximately ten or twelve hours as a new [Mr. Williams.I
member has been wasted in the main. Somebody whispers that I shall get used to that. I hope not. I hope that the same fervor and the same earnestness that prompted my desire to get into this house will continue during the time that I am here. I hope sincerely that I shall not get into the habit of treating serious matters in a sheerly and crudely political sense such as I have been unfortunate enough to have to listen to today.
I was impressed by the statements made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and also by the C.C.F. member, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald), who was assisted by my new young colleague, the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones). They spoke of the distressful conditions facing the flood victims in British Columbia. I thought their presentation would have stimulated this parliament into the urge and desire to do something for these people, I realize not immediately, but quickly. Instead of anything of that kind happening, I found out that that did not matter, that all that mattered was that we should discuss this thing that we have been discussing all these hours, this political thing. I think the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) should be ashamed of himself. That may be unparliamentary and if it-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: There has never been a speech that was more political, delivered in this house, than what the hon. member is delivering now.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member has withdrawn his remark.


John Ewen Sinclair: It is his first speech.


An hon. MEMBER:: He will learn.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give him a little
leeway.


Arthur Henry Williams: I hear someone say that I will learn. I know I will, because I do not think I know it all.
I have no further comment to make about this situation. I am more than sorry to find out, during my first day in, parliament, that we appear to be concerned more about trivial things than about really important things. To me the important thing was to help the people in British Columbia, but apparently I was wrong.
As long as I am a member of this parliament I hope to keep before my eyes and my mind the needs of the people of the country, not just those in my own riding but throughout the whole country, and to do everything I can, and encourage other members of parliament to do likewise, to see that the people get the things which we have always heard they will get but which up to the present they have not had.

Supply-External Affairs


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, listening to the new hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Williams), one would think some of the things mentioned by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) were not worthwhile. Among the things he mentioned were old age pensions without a means test, income tax relief for those in the lower income brackets, the repeal of the 25 per cent excise tax on certain goods manufactured in Canada, a reduction in the cost of living and so on. If those things are not important, I do not know what are.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Eglinton upon bringing up these matters. This is one of the most important subjects we have discussed this session. It also gives us an idea as to where true Liberalism is. I think we in this house who are Liberals will have an opportunity to get up and express our views. If we belonged to the socialist party or were under a dictatorship we would not have that opportunity. I would refer hon. members to what happened recently in Manitoba when a certain member of that party got up and expressed his view and was immediately read out of the party.
I do not think enough people in this country realize what true Liberalism is. I do not think they realize what free enterprise is. If they had a taste of socialism and communism as they have in Russia, they would possibly think more about it. In this democratic way of life of ours we have an opportunity to express our opinions as we see them.
Under the private enterprise system we have seen Canada rise from eleventh place among the trading nations of the world, to fourth place. That has all been done under private enterprise. We have seen conditions in Canada improve greatly, so that today our industrial production is at the highest pitch of any in the whole world.
I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. In 1926 I had to haul all my provisions to the bush to cut pulpwood for which I was paid $1.85 a cord. In 1933 I milked cows and shipped milk for seventy-five cents a hundred pounds. I know something about budgets, because I was the reeve of a municipality for eight years. I took over the reins when things were not very good and I know what all this means.
We hear a great deal about the Labour government in England, how they have no troubles over there, how everything is nice and rosy. Today ten ships are tied up at the London docks loaded with Canadian produce which is rotting because of strikes and labour troubles in London. Every time any labour 5849-357
trouble crops up in this country, up pops a C.C.F. member with a cure-all for everything. Yet their socialist friends in Britain cannot solve their own labour troubles.
There is one thing I believe in, Mr. Speaker, and the people of the constituency I represent would consider me remiss in my duty if I did not say it. Under our democratic system in this country we are the servants of the people, and not their masters, and if we do not pattern our programs to the liking of the people, they can vote us out. But never let it be forgotten that under socialism and communism, once it is in office, that power of the vote which for years has been the sacred right of our people under our democratic system, will be lost forever.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
52. Departmental administration, $1,915,860.
Mr. HACKETT:: Will the minister tell the committee whether there is any relationship between his department and that part of the Department of Trade and Commerce which used to come under the heading of "trade commissioners". I do not know that the committee is quite clear as to any distinction that may exist between the consular service and the trade commissioner service.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The Canadian consular service is of very recent vintage. Until a few years ago, all the consular work for Canadian interests was performed by the British consular service, which, as hon. members know, exists all over the world, and which is still rendering valuable and appreciated services to Canadian interests wherever there is no special Canadian representation. The department which is now known as the Department of Trade and Commerce established many years ago a system of representation known as trade commissioners, but those trade commissioners received no official recognition whatsoever, and they were not in a position where they could perform official acts such as authenticating documents and so forth, which are within the jurisdiction of consuls who have obtained an exequatur from the state in which they carry on their operations. The relationship is of the most co-operative and most helpful kind; but the trade commissioners are still officers of the Department of Trade and Commerce, responsible to the Department of Trade and Commerce, and reporting to the
Supply-External Affairs

Department of Trade and Commerce. We have a consulate general in New York; one was established late last year in Chicago, and one will be opened in San Francisco on the first of July. We are gradually but not too rapidly developing our own consular service, which will be a part of the Department of External Affairs, just as the British consular service for the last century or more has been a part of the foreign office of Great Britain.


John Thomas Hackett: Has the minister representatives in the cities of Boston and Detroit?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We have a consulate in Detroit, and a project is in process of being completed for the opening of a consulate in Boston some time in the autumn.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
53. Passport office administration, $138,500.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: I should like to say a few words on the practice of giving Canadian children to people in the United States for adoption. I shall not go into the matter at length; but I find that a great many Canadian people are unable to get babies for adoption and they have been going across to the United States in considerable numbers. I placed a number of questions on the order paper, and I find that in 1947, passports were issued to infants on the application of their guardians to the number of 189, and this year, up to May 31, fifty-nine passports have been issued. This is a practice that should be stopped. If it is not possible to get Canadian parents to adopt these infants there might be some excuse for this practice; but, as it is, I think the minister should seriously consider putting a stop to it.


John Thomas Hackett: Would the minister, when dealing with that subject, state how many infants were, if I may use the term, imported from the United States, because I know that, a few years ago, a number of married couples who were childless sought and found children in New York and brought them to Montreal.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member for Stanstead that information. He would have to get it from the immigration branch.
The question raised by . the hon, member for The Battlefords has been giving great concern to the department and to the attorneys general of several provinces. The hon. member will know, as we all do, that the matter of adoption comes within provincial jurisdiction, and we have endeavoured to avoid giving passports unless it was established to our satisfaction that all the requirements of the provincial law, where the infant happened to be, had been complied with. Correspondence is going on

between the Department of External Affairs and several provincial governments to try to devise some joint method whereby effective steps can be taken to see that the true interests of such infants are properly safeguarded. Of course there is no obligation to issue a passport, but it is difficult to refuse to issue one unless there appears to be some reasonable ground for doing so. I can assure the hon. member that the officers of the department are much concerned about the matter, and anxious to use all proper means to see that all the requirements of the laws of the various provinces are complied with before the passports are issued.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Just another word. While I realize that the adoption of children lies within the jurisdiction of the provinces, I think that if the minister's department refuses passports, the question can be solved in that way. We need these children here. We have many good Canadian families who want children for adoption. It is a crime to allow these children to go to another country where we have absolutely no supervision over them.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: From the application that comes in, it is not always possible to tell that it is an application which is apt to lead to an adoption. It would be difficult for a federal department to refuse to issue passports to children, infants or minors, unless there appeared to be some failure to comply with the laws of their provinces. This, we are happy to assert, is a freedom-loving country. We endeavour to place as few restrictions on the movement of individuals as possible, provided, of course that there is no infringement of the rights of others.
The hon. member will recall that a question arose about foreigners who wished to return to their native country. We felt that we could not lock them into Canada. They were warned that they might forfeit their naturalization certificates or their rights to naturalization. We felt that we did not wish to attempt to enforce the kind of regime we complain about when it is enforced by other countries. We have been making representations to other governments about their refusal to allow some of their nationals, who had married Canadians, to get exit permits, and that is something about which I think we have to be very discreet, I think, with the wholehearted desire that exists between the provincial administration and the Department of External Affairs to deal with this problem of the adoption of children in as careful a manner as possible, we shall not be too much concerned with the niceties of jurisdiction.

Supply-External Affairs
We are going to give each other as great help as can be given to see that all possible care is taken.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
5.}. Representation abroad-including salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments, $5,083,082.
Thomas Langton Church: There was just one question which I hoped to raise this afternoon, because I rose at the same time as the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I do not know whether it comes under the minister's department or not. My question is this. The department is spending a million dollars more this year on this item. It is up to 85.000,000. We are just about through June now, and only July and August remain for us to try to get in coal, food, vegetables and things like that by water. I was wondering, with the difficulty we had in our city, which is spreading right across the great lakes, whether we could not do something. As I see it, charity begins at home in many of these matters. Something should be done to protect the people of Canada. If we can spend all this money to pacify Europe I am wondering why we have no funds to try to pacify the seamen on the great lakes. I was wondering whether charity does not belong at home. There are a few more months left to bring in by water the fruits, vegetables, coal and all that we need, but nothing is being done.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I know the item that we are on, but I proposed to bring this up on the motion to go into supply today. I believe charity begins at home. If we are ready to pacify Europe we should start with the seamen and bring them together. Labour and capital should not be on strike. They should not, be fighting each other on the great lakes today. In our city on Saturday there were a couple of hundred seamen on the docks, taken away from traffic and all that kind of thing. I believe charity begins at home. May I ask the Minister of Public Works to try to pacify the people in Canada before we pacify Europe.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I feel that I ought to say one word in support of the protest which has been made by the hon. member for The Battlefords. I think that in these days-


William Henry Golding: Order. The item before the committee is 54, which has to do with representation abroad.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Item 53 was not passed in my hearing.


William Henry Golding: Yes, it was passed before the hon. member rose to speak. I called the item before.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I ask you, sir, whether you reverted to it?


William Henry Golding: No, we did not. It was passed as the hon. member rose to speak and then ,we called item 54, representation abroad. The amount is $5,083,082.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I have only one minute? If the hon. member for The Battle-fords was out of order, perhaps I might be allowed the same privilege. I wanted to add my voice to the protest which he made. I think enough has not been said upon the subject he raised. It is somewhat ridiculous at this time when we are looking for a desirable type of citizen that we should allow our own citizens to be exported from the country.


William Henry Golding: Order. I do not think the hon. member should discuss that matter any further, because if he is given an opportunity to do so, many others may follow him.


Mr. HLYNKA:: I should like to ask the minister a question on item 54. What policy is being followed by the Department of External Affairs in repatriating Canadian citizens who have been trapped1 in territories which were annexed to the Soviet Union during and after world war II? I have several cases referred to me of Canadian citizens who today find themselves in territories controlled by the Soviet Union. When I took the matter up with the department the reply I received was that nothing could be done for these persons unless they themselves obtained exit visas from Soviet authorities. It seems to me that that is an unfair attitude to take. Could not our Canadian representative undertake to place a request before the Soviet government to return these people to Canada?
I have in mind one person, an elderly lady, whose husband, a Canadian soldier, was killed in the war. Her son is now endeavouring to bring her to Canada. Apparently the department seems to be helpless in aiding him in the problem of bringing her over. Personally, I am not satisfied with the answeT that all we can do is to say that we will help her, provided that she obtains an exit visa from the Soviet authorities. I think that is placing the onus on a person who is not in a position to bargain with a totalitarian government. Surely we as a government can make a request of the Soviet authorities that they return to Canada certain persons who are Canadian citizens. Following such request, we would know, of course, whether the Soviet authorities would
Supply-External Affairs

agree to allow these persons to leave the country. To leave this matter entirely to these helpless people is unfair.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are two categories of persons who may be considered as being in the position described by the hon. member, persons having dual nationality and persons with only Canadian nationality. As to persons with only Canadian nationality, under international law we do make requests. I cannot say we are very successful. We have been carrying on the negotiations for nearly three years now with respect to a young lady who, according to our contention, has only Canadian nationality, and we have not yet succeeded in obtaining an exit visa for her.
As to those who have dual nationality, in certain cases we have made representations, and the answer to us has been that the person is a national of the Soviet republic, where he or she happens to be, and it is a matter of Soviet domestic policy that will have to be decided by the Soviet authorities. There is not. much else that we can do about the matter.
With respect to a person, perhaps persons, who, we feel, is or are truly of Canadian nationality, we have considered bringing the matter before the united nations as a violation of fundamental human rights, and the matter is under consideration. We would certainly have done that even at an earlier date, had we not feared that it might be detrimental rather than beneficial to the person concerned. The situation is a difficult one.
I can assure the hon. member that we will [DOT]do everything possible to be of assistance to those who have Canadian nationality, even though they may have dual nationality, but any own experience in connection with cases that have been brought to my personal attention does not allow me to extend very much hope of getting the kind of treatment that we would expect from a government maintaining friendly relations with us.


Anthony Hlynka: Can the minister give an estimate of the number of Canadian citizens who are within the borders of the Soviet Union at the present time; that is, persons who are actually Canadian citizens.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: At the moment I remember only one case of a purely Canadian citizen. We are informed that she has now succeeded in proceeding as far as Roumania, and we hope that the representations we are making will finally bring about her return to people of hers who are in Canada. I could not- give an estimate of the numbers of those having dual nationality. Very few have applied to us for assistance. If 
the hon. member knows of any case and wishes to bring it to our attention, I can assure him that we will lose no time in communicating it to our representative in Moscow, or Budapest or Belgrade or wherever the appropriate official may be located.
Mr. MaeINNIS: The minister referred to dual nationality. I want to see if I understand what constitutes dual nationality. Would a woman, a Soviet citizen, marrying a Canadian, be considered as having dual nationality?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, not under our present citizenship act. She would not become a Canadian citizen merely by the fact of marriage. She would have to comply with the requirements of our citizenship act to become a Canadian citizen; but she would probably, even after that, having become a Canadian citizen, be still considered under Russian law to be a Soviet citizen. That is what I meant by dual nationality. To give a concrete example, a person, bom in Canada of parents who are French nationals, is, under French law, a Frenchman, but under Canadian law he is a Canadian and has for international law purposes dual nationality.


John Thomas Hackett: If a male, such a person is liable for military service in France.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Under French law. But we do not recognize that obligation under our Canadian law, though if he does not comply with that obligation he is unable to travel in France.


Mr. McLURE:: How many commissioners, ambassadors, ministers, consuls general and plenipotentiaries have we abroad? In selecting these persons to go abroad, what method is followed? In my opinion they should be representing us in the same way that commercial ambassadors or commercial travellers would. They should be able to talk wheat, potatoes, bacon, fruit, cheese products, fish, such as lobsters, oysters, cod, salmon, mackerel and also furs and manufactured articles. Even if they could not play a good game of golf or mix the latest kind of highball, it would be far better to have them well educated and able to talk the products of Canada abroad.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: At pages 116, 117, 118 and 119 of the estimates the hon. gentleman will find an enumeration of countries where we have such persons. Of commissioners, on page 116, there are seven. Then there are the countries where we have embassies, on pages 116 and 117; there are thirteen. Then the countries where we have legations, pages 117 and 118; there are nine. There are four consulates general, there are two consulates and one viceconsulate. The hon. member inquired about

Supply-External Affairs
plenipotentiaries. I believe an officer we could describe under that title, though he really is not a plenipotentiary, is our representative on the allied commission in Berlin, Major-General Pope. He is the chief of our representation on the allied commission in Berlin.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I should like to make a few remarks on our representation abroad. I am not speaking from direct personal knowledge, but I have had an opportunity throughout the year to talk to representatives of prominent Canadian firms who have been in South American countries. Some have been all over South America. The people to whom I have talked I regard as responsible people not given to complaining in a petty way. They know what they are talking about. Therefore I think there must be some basis for their criticism of some of the representation abroad.
As to the South American countries, I have heard the criticism expressed that we have two types of representatives, namely, either older men who are past their days of usefulness or their days of activity-when those who have not passed that stage are so necessary at the present time adequately to represent any country-or we are represented by younger men who are graduates of universities and are without doubt men of ability but who, these people tell me, have not had sufficient training in diplomatic work.
With regard to South America, I was informed that the major criticisms were, first, that few of our representatives abroad actually spoke well the language of the country to which they were sent, and I should like the minister to comment on that; in the second place, that many of them, the younger men particularly, were academic in their approach to life and did not appear to have a sound understanding of business principles; and in the third place, that they were not experienced in the diplomatic service sufficiently to understand the ways of the country to which they were sent, the sensitivity of the people of other countries to certain practices and customs, and so on.
With reference to European countries, I heard this criticism expressed. People who, I think, are well informed, consider that some of our representatives are kept at their posts far beyond the age of usefulness.
With regard to the South American countries, I am informed that some of our representation is of such an order that South American firms are dealing directly with Canadian firms, not taking advantage of the trade services and not taking advantage of our Canadian diplomatic services. As I said before, I have no personal knowledge on these matters, but I should like the minister to
comment on my remarks and to explain to the committee the qualifications that are required for appointment to these positions, particularly the senior positions, and to say if it is the regulation that those representing Canada in a given country shall be able to>
speak well the language of the country to-which they are sent. That is a serious matter from the point of view of being able to represent this country anywhere abroad.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is difficult for me to make any comment on the observations the hon. member has made, because they are so contrary to the comments I receive from numerous travellers abroad who write to me to compliment the department on the effi-cicncv of the services performed by its representatives. If the hon. member would be kind enough to bring to my attention personally and confidentially-I know he would not wish to do it here publicly-the complaints he may have heard concerning these missions, I shall be obliged to him, and I think he will be rendering a service to the country. We are expanding quite rapidly; we are spending taxpayers' money on these representations abroad, and it is our keen desire to be as well represented abroad as possible.
It is probable that there are in some of these legations ambassadors or ministers who do not speak fluently the language of the country. In South America, Spanish is the language spoken in all the republics but Brazil. But in the capitals of all those South American republics, a large element of the population speaks French or English. It is a decided advantage to be represented by someone who acquires the facility to speak in the language of the country to which he is sent and even to make public addresses in that language. We know that from the glowing reports we receive, for instance, of the success of Mr. Jean Desy in Brazil. He took the trouble, and it did not take him long, to master the Portuguese language. The reports we have had sav that Mr. Desy had created in Brazil the impression that Canada was a modern Athens where practically the whole of the people were of the highest order of culture, both in letters, in the arts, and in music.
An amusing article was published in one of the United States magazines to the effect that we were taking some time in finding a successor to Mr. Desy, because we felt that it would be difficult to maintain the kind of impression about Canadians that he had created there. But Mr. Desy has been replaced by Mr. Scott Macdonald who had his training in perhaps the same spheres, but also in other spheres as well, and who speaks English and
Supply-External Affairs

French. He speaks some Spanish, but I do not know whether he speaks Portuguese. Nevertheless, the reports we get are that in the short time has has been there, he has also been making a good impression. I am saying *quite frankly to the hon. member that in general we get glowing reports of the efficiency of our representation; and if he has information about any one or more of these missions and will convey that information to me confidentially, I shall be grateful to him, because it is our desire to have the best possible representation.
The hon. member says we are suffering from the fact that we have some men who are beyond middle age and some who have not reached middle age. The hon. member will recognize that, as a consequence of the first great war, there was a gap in our population, and we are feeling that in many walks of life. I am proud to be able to say that the Department of External Affairs is attracting a high class of men from our institutions of learning. Some time ago we advertised for fifteen appointments as third secretaries. The educational standards required were high. Over 300 applicants took the examinations, so that for fifteen appointments we had 300 who had the academic qualifications, who wrote the examinations, and from whom we were privileged to select fifteen. I think we are getting into the service men who will be able to serve Canada with credit to themselves and advantage to the country. It takes some time to train them, and we have had the advantage of securing several well qualified public servants from other branches of the civil service. We are using our best endeavours to make our representation abroad truly' representative of Canada.


Mr. HAZEN:: I should like to ask a question about an item which appears at page 119 of the estimates. It reads:
Office of the Canadian delegation to the united nations, New York, U.S.A., operational expenses, $167,500.
'That is the amount for 1948-49. In the right-hand column no amount is set out. Why is there no amount for the previous year?
My second question is this. Immediately under the operational item is the item, "Capital item, $23,000''. What is that $23,000 for?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is no amount mentioned in the column opposite the $167,500 for 1947-48, because no such amount was voted for that year. We were elected to the security council at the general assembly in the autumn of 1947, and that required the establishment of permanent offices at the united nations. The expenses incurred for the portion of the

fiscal year expiring on March 31, 1948, had to be provided out of votes other than the special vote for this service. The capital item of $23,000 was placed there before we had succeeded in renting a furnished house for the Canadian representative. We anticipated that we would have to furnish the premises to be provided for our representative. When the estimates were prepared that was what we had in mind. Since that time, however, we have been able to secure for our representative furnished premises, and the things we had in view when the estimates were provided will probably not be required.


Douglas King Hazen: We are asked to vote this $23,000, although there will be no need for it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member knows that in these votes we sometimes borrow from one item for the advantage of another, with the authority of treasury' board. When this was provided it was intended to furnish the premises to be placed at the disposal of the Canadian representative. Since that time we have succeeded in renting furnished premises. There may be some small portion of this appropriation required; there may be some things which will be necessary in the course of the year to complete the furnishings there. But at this moment I must say to the hon. member that I do not know of anything we shall have to furnish in the course of the year which it would be proper to charge against this item.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: 
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I notice an item
here of $10,000 for the chief of mission, and another item of $250,000 for new offices. Then there is $340,400 for the purchase of premises for missions abroad. What are these items for? Where is the chief of -mission?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The word "mission" is used to cover embassies, legations andi offices of high commissioners. It is a general term. We have a chief of mission in Tokyo, but we have no specific organization there. This $250,000 is to apply to all the foreign establishments.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I understood the minister to say a moment ago that if there were a deficiency in one item it was customary to borrow' the money under another item. Is that allowed, by the auditor general, and how is it repaid?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is another item within the same group, and it has to be by allocation of the treasury board.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: These estimates total
$9,685,000. Are you allowed to borrow from one item in order to make up the deficiency in some other item?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Only within the vote.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It must be within the
same vote?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Within the same
vote.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: In looking over the
details, I was interested to note that the high commissioners come first and then follow the amounts for the various ambassadors abroad.
I understand that in the table of diplomatic precedence our high commissioners follow ambassadors and probably ministers. Would the minister explain why it is that the high commissioners do not take what I would call their rightful place according to seniority in the diplomatic ranks?
For instance, here in Canada we have the high commissioner for Eire, an able gentleman in the person of Mr. Hearne. If seniority were to count from the date of appointment he would probably be the doyen of the diplomatic corps. However, any ambassador from a foreign country now takes precedence over him, and the same thing must work in regard to the high commissioners representing Canada in the other countries of the commonwealth.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The tables of precedence are established by His Majesty. The high commissioners are not representatives of what we would term "foreign countries"; they are representatives of countries of the commonwealth and have not the rank of ambassadors. Ambassadors are accredited by the head of a state to the head of a state. Ambassadors or ministers in Canada are accredited to His Majesty the King by the heads of the states they represent. The way the constitution has developed, His Majesty the King would as King of England be accrediting a high commissioner to His Majesty as King of Canada. It is not done. The high commissioner represents the government of the United Kingdom and is accredited to the government of Canada, not to His Majesty the King.
I think that is an anomaly; it is a vestige of the way things have developed. It has been under discussion for some time with the various governments of the commonwealth, and I hope the time will come when it will be removed and when these representatives of the sister nations of the commonwealth
Supply-External Affairs

will have within the commonwealth the precedence that normally would be theirs if we were not all nations of the commonwealth. I do not think that would mean any loosening of commonwealth ties, and I hope some day it will be recognized in that light.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is the question of giving the high commissioners their proper seniority still developing, or is the matter stalemated at the present time?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would not say that the matter is stalemated at the present time. It is tied up with the use of the title "high commissioner." This is something which is not understood) in foreign capitals. Of course there are matters which must not be dealt with too lightly, but which I think will come about as one of the consequences of the declaration of equality of status which preceded the Statute of Westminster.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why should ambassadors who represent heads of states come after high commissioners who represent governments? It seems to me that ambassadors representing heads of states should be ahead of high commissioners who represent governments. That would also be following the alphabetical order.
I make that suggestion in connection with the estimates of next year. Have consuls and those under them who look after trade matters been transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Answering the first question, may I say that ambassadors precede high commissioners in the table of official precedence for social purposes, but our estimates have developed in this way because we had high commissioners before we had ambassadors. I do not think there is any reason for changing the order now.
With respect to the second question, consuls in foreign countries operate under the jurisdiction of the foreign offices, while trade commissioners ore under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Consuls have an official function which is recognized by international law as being of a semidiplomatic nature. In order to fulfil their duties they must get, from the state in which they are to operate, a certificate of recognition commonly called an exequatur. That is signed by the heiad of the state in which they are to carry on their functions. It would be a departure from general international practice to have consuls under any other department than the department dealing with foreign or external relations.


Jean-François Pouliot: Do they get their instructions from the Department of External Affairs or from the Department of Trade and Commerce?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They get instructions on trade matters from the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Jean-François Pouliot: Direct?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Direct; they report direct on trade matters to the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Jean-François Pouliot: Do Canadian ambassadors represent the King of the United Kingdom or the King of Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They represent His Majesty in his capacity as King of Canada.


Mr. BRADSHAW:: Could we have a breakdown of the item of three-quarters of a million dollars?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Is the hon. gentleman speaking of the item of 8956,906? These amounts are broken down in two ways. One is a breakdown by heads of expenses. These are the allowances for all the missions abroad. The hon. gentleman will find the detailed breakdown of the operational expenses of these missions listed on pages 116 and 117 of the estimates. So you have the two. One is the total amount of allowances, and then you have them broken down for each mission abroad under the total of operational expenses, on pages 116 and 117.


Anthony Hlynka: I should like to say a word on the point touched upon by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I am not in a position to express an opinion as to the type of men who are employed in our service in South American countries, but I should like to say a word about those whom I met while travelling in western Europe last year. I am proud to say that just about every Canadian I met in our foreign service was the type of man of whom Canada could be proud. They were capable, efficient, well trained, and they certainly knew their job. I was really pleased when I had occasion to meet a number of these men in our foreign service in Italy, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, and I have nothing but praise for them.
I think it is to the advantage of the country to have older men in the service along with the younger men. I do not think it would be wise for any country to appoint young men only to foreign service, because the older men who are in it have had many years of experience, particularly those who have served in a military capacity. They can

Supply-External Affairs
be of great assistance to our younger men. Our young men have been learning very fast, and I was indeed pleased to find that they were doing excellent work in the various countries.
I should like to ask the minister why Canada limits her representation to the small number of representatives we have in the various countries? Canada has grown up to occupy an important position in the world, and in my opinion we have not a sufficient number of men in our foreign service. Surely we could train a number of our younger men who have seen service in the last war and then send them out into various countries. I feel that this vote should be much larger than it is, particularly in view of the uncertain times in which we live. We need representatives abroad in times such as these.
I should also like to ask the minister whether it would not be possible for Canada to employ a number of well-trained experts in this line who at present reside in England. Some of these people have spoken to me. As a matter of fact, they asked me whether it would be possible for them to make application to serve Canada abroad. Some of them speak fluently six or seven or more eastern European languages. We have not the men in Canada who speak these languages. The men I have in mind I met while travelling in Europe, and their qualifications are hard to match. Why should we not employ some of them where we are short of our own trained men? I understand that it is necessary even for the British-born to live ten years in Canada before they may be appointed to work for the external affairs department, but it seems to me that this is a time when we could use a number of these Britishers in various countries, particularly in the east.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I thank the hon. member for his tribute to the members of the external affairs department with whom he has been in contact abroad. I can assure him that it is our constant care to try to get proper representation everywhere. The hon. member says we should expand perhaps more rapidly than we 'have been doing. In May, 1947, we had ninety-nine representatives classified as officers abroad; in May, 1948, we had twelve more, or a total of 111. When we had ninety-nine, we had a clerical staff abroad of 315, and when we had 111, we had a clerical staff abroad of 493. When you increase your representation abroad, if you are to make the proper use of the reports and information gathered there, you have to make a proportionate increase in your staff in the head office. I find that we have growing pains, even at the rate at which we have proceeded to expand. It was and is,
of course, necessary to expand, but we must not be too hasty about this. We try to get into the service persons who, when they are abroad, will give a proper impression of what is a Canadian, and for that reason we want to take in persons who, before they come into the service, have had at least ten years' residence in Canada. We think that will be helpful in enabling them to give a proper impression of what is a typical Canadian.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
59. Canadian section of Canada-U.S. permanent joint board on defence, $2,500'.
Mr. PEARKES:: Would the minister give the committee some information regarding this item? For instance, who are the Canadian members of this joint board, what meetings are expected to be held, and where will they be held? This item can hardly be intended to cover salaries.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The meetings of this joint board take place about every two months. 'This vote is intended to cover the travelling expenses of the board. The members of the board receive no special salary for their services. The chairman of the Canadian section at the present time is General
A.	G. L. McNaughton. The navy member is Rear Admiral F. L. Houghton. The army member is Major-General C. C. Mann. The air force member is Air Vice Marshal A. L. Morfee. The secretary, who is an officer of the external affairs department, is Mr. David M. Johnson. The place of meeting is determined at each meeting for the subsequent meeting, and they usually alternate between some United States point and some Canadian point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
GO. To provide for relief of distressed Canadian citizens abroad, $10,000.
George Randolph Pearkes: Does this item cover the return expenses of Canadians who were interned by the enemy, particularly the Japanese?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; these expenses were all paid out of a war vote. This is a sort of revolving fund that can be drawn upon by our representatives abroad when they feel that it is proper to make some advances to a Canadian national to help him out of a temporary embarrassment. The losses incurred in these advances are very small.


George Randolph Pearkes: All the expenses in connection with the repatriation of interned prisoners have been met, have they?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	These expenses
were not administered by the Department of External Affairs. I understand that the mat-
Supply-External Affairs

ter was handled by the immigration branch, and was covered by a vote obtained by that department for that purpose.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have a case to submit to the minister. It does not come under this vote, but it may be fixed up by this vote. A Canadian soldier married an English girl in the British isles during the war. After her marriage she did not want to come to Canada. Payments for return to Canada were allowed until December 31 last. This year she decided to come, but her fare would not be paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Her husband is much disappointed. I wonder whether he could not come under this item to bring his wife to Canada.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am afraid not. I am afraid it would be stretching pretty far the purpose for which this vote is made to apply it to a condition of that kind. Funds are still being voted for dependents' allowances, and I trust that the hon. member will be able to arrange something there that would appear to come more properly under that kind of vote than this one.
Mr. POU'I.IOT: For that soldier it was a case of distress.
<X)0.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
61. Canadian representation at international conferences, $300,
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to say, as I have said before, that I am, and have been, disappointed at the action of the Canadian government in regard to UNESCO. I think this is the place to say it. I shall deal with the matter under two heads. First of all, as regards Canadian representation, for instance, this year at Mexico City, I do not think the minister takes this matter seriously enough. I do not think he realizes the disappointment that is felt by people in educational, art bodies and scientific bodies in this country in this matter. The Canadian representation at Mexico this year consisted of a group of top civil servants. No doubt they were all fine men in their own right. They were well qualified to be on that particular conference; but the point is that these various organizations in this country, for the most part educational, are very much interested that their view's should be placed before this international body. They consider that they are entitled to some representation, and that the government and the minister should make a choice from among these bodies. If these men are appointed it would not preclude the choice of civil servants, but it would give these

people some feeling that they had some interest and some participation, if I might say so, in this particular matter.
With regard to the matter of the commission w'hich we had hoped would have been set up, may I say it is now three years since I have been asking the minister questions and he has not been answering them. By that I mean he has been answering them in the same way.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: He has not been setting up the commission.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Exactly. With that I have some fault to find. Certainly the commission should have been set up. The point is that we have never got to the bottom of the reason why the commission was not set up. Apparently we do not have the whole story, but the minister cannot blame us for that. If there is a story that we have not heard we should like to hear it from the minister as the responsible minister of the crown, because, after all, in the preparatory commission to which Canada wras a signatory it was proposed that these national commissions should be set up. I know that the educational bodies, to which I have already referred, have been looking fonvard with keen anticipation to the setting up of that particular body. There is much more that I could say, and may I say there is much more that the minister could say, but he persists in not saying it. Therefore I suppose I cannot expect him to say it at this late date, having tried, as I have done, over a period of three years to get at the, bottom of why this international commission of UNESCO has not been set up to carry on these things which it could carry on to the benefit of this country and to international education and understanding. I merely take this short space of time again to register that particular protest.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. JAQUES:: May I revert to item 65? I notice an increase of nearly 500 per cent in the estimate. I wonder why the committee passes this very important item without one attempt to discuss it. I should like to know just what is meant by "education". Am I to take it that our own educational institutions are incapable of educating Canadian people in scientific and cultural organization? Is it education, or is it pure propaganda? Is the idea-and this is the idea that I have, and I have spoken on it before-to impose an international culture and education to replace our native culture and our native ideas? Since there is an increase of nearly 500 per cent in the item, the committee certainly should take

Supply-Agriculture
more notice of it than simply to say "carried", even if it is at the end of the session. I do not like many of the men at the head of UNESCO. I do not like their ideas, and I do not like what can I understand to be their objective; that is, to impose international culture on all native culture. I should like to know how far this is education and how far it is propaganda.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the hon. member will have to attend some of their meetings to form his own opinion as to what they do. This is a contribution assessed against Canada as a member of UNESCO under a constitution that was approved by the Canadian, government. It appears that there is a substantial increase in the amount here, but it is only in appearance. For 1947 the total was S311,640 United States funds, but only a portion of that is shown here. The larger portion came out of an estimate of the previous fiscal year which was of the same calendar year, but this year the whole assessment is provided in this one vote.
With respect to the activities of UNESCO, one hon. member feels that we are not giving them sufficient encouragement. The main accomplishment to date has been the initiation of campaigns in various countries for funds for educational, scientific and cultural reconstruction in the war devastated countries.
UNESCO has established pilot projects in Haiti, China. British East Africa and Peru to test techniques witih respect to fundamental education. It has also made contributions to other educational and cultural movements for the assistance of the war devastated countries.
So far, to answer the hon. member, there would appear to be such obstacles in the way of intellectual co-operation that we have felt it was preferable to go rather slowly, and we think the objects of this organization require to be based upon a feeling of security, stability and world peace in order to be productive of beneficial and long-term results.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I wish to make a point in regard to the extra expenditure. I agree with the hon. member who thinks this expenditure is too great, peithaps on the international phase of the question, and I base the argument on the fact that this money is largely a waste if we have not at the same time a national commission of responsible persons in this country wiho can Steer the particular deliberations of UNESCO in any way they like. There is no use in my hon. friend of the Social Credit party, who has spoken, protesting, because we can make it what we like. We can make it serve our own particular purpose. I believe that the whole international business should
spring from national roots as far as we are concerned, and we have not a national commission. In that respect we have practically nothing, and to that extent I agree that, in part, the vote is a waste of money. If, on the other hand, the minister had appointed, as we hoped he would, a national commission, we would say, It is our money; it is our business; we are running it and we know where we are going. I have felt that there was something dark and mysterious here that has never been brought into the open. My hon. friend to my left may tell me that the thing is riddled with communist influence. Well, if it is I want to know about it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We have no information to that effect.


Norman Jaques: I am glad to be able to agree with my hon. friend to my right. I think he lias put his finger on my objection in this matter. We have no control over this. We are in the dark about it; I am, at any rate. I think my hon. friend has the same idea that I have, that we are paying this money and have no control over it. It is not so much the way in which the money is spent, as tire use to which it is put; that is to say, the policy which is behind the whole idea of UNESCO. I think the committee should have more to say about the matter than it has had. The matter is of vital importance, of greater importance than meets the eye, I thank my hon. friend for the support he has given me.
item agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Special-
33. To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,700,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There is $1,300,000 in premiums on high quality cheese, and for standardization of factories there is $400,000, making a total of $1,700,000. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to explain the premiums on cheese. From my point of view, these two items, in dollars and cents, should be reversed. Some of the cheese factories throughout the country should be assisted. Better machinery should be put in. If that were done we would have generally a higher grade in our cheese. There is only $400,000 to assist in cold storage plants and in the way of different kinds of machinery.


Robert McCubbin: What the hon. gentleman has suggested can be brought about only by the application of those who are operating cheese factories. If
Supply-Agriculture

they wish to have help they should apply. Is the hon. member referring to curing rooms?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Yes.


Robert McCubbin: They must make application. The dominion government is willing to assist. There is one cent on 92 point cheese and two cents on anything over 99. They make application for that. Is that what the hon. member has in mind?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What proportion of that would go to the maker, in comparison with what goes to the factory? The maker is entitled to a certain amount.


Robert McCubbin: My understanding is that it all goes to the producer. The factory may keep a portion out, but it is all supposed to go to the producer of cheese. Anything that reverted to the factory would be only at the request of the producer.


John Thomas Hackett: I should like the parliamentary assistant to explain, if he can, the depressing effect that the bonusing of cheese has upon the manufacture of butter, the dispersal of the herds especially in the eastern townships, the consequent shortage of butter and the high price of that commodity.


Robert McCubbin: The question the hon. member for Stanstead has asked may be a difficult one to answer. Some districts have been in the habit of sending milk to the cheese factory for the making of cheese. Others have been in the habit of separating their milk and sending it to the creamery. In a district such as my own, we are creamery butter producers and we stay that way. Other districts are in the cheese business and they stay that way. There may be a swing one way or the other. There may be a few who go to cheese and leave the creameries, and vice versa.
But to answer the last part of the hon. member's question is a difficult thing to do. There may be numerous reasons why the production of butter is not up. Later on, we shall come to that, and I may have something further to say then.


John Thomas Hackett: I do not wish to pursue the question at this moment in view of the statement just made by the parliamentary assistant. But when he comes to the question and to proffer a solution, I should like him to consider the fact that the herds have been greatly reduced because there is no money in making butter owing to the high price of feed, and that there is in consequence a shortage of butter, which threatens not only the convenience but the welfare of the Canadian public.


Norman Jaques: This item is to encourage the improvement of cheese. I should like to suggest that one way to encourage that improvement would be to see that the restaurant in the House of Commons sells good cheese. By that, I do not mean the big brands of factory cheese. I believe there is some cheese called Old Ontario cheese, which is good cheese. My complaint is that you cannot buy it or you cannot get it. Can the minister tell us why it is that good cheese is so hard to come by in this country when it is one of the great cheese-making countries? I know you can buy cheese, and when I say that, I am referring to the big brands. But I do not mean that sort of cheese. I mean the cheese that we used to get years ago. I have repeatedly asked for Old Ontario cheese, but I am never able to get it. I think it would be a great encouragement if we could get it here in the House of Commons, for instance. Can the minister say why it is so scarce?


Robert McCubbin: The demand today is for green cheese and not for the old types of cheese to which the hon. member has referred. The demand is so great that it is taken up and is not allowed to stand the way it used to in years gone by. For that reason we do not get the old brands of which the hon. member speaks.


Norman Jaques: Am I to understand that the deliberate choice of the people is green cheese, and that they do not know a good cheese when they taste it?


Robert McCubbin: Oh, no.


Norman Jaques: Am I to understand that they actually prefer new green cheese or what is really nothing but curd? If they do not care for the good old cheese, what is the purpose of this item? I thought the people did not eat it because they could not get it. I know that is why I do not eat it.


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: Some time ago I asked the parliamentary assistant with regard to the cheese and butter situation. It would seem to me that we are producing cheese for export and selling it on credit. If my memory serves me aright, we did not get paid for a great deal of what we sold on credit after the first great war, and my opinion is that we shall not get paid for a great deal of what we are to sell now.


Robert McCubbin: I do not wish to stop the hon. member for Middlesex East. As a matter of fact, I should like to hear what he has to say. But I wonder if he would wait until we come to item 45 to say what he intends to say. Will that be all right?

Privilege-Mr. Macdonnell


Harry Oliver White: Yes.


William Henry Golding: Shall the
item carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 
Norman Jaques: I like the taste of it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That factory has grown to some extent and it is serving an increasing number of farmers. They desire to improve their equipment, to put in cold storage and various things. That company has applied for a loan under the development act and has been refused. In fact the company has applied to all sources of government which are supposed to grant aid or assistance in connection with the improvement of cheese factories, and to date they have received no assistance. Would the parliamentary assistant mind explaining to the committee how this assistance is granted to those who are operating cheese factories and want to improve them? Will he say on what terms assistance is granted and under what circumstances?


Robert McCubbin: I should like to ask the hon. member what type of assistance this cheese factory desires.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Cold storage of some type.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


John Thomas Hackett: Will the parliamentary assistant say if item 15 will afford me an opportunity of discussing butter?


Robert McCubbin: Item 45.


John Thomas Hackett: That opportunity will be given under item 45?


Robert McCubbin: That is right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


William Henry Golding: Shall the
item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
"evening citizen"
James MacKerras Macdonnell: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention a matter which affects the rights and privileges of myself and of every member of the house. The Evening Citizen carries a report which says a highly placed informant has told the Canadian Press that the government has decided to withdraw the special 25 per cent excise tax imposed on a broad list of goods. If that report is true I suggest that not only is it a gross breach of the privilege of members of parliament, but it is in effect a gross budget leak, and it is also a monkey wrench thrown into the business of the country. The government should inform us in the morning as to what the truth is. I propose to raise the matter again when the house meets in the morning. And I would say that the report further makes the outrageous suggestion that the government is considering whether this should be removed by legislation or by order in council. In other words, this report is suggesting that the government is waiting until parliament is prorogued in order to do this by order in council.
I repeat that if this is true, then whoever was responsible should be dealt with in the most exemplary manner, and I wish further to say that I will raise this question again when the house reassembles tomorrow morning.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

["I believe there will be two more bills. I am not sure; I shall have further information tomorrow.\nIt being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.\n[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:"]
Mr. MacNICOL:: What is the business for tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall proceed with the following measures: the resolution in the name of the Minister of National Defence, concerning certain moneys contributed to the Canadian officers training corps; Bill No. 363, to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act; Bill No. 350, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932, and the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932; Bill No. 351, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act; Bill No. 392, to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944; Bill No. 393, to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, Bill No. 229, to amend the Customs Act; and if we have a printed copy of the amended bill, we shall proceed with Bill No. 338, an act respecting income tax-but I am not sure about that. Most of these bills are not contentious.
Supply-External Affairs

Then we shall move to go into supply to consider the estimates of the departments of Agriculture, Mines and Resources, Fisheries, National Revenue and Public Works.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In that order?


Alphonse Fournier: I am not sure about the order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister if the bills he indicated tonight, which would pretty well clean up the order paper, constitute all the measures on the order paper which the government intends to proceed with at this session.


Alphonse Fournier: I believe there will be two more bills. I am not sure; I shall have further information tomorrow.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



[Stage Direction]
52.	Departmental administration, $1,915,860.
53.	Passport office administration, $138,500.
54.	Representation abroad-including salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments, $5,083,082.
55.	To provide for hospitality in connection with visitors from abroad, $25,000.
56.	Amount required to meet loss on exchange, $45,000.
57.	Grant to united nations society in Canada, $5,000.
58.	Expenses of the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, including salaries of the Canadian delegate and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments, $25,000.
59.	Canadian section of Canada-U.S. permanent joint board on defence, $2,500.
60.	To provide for relief of distressed Canadian citizens abroad, $10,000.
61.	Canadian representation at international conferences, $300,000.
Assessment for membership in the following international or commonwealth organizations-
62'. United nations, $1,095,500.
63.	Imperial economic committee, $21,500.
64.	Imperial shipping committee, $2,000.
65.	United nations educational, scientific and cultural organization, $326,000.
66.	Food and agriculture organization of the united nations, $191,000.
67.	General post-UNRRA relief-Amount required to meet outstanding commitments for relief shipments (revote), $500,000.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 22, 1948