1948-02-26

Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I should like to table a letter addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), advising him to make effective the provisions of Bill No. 3 as regards tariff items 393, 427e, 434, 434b, 446 and 461.



OLEOMARGARINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the tentative statements of the minister on February 11, is he now able to inform the house as to the opinion of his legal advisers regarding the status of oleomargarine under the Geneva agreements? Can he say whether the Geneva agreements permit the importation of oleomargarine? Yes or no?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I thank the hon. member for suggesting that the answer should be yes or no. To the first part of the question the answer is no; to the second part, the answer is also no. But it would not be quite fair to those who might read the question and the answers to leave it at that.
Importation of oleomargarine cannot be permitted unless and until parliament sees fit to repeal or amend section 6 of the Dairy Industry Act. No trade agreement can have the effect of automatically repealing or amending it. Should it be found that the Geneva agreement or the one substituted for it by the Havana conference does require this section to be repealed or amended, the repeal or amendment can be made only by parliament and parliament will have the right to determine in its discretion whether or not it will impose duties on the importation of oleomargarine or excise taxes on the sale thereof. If it decides to do so, there is nothing in the
Geneva agreement, nor is there apt to be anything in the Havana modification, to prevent making those duties or taxes as high as may be felt proper to leave the dairy industry completely undisturbed.



BUREAU OF STATISTICS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: At the last sitting of the house the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) asked me a question with regard to a circular published by the bureau of statistics in connection with the earnings of wage earners employed in manufacturing. I have this letter from the dominion statistician:
The circular which Mr. Lockhart mentions refers to the report "Weekly earnings and hours of work of male and female wage-earners employed in the manufacturing industries of Canada."
Statistics which include all manufacturing firms in Canada cannot be compiled until all returns are in. One of the greatest hindrances to earlier publication is the fact that many firms are slow in making these returns. A great deal of following up has to be done. If we could get in returns promptly over-all figures could be issued months earlier.
We have issued reports on a number of particular industries for the year 1946. These reports cover statistics for a year. Naturally no reports can be issued for 1947 until later this year because questionnaires are not mailed out until after the end of the year to which they refer.
Arrangements have been made with our departmental solicitor, Mr. Anger, to enforce more rigorously the provisions of the Statistics Act in regard to delinquent firms.



INQUIRY AS TO REIMPOSITION OF PRICE CEILING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACICMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but inasmuch as he is not in his seat, may I direct it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Considering the precarious position in w'hich beef feeders of western Canada find themselves today, will the minister tell the house (1) whether or not the government has decided to impose price ceilings
The Address-Mr. Dechene

on finished beef within the next three months, and if so (2) when the house may expect announcement of the details of such proposed ceilings.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to confer with my colleagues the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who are more immediately concerned and arrange to have an answer given later.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources, due notice of which I have given him. Has the federal government through the minister's department agreed to pay sixty per cent of the cost of the highway from Rustico to Cavendish national park, Queens county, Prince Edward Island?
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I presume the hon. gentleman is referring to a road within the confines of the park. If so, the cost of any such road would be paid one hundred per cent by the federal government.



REFERENCE TO MEMBERS WEARING RED TIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PARK MANROSS (London):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Hon. Secretary of State whether there is any relationship between the fall of Czechoslovakia to the communists and the number of red flags on display today among the Liberal members?



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Dion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldiwell.
Mr. J. M. DECHENE (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I may be able to justfy the wonderful reception that I have just received from my colleagues in the remarks that I have to make in the time left at my disposal.

When I took my seat last night I had made a brief reference to what I considered to have been the outstanding event of my life, when forty-three years ago in the province of Alberta that grand old man of Liberalism, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, came to Edmonton on the first of September, 1905 to launch the province of Alberta on its political career, and I attended that meeting. I refer to that because as a young man I was thrilled at the possibilities of the great province of Alberta of which I was already an old' timer. This was a prelude to the remarks I wish to make, through you, sir, this afternoon, by which I hope to enlist the interest of the house in a discussion of the resources of our province which Laurier described to us in those early days, when it had a population of less than a quarter of a million-our resources of oil, gas, coal, water power, to be added to the immense wealth that could be derived from the breaking of the sod in that great province.
Today, Mr. Speaker, after forty-three years, the hopes and ambitions that we had at the time of the visit of that grand old man have not yet been fully realized. Of course it must be admitted that two great wars have taken place in the meantime which absorbed all our energy and resources so that we might do our share in winning the victory with our allies. But I know and you know, sir, that the hopes of the provinces of the west, and particularly of Alberta, will never be realized unless we bring the factories and the wealth of the east to the west, instead1 of bringing our coal all the way down to Quebec and Ontario, instead of continuing to charge our farm operations with the tremendous cost of transporting machinery and the implements of cultivation all the way to the west from the manufacturing towns of Ontario and Quebec.
I would like to impress upon the people of this country through you, sir, and the members of this assembly, that we know where the money is. It is in Ontario and Quebec, and I want to induce its transfer to where the power and resources are. Instead of bringing coal to Newcastle, let us bring the factories to Newcastle. We have everything in Alberta except the money to build these factories. A few days ago I read in the Monetary Times of November an article referring to a great Alberta salt plant that is now being constructed at a place called Elk Point, in the constituency of Athabaska, some 125 miles east of the city of Edmonton, where both natural gas and salt have been jointly developed by Anglo-Canadian, Home Oil and Calgary and Edmonton. In drilling for oil these companies made one of the richest salt

The Address-Mr. Dechene
finds ever made in America, and they are now engaged, according to the Monetary Times and other information I have, in constructing a one million dollar salt plant. I mention this for the benefit of the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and his colleagues in the cabinet, to impress upon them that this great industry which is to be developed at a cost of a million dollars will require for the transport of its product the closing of that railway gap from Frenchman's Butte, in the province of Saskatchewan, to Heinsburg, in the constituency of Athabaska, Alberta. Is it reasonable to expect this enterprise with every resource-salt, a tremendous Bow of gas and everything else to make the project a success-to be able to compete with the salt mines in the Windsor area when it has to ship its product by a roundabout route, going 150 miles around the city of Edmonton and back to find a market? There can be no argument now about the necessity and advisability of constructing that thirty-nine miles of a gap. I know that the big companies engaged in the opening up of this field will make application for this direct route to the eastern market. Our farmers who have been paying tribute for years and years, who have been paying half a cent and more on every pound of pork and beef they exported, on every bushel of wheat they shipped to the Winnipeg market, will also benefit by this direct route to Winnipeg. I will not say any more on that.
I said last spring, Mr. Speaker, that Imperial Oil-I am not an agent of Imperial Oil, bu't I am thankful to that great company which has spent twenty-five years of its time and $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 of its money to prove that there is oil in Alberta-had faith in that great country. Within a few miles of the great city of Edmonton, so ably represented in this house by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacKinnon) Imperial Oil and other companies have dug forty-four wells. Out of those forty-four, forty-three have proved to be producers. Hon. members know how careful Imperial Oil are. They now admit that if the same ratio of producing wells is found in the hundreds of wells now under development, the problem of oil and gas for Canada will have been to a great extent solved. I speak of this now, Mr. Speaker, because I want to impress upon the government and the people of Alberta that the time has come for the Douglasites and the Manningites, or whatever they are called, to help the development that is going on. The credit of Alberta has been re-established, and therefore the credit of its people. The time has come for us to get together and
preserve that credit and invite capital from eastern Canada to come to that province and help in the development that is going on. We should impress upon them it is safe for them to do so.
What I have in mind is this. I am going to plead as long as I am in public life, and after I have left public life and as long as the Lord lends me breath, for the people of that province. In 1913 and 1914 when the first well was found, the Dingman well, near the city of Calgary, I agitated for the return of the mineral rights to the people of the province. At every session of the legislature in Edmonton from 1921 I said that we should no longer retain the mineral rights from the owners of the soil, and that we should no longer issue those titles to the homesteader after he had broken the land, cut the trees, and dug out the rocks with the sweat of his brow and the bleeding of his hands. Having done that, he had earned title from the government of this country to such resources in the ground as mines and minerals. It is getting late, but it can still be done and it ought to be done.
I contend, and I ask my hon. friends across the house to help me to convince their people in Edmonton, that if they wish to pay dividends to the province of Alberta it is not an impossibility to do so without costing the people of this country a single dollar. When Imperial Oil or any other large company goes in there, their geologists will find oil all over the north. I know it is 'there. They admit today that it is there, and the farmer who has oil under the surface of his land will be able to profit by the resources that God has placed at his disposal. He should own that farm from heaven to hell; it should be bis all the way through. But what happens? The companies come along and grab leases all over. The poor farmer, even if he could buy a lease, would not have the money to carry on the development that the law demands. The only way to improve the situation is to return the mineral rights to the owners of the surface, to the owners of the soil.
I was told many times in the past that that would retard' development. The men who spoke in that way certainly did not have the information that they should have had, because seventy-five per cent of the states in the great country to the south of us was developed in the way I suggest. Those who owned the surface owned the mineral rights under the surface in those states. Nobody will contend that the minerals were left undeveloped in that country. Would anybody contend that this great country did not see the greatest development of any country in
The Address-Mr. Dechene

the world because of the incentive given to the farmers and the people like you and me? All of us, when we know there is something in it for us, do our best to bring about development, because human nature is and will remain the same.
I have something else to speak about today. I am a very unhappy man, at this time.


Mr. MacNICOL:: There is too much red over there.


Joseph Miville Dechene: I shall speak about the hon. member in a minute. If my hon. friend wishes me to tell him something I shall do it right now. He has been very busy travelling throughout Canada; his smiling and pleasant countenance has appeared in almost every part of the country. He has visited Fort McMurray often. During the recess I re-read his speeches, and I must admit, with all the admiration I have for the hon. gentleman, that every time he came back with criticism. I will tell him that if he wants to help us he should throw away his hammer and buy a horn, sound it, and help us to develop that country. Do not go up there and listen to some disgruntled parties peddling their criticism and their anger and come to the floor of parliament and voice that criticism to the extent that now no man with money will go into Fort McMurray because he is afraid of the reception he will get.
This afternoon Fort McMurray is idle because of a bad fire. Providence ceased to be kind to us a couple of years ago and a very disastrous fire destroyed the plant. All my life I have made a habit of saying what I think. I lost two or three elections by doing that, but I shall keep on doing it as long as I live. If the day ever comes-and I said this when I lost an election in 1926; I said to the people who were criticizing me for what I said, if the day ever comes when as a man in public life I am afraid to say what I think, then I will have enough guts to get out of politics. The people at Fort McMurray joined in the criticism. I was there in 1945, during the election, of course, for three or four days, and made a thorough survey of the plant. I do not know very much about that kind of operation, but Mr. Speaker, I contend I know as much as anybody from this parliament who went there and a little more, because I and some friends of mine in Edmonton before the first great war invested some thousands of dollars of our own money. The Minister of Fisheries knows that every one of us in Edmonton who dared to try to develop that resource lost our money because the Tory government of 1915 cancelled our leases. We were not able to carry on the development because of the war and our leases were cancelled. We lost every dollar we put in.


An hon. MEMBER:: A good Tory government.


Joseph Miville Dechene: That is not a story; it is true.
A few weeks ago a convention of engineers from all over North America was held at the Chateau Laurier. It was called by the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. They invited a number of scientists from the United States to take part in the convention. I shall not weary the house with the details of the meeting, but a geologist by the name of Hume from the Department of Mines and Resources of this country, who is known as one of the best not only in Canada but away beyond our boundaries, made a wonderful report on the possibilities of the Fort McMurray tar sands area. A few miles west of the river, north of McMurray, a few sections of land were thoroughly tested -you can see the result of the testing; you can see the whole map in the Department of Mines and Resources. Just a few sections of land in that area have proved the possibility of extracting crude oil there to the extent of 350 million barrels, enough to supply fuel oil for all the stoves and furnaces in the cities of the east. There is enough bitumen found in various places, clear lakes of bitumen going down forty feet, without any sand at all, to pave every street in Canada. We could get all the material there which is necessary to pave our streets throughout the country. The chances are that right in the city of Ottawa the material needed for the pavement of streets comes from Trinidad or from some American company.
Together with the program recently evolved by this government, I suggest that the time has come when this country's monetary resources should be devoted to the development of its material resources. In this connection I wish to pay a compliment to the Minister of Trade and Commerce-and in doing so I want to assure my hon. friends across the way that I am not looking for a job. I am getting too old to fill any job. I looked for a job some years ago and did not get it, so I will not try again.


An hon. MEMBER:: The senate is a good job.


Joseph Miville Dechene: Not for me. I wish to compliment the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who still has charge of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, on the splendid work he has done during the last few years. In the last few days I have listened carefully to the debates that have taken place in this house-let me hasten to assure you, Mr. FEBRUARY 26, 1948
The Address-Mr. Graydon
Speaker, that I am not going to quote from these debates-and I have thought to myself how fortunate we are in this country to have at the helm a man possessing the talent, the ability and the integrity of the right hon. gentleman, who has been the subject of so much criticism. Let me add that he does not have to stand for all the criticism that has been levelled at him. He could live a peaceful life, and he could enjoy that life; for he has done a tremendous job for Canada throughout the war years and up to the present moment. Let us be fair. Hon. members have seen him, as I have seen him, at half past two or three o'clock in the afternoon sitting in the cafeteria munching a sandwich because he had no time for lunch. He has given everything he has to the service of the country in building up a vast and efficient organization. As a result his hair is white but his shoulders are not bent, and after all this he has had to sit here and listen to the criticism that we have heard. Wherever he could get men to do the job that had to be done he got those men, irrespective of their affiliations. He has been criticized even by some on this side of the house for having done so, but he had a big job to do and he got the right men for the job. What is more, he has come through with a clear and clean record. I believe that when the history of Canada is written we shall all be able to point with pride to the work that has been done by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce.
There is a threat that the curtain will close down on us too, unless we are careful, and now the government is taking measures to save United States dollars. I am appealing to the minister to use the same ability and energy he showed in the war in bringing Canadian industry to the point where the power may be available in unlimited quantities to operate our factories, and where unlimited supplies of coal can be obtained, enough to meet the demands of the British empire for centuries to come.
I suggest to the minister that he bring industries to Alberta, which is so far away from the markets of the world. The cost of transportation is excessive, and this is a handicap from which that part of the dominion is suffering. Two or three years ago I had on the order paper a resolution proposing that Churchill be made a free port of entry, but my efforts in this direction have not been successful. Of course I do not expect any support from east of Winnipeg and elsewhere, down to the great lakes, where there are tremendous investments, but the people of western Canada would benefit if they could
ship their cattle and wheat and bacon through that northern route, bringing back necessary materials and goods from Britain, without paying tribute to anyone.
My time is about up-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Joseph Miville Dechene: I do not wish to take advantage of the generosity of hon. members, but as I speak to you this afternoon, sir, the glorious sun of the west is slowly sinking apparently to its watery grave in the warmth of the great Pacific ocean. In a few hours it will send its last rays over the mountains, the mighty Rockies, shining on the eternal snows and ice of those giants of the west, as a benediction to the yeomen of the plains who are now preparing their seeds for the crops to come.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on the address very largely because the opportunity to make inquiries of the government is naturally and obviously limited at other stages of the business of the house, namely on the orders of the day and other special occasions. At such times members have but a limited opportunity to ask questions with reference to urgent and important problems facing the country; therefore I will take advantage of this debate to address some observations to the government and to seek information on a subject which at the moment is engaging the attention of the Canadian people almost as much as any other issue. I refer to the Hong Kong expedition, and of course the matters which have been before the house for some time in consequence of the report.
I had hoped that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) would have recovered sufficiently to be in his seat this afternoon, because there are certain things which I should like to say to him. I cannot, however, allow the matter to stand until next Wednesday, which normally would be the time for the resumption of the debate on the address. I hope the right hon. gentleman will understand that. In any event he will be able to read in Hansard what I have to say.
I am approaching the Hong Kong matter as any ordinary citizen on the street would. I do not pose as an expert; I do not attempt to bring to the house more than a common-sense reaction to the issues at stake, because I have no inside information with respect to Hong Kong. I shall base my remarks, seeking information on that basis, only upon such information as I have gathered from Hansard, from what I have gleaned from the com-
The Address-Mr. Graydon

missioner's report on Hong Kong, and what has been circulated among the Canadian public through the press.
Let me hasten to say to hon. members- perhaps they will not be surprised to hear it- that I have not read the evidence before the Duff commission. I do not suppose many people have. Nor have I had an opportunity to read any of the letters which constitute what is commonly known as the Drew correspondence with the Prime Minister. If I may, however, I should like to simplify as best I can one or two of the points at issue as I see them, and to put that issue squarely before the Prime Minister, parliament and the country.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I cannot hear what he is saying. I would ask members who wish to talk to go into the lobby. There is so much noise in the house that it is hard to follow the hon. member who has the floor.


Gordon Graydon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Send them a letter.


Gordon Graydon: At this stage, if I may, I want to trace in a chronological way just what happened from September 19, 1941, until now. So many things happened in the war and have happened in the post-war period that the public, and perhaps even parliament itself, may forget the sequence of events which it is necessary to recall as a basis and background in order to deal with a matter of this kind which is being discussed in the house from time to time.
On September 19, 1941, Canada was invited by the British government to send an expedition to Hong Kong. On October 16, 1941, the war party assumed control in Japan. I may say that I am giving only the barest and briefest outline of the sequence of events. On October 27, the Canadian troops left Canada for Hong Kong; and from the information I have been able to glean from the sources to which I have already made reference I take it that they were expected, in the original instance, to be a garrison force and to be part of a general show of force on the Pacific scene. Judging from what I have read, in any event, I think it must be generally accepted that these troops were inadequately trained and equipped even for that garrison duty, let alone for heavy combat. Later in the year Hong Kong surrendered. In 1942 Mr. George Drew, now Premier of the province of Ontario, made certain charges in connection with the handling of the expedition from the standpoint of the government and the military in general.

Shortly after that the then leader of the opposition asked for an inquiry and investigation by the government. The government appointed a one-man commission to investigate, and selected the chief justice, Sir Lyman Duff, as the sole commissioner. The opposition then selected Mr. George Drew, who was then the leader of the opposition in the Ontario legislature, as opposition counsel. From then on the commission held its sittings. The report was published later in 1942, with certain parts of the evidence taken before the commission attached to the report, although it was said it was supposed to have been an in camera inquiry. Shortly afterwards Mr. George Drew sent a letter to the Prime Minister and copies of it to the party leaders. The date of that letter, or at least the date on which it was received by those to whom it was sent, was July 11, 1942.
Hon. members of course know the story with respect to the seeking of the tabling of that letter. The Prime Minister finally decided not to table it, although that was asked for by the opposition. Actually what happened was this. He first indicated1 his willingness to table the letter, particularly after the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) had assumed whatever responsibility might be attached to asking for the tabling of the letter which was in the Prime Minister's possession. But in the interval between six o'clock in the afternoon and eight o'clock at night the Prime Minister changed his decision and finally arrived in the house with reasons which he advanced for refusing to table the letter from Mr. Drew.


Mr. WARREN:: May I ask one question, Mr. Speaker, of the hon. member?


Gordon Graydon: Yes.


Ralph Melville Warren: Is the hon. member for Peel desirous that the Canadian people should fight world war II all over again?


Mr. BROOKS:: That is a silly question.


Ralph Melville Warren: I do not think it is.


Gordon Graydon: Ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Renfrew North asks much better questions than that, and I think he does himself less than justice by seeking to intervene at this time with a question as irrelevant as the one he has put.
To continue, I may say that the debate took place later in the house, but without the Drew correspondence, and without the evidence which is now being asked for again, it was largely, as must be obvious, a debate in the dark. There matters stood until General

The Address-Mr. Graydon
Maltby, in January of this year, with the consent of the British war office, released his report as commander of the Hong Kong force.
We now come to the chronological position with respect to the Drew correspondence, as the matter was then revived. On January 29 the leader of the opposition asked for the tabling of the Drew correspondence. He asked for it then because the Maltby report had been released and the whole question of Hong Kong had been thrown open to the public. Perhaps General Maltby's report is the best answer to the hon. member for Renfrew North as to whether or not world war II should be fought all over again. In any event the leader of the opposition asked for the tabling of the Drew correspondence. On January 30 the Prime Minister answered. I shall not read the whole answer, unless someone desires that it should be put on the record; but the pertinent parts-and I want to be fair about this-I think are as follows. This is the Prime Minister's answer as reported at page 715 of Hansard-.
The government will now have, among other things, to consider with the government of the United Kingdom whether the reasons given in that opinion for declining to table the letter continue to be valid.
Then on February 6 the leader of the opposition again asked about the Drew correspondence, and this, in part, is what he said as reported at page 937 of Hansard:
Some days ago I asked the Prime Minister if in view of the war office release regarding the Hong Kong incident he would table the Drew correspondence with respect to it. He later intimated that he would take up the matter with the United Kingdom government. My question is:	Has the Prime Minister any reply,
*and if so, will he now table the correspondence?
To which the Prime Minister replied:
I did take up the matter immediately with the United Kingdom government at the time my hon. friend spoke about it in the house, but I have not as yet received a reply.
On February 201 asked a question which was collateral to the question of the production of the evidence taken by the Duff commission. The Prime Minister said at page 1430 of Hansard:
A little later I shall be glad to give the house the views of the British government on the matter, but I wish to show the leader of the opposition a cable I have received in reply before I make a public statement.
This is in reference only to the evidence.
The communication was received only yesterday, so I have not been able to bring its receipt to the attention of the house before today.
Then came my question:
May I ask the Prime Minister if his remarks with respect to the Hong Kong evidence apply equally to the letter written by Premier Drew, about which there has been some discussion in the house?
Mr. Mackenzie King:	I should think it
would, but I would have to re-read the letter of Premier Drew to make sure whether it contains references to parts of the evidence to which the British government takes exception to publicity being given.
On February 24 another question arose in connection with this matter. Once more the evidence was under discussion and a point was very properly brought up by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who at page 1553 of Hansard said:
I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his statement here today, with particular reference to the letter from Premier Drew. Will the Prime Minister produce all letters, wires and memoranda containing any requests to. the high commissioner's office and from the high commissioner's office to His Majesty's government in Great Britain regarding complaints put in against the production of that letter, so that the house and country may judge whether or not production was actually asked for or the request was made in such terms ias to amount to an invitation to His Majesty's government not to consent to the production of it?
The Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I resent very strongly the insinuation of my hon. friend that I have been sending messages to His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom to induce that government not to have Mr. Drew's letter produced.
As a matter of fact I think there might be some resentment on another side of the house over the fact that the letter had not been produced long ago. The Prime Minister continues:
May I say to my hon. friend at once that the communications with respect to the Hong Kong inquiry which are included in the evidence took place before Mr. Drew's letter was ever addressed to myself. Mr. Drew's letter came some time after the report of the Hong Kong inquiry had been tabled.
Then came a very important statement by the Prime Minister, which I think should be linked with what the Prime Minister previously said and which I read into the record:
So far as Mr. Drew's letter is concerned, I have made no communication to the British government one way or the other with respect to it.
I want to leave the matter there, because while there was some further discussion I think that was the only clear statement made at that time. That, I think, shows clearly that the refusal to publish the Drew correspondence was not a decision of the Brilish government
The Address-Mr. Graydon

but a decision of the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet, on whatever advice he may have been given. I am not constituting myself the sole judge as to the propriety of the Prime Minister's decision with respect to the tabling of the Drew correspondence, but certain published allegations which are known to the people of Canada I think should be placed before parliament, whether or not the letters are ever tabled, to give this parliament and the people some basis on which to judge for themselves whether or not these letters should be tabled.
I want to refer to today's issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail, which I believe throws further light on the matter or at least makes it apparent that parliament is entitled to a much fuller and franker statement by the Prime Minister than he has given so far. I want to read into the record this short paragraph :
What is of interest at this date is whether the government knew before the sailing of the expedition that conditions in the Pacific had changed, and that war was an imminent possibility. The Duff report states categorically that ''the best informed opinion available to the Canadian authorities was that hostilities would not arise in the near future." This statement was vigorously challenged by Mr. Drew, in a letter to Mr. King dated July 11, 1942. It is this letter, in particular, which Mr. King is so loathe to release, although he promised to table it on July 14, 1942, only to retract his promise within two hours.
Could it be that Mr. King's reluctance, which is going to fantastic lengths, is due to the fact that Mr. Drew referred to a communication- from a high British diplomat-dated October 24, 1941, telling Mr. King that "altered circumstances" obtained in the Pacific? Is this the document he is afraid to put before the public, because it shows that Mr. King knew, three days before the sailing of the Hong Kong expedition, that these untrained, unarmed men would not be facing a period of ordinary garrison duty, but the virtual certainty of brutal war?
This is something, of course, the public can read; otherwise I would not be able to give that information to parliament today. What I want to know, however, and what Canadians generally want to know is, did the Prime Minister receive, see or have any knowledge of the communication referred to in this editorial? If the Prime Minister did have such knowledge, how can he condone that part of the Duff report appearing on page 46, which says:
In considering the character of these additions, as well as in considering the question of the selection of the units, we should remind ourselves once again that in October. 1941, there were no hostilities in the Pacific and the

best informed opinion available to the Canadian authorities was that hostilities would not arise in the near future.
Here, at least apparently, is the core of one of the issues at stake in this controversy. I suggest in view of what the public already know, and in view of the position in which the matter now stands, that things cannot be left as they are now. That is the point I want to make in this connection. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) was quite right when he said on February 24, at page 1552 of Hansard-.
... I cannot do anything else but ask the Prime Minister to request the British government to review its decision and have it produce eveTy available bit of evidence.
His statements, of course, were in connection with the evidence taken before the commission, but I think his remarks go to the root of the whole matter. He went on, and I think this is the important part of what he said:
I shall be most unhappy if every dispatch, every report and every item of evidence is not laid before the people of Canada.
I want to say just one word in closing. From what one can gather, in the correspondence between the Premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister, which has never been tabled, there are charges against the Prime Minister personally. In view of what the public does know, in view of the necessity to lift the lid off this whole Hong Kong business-surely the public of Canada have the right to know the whole story and be able to judge from the evidence at this stage so long after the war has been concluded-in my opinon it is not proper for the Prime Minister or any member of the government to hold back from parliament charges which apparently have been made in this letter, thus rendering it unnecessary for the Prime Minister or the government to meet those charges either in parliament or out of parliament.
I want to leave the situation there just as it is, in the hope that the government and the Prime Minister will see their way clear to review the position which has been taken and finally let the public of Canada know what are the facts of this whole Hong Kong matter.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: 
Mr. PEARKES:: Would the minister-


Brooke Claxton: I should prefer to finish first and answer later, because I want to follow my hon. friend's argument as closely as I can.
The exhibits also included communications received from the British government. They were put before the commission after the consent of the British government had been obtained to that course. That was done in accordance with the invariable practice existing between governments whereby documents marked "secret" or "most secret" or "confidential" are not revealed to anyone without the consent of the government from which they were received. In addition there was a limited number of cables, I think five in all, which did not deal specifically with the expedition to Hong Kong but dealt with general political considerations. They were all marked "most secret" and at the suggestion of the chief justice the government asked the con-
The Address-Mr. Claxton

sent of the British government to make those cables available to the commission. The British government agreed, but only subject to the express condition that these cables would be shown to the royal commissioner and to counsel only, that no copies would be made, and that they would be used only for the purposes of the commission. There was no objection made to that course.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Was not that after the evidence had been taken?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. My recollection is that it was after the conclusion of the taking of the evidence, before the receipt of the evidence General Crerar on commission from Britain, and before argument had been completed. It was before the argument. The condition on which these cables were disclosed was well understood, and so far as I have been able to ascertain it was lived up to in every particular except by one of those taking part.
Following the taking of evidence, which went on from the 2nd to the 31st of March, counsel were asked to file written arguments, which they did. Then they met the commissioner, and in accordance with the understanding the commissioner asked them to file with him all their copies of the transcripts of evidence and written arguments and all notes used in connection with the inquiry. As far as anyone knows that course was followed at that time.
The report is dated June 4, 1942. It was made by the chief justice after he had heard the evidence, seen the witnesses, read the arguments, and heard the supplementary arguments. Of all people in Canada he was the one best qualified, first of all, to sit as a royal commissioner, and second, having sat, to make a report. In fact he is the only person so far as I know who has any kind of qualification to deal with this matter in its present state, because I venture to say that no one else has read all the evidence, and certainly nobody else has had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit a question on that?


Brooke Claxton: I should complete my statement, and then at the end if the -hon. member desires to ask a question I shall be glad to answer it.


John George Diefenbaker: It was just this. Will the minister clarify this point? What justification is there for the commissioner being able to refer to selected excerpts from the exhibits while the public is denied the

whole exhibits to ascertain whether or not the conclusion arrived at by the commissioner was supported by the exhibits?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member must accept that situation as an inevitable consequence of any commission being held in camera. Either we should have commissions in public, in which event everyone can see the evidence, or if they are held in camera, and I think everyone will agree that in this case it was necessary that that course should be followed-I have never heard anyone suggest the contrary-we must recognize and accept the consequence that the royal commissioner would have to deal with matters in just that way. As I say, the Dardanelles commission and the Mesopotamia commission both quoted parts of the evidence that supported the conclusions of the royal commission, and in exactly the same way the royal commissioner in this present matter quotes parts of the evidence and attaches two exhibits to his report. The only other way would have been to have an open commission with the consequences that would have followed.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there not a difference between a secret commission and one in camera?


Brooke Claxton: No, there is no difference here. The royal commission was appointed for the purpose of making a finding. I will read the terms of the order in council, P.C. 1160, dated February 12, 1942, which gives the scope of his reference. He was appointed to inquire and report upon-
The organization, authorization and dispatch of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the selection and composition of the force and the training of the personnel thereof; the provision and maintenance of supplies, equipment and ammunition and of the transportation therefor; and -as to whether there occurred any dereliction of duty or error in judgment on the part of any of the -personnel of any of the departments of the government whose duty it w-as to arrange for the authorization, organization and dispatch of the said expeditionary force resulting in detriment or injury to the expedition or to the troops comprising the expeditionary force and if so what such dereliction or error was and who was responsible therefor.
The chief justice made his report, and I shall read only the conclusion in which he says:
In October, 1944, the Canadian military authorities undertook a task of considerable difficulty. Subject only to my observation concerning twenty of the two hundred and twelve vehicles of the mechanical transport, they performed that task well. Canada sent forward, in response to the British- request, an expedition that was well-trained and (subject as

The Address-Mr. Claxton
aforesaid, an so far as shipping facilities allowed) well provided with equipment. In spite of the disaster that overtook it soon after its arrival in Hong Kong, it was an expedition of which Canada can and should be proud.
The war came upon us when we were unprepared for it. In such circumstances, recalling military history, one would perhaps not be greatly surprised to discover that even two years after its commencement some military enterprise bad been undertaken which had proved to be ill-conceived, or badly managed. The Hong Kong expedition falls under neither description.
That is the conclusion of the report. An appendix is attached to the report, which is incorporated to form part of it, in which the chief justice deals in considerable detail with the various matters contained in his terms of reference. That was the report of the royal commission.
The report was dated June 4, 1942, and on July 11, 1942 Mr. Drew wrote the first of the letters to which reference has been made. That was followed by a further letter on July 16. Copies of these letters were sent to the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Hanson, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and the leader of the Social Credit party, and on July 14 the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked whether the Prime Minister would produce the letter of June 11. The Prime Minister immediately said that he would, but next day received the letter printed at page 4254 of Hansard for July 15, 1942. from Mr. George A. Campbell, counsel for the government at the commission, expressing the view that it would not be proper to publish the Drew letter because it referred to communications from the United Kingdom which had been made available to the commission on the express condition that they should be kept secret. This is the important point about tabling the letter. The Prime Minister read the passage to the house from Mr. Campbell's letter in his statement, as reported at page 1550 of Hansard. In that opinion Mr. Campbell has this to say:
At the conclusion of the hearing for the taking of testimony in this matter, and some days before the date fixed for completion of the hearing of oral argument, all counsel concerned received notice from the commissioner requiring them on the day of the final bearing of oral argument to deliver up to the secretary of the commission any and all transcripts of evidence, exhibits and copies thereof, written arguments and copies thereof, notes of evidence and any and all other writings and documents relating in any way whatsoever to the matters in question.
It appears from Mr. Drew's communication that it purports largely to be based upon his written argument to the commissioner, of which presumably therefore he retained a copy in his possession. In bis letter he gives a number of verbatim quotations from the transcript of evidence and exhibits.
Mr. Drew's letter purports to give the effect of a number of confidential communications received by the government of Canada from the government of the United Kingdom, the disclosure of which was only consented to by the government of the United Kingdom subject to a specific condition that the disclosure was to be limited to the commissioner and counsel only, and solely for the purpose of the inquiries; and the commissioner was- not permitted to reproduce these communications in his report. Any disclosure, therefore, even to the House of Commons, would in my opinion be a violation of the substance of that condition.
If, therefore, Mr. Drew's communication is tabled by you before the House of Commons I am of the opinion that you will be violating a condition under which the government of the United Kingdom consented to the disclosure to the commissioner and counsel of those telegrams.


John George Diefenbaker: That is only an, ex parte opinion.


Brooke Claxton: I know that my hon. friend does not like it, because it discloses a breach by Mr. Drew of the condition-


Mr. COCKERAM:: It does nothing of the kind.


Brooke Claxton: -of confidence and secrecy on which the information was given and on which the inquiry was held. I know the hon. member does not like it because also, while it is an opinion, it is an opinion from- a very distinguished lawyer whom I described to the house a few minutes ago. Certainly it is not an opinion which any government that respected its word, and wanted to have its word respected by others, would lightly break or depart from.
I ask hon. members, and I ask the people of this country, if they would suggest for a second that this or any other government of this or any other British dominion would table communications sent to it marked "most secret" to which tabling objection had been made by the government which had sent those communications. I venture to say that anyone who is honest, and anyone who has any respect for himself and seeks the respect of others, will have no uncertain answer to that question.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, the question was asked; I now ask the minister this question. If all that he states be correct, why is it then that the Prime Minister says he has never asked the British government whether or not it would consent to the production of the Drew letter?


Brooke Claxton: Because the objection to the production of the Drew letter, and the fundamental impropriety of the letter itself, is due to the fact that it makes a breach of communications made by the British government on condition that they were kept confidential. Whether this is so or not is not a matter for
The Address-Mr. Claxton

the British government to determine. Our communications with the British government were directed to one point and one point alone: were they willing to have those communications made available to the commission, and later, were they willing to have them made available to this parliament. It is because of their negative answer to that question that the action with regard to the Drew letter was largely based.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this matter has been brought up again after this long period of six years, and it is suggested' that this revival has occurred in consequence of a report by Major General Maltby. We shall see what that report was.
This was a report made to the war office by the general officer commanding British troops in China. It was dated November 21, 1945, published in the London Gazette on January 27, 1948, and released from the war office. The report was made by General Maltby in his capacity as the general officer commanding the forces there, and it was made in exactly the same way as, say, a report by General Crerar on the operations of the forces under his command. General Crerar made a report to the government of Canada through the Minister of National Defence on the operations of the first Canadian army in northwestern Europe, and it was made in accordance with the well established practice under which general officers make their reports. It is natural that, having been issued, it should have created some interest; but as for reviving this Hong Kong inquiry, I do not think it is the Maltby report which is doing that. It seems to be hon. members opposite.
It was not my purpose to go into the facts at this time because all that we have is the report of this royal commissioner, and I for one, until I have some other evidence, accept completely the report of the royal commission.


George Randolph Pearkes: Have you heard what the men said when they came back?


Brooke Claxton: I have heard what a good many men said in connection with a good many things in connection with this whole matter.


An hon. MEMBER:: Were they well equipped and well trained?


Brooke Claxton: With regard to those two matters I will say one word. In his report General Maltby has this to say, and this only, on the subject of training:
Royal Rifles of Canada and Winnipeg Grenadiers:
These two battalions proved to be inadequately trained for modern war under the conditions existing in Hong Kong.

In this connection I should like to refer to a statement made by General Crerar in his evidence.


Alan Cockeram: General Crerar did not give any evidence. He should have; he was chief of general staff.


Brooke Claxton: Of course he did. General Crerar, in his evidence before the commissioner, which is quoted at page 33 of the commissioner's report, dealt with this, and what he said is interesting and important. General Crerar, it must be remembered, was chief of general staff in Canada at the time when this expedition was authorized and dispatched. Subsequently he was sent overseas and he gave his evidence before the commission by a written statement in answer to questions put by counsel for the commission and for the opposition. He said:
To the best of my knowledge and experience, however, no battalions of any army, even if fully equipped, can ever be regarded as completely trained. Training is an unceasing process. There were, however, in Canada at the time in question a number of battalions (among which were Royal Rifles and Winnipeg Grenadiers) which, although somewhat handicapped by lack of supplies of certain platoon weapons (mortars and anti-tank rifles) -
That is, handicapped in Canada; they were not short of these weapons in Hong Kong.
-in my opinion were generally adequately trained to undertake defensive responsibilities such as those in prospect in Hong Kong.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Some of the men had not six weeks' training.


Brooke Claxton: General Crerar's statement is completely in accordance with the facts, and I venture to say that very few members of this house, and very few people throughout the country, will quarrel with the statement made by General Crerar in view of his record when in command of the first Canadian army.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Drew did not go beyond the rank of lieutenant overseas.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who didn't?


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: I must ask hon. members not to interrupt. Every member has a right to present his case on the floor of the house without interruption.


Mr. LENNARD:: Tell the whole story.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Lieutenant is all he got overseas. He never was a colonel.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shot up worse than you.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will debate with Drew at any time, any place.

The Address-Mr. Claxton


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He would not disgrace himself debating with you.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You didn't have such a record overseas.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am not boasting about it either.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the work is going on of preparing the record for filing. When I was asked yesterday whether or not the Prime Minister had dispatched a request to the British government for consent to table the communications, the tabling of which had been objected to, I said I believed that had been done. I have confirmed that since and found that a cable was dispatched within an hour of the request being made by the hon. member for Quebec South. One can understand the hon. member for Quebec South making a request for anything and everything that will throw light on this because, as he said, of all people in this house he is perhaps most concerned, having been the associate minister of national defence, and at the time he was acting in the place of the minister owing to the absence of Colonel Ralston. I think it will be found that, when the time comes, the hon. member for Quebec South with that frankness and capacity with which he conducted the affairs of the Department of National Defence for Air during the war, will deal with this matter effectively just as I believe that the people would have the most complete confidence in his judgment on anything he chose to do. On that account I feel reasonably certain also that if the tabling of these cables is permitted-


William Henry Golding: Order. I would remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Gordon Graydon: There is no objection from this side.


Brooke Claxton: I thank hon. members for their courtesy. I shall take only a minute or two longer. I believe that if the tabling of these communications is permitted, it will be found that they further support the position then taken. When that is done, it may perhaps be a more appropriate time to deal with this matter, should the necessity arise. In conclusion I would draw the attention of hon. members to two further circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister leaves that point, will he permit another question?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, I will-later.


Frank Exton Lennard: The hon. member is speaking on borrowed time now.


Brooke Claxton: Hon. members opposite have either given me some time in which to finish, or else they have not.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to thank the minister for the generous manner in which he has always made way, just as I always endeavour to make way when I am asked a question. The question I wanted to ask him, before he passed on to another subject, was this. Was he or any other member of the cabinet made aware of the contents of the report of General Maltby prior to its release by the British war office on January 29?


Brooke Claxton: I cannot speak for my colleagues, because I have not asked them, but I feel reasonably certain that none of them was; and I certainly had not been. That would not be usual. When General Crerar made his report on the operations of the first Canadian army I am quite certain that he did not consult the representatives of the governments of Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, the United Kingdom or the United States just because members of the forces of all those countries at one time or another served in the first Canadian army. I feel reasonably certain that the same would be true of Field Marshal Alexander and of the other reports. In this war the allies were fighting combined operations under unified commands, with the representatives of various nations associated under different commands. As far as I know the practice was not followed of consulting with the representatives of all the countries concerned when it came to the preparation of a report by the general officer commanding, although no doubt there would be exchanges at the official level to verify details.
I was just about to conclude with two short observations, Mr. Speaker. The first is this. We should remember the stage of the war at which Hong Kong took place. These troops left Canada on October 27 and arrived at Hong Kong on November 16. On December 7, 1941, without warning the Japanese forces savagely attacked the United States forces at Pearl Harbor and the British forces at Hong Kong. We all know of the tragic series of disasters that took their course around the whole area of the Pacific, all resulting from those first attacks. It is no secret that the plan envisaged in garrisoning Hong Kong was that it might be held for a number of months, at the end of which it would be relieved by the superior strength of United: States and British naval forces. But the disaster at Pearl Harbor and the loss of
The Address-Mr. Argue

the Repulse and the Prince oj Wales ended any such hope. Not long after, Singapore had to capitulate after active fighting in defence had lasted for eight days. Somewhere between 70,000 and1 100,000 British forces had to surrender there. At Hong Kong the troops went on fighting for seventeen days in most difficult country, on two sides of the narrow strip of water separating the island from the mainland, against overwhelming forces. It is a great feat in the history of our arms that our forces were able to do so well. And, Mr. Speaker, I make this observation in closing. It would be hard to find any better reflection of the war effort of Canada and on the wartime administration of this government than to appreciate the fact that now, after the war is over, and six years after Hong Kong, the members o'f the opposition revive this question as the only serious blot charged against the record of a fine country and a great people doing everything they could to play their part in defeating the enemy.


William Henry Golding: I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that the rule is quite clear that a member who has the floor must not be interrupted; nor must he be asked a question unless he consents to answer it. The hon. member will indicate his desire to refrain from answering a question by remaining standing. No two members should be on their feet on the floor at once. Furthermore, the rule is quite clear that a member may rise to a question of privilege at any time; but if hon. members will study the rules I think they will find that the question of privilege must be one which affects the member personally and which he wants to correct immediately. We should keep this fact in mind and observe the: rules as well as possible.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I rise only because the minister said if I would keep quiet he would answer a question when he finished. I did my best to keep quiet, and my question is very simple. As I listened to the Prime Minister read the portion of what is known as the Campbell letter in which he advised the government with respect to the tabling of the Drew letter, and as I listened to the same portion being read by the minister, the effect of the advice given was that it would be either in bad taste or perhaps not good morals to table that letter in the House of Commons. As I heard it there was not a bit of legal advice in the letter. My question is this. The tabling or non-tabling of the letter was a matter for the government itself; and since when does the government take its advice on matters of good morals or
[Mr. Claxton.J
good taste, or matters of policy, from a lawyer who advises them without one word by way of legal opinion in his letter? I want to make the distinction between Mr. Campbell's letter and the policy of the government, with which of course he had nothing whatever to do.


Brooke Claxton: My hon. friend has not put a question; he has made a statement. The letter is there; the statement of the Prime Minister is there. I venture to think that if you had employed counsel to assist in the work of a commission and a question of this kind arose involving questions of fact, appreciations of procedure, consideration of the conditions under which the commission proceeded and under which the information was made available, matters which were not within the personal knowledge of the Prime Minister, the proper course to follow would be to address such a letter and, if possible, abide by the answer given. That was the course followed.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In short, Mr. Campbell directed government policy.


Brooke Claxton: He advised, and the government followed the advice.


William Henry Golding: Order. I must remind hon. members that the house is not in committee.


Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):: I rise to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker in order to call attention to what I think have been some failures in government policy, especially wdthin the last year, as they affect our agriculture industry. Farmers, in order to be secure, must have stable prices for the things produced on the farm, prices bearing a fair relationship to the cost of the things the farmer must buy; farmers are interested also in any program that provides social security to Canadians generally, because they need social security very badly, since the agriculture industry is such a hazardous occupation.
I should like to refer for a moment to the proposals made by the federal government to the provinces with respect, first, to a taxation agreement and, second, to an agreement on social security measures. The history of those conferences is now well known. The initial conferences bogged down I think largely because of the attitude of the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, but finally the federal government offered the various provinces an agreement under which the individual provinces would abandon certain taxation fields and in return receive a stipulated yearly rental. I want to congratulate the government on the fact that it offered the provinces separate taxation agreements; but I also want

The Address-Mr. Argue
to point out that in my opinion it offered those agreements because it was very much concerned that the great corporations in Canada should not be doubly taxed, by the provincial governments and the federal government. But when it came to the matter of a social security program this government did not offer separate agreements to the provinces. If it had certainly the province of Saskatchewan, and I am sure other provinces, would have signed such an agreement to obtain social security benefits. If the premiers of Ontario and Quebec had not wished to sign such agreements initially, certainly their people would have forced them to sign eventually because all Canadians want provision made for better old age pensions and a health program.
The government proposed an old age pension of $30 a month to everyone reaching the age of seventy, and also proposed to go along with the provinces on an old age pension program for people between sixty-five and seventy, with a means test. Even with the small increase in benefits to old age pensioners provided last year the government has not come close to fulfilling its own old age pension program. Moreover the offer of the federal government in regard to a health plan was this, as set out on page 31 of the proposals of the government of Canada:
The federal government's health insurance proposal is designed to put provincial governments in a financial position to develop and administer a comprehensive health insurance program worked out by progressive stages on an agreed basis.
And again, on pages 32 and 33:
A complete health insurance service fo-r all the people of Canada must obviously take a number of years to introduce. The cost to the federal and provincial governments would depend on the health benefits provided at any given time. For the full health insurance program when finally realized the total cost, for the population shown in the 1041 census and for benefits as shown in the table above-
I might explain that this includes all benefits in regard to hospitalization, medical care and so on.
-would be $250,090,000 per annum. On this basis the federal government's share would be $150,000,000 and the provincial governments' share $100,000,000.
I wonder what has happened to that part of the government's proposal to the provinces. Saskatchewan, however, has not waited until the federal government got around to implementing this health program, which might be many years in the future. Instead, Saskatchewan is providing hospitalization; and I want to point out that if the federal government would do no more than offer separate agreements to the provinces on the basis of its own social security program, as it did on the basis of its taxation program, hospitalization would cost the people of Saskatchewan not $5 per person but $2. I. think the people of Saskatchewan are looking to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) to rise in this house and give his views on this matter.
Some days ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), dealing with present conditions with respect to agriculture, boasted that in 1946 agriculture had the highest net income in history. I think before he boasted about that high net income, which was $1,267,400,000, he should have told the house what that worked out to per farmer. I searched the statistics to find the number of male persons working on farms. I took the lowest figure for any year since 1941 which would give the highest average farm income and I found that on March 1, 1947, there were 930,000 adult males engaged in agriculture. That works out to an average yearly income of $1,363.
Not long ago the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll)-I see him in his seat-outlined in the house the great difficulty which an average worker in the city of Toronto experienced trying to provide the necessities of life for his family on an income of $40 per week. I suggest that it is even more difficult for a farmer to provide the necessities of life for his family when his income works out to $26.20 per week, when in that figure is included the value of vegetables, meat and dairy products produced and consumed by the farmer and his family.
What the agricultural industry is interested in at the present time is not so much what happened in 1946 as what has happened since 1946 and the trend that has developed, particularly throughout 1947. Bureau of statistics figures give the index for Canadian farm product prices, on the base 1926 equals 100, as 114-4 in January 1947. At the same time the general wholesale price index was 114-2. In other words, in January of last year the prices of farm products were just a little above the general wholesale price index. In every month of 1947 the general wholesale price index increased and increased faster than the index of Canadian farm product prices until in December, 1947, -the general wholesale price index was 143-5 as compared to the Canadian farm products price index of 130-7. At the beginning of 1947 the Canadian farm product prices index was -2 above the general wholesale price index, but at the end of 1947 the index for Canadian farm product prices was 12-8 points less than the general wholesale level. I contend that the agricultural
The Address-Mr. Argue

industry suffered during each succeeding month of 1947 directly as a result of federal government policy.
I turn now to the government's wheat program. When the debate on the British wheat agreement took place the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) placed on Hansard the position of that party. He said that we had always believed in parity prices, that that was our policy in August, 1946, and I can say that it is still our policy today. He said that if the federal government would not give the farmers parity prices then they should do something else, and I quote from page 4825 of Hansard of August 15, 1946:
I believe the government would be well advised to consider this suggestion that, in the event of the costs of production rising for the next few years, as they will do largely because of the government's failure to maintain the ceilings, any difference there may be between what the farmer receives for his wheat and the increased cost of production should be made up out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
The parity price which was estimated at that time by the leader of the C.C.F. was $1.55 per bushel. Adjusting that price to the change in the general wholesale price index-* I am told by a man in the bureau of statistics that the result obtained is almost identical with the result obtained at Washington with their intricate analysis of parity prices- makes it necessary to have a price of $2.03 per bushel for wheat at the end of 1947. Costs have gone up even since December, 1947. Therefore I suggest that the government should make a compensatory payment to take care of increased costs of production, which resulted directly from government policy, of at least 50 cents per bushel, to be in addition to whatever increased initial price for wheat is paid.
Speaking in the debate on the British contract the Minister of Agriculture stated that the parity price of wheat was $1.41 or $1.42 per bushel previous to the increase in the prices of farm machinery in 1946. If one takes that figure of $1.42 which the Minister of Agriculture said was fair, and adjusts it to the general wholesale price index prevailing at the end of 1947, he will find that the parity price would be $1.93 per bushel. The Minister of Agriculture is reported on page 4826 of Hansard of August 15, 1946, as follows:
What I want to point out is that under the floor price measure-that is not the proper name, but it will do-we stated to the house that $2'0'0 million was being provided for the purpose of taking care of any adjustments in connection with what might be known as parity on other farm products. At the same time we stated to the house that similar arrangements would be made if necessary, through the wheat
[Mr. Argue.J
board, in connection with grain. I just want to point out that provision is made in another way.
The Minister of Agriculture stated to the house and to the country in 1946 that the federal government had already provided a basis for parity. There has not been parity in the past and there is no parity today. I suggest that even with the increased initial price, whatever it may be, the farmer will still not be receiving a parity price. We had scarcely returned home following the session last year when the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that there was to be an increase in the initial price, but to date we have not been told what that increase is to be. Who does the government think owns the money with which they are going to provide that increase? The farmers want to know what that increase is going to be, what their participation certificates are going to be so that they can plan their production for 1948. It is just as much a secret as this Hong Kong affair. In this case it is the farmers' money that is involved, not the government's, and the farmers have a right to know how much money is to be paid on the initial price of wheat this spring.
Now I come to the government's coarse grain policy-or lack of it. Last year, during the months of August and September and for the first three weeks of October, the farmers throughout western Canada took their oats and barley to the local elevator and received the prices available at that time. On October 21, for reasons best known to the government, it decided to place oats and barley once again on the speculative market. Prices went up thirty cents a bushel on barley, perhaps even more, and many farmers lost as much as a thousand dollars. Farmers did not anticipate a loss, for on March 17 in the House of Commons the Minister of Agriculture said that if there was an increase in the price of oats and barley in the future the government would step in and take over all available stocks so that fortuitous profits would not be made by the handlers of feed grain. But having said that in March, in December last year he said he knew there was a lot of profiteering last fall by feed dealers in eastern Canada and by others, but he was not going to blame them for having done what they did.
Then the hon. member for Rosthern apparently did something about the government's coarse grain policy. He flew down to Ottawa, and the report is that he asked the government to compensate the farmers for their loss; for on November 24 the Regina Leader-Post carried this headline on the front page,

The Address-Mr. Argue
"Coarse grain loss to be made up". I will read the first paragraph of the article under that heading:
The dominion government will indemnify coarse grain producers against loss as a result of the lifting of coarse grain price ceilings October 21 and will take steps to see livestock producers are compensated for the increase in feed costs, Walter Tucker, M.P., Saskatchewan Liberal leader, and W. C. Woods, Kinistino, chairman of the caucus of Liberal provincial candidates, declared Sunday on their return from Ottawa.
This is the thirty-fifth day of the present session, and to date I have not heard the hon. member for Rosthern say in this house that he was doing anything to encourage his government to pay to the farmers complete compensation for the loss which resulted directly from government policy. Millions of dollars were lost by the farmers of western Canada just to put an equivalent number of millions of dollars in the hands of the feed grain dealers, the grain companies, the Winnipeg grain exchange and what have you. I say that the only solution now is for the government to pay complete compensation to the farmers and then obtain from the grain companies and the feed dealers as much of that loss as is possible.
After being smoked out on December 11, 1947, the Minister of Agriculture, speaking on the government's coarse grain policy at that time, informed the house and the farmers that there was still a mythical control on the price of coarse grains. At page 215 of Hansard of December 11, 1947, he said:
I iam simply pointing out that the fact remains that controls are not off feed grains. The statement has been made over and over again that price controls have been taken off feed gnains. The most effective price control on feed grains is the fact that there is an established value for wheat.
We saw how effective that price control was on oats and barley in the first part of this month, when the price of oats and barley on the Chicago board of trade dropped drastically within a few days, and the Winnipeg grain exchange followed the Chicago board of trade in that downward price path. The price of wheat had not changed but the speculators in Chicago were afraid, and the speculators in Winnipeg shared their fear, with the result that the highest price for No. 1 feed barley dropped from $1.27i during the week of February 2 to $1.07 on February 12, a drop of more than 20 cents in the price of barley within ten days. Yet the Minister of Agriculture had told the house that the most effective price control on coarse grains still remained. The truth is that there is no control. The truth is that when oats and
barley prices drop 20 cents within a few days no farmer can plan his hog production or dairy production or, for that matter, the production of oats and barley on any sound basis.
But apparently the government has had a change of heart, or at least some people might think so: for on the order paper there is a government resolution, No. 14, to amend the wheat board act. The resolution reads that it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act-


@Acting Speaker: (Mr. Golding): Order. The hon. member should not refer to a resolution on the order paper.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. The report is that the government will ask the house to empower it to place oats and barley in the same position as wheat. Mind you, I say empower it, but the government does not say that it is going to take oats and barley off the Winnipeg grain exchange. I think, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a good political gesture at this time with an election in Saskatchewan in the offing in the not far distant future. But actually, judging by what has happened within the last twelve months, I doubt that the government will have the wheat board handle oats and barley on a permanent basis; for last year the Minister of Justice told the house that that would be quite unconstitutional and therefore the government could not then accept a C.C.F. amendment proposing what the government now says it may itself see fit to do.
Profiteering has been allowed to take place in oats and barley, and the members of this group were afraid that the same kind of policy might be followed in regard to meat. Speaking in the house on December 15 last I suggested to the government that if there was to be an increase in the price of pork or beef products the government should step in and take over all available stocks in the packer's hands to prevent the packing houses from making huge profits at the expense of the farmers and as a direct result of government policy. But that was not done. Shortly after the first of the year the price of bacon in the British contract was increased and increases also took place in beef prices. The packing houses had in stock on December 1, 1947, according to an article in the press, huge quantities of meat. Mr. John Lenglet, research director, United Packinghouse Workers, writing in one of the western papers, said this:
Now with meat prices skyrocketing, the packers stand to make an exorbitant profit, and the farmers are left "holding the bag."
After removal of controls on feed grain, doubling the price of coarse grains, a price in-
The Address-Mr. Argue

crease to the farmer is certainly due. But the increased price will not be of much help to the farmer.
According to reports from the dominion bureau of statistics, 110 million pounds of meat were in storage on December 1, 1947. Estimating the average increase in meat prices .at ten cents a pound, the packers made an inventory gain of $11,090,000.
I would point out that that amount is not subject to taxation by the federal government or by anyone else.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Why not?


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member has been in business long enough to know that. Surely I do not have to explain simple accounting to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


John Lambert Gibson: The hon. member has never been in business or he would know better than that.


Hazen Robert Argue: In reply to the accusation that the packing houses had made $11,000,000 profit, J. S. McLean was reported in the Globe and Mail of January 8 as admitting that the packers made $2,700,000 on the increased price of pork alone.


Mr. THATCHER:: If he admitted that, they made twice as much.


Hazen Robert Argue: Certainly. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that huge profits have been made by feed dealers and the packing houses at the expense of the farmers directly as the result of government policy. I can only assume this, that by some means the packing houses and the feed dealers, to obtain information, had a pipeline to the very government that inaugurated these price changes.
I now turn to what has happened to the bacon and hog industry in Canada during the last eighteen months. In 1946 we were debating the British contracts for bacon, and the Minister of Agriculture at that time outlined the contracts made for the years 1946, 1947 and 1948. In 1946 we were to supply Britain with 325 million pounds; and in 1947, 350 million pounds and in 1948, 400 million pounds. The Minister of Agriculture said this, and I quote from page 4779 of Hansard of August 14, 1946:
The contract for the last two years has been a contract calling for the delivery of at least 450 million pounds. In one of those years we delivered more than that amount; in one year I think we delivered almost that amount, and this year we are not hopeful of being able to deliver that amount.
Under the contract entered into we have agreed to a reduction in the quantity that we are required to deliver to at least 350 million pounds. In 1948 we have agreed to attempt to deliver 400 million pounds. In other words

we believe that we can increase deliveries in 1948 over the deliveries in 1947 and therefore we have entered into a contract under which we agree to deliver a greater quantity in 1948 than in 1947.
Just last month the Minister of Agriculture announced that the new contract for 1948 would not be for 400 million pounds of bacon but for only 195 million pounds. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture did not reach even half of his objective. On August 14 he said this, and again I think this should be emphasized:
We have attempted to avoid giving wrong information to the British as to what food would be supplied or could be supplied from year to year. Then we have written into the contracts the highest quantities that we felt sure we could deliver to the British.
Eighteen months ago the Minister of Agriculture said:	"We feel sure we shall be able
to deliver 400 million pounds in 1948". In the first part of 1948 he said: "We shall attempt to deliver 195 million pounds". We are in the same position in the British market now, Mr. Speaker, as we were before the war when in 1939 we actually delivered 186-5 million pounds; and if the Danish people keep on increasing their exports to Britain, as the minister said they would, then in 1948 the Danish volume of bacon going into the British market will equal the Canadian in spite of the fact that in the year 1944 Canada delivered to Britain 692-3 million pounds of bacon as compared with no bacon at all coming from Denmark to the British market.
I should like to say a word in respect to the government's policy in regard to beef.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: What policy?


Hazen Robert Argue: The government has said to the farmers and beef producers:	"We are
not going to let you sell your beef to the United States". The Minister of Agriculture stated in the House of Commons this year what the government's policy would be, and he said this, as reported at page 804 of Hansard, February 3, 1948:
And that is the objective of government policy, to put our beef back on the United States market, at a time when the price levels of the two countries make this possible without upsetting the whole program which was put into effect by the government during the war.
He is saying to the beef producer:	"You
cannot get the high prices of the United States at the present time, but as soon as the United States price level comes down to ours we shall be glad to let you have the low prices".
The farmers are also perturbed about the vast increase in farm implement prices. Farm machinery was allowed to increase through

The Address-Mr. Argue
the change in the price ceiling to the amount of 12J per cent in 1946. Just last fall the price for a Cockshutt "80" tractor was increased by 31 per cent; a Massey-Harris 10-foot self-propelled combine was increased by 21i per cent, and a Massey-Harris 6-foot one way on rubber was increased by 17 per cent, a huge increase in farm implement prices during the past year in addition to the 12J per cent increase in 1946. But the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr.St. Laurent), speaking in the house on February 2, 1948 at page 773 of Hansard said:
There were some things which actually remained under ceilings, such as the prices of primary iron and steel products and tin. Those controls did in fact put an effective brake on the prices of implements and other important supplies required by some of our primary industries such as farming, forest operations and mining.
I was interested to note, Mr. Speaker, that before this session opened in December the Secretary of State for External Affairs had made a speech in Winnipeg; but in the light of what he said about farm implement prices I would suggest that he should have gone a bit farther west and addressed a few farm audiences, and I douht very much whether he would have made the statement that he made in the house some days ago.


Mr. PROBE:: What does he know about farming?


Hazen Robert Argue: I regret that the government has not seen fit to provide a scheme of adequate crop failure insurance. The members of the C.C.F. party believe the benefits under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be increased to at least $6 an acre, and that the benefits should be paid out on an individual basis. Apparently the Liberal party has not got a policy in respect of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; for in the legislature in Regina last year G. H. Danielson, Liberal, Arm River, moved a motion asking the federal government to amend section 7 (b) of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act-
-to provide that farmers, resident in ail ineligible township which is adjacent to an eligible township and whose average yield of wheat is eight bushels or less per acre, shall be entitled to the benefits of the act.
The opposition in Regina say, "We want the P.F.A.A. on an individual basis", but the government at Ottawa, of the same political stripe as the opposition in Regina, is doing nothing to provide crop insurance payments under the P.F.A.A. on an individual basis.
In conclusion, I would like to say this. The farmers of Canada are very much concerned over what has come out of Ottawa within 5849-105
the last year in the way of government policy affecting agriculture, and they feel that today they are facing the future in a worse position than they did one year ago. Accordingly they criticize the government, I believe, on the following grounds.
The government has: 1. Failed to implement its social security program to provide: (a) universal old age pensions at the age of seventy without a means test, paid solely from the federal treasury; (b) a comprehensive health insurance plan, 60 per cent of the cost to be paid by the federal treasury. Had the federal government implemented its own health proposals, the cost of hospitalization for the people of Saskatchewan could have been reduced from a $5 per capita tax to $2.
2. Failed to provide a parity price for wheat and to prevent an inflationary rise in the farmer's costs of production.
3.	Failed to carry out, as stated by the Minister of Agriculture in the House of Commons on March 17, 1947, the government's policy to prevent profiteering in coarse grains.
4. Failed to compensate farmers for the large losses sustained as a result of the government's placing of oats and barley on the Winnipeg grain exchange-this failure in spite of the hon. member for Rosthern's announcement that the dominion government would indemnify coarse grain producers against loss.
5.	Failed to maintain the British market for bacon by crippling hog production through its coarse-grain policy to the extent that the 1948 contract was reduced from 400 million pounds to 195 million pounds.
6.	Failed to implement an adequate marketing policy for beef.
7.	Failed to effectively control prices of farm machinery, in spite of the minister of external affairs' statement to the contrary.
8.	Failed to provide farmers with adequate crop failure insurance on an individual basis.
The present session is now thirty-five days old, and the people of Saskatchewan, particularly the farmers of Saskatchewan, are looking to the member for Rosthern to stand up in his place and say what he thinks of these particular actions of the federal government wdthin the last year.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with what I had intended to say this afternoon, I wish to commend the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) for the stand he has taken in connection with the best province of Canada, the province from which I come-Alberta. The hon. member told us about many of the good things in that province and asked for the co-operation of those of us in this group.
The Address-Mr. Fair

I wish to tell him that he has had that co-operation ever since we came here, so long as it was in the interests of the people of Alberta.
The government of Alberta has passed legislation to bring about the good things for everyone in that province which the province is capable of producing. It has passed legislation to that end, and the hon. member for Athabaska, instead of seeking, our co-operation, should seek the co-operation of the government with which he is associated and see to it that Alberta legislation which does not encroach upon the rights and privileges of other provinces shall be put into operation.
I am glad also to co-operate with the member for Athabaska in inviting the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to bring to our province some more industries. Let me inform the member for Athabaska that the government of Alberta, up to the present time, of its own accord has brought several new industries into the province, and now in turn I ask for the wholehearted co-operation of the hon. gentleman. I hope I shall receive it.
Since coming back here on January 26 we have been playing a game of leapfrog with the different matters before the house. We have been dealing with emergency legislation, foreign exchange conservation, the speech from the throne, the farm improvement loans act, and some other matters as well, and we have also discussed the setting up of the committee to investigate the causes of the recent increase in the cost of living. In my opinion that committee has a big job to do, and I believe it has been working steadily since it began its investigation some days ago. At present it is investigating bread prices. I shall have something more to say a little later on with reference to bread.
About eight other items have been named for investigation, but I do not think the committee should stop there, because the things it is investigating are not really the main items in the increasing cost of living. I have here an item with reference to shoes, for example-shoes for the whole family and particularly ladies' shoes. If we look at the store windows and notice the price tags on shoes for ladies, we shall find that a shoe consisting of a sole, a heel and a couple of straps may be priced at $15 or $20. That I believe can very well stand investigation, and the same applies to shoes for all other members of the family. Clothing prices could also stand investigation, and when the committee in considering prices it should also consider the quality offered at the present time. The committee should also deal with another question, one in

which the dominion government is vitally interested, and that is the amount of taxation that goes into the prices of things the people have to buy in order to live.
We have particular objection to many of the nuisance taxes included in the prices of the things we have to buy, and also the recently imposed 25 per cent excise tax.
There are many subjects that should be discussed, and as we are allowed only forty minutes I shall have to wait until another time to take them up. If the time permitted I should like to deal with health, education, old age pensions, returned veterans treatment, the soldier settlers of world war I, and many other questions, but these will have to wait because I want to deal today particularly with the basic industry of Canada, agriculture.
There are not as many people on the land as there should be, and there must be some fundamental reason for that. We find that people on the land have to work many more hours than they would if they were working in towns or cities. They have to do without many of the comforts that are obtained in towns and cities and their remuneration for the work they do on the land is much below that received by people in towns and cities.
I feel that the farmers, first of all, should have good houses in which to live. They should have many of the modern conveniences found in towns and cities, and yet a very small percentage of the homes across Canada are equipped with these things; whereas, when we look at the standard of living of those who handle the produce of the farmers after it leaves their hands, we find they are enjoying all the comforts of life. So I think something must be done to bring the standard of living of the farmers up to a proper level in order that our basic industry may be much better off than it is at the present time. By this I do not mean that the farmers should have all of the good things of life, because when we go to town or to the city to buy our goods we want the people there-the clerks and others-to be well dressed, to have a good home in which to live and to have a good standard of living. That will bring about a much better feeling among the people, and this is necessary if we are to have the conditions which this country should enjoy.
During the war years I am quite satisfied that the farmers did more than their share in producing goods for the people of our own country as well as for export to peoples of other countries, and in supplying the necessities of war. I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is in his place. In the Ottawa Citizen of February 24 I find

The Address-Mr. Fair
a report of a farm forum meeting which he attended at Billings Bridge, which reads in part as follows:
The minister lauded Canadian farmers generally for their quick response to government needs during the war years. He said that at the outset of war the emphasis was placed upon the production of livestock and farmers were asked to convert ten million acres of land to the production of feed for that purpose. At the end of the war when Europe's need for wheat and other cereal foods became so urgent the farmers were asked to change over again. "Farmers from one end of this country to the other responded splendidly," Mr. Gardiner said, "and went through two complete change-overs within a space of a very few years."
A little farther along in the report I find the following:
Farmers wanted price and wage controls during the war years and for that reason were content to receive lower prices foT their produce than farmers in the United States were receiving. They did, however, want in return "floor" prices to take care of the possibility of lower United States prices later on. "We may now be approaching the point where United States prices will pass ours on the way down," the minister declared.
I am not sure that the farmers were the first to demand wage control and price control. Those things were forced upon the farmers and they had nothing to do but accept them with the understanding that if they accepted low prices during the earlier years of the war they would be compensated when the war is over.
Perhaps I should go back a short way in dealing with our wheat policy; I find that is necessary in order to justify my argument. Going back to 1935, when this government was first elected, we find that the initial price of wheat was 87J cents per bushel. A little later it came down to 80 cents, and the wheat board was to operate provided wheat went below that particular price. Still later we had legislation brought into this house providing for an initial payment of 60 cents a bushel. But about that time we adjourned for the Easter recess, and when we came back the government brought in amended legislation providing for a payment of 70 cents a bushel; and on that basis we had our initial price paid until August 1, 1942-as the house will remember, that was almost three years after the outbreak of war. In 1942 we had our price brought up to 90 cents a bushel after four hundred farmers and their friends came to Ottawa looking for dollar wheat. The government did not quite accede to their request, but they did bring the price up to 90 cents a bushel. In 1943 we had that initial price increased to $1.25 per bushel, and it stayed there until September;' 1945, when another 5849-105J
new program was brought into effect. This program, among other things, controlled the selling price of Canadian wheat. I wish to read from Hansard of September 18, 1945, at page 289. This is part of a statement made by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon):
It is in the interest of Canada and of Canadian wheat growers that the importing countries should continue to obtain Canadian wheat at prices not in excess of those prevailing at the end of hostilities. Accordingly the government, by order in council, has instructed the Canadian wheat board to offer wheat for sale for export overseas at prices not higher than the current export price of $1.55 per bushel, basis No. 1, northern, in store Fort William/ Port Arthur or Vancouver.
In asking Canadian producers to forgo such benefits as might be realized in the short run through higher export prices, the government recognizes the paramount need for relative stability of income to wheat producers. Toward this end, the government undertakes that in the five-year period ending July 31, 1950, producers will receive not less than $1 per bushel, basis No. 1 northern, in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver on the authorized deliveries for each crop year. For the balance of the 1945-46 crop year, at least, the Canadian wheat board initial advance will continue at $1.25, where it was set two years ago. By providing a long-term floor price of not less than $1 the government will protect producers against the consequences of any sharp reversal in the world wheat position during the next five-year period.
I shall read1 one more paragraph a little farther down, which shows that the government, through the Minister of Trade and1 Commerce, recognized that there was a moral obligation. The statement goes on as follows:
Any further increase in wheat prices now would aggravate the problems of economic and political readjustment of the liberated areas to Canada's detriment in future trade with those areas. There is a moral obligation not to take advantage of our recent allies in their time of compelling need.
I do not think that there is any argument whatever about the moral obligation which has been accepted by the dominion government and then forced upon the prairie farmers who grew the wheat to make good the government contract. In 1916 we had the British wheat agreement entered into by this government. Under that agreement the Canadian government, not the Canadian farmers, agreed to deliver to Britain a total of 600 million bushels out of the crops of 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949. For the first year of the contract, 1946, they agreed to deliver 160 million bushels at a definite price of $1.55 per bushel; they agreed to the same quantity and price for the 1947 crop; for the 1948 crop they agreed to deliver 140 million bushels at a price not

The Address-Mr. Fair
below $1.25 per bushel, and for the last year of the contract-that is, 1949-they agreed to deliver another 140 million bushels at a price not below $1 per bushel. At the present time negotiations have been concluded as a result of which the British government has agreed to pay $2 per bushel for the next crop-that is, for the 1948 crop. We do not know what the 1949 crop will bring, because that price has yet to be negotiated. At the time this agreement was entered into those of us in this group protested strongly against the $1.35 initial payment that had been offered by the government for the five year period, 1945 to 1949 crops, inclusive. We took the stand that the initial price should be at least $1.55 a bushel, with further interim and- final payments made at a later date. Of course we did not get that at the time; the guessing on the part of the government was not good enough.
By the British wheat agreement the farmers of the west have lost a great deal of money. Again I want to emphasize the fact that we in this group were not opposed to Great Britain getting cheap wheat, but we do object strenuously now, as we have in the past, to the prairie farmers who grew and delivered that wheat having to stand all the loss under the contract. The government was not content to have us subsidize all the consumers of Canada by giving them cheap bread through supplying wheat to the millers for 77f cents a bushel for a time, then later for $1.25 and at present for $1.55. They were not satisfied with our wheat being sold for a time in all export markets of the world at the ceiling price of $1.55. Now we have to subsidize the people of Britain. Again we would not object if all Canada were participating in that subsidizing, but we do object very strenuously to the prairie fanners doing it all.
We have been told that no one can figure the loss on the British contract until the end of the 1949 crop year. I do not profess to be a prophet, but many people are keeping track of the losses up to the present time. The figures I am about to use are taken from page 1 of the letter of the Searle Grain Company dated January 21, 1948, under the heading "Cash losses to farmers". This is what it says:
(1) From August 1, 1946, to December 31, 1947, a period of seventeen months, the loss taken by our wheat growers on the wheat they have delivered to country elevators comes to the following staggering sums, all as compared with what farmers would have received had they enjoyed the full world price set daily by the Canadian wheat board itself for class 2 wheat:
(a) On the wheat hauled by farmers -and intended for shipment to Britain, 296 million dollars.

(b) On the wheat hauled by farmers and intended for domestic consumption in Canada, 152 million dollars.
A grand total of 448 million dollars lost by prairie farmers in seventeen months; a loss equal to more than the value of one whole prairie wheat crop; a loss equal to the entire dominion receipts from all forms of taxation in the year 1938; a loss -which averages $1,900 for each prairie wheat-growing family, and with the losses still increasing greatly day by day.
It will be remembered, too, that prior to the start of the wheat agreement August 1, 1946. the government had marketed our farmers' wheat for several years at less than the world price. These losses to farmers for the years 1943, 1944 and 1945, come to an additional 409 million dollars.


Mr. GARDINER:: From his own experience with farmers in his community does the hon. gentleman think anyone can show that those farmers lost an average of $1,900 each over the period of time he is dealing with?


Robert Fair: I do not claim that the loss can be stated definitely until the end of the contract period, which is July 31, 1950; but the figures I have quoted from the letter of the Searle Grain Company take into account all the losses sustained up to the present time. Future wheat prices will determine whether or not that loss will be reduced. Once more I want to say that if all the people of Canada were footing the bill it would not be quite so bad, but when you have the farmers of three provinces and a small portion of another footing the bill, I do not think it is right. Perhaps the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce would tell us some day why this injustice has been put over on the farmers.
Then in connection with our coarse grain policy, it is recognized that the ceiling prices of cbarse grains have been tied to the price of wheat. In my opinion this should not be done, either, because again the farmers are footing the bill instead of the whole country paying the loss. In connection with the delivery of oats and barley from August 1 to October 21 of last year, I feel that the government was responsible for that situation. The farmers did exactly what they had been forced to do, and I think they should be compensated by the government for the government's blunder. Then we have the question of hog and cattle prices, which I think hon. members will agree also have been tied to the price of coarse grains. Here again the farmers of Canada have been standing quite a loss. I make that statement because, as I said before, prices of cattle and hogs have been tied to the price of coarse grains, and coarse grains

The Address-Mr. Fair
have been under ceiling prices most of the time since the beginning of the war. The farmers should not be compelled to accept all these losses.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, before you call it six o'clock, I want to make it clear that there is a guaranteed floor available to the packing plants of this country, but there is not a similar guaranteed floor made available to the producers of cattle or hogs.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess for dinner at six o'clock I was dealing with the prices of cattle and hogs and the losses sustained by farmers on those prices. I am wondering how I could get the total of those losses. I am not sure whether it could be done very accurately. In the earlier part of my remarks I stated that we had been promised by the government that if we accepted lower prices during the early years of the war we would be compensated when the war was over. We are still waiting for that compensation. Up to the present time the farmers have supplied the money for their own stabilization policy and as far as we can find out it is the intention of the government to have the farmers continue to supply the money necessary for the stabilization of the agricultural industry. I say that is not fair when we take into account the losses suffered by farmers during the years 1930 to 1939, and particularly the losses sustained by farmers because of the prices they were compelled to accept for their produce after the outbreak of war.
We are told from time to time that in the near future we may expect lower prices. This is not just the opinion of people in western Canada; it is an opinion that is expressed also by people in eastern Canada. The following article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of February 20. under the heading, "See prices drop when consumption equals production":
"When production catches up with consumption, prices will inevitably fall, even under the most favourable international agreements, to a competitive level. The law of supply and demand, no matter what price agreement or other institution we set up, will always influence trade. In other words, present farm-product export prices cannot be maintained. When they fall . . . they will carry domestic prices down with them to a comparative level."
This was the warning which H. IS. Arkell gave yesterday in his address to the Carleton county federation of agriculture at its annual meeting in the normal school assembly hall.
Mr. Arkell, former dominion live stock husbandman, called for a balanced economy under a national policy in pointing out that farm costs were out of line with farm income with Canadian farmers continuing to subsidize competition on the world market. Agriculture in the dominion was taking less for its products than the world price.
The prices of farm products are always the first to drop, and yet we find that the cost of production is going up. I should like to quote certain prices which appear in the February issue of U.F.C. Information. Previous prices are shown in brackets:
Cockshutt 80 tractor complete $2,258.00 ($1.703.90).
Cockshutt 6-foot tiller, 11 blades, on rubber $605.00 ($545.00).
Cockshutt 12-foot self-propelled combine, complete $3,843.00 ($3,458.85).
Massey-Harris 16-foot self-propelled combine, less cleaner $3,328.75 ($2,739.00).
Massey-Harris 14-foot self-propelled combine less cleaner and lights $3,791.90 ($3,379.55).
Massey-Harris 44 tractor on rubber, $1,992.75 ($1,784.75).
Those increases average 15-1 per cent. We find that the cost of every other item the farmer has to buy in order to carry on production has also increased, and there are prospects of further increases.
What protection do we get? On Tuesday we were discussing an amendment to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944. That act provides for the granting of credit to enable farmers to get into debt to the banks, and it also gives the banks the right to mortgage the farm in respect of which loans are extended. It may also take an assignment of interest rights from the farmer in the form of an agreement of sale. Some people regret that more loans have not been taken under that legislation, but my regret is that any loans have been necessary. It would have been much better had the government seen fit to put into operation a policy for agriculture that would do away with the need of farmers going to banks or mortgage institutions as they have had to do in the past. Agriculture should be able to stand on its own feet without having to mortgage itself over and over in order to carry on.
Then we also have the Agricultural Prices Support Act, which is held out by many as being something worthwhile for the farming industry. In my opinion the prices that maybe set or that have been set under that act are not set on a sound basis because they are figured on prices that existed during the
The Address-Mr. Fair

years 1926 to 1929 when our farmers, who made up one-third of the population of Canada, received only 16-6 per cent of the national income. It is plain to be seen that price support on that basis will not meet the needs of the farmers. Besides that, it is effective only during the transitional period and may be wiped off the statute book at any time.
This year we were given a simplified income tax form which I am sure the farmers will feel is quite an accomplishment for the government. It is a six-page form, and it will give many farmers a headache. I am not objecting so much to some parts of the form; what I do object to is page 5. It would be impossible for a farmer to give accurately the information asked for there. He is asked to give his assets at the end of December, 1946, and at the end of December, 1947. As farmers do not keep proper records, it is impossible to give that information.
We have been told in the past that in the near future we will be paid an interim payment on the 1945, 1946 and 1947 crops. At one time it was estimated that the payment would be 20 cents per bushel, but not very many months ago the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacKinnon) was in Alberta and he gave the people there to understand that it would be much higher than 20 cents. Some people have the idea that it will be 30 cents, while other's believe it will be 40 cents. In my opinion there is nothing in the world to prevent a payment of that size. Again, because the government want the farmers to build up a stabilization fund they will perhaps give us 20 cents a bushel. The farmers need this money badly, because in many parts of my province farmers were hailed out eight times in the one district during the season. They were also subject to drought, and in the harvesting season there was as much as ten inches of moisture which made it difficult for farming operations to be carried on. I would like legislation to be put on the statute book .that would ensure these payments at an early date.
As it is now, the farmers are compelled to wait five years for som; of their wheat money. For the wheat they delivered in 1945 they will have to wait until 1950 or 1951, to receive the balance due, and in the meantime many of them are paying six and seven and eight per cent interest on debt which should be taken care of by the wheat payments.
If the government is to carry out its promise we should have a wheat board, first of all to handle all grain; and should also pay losses to the farmers on subsidized wheat, coarse grains and livestock. By that I mean

that the government should take from the consolidated revenue fund and place in the wheat board fund an amount equal to the difference between the price the farmers received on delivering their grain and the price they would have received had they been permitted to sell at world prices. That may be challenged but it is the only fair way of handling the matter. If it is found during the period the agreement has yet to run that the farmers experience a loss, that loss could be made good from the wheat board fund. At the present time we have no stabilization legislation on the statute book. It is true we have contracts with Britain for beef and pork and other products up to the end of 1948, but after July 1950 we have no guarantee whatsoever of any kind of stabilization for agriculture. So in my opinion we should have price stabilization permanently by legislation. The legislation should also include a formula that would guarantee to the farmers a fair price for their products.
The prairie farm assistance legislation should be amended so that claims would be paid on an individual farm basis. We are all agreed that a farmer's success in getting crops is dependent almost entirely on the moisture he gets. The showers make no dividing line when they fall. They may fall in one township and not in another, and it is not fair to have a settlement made on the present basis. I would strongly urge therefore that the act be amended accordingly.
Some people may wonder where all the money is to come from to do these things. In conclusion I have only to suggest once again to the government that they get down to a sane system of financing the country's business. Cut out a lot of interest payments that are now being made. Cut out further borrowing from the chartered banks and have money issued direct by the Bank of Canada. In that way you can give for the first time in the history of Canada a square deal to Canadians as a whole and to agriculture in particular.


Mr. LIONEL BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate I wish to present both to the government and to parliament a suggestion in which I as federal member for Terrebonne, and I believe other members of this house, are greatly interested, and that is the creation of a department of tourist travel. The hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) referred to this very briefly ten days ago, and I heartily agree with what he said.
I believe that my constituency has very special reasons to lead the way in this respect. Terrebonne county has witnessed several his-

The Address-Mr. L. Bertrand
torical developments, and has been, of all regions in Canada, a tourists' land of election. Members from the Rocky mountains, northern Ontario or the maritimes may claim for their respective districts unexcelled natural beauties, but I dare say that mine is the most favoured resort not just for a short time or a brief season but the whole year round'.
Terrebonne county forms a narrow stretch of land extending from a point only ten miles north of Montreal, seventy-five miles northward along its natural backbone, highway No. 11, running toward Mont Laurier and the Abitibi district. Situated in the heart of the most highly developed region in Canada, it has been well named the Canadian Switzerland.
Summer residents, 100,000 strong, coming from Montreal, Quebec, Ontario and from different parts of Canada and the United States, boost the normal population of 60,000 inhabitants. Numerous lakes and rivers, splendid scenery and many summer sports charm the thousands of temporary residents and visitors. In wintertime, thousands of others indulge in such seasonal sports as skiing, tobogganing, sleigh-riding, dog sleigh trips, skating, and so forth. Important ski events, such as the Taschereau and Kandahar competitions, bring thousands of spectators to the slopes of stately Mont Tremblant and to Mont Tremb-lant lodge. During the summer, thousands of Canadian and United States tourists indulge in fishing, their favourite sport. The Gray Rocks inn, at St. Jovite, a tourist centre well known throughout the North American continent, is perhaps the best organized of all so far as fishing is concerned. In addition to summer and winter sports, the inn operates an air transport service. Gray Rocks inn has a booth at the Dorval airport and United1 States tourists can travel directly from Dorval to St. Jovite, a distance of seventy miles from Montreal by air. From Gray Rocks inn, tourists can travel by air to well kept camps operated by the hotel in the north country at distances varying between fifteen and seventy-five miles from the inn. There tourists can rely on guides and cooks, obtain first-class service at a moderate cost, and they may fish red trout weighing two, three and four pounds in solitary lakes and rivers. Several distinguished United States newspapermen have published fascinating accounts of such trips. Last year Look gave us a splendid article on that part of the country, where moose hunting is especially recommended in the fall.
Who does not know, at least by name, the district's main hotels of long-standing reputation? To mention only those of the Lauren-tian Resorts Association, listed monthly in the Montrealer, as well as a few other establishments of repute, there is Mont Tremblant Lodge at lake Tremblant, famed for its chair ski-tow, the only one in the country, where people ski until May on the mountain slopes facing away from the sun; also at lake Tremblant is the Manoir Pinoteau, while St. Jovite has the Grey Rocks inn; Ste. Agathe des Monts, the Laurentide inn; Val David, la Sapiniere; Ste. Adele, the Ste. Adele Lodge and the Chanteclerc; Ste. Marguerite station, the Alpine inn; Ste. Marguerite, the Chalet Cochand and the Esterel; St. Sauveur des Monts, the Nymark lodge; Piedmont, the Mount Gabriel; Shawbridge, the Maple Leaf; and St. Jerome, the hotels Maurice and Lapointe. Many other inns and hotels, mostly members of an association, are located in those towns and villages and in other spots well known to tourists, such as Brebeuf, Mont Tremblant, St. Faustin, Lac Superieur, Ivry sur le Lac, Ste. Lucie, Val Morin, St. Hippolyte, and so forth.
It is a section of the province well known to all Quebec members; for many of them spend most of the summer in those parts. At least ten cabinet ministers have often taken holidays there, while many senators have owned or still own a summer home in the Laurentians. In winter, moreover, several members from the neighbouring provinces, here for the session, spend enjoyable weekends skiing in that district. To all members I issue an invitation to visit my constituency. They will be delighted with it and with the open-hearted hospitality of my constituents.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) made the following remarks in this house on February 5 last, as reported at page 913 of Hansard:
In one of the Ottawa papers of January 23 I read of a winter hotel at Ste. Marguerite, Quebec, having been destroyed by fire, a hotel that cost over $609,000. What was that hotel for? Was it for veterans of the war? Was it for old people in Quebec who have worked so hard to produce food and commodities? No; it was for the skiers. It was foT people who want to go to that beautiful part of the world for a holiday, and in normal times it is all right for people to have holidays in such lodges. But it is not in the interests of the public, when building materials are short, when carpenters are in demand everywhere, to put up a building of this bind costing $600,009 in the Laurentians for a few rich people who want to have holidays there, winter and summer, especially when there aTe so many veterans in Canada who have not yet been -able to get homes for themselves.
Ste. Marguerite, a very popular tourist resort, is in my constituency. The Chalet Cochand, the Alpine Inn, owned by the Mount Royal Hotel, and the Domain d'Esterel are familiar names. It may be that the hon.
The Address-Mr. L. Bertrand

member's remarks make sense if you look at only one side of the question, but looking at both sides he must admit that such tourist hotels are essentially helpful to our economy. I do not know whether the hon. member's is an agricultural constituency; as for mine, in its central and northern parts it is made up of rocks, mountains, ravines, lakes and rivers. I still have the greatest admiration for those early settlers and those present-day farmers who have courage enough to till such poor land. In my own county, as in the constituencies of Montcalm, Labelle and Argenteuil, the tourist industry is providing thousands of people with a livelihood: taxi owners, instructors of all kinds, cooks and' hotel staff, accountants, carpenters, journeymen, painters, store clerks, and so forth. Thousands of farmers, too far removed from the great centres, depend exclusively on the tourist industry for the orderly marketing of their products. While the tourist hostels swarm with United States guests, they gamer United States dollars, which is quite agreeable to the Minister of Finance at this time.
The tourist industry is a big business. I believe it ranks second only to agriculture, Canada's major industry. In 1947, United States travellers spent some 1270 million in this country. But how many more millions have been spent on travel by Canadians? The exact amount expended by our own people on summer cottages, holidays and pleasure trips, is quite impossible to estimate. This winter, the number of United States tourists in Canada fell off twenty to thirty per cent. This is a point I wish to emphasize. I wonder whether the governnient-sponsored austerity program did not have something to do with this reduction. I feel that the $150 yearly limit on the amount of money a Canadian may spend in the United States is hardly conducive to attract United1 States tourists to this country.
The tourist industry has developed at a tremendous pace in Canada. Various moves and representations are being made to ask for more comprehensive action in this field. A short time ago, an appeal on behalf of United States tourists was made by the Canadian junior board of trade. It was immediately endorsed by the Montreal tourist and convention bureau. As far as my district is concerned, the Laurentian resorts association and the Provincial Transport Company have conducted a noteworthy publicity campaign through the press and on the screen.
Is the government doing enough? Has the Canadian government travel bureau sufficient funds for carrying out truly efficient work? The United States have winter as well as sum-

mer tourist activities, but the United States people have a natural sympathy for our country. The snow here is more plentiful and the air more invigorating. Canadian dishes are attractive and the hospitality of this country is hearty. The St. Lawrence river, our great lakes, our streams, our forests, and the Canadian scenery hold unsurpassed attractiveness. Fish and game are abundant. I therefore maintain that the creation of a department of tourist travel is imperative, because the tourist trade is a source of income for the dominion and the provinces and it gives a living to many thousand people the whole year long. The tourist trade is the best asset for the national employment service. Of course the Canadian government travel bureau is doing interesting work. The advertising it does in United States newspapers and magazines is valuable. Its publications, such as Rod and Reel in Canada, for instance, are among the best and the most suggestive I have ever seen. Its director, Mr. Leo Dolan, is carrying out intelligent work, but in my opinion he has not at his disposal enough funds to give the tourist trade the necessary impetus.
The functions of a department of tourist travel might be: (a) to promote through nation-wide publicity, the tourist trade in Canada, and with the co-operation of the provinces, to draw attention to the tourist resources of each of the latter; (b) with the assistance of the national film board to prepare a series of films on the Canadian tourist attractions, and to release such films widely in Canada and in the United States.


Mr. FRASER:: I hope they give them proper direction so that they will know what they are doing.


Lionel Bertrand: I continue with the suggestions: (c) grants to municipalities within the tourist districts for the construction and improvement of municipal roads likely to develop the tourist industry; (d) special grants to all soundly established bona fide tourist organizations of recognized merit, assisting them in their publicity, in the maintenance of their town planning committees, winter roads, and so on; (e) adoption, in cooperation with the provinces, of national laws for the protection of fish and game; (f) establishment, with the assistance of the provinces, of national schools of hostelry, for the training of competent chefs and qualified inn employees, as in Switzerland and in France; (g) annual trophies for various sports championships or the promotion of the best tourist centre; (h) a sports column, regularly pub-

The Address-Mr. Webb
lished in all the country's newspapers, as information, occasionally backed by attractive and practical advertisements.
Many more suggestions could be added here. No doubt the government will say it cannot possibly adopt such a wide program at this time. Nevertheless this project is urgent. Why not establish, at this session, a special committee of the house to look into all aspects of the tourist industry? Such a committee could this very year make useful and practical suggestions to the government. For this year the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) might be authorized to spend a few millions of dollars for the construction and improvement of so-called tourist highways. Perhaps someone will remind me that highways are under provincial jurisdiction and that provincial autonomy should not be interfered with. In my opinion nothing should prevent the dominion government from spending, in municipalities expressing such a desire, and exclusively for tourist purposes, money which would be used for the improvement of municipal roads and would thus foster general development and progress.
To wait longer, to remain inactive as regards the tourist trade, would be to forgo numerous advantages. Tourism is a great industry. Let us not ignore the millions it could bring us. The money spent by tourists remains in this country. It is money which in turn other people spend within Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege, may I say that this afternoon my good friend the member for London (Mr. Manross) commented on our Czechoslovakian party and I am glad to see we have a convert.


Park Manross: I may say that I am paired with the member for St. Ann, who is in the same business.


Mr. G. R. WEBB (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather a coincidence that the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lionel Bertrand) made a speech on the same subject that I wish to discuss. I am sure his speech will be found to support what I have to say, and I trust that what I say will bear out what he has said with reference to the tourist traffic.
Before this debate closes I wish to speak briefly in the interests of the tourist industry in Canada, and the crying need for further attractions and accommodations of all kinds, particularly in the way of additional and improved and well equipped national parks. Especially am I interested in this as it applies to Leeds, the constituency I have the honour 5849-106
to represent in the house, and if hon. members will bear with me I would like to give the house a brief description of my county- hence you will understand just why I am particularly interested in this industry.
Leeds county has been so landscaped by nature that the changing beauty extends from the St. Lawrence river on the south, with its fairy groups of islands, to the Rideau chain of lakes on the north, which, with its hundreds of land-locked and connecting lakes, offers to the angler and to the vacationist opportunities conceded to be unsurpassed. The county of Leeds is favourably situated on No. 2 highway, half way between the city of Toronto on the west and the city of Montreal on the east, the two largest cities in Canada. Within its own borders are situated the attractive industrial towns of Brockville and Gananoque on the St. Lawrence river, and many beautiful and busy villages both on the St. Lawrence and in the Rideau lakes district, all well equipped to take care of the tourist's every need. It is a vacation land without a superior, within a day's drive of more than a third of the population of the United States.
The hon. member for London spoke in this house a few days ago, lauding the city of London, but lamenting the difficulty of being "fenced in" by government-owned property.
I am glad to say that in my county of Leeds no such condition exists. Urban centres have plenty of wide-open spaces for expansion, and not even imaginary boundaries between rural and urban peoples exist. Here friendship knows no bounds. This is our great asset, as the people tilling the soil make up our largest population, and without their efforts and co-operation our hopes for success would be futile.
Overlooking the St. Lawrence river for forty * miles is the scenic highway, running from Brockville to Gananoque, and passing different points of interest along the way. Along this highway, and located at Ivy Lea, is the new Thousand Islands bridge, the only bridge connecting Canada and the United States between Cornwall and Niagara Falls. This particular point is in the heart of the Thousand Islands and gives an unsurpassed view of the scenic grandeur of the islands. Tour boats run regular trips along this waterway, and the visitor misses an unforgettable experience if the trip among the islands is not included in his vacation itinerary.
Now that I have taken you for a short trip through my riding you will understand why I am deeply interested in adequate accommodation and entertainment for our guests.
A short time ago I was tremendously impressed by a headline in a Canadian newspaper which read1: "Tourists mean more than
The Address-Mr. Webb

money", and "Is it possible that by constantly emphasizing the money value of the tourist trade, we are in danger of unwittingly doing ourselves an injury? Every year those in charge of our tourist activities put out statements estimating what it has meant to Canada in dollars and cents to entertain so many hundreds of thousands of visitors during the season and nearly always there is a comparison with other seasons."
Quite naturally the average merchant judges a tourist season by the amount of money he receives from tourist patronage. If his sales to tourists are up, it is a good season. If they are down, it is not a success. Similarly, operators of hotels, eating houses, filling stations, overnight cabins and all the other establishments which benefit from tourist custom are inclined to assess a season by the amount of tourist money that enters their tills. It has been said that some people are not above having special prices for tourists which differ from those charged the domestic trade. I cannot vouch for the correctness of such a statement.
From my point of view the great and growing tourist business of Canada ought to mean, and does mean, something more than the money that accompanies it. For one thing, it cannot fail to do a great deal to promote international understanding, something that is needed more and more in this world where it is so often lacking. Americans and others who visit Canada, and Canadians who visit the United States, and other countries, as large numbers of them do from year to year, must obtain a new appreciation and understanding of the countries visited and of their inhabitants. The more contacts we have these days between the peoples of different countries, the better for their understanding and the better for the future peace of the world. Therefore if we in Canada welcome and serve our guests in such a way that they will carry home friendship and understanding, I firmly believe the monetary side of the picture will take care of itself. Canada has much to offer to tourists, but to make it a lasting business we must be prepared in the face of competition to give value at all times, and make sure they at least carry away friendship and understanding.
Masses of figures showing the money value of tourists have been recorded, and I am not going to labour the point as to the money value of the tourist industry to Canada. I believe we all appreciate it to the full.
I said Canada has much to offer - the question is how are we going to sell it to the world? Many opinions enter into this phase of the subject. Time at my disposal does not
[Mr. Webb. |
permit me to do more than mention a few of the suggestions I believe might be considered.
During the tourist season our hotels, tourist resorts, and all available accommodation are taxed to capacity, and doing a pretty good job, but if we are to take care of this ever-increasing population someone must be responsible for further accommodation. However, I shall touch on this later.
We have always considered two or three months in the summer as the tourist season, but I believe Canadians should begin to realize the recreational value of their winters. We should accept the responsibility of advancing in large print to the world the winter fairyland we have to offer, and promote to our. own people the idea that we have a greater opportunity than ever before for development of winter vacation places. So many more young people have become accustomed by war service conditions to outdoor life, that it is only natural there will be an urge for winter sports, not only on the part of those who have learned to ski while in northern posts, but those who seek a change from the southern climates. I maintain that the development of winter use of hotels, cabins and hostels will enable those who manage them to undertake much improvement rvhich would not be justified by shortterm summer patronage alone.
As our national parks are closely linked with the tourist industry, I have a few words to say as to their value in meeting the desires of the tourist. I have spoken briefly on this matter at least three times in this house, and I may say that after talking with hundreds of visitors, I am convinced that national parks are among our greatest tourist lures. I am not familiar with the great national parks in western Canada, but I can say without fear of contradiction that in eastern Canada accommodation falls far short of demand. I submit that my riding, the county of Leeds, is in a specially favourable position for a major development in the form of a national park in the Rideau lakes area. Possibly in all fairness to the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) I should take in a piece of Lanark.
In the days of the depression, and later on during the war, the government found it necessary to economize drastically in all park expenditures; but surely the time has arrived when all existing parks will be put in first-class condition with good supervision, and, where co-operation with provincial and municipal governments can be obtained, some new parks will be opened up. Again I submit that my own riding, the county of Leeds, is

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
the ideal place to start and I feel sure every co-operation will be extended by all concerned.
Many unfavourable reports of late have been circulated regarding the treatment of tourists and others at border points. These reports may be exaggerations, and I hope they are, as I have always received the most courteous treatment from officials. However, officials at border points receive their instructions from Ottawa, and if these instructions are too drastic we should place the blame on those in charge in Ottawa, not on the officials at the border, as they are only carrying out the duties assigned to them. And while it is necessary to have regulations, I submit that the government should make them as palatable as possible, removing all unnecessary bars. I am sure border officials will enforce them with the greatest of courtesy to men and women of good will.
There is one other type of visitor who can hardly be classed as a "tourist," and for whom I have the greatest admiration; I refer to the summer resident. These people were visitors to Canada; and so favourably were they impressed with our way of life and our geographical location for summer sports and recreation that they invested large sums of money in substantial homes, and their annual return, like that of the swallow, seems to bring the welcome promise of warm weather and sunny skies. I shall not go into the monetary advantages of having these temporary residents with us, as they are too obvious; but in spite of their value to our welfare, they are perhaps the least important of the benefits we receive.
The hon. member for Lambton West in his speech asked for a separate ministry to administer the tourist business. While it may be said this will add to the cost of the government, I must agree-with all due credit to Mr. Leo Dolan, director of the Canadian government travel bureau-that this is no one-man job. If the tourist business is to go ahead on a businesslike basis, if we cannot have a separate ministry I suggest the formation of a dominion commission which will carry on without change despite a reversal of party or government. It is essential that such a commission be formed at once in order to give the tourist business an incentive and the study it deserves; and with the heavy responsibilities which the Minister of Trade and Commerce already has, I should think he would welcome such a suggestion.
Today, when any road will lead to the ends of the world, travel is prescribed for ills of both body and mind because of the new scenes and ideas which divert the mind from 5849-106*
the old emotions. Tomorrow's citizen will be a great traveller. He will demand the best in travel by rail, by road, on water, or in the air. He will want comfortable and good living accommodation. He will demand value for his money, and there will be keen competition for his patronage. In supplying his needs, Canada will have a great opportunity.
I submit the tourist industry should be given high priority by federal, provincial, and municipal governments in partnership with private enterprise in the development of the tourist industry in Canada. I trust my few submissions will receive favourable consideration by the departments of government interested.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot take the time to follow the example set by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Webb) and tell you about the beautiful province and the charming city from which I come. I will, however, try to do them justice in a few words by quoting a couple of verses that were made in regard to another beautiful part of the world, and I shall leave it at that.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: It must be Alberta.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member is wrong again. I quote:
Lovest thou the mountains great,
Peaks to the clouds that soar,
Corrie and fell where eagles dwell,
And cataracts dash evermore;
Lovest thou the green grassy glades By the sunshine sweetly kist, Murmuring waves and echoing caves?
Then come to the gem of the west.
I may have done violence to the metre of the last line, but I think it will do.
Last week the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), speaking in this debate, referred to the delay in filling the vacancy in Yale riding caused by the resignation of Hon. Grote Stirling on October 4, last, nearly five months ago. Tonight I merely wish to emphasize the points so well made the other evening by the hon. member for Vancouver South. First, I would say that no constituency should be left unrepresented in this house any longer than is absolutely necessary-and by that I mean any longer than is necessary to get into operation the machinery for holding a by-election. Second, no government has the right to deprive a constituency of its rightful representation in this house for political or any other consideration. Then there is this other point which should be remembered. In view of the high-principled action taken by Mr. Stirling in resigning his seat when he felt he could no longer adequately represent his con-
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

stituency, it is a definite affront to the electors of Yale to leave that riding unrepresented.
Yale is one of the most important constituencies in Canada. As I think we all know, it is an important fruit-growing area, and marketing fruit satisfactorily has always been a difficult problem in British Columbia. It is more than likely that the marketing of the crop during the coming season will be as difficult as anything the fruit growers of the Okanagan valley have ever experienced. Before coming to Ottawa in January I visited several centres in that constituency. I was in the district when the British Columbia fruit growers association held its annual convention at Penticton, and I want to tell the hon. members that the fruit men of the Okanagan valley are worried about the future. Last year with some difficulty they marketed a relatively small crop of six million boxes of apples. This year they expect to harvest a crop of nine million boxes, and the marketing situation does not look as good even as last year.
I should like to refer briefly to press reports of the convention of the fruit growers association, to indicate how the people of the Okanagan valley, which is largely Yale riding, feel in regard to this matter. The atmosphere of a convention is usually indicated by the headlines in the press reporting it. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Vernon News of January 22 with the heading, "Riddle of future puzzles fruit men in convention. Strange atmosphere of uncertainty pervades speeches." I quote briefly from the article which appeared on the front page under these headlines, dated Penticton, January 21:
A strange 'atmosphere pervades the ball here where the fifty-ninth annual convention of the British Columbia fruit growers' association is being held this week. It is an atmosphere of tension; not of fear, but certainly of apprehension, and it penetrates most every address, many resolutions and most conversations.
This uncertainty is of the future. The more distant past of the depression days is known now and its causes quite well understood. Known also is the general measure of prosperity of the war years and the immediate postwar period.
This air-this atmosphere-is difficult to define. Reference to it was made Wednesday morning by the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Frank Putnam, who declared that more difficult days lie ahead for farmers. The reports of the sales agency heads, president A. K. Lloyd and sales manager David McNair, delved into it. Mr. McNair's problem was a sharp one; the distribution of a probable nine million box crop of apples this year entirely on the North American continent.
That is the situation in the riding formerly represented by Mr. Stirling. I believe it is a situation which demands that this constituency

be represented in this house as soon as possible. Such representation has been too long delayed already, and I urge the government to act quickly in this matter.
It is so long since the speech from the throne was read by his excellency that I suppose many hon. members have forgotten what it said. As was natural, the first para-1 graph of the speech referred to the unsettled condition of world affairs. It pointed out that dislocations resulting from the ravages of war are becoming increasingly apparent. It said Europe has made only partial recovery and that in Asia active fighting is continuing over large areas. The speech then went on to contrast conditions in Canada with conditions in other parts of the world; and, as I suppose was natural, the comparison was very favourable to Canada. I am not finding fault with that, because I am quite willing to agree that living conditions in Canada are about as good as living conditions anywhere. We should not, however, be too boastful about conditions here, because when the countries with which we are making comparisons were ravaged by invading armies and their cities pounded into rubble, we were adding to our capacity to produce at a rate unprecedented in our history. I say, then, we should not be [DOT]too boastful about our prosperity, for the reason mentioned and also because the prosperity is not as general as well-fed cabinet ministers would lead one to believe.


Mr. MITCHELL:: How about the well-fed members?


Angus MacInnis: I do not know why the Minister of Labour should speak up when I mention well-fed cabinet ministers. Again, we should not be too boastful about our prosperity because it rests upon a very shaky foundation. Indeed, the speech from the throne recognized that fact when it said:
A permanent solution of our exchange problems and the future well being of the nation depend upon the revival of world trade.
How often did I hear that phrase during the depression. Then the speech from the throne continues:
An important step forward in this direction has been the successful conclusion of the recent discussions at Geneva.
We all welcome the Geneva trade agreements, but how insubstantial they are in the present disjointed condition of world affairs is demonstrated by the fact that at the very time we had before us those agreements to free world trade, we were giving priority to a measure for restricting trade. Again I am not blaming anyone for that contradiction;

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
I am merely drawing attention to it so that before we boast we might be a little more careful.
It seems to me there is something wrong somewhere, which we have not found and which we are leaving out of our reckoning. In my opinion what is wrong is that since the end of hostilities w'e have failed to realize the extent of the war damage in Europe, not only the physical 'destruction that took place but the emotional and psychological damage to the people themselves. No matter to what extent trade may be made free, Europe cannot trade until her productive machinery is restored; and that has been made so difficult because we changed far too soon from the co-operation of war to the competition of peace.
The first positive steps should not necessarily be steps leading to free trade. We shall have to have something to trade before we do that. The first positive steps toward world prosperity and world peace should be the economic reconstruction of the countries devastated by the war. Whatever the cost of that may be, it should be considered as part of the war cost. To act otherwise is to leave the winning of the war unfinished and the peace in jeopardy.
There is one hope on the horizon at the moment that something in that regard may be done. There is something which perhaps Canada can do. We may be able to give aid through the Marshall plan, which I hope and which I trust everyone else hopes will come into operation at the earliest moment. It is our chief hope at the moment for both peace and prosperity.
I mentioned earlier that prosperity in this country is not so general as we might be led to believe. For that reason I should like to refer briefly to the growing problem of unemployment which for several months has been increasing all across the country. I do not wish for a moment to give the impression that unemployment has attained startling proportions. It has not. As a matter of fact employment is on a high scale, but there are ugly symptoms which are reminiscent of what took place in this country in the hungry thirties. They show that although we had the time to do it we have not made conditions such that persons who are unemployed because of circumstances beyond their control may have as a right either work or decent maintenance without the stigma of charity. That is not yet provided for. I want to read to the house two short excerpts from newspapers which deal with unemployment in my own city of Vancouver. The first is an article which
appeared in the Ottawa Journal of February 7, date lined Vancouver and under the subheading, "Vancouver alarmed by steady influx of youthful vagrants." I wish hon. members to note the word "vagrants". Legally a vagrant is a person without any visible means of support. This news item reads;
Civic and welfare officials, with painful memories of the jobless myriads that descended on this Pacific coast city in the "grim thirties," today are becoming alarmed at the increasing influx here of youthful vagrants.
City welfare officials report they are becoming swamped with the arrival of hundreds of youths a week from eastern Canada and the prairies seeking jobs on the warmer Pacific coast.
At a special meeting last night of the homeless men's committee-
That does not sound like prosperity.
-of the community chest, officials called on Vancouver citizens to provide homes for "hundreds" of unemployed youths roaming city-streets.
It is only yesterday that those youths were our heroes. If war should come tomorrow they would be heroes again. I warn this country not to allow them to again become homeless vagrants. An editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of February 12, 1948, referred to the same matter in the following words:
An emergency committee headed by Reverend Doctor Andrew Roddan and operating under community chest sponsorship has made a good beginning in dealing with the plight of Vancouver's unemployed.
Overlapping of social welfare: work is being eliminated by setting up the Thurlow street hostel of the Salvation Army :as a central clearing bureau for these men, to whose needs the Sun has drawn attention repeatedly. The community chest has set aside $1,000 towards feeding and sheltering the homeless and hungry.
In these days of high prices $1,000 is not going to go very far toward providing food and shelter for hungry people. Another paragraph in this editorial reads:
One kindly city woman, a soldier's widow, who had read in the Sun of the misfortunes of these unemployed men now roaming our streets, telephoned the Sun with an offer of several dozen pairs of warm wool socks. Through the red shield centre, she soon had batches of applicants appearing at her door until the welcome socks were all given away.
Such editorial comment and news items need no elaboration. They are in themselves eloquent comment on our failure to meet the situation, because we knew that sooner or later we would be faced with it. It is heartening to see that the press and the public are concerned about the plight even of a relatively few unemployed. There may be some benefit in prodding those in authority so that a
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

definite policy may be framed whereby the unemployed may not have again to consider himself as the unwanted.
I think we need to be watchful in this matter. I am afraid that among the members of the government there are those that hold to the inevitability of unemployment. My attention has been drawn to a statement attributed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Lament) during his recent visit to Winnipeg. I should like to read the following short excerpt which appeared in an editorial in the Toronto Star of February 2, 1948:
One can imagine the depression and unemployment with which we would have been faced if there had1 been no country to which we could export the surpluses of our farms, our forests, and our mines; the $1,500,000,000 we have over the last eighteen or twenty months lent to others to purchase our surpluses, had not been available for distribution here to pay for the work of our farmers, our bushmen, our miners and our workers in our plants and factories. How could we have avoided massive unemployment and the demoralizing system of direct relief?
Mr. GIBSON i(Comox-Alberni): Sell it to the United States for hard money.


Angus MacInnis: There may be another way, I do not know. I quote that statement because if it is a correct statement of the government's attitude, it is dangerous in the extreme. It means that this government is bereft of any policy to meet changing conditions. It means that in the opinion of this government we can live better if we give away a large portion of our wealth than if we use it in Canada for our own benefit. In order that there may be no possibility of misunderstanding in this matter, I wish to say that I do not in any way criticize the loans made to Great Britain and other countries to enable them to buy the things that we have to sell. In that I supported the government as did all the members of the group with which I am associated. As a matter of fact I not only supported it but I urged1 the government to make those loans and my only regret is that we could not have done more. But I do reject the philosophy that if we had not made the loans we would ourselves have been in economic difficulties. From the statement I have read it would appear that the loans were made, not so much to help the countries receiving them, as to save us from "massive unemployment".


John Lambert Gibson: That is not true.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know whether it is true or not. But when a member of the cabinet says that that would have 'happened had we not done it, there are conclusions that

could be drawn from his statement regardless of what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni may say about it.
Let us take a look at that $1-5 billion which we lent to Britain and1 to other countries. I may be wrong, I have not much of a business head, but I understand that the borrowing countries were given a bank credit here; that is, that no money left this country but that when a borrowing country made purchases in Canada its account was debited with the monetary value of the goods received. The goods left Canada and we got an IOU. If the borrower cannot pay we will assume the loss. If we can make a loan of that kind for people outside of Canada, is there any economic reason why the government could not make the same amount of money available to the people of Canada?-not to keep them on direct relief, but to keep them working and producing wealth in Canada, building for instance, houses which are so badly needed. We were told in 1944 by the James committee that there was need at that time for over 700,000 homes. Those homes have not yet been built. Surely if we have a capital of $1-5 billion we can put our people to work and produce wealth here in Canada far in excess of that SI-5 billion. If we cannot do that there must be something wrong with my economic thinking.
I believe in trade. I believe that the more we exchange the goods that we have in surplus for goods that other people have in surplus the higher our standard of living will be. That kind of trade is necessary unless we have within our nation all the goods that we need-both capital and consumer goods. Trade is only useful when we can exchange usable wealth for usable wealth. In that case both parties to the deal profit. There is no gain and there can be no material gain to us, at least at the moment, in giving away wealth, and there is no reason why we should have to depend on that fiction in order to keep our people working. Such an idea is the essence of nonsense and the sooner we get rid of it the better.
I want to refer for a few moments to another matter which I had hoped that at some time I would have 'an opportunity of discussing at considerable length. I refer to a social security program for Canada. I doubt whether there is any member of the house who has not since the opening of the session received numerous letters from people in his constituency who find it impossible to live on their present incomes. These letters come from war veterans trying to live on their disability pension, war veterans trying to live on the war veterans allowance, old age pension-

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
ers, people drawing small superannuation pensions and other such people. I believe that at least fifty per cent of my correspondence is about such matters.
I do not believe that the question of social security or social services can be handled effectively in the piecemeal fashion in which we have been dealing with it up to now. The actual situation at the moment is that the group which exercises the most pressure gets the greatest results. That is not good enough in a country where people should be dealt with equitably and be provided for according to their needs, not according to the pressure which they can exert.
I think the time has arrived when the government should be giving thought to the development of an over-all social security program. What should be the basic principles of such a program?
First, it should be national in scope; that is, it should cover all Canadians without regard to provincial boundaries. Second, its benefits should be available to everyone who is prevented from earning a living for himself and dependents for any reason beyond his control. Third, the benefits should be adequate in amount; that is, they should not be just a nominal amount so that we can say that we are doing something. The amount should not be arbitrarily set. It should have some relation to what is required for a reasonable standard of living. Just as we provide for the salaries of people who are performing services for the state, a social security program would look after those who either cannot perform service or have already performed service to the community as citizens, and consequently should not now be compelled to live on a mere pittance.
The fund out of which the benefits are to be paid should in my opinion be raised on a contributory basis, and perhaps the income tax is the best method for raising such a fund.
I am quite free to say that between the dominion and the provinces the people of Canada have considerable social legislation at the present time, which in the main, having regard to its limitations, is working fairly well. I find the administration of most of the social services with -which I come in touch all that can be expected. I find those in charge sympathetic and willing to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt where they believe there is a doubt. But I think everyone will admit that our social services on all levels of government are inadequate and have been developed haphazardly. Let me just refer to one or two instances.
Take our old age pensions. The pensions were never, and are not now, sufficient for
any sort of decent living. But besides that, there are anomalies. For instance, if a pensioner's wife is not eligible in her own right, if she is under the age of seventy, the two of them have to live on a pension that is totally inadequate for one. I do not know what was the basis for that. Surely it is not assumed that a woman between the age of sixty and sixty-nine can go out today and find work and add to the family income. The idea is preposterous, and I cannot understand on what basis the amount of these pensions is arrived at. I could mention a number of other things in regard to old age pensions, but it is not necessary.
Let me say a word about unemployment insurance. Admittedly it is a great advance over the old method of relief, but there is much dissatisfaction with it. I am not referring now to faults in the act itself-that is, in the act as it is drafted for a particular purpose, or in its administration. It is largely because the act is limited to involuntary unemployment, and the average person who contributes to it cannot understand why he cannot get benefits when he is unemployed for other reasons. I try to explain to those who write to me about it and to those who speak to me about it why they cannot get it, but it is difficult to get them to understand. Let me give an example. John Doe is a contributor to the unemployment insurance fund. He becomes unemployed and makes application for benefit. For three weeks he applies at the employment office for work, but no work being available he receives his unemployment insurance cheque. On the fourth week John Doe is ill and he cannot go to the employment office, but his wife goes to the office and says that she is sorry but Mr. Doe could not come this morning, that he is ill and has been ill for a week. But there is no cheque for him, because although John Doe is unemployed and there is no job for him, he is not unemployed according to the act; he is sick, and consequently when he needs his cheque the most he cannot get it. He cannot get it because the act does not provide for unemployment because of sickness.
I could go on and multiply these instances. I say again they are not faults in administration; they are limitations that should be provided for.
I appreciate that the federal government cannot institute a national social security program without the co-operation of the provinces. I also appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that some of the provinces are not as co-operative as they might be. I do, however, urge this government to start at once to work out a
The Address-Mr. Breithaupt

social security program along the lines I have indicated. Then let the people know about it and I am satisfied that the public response to a constructive program will make the go-it-alone premiers much more co-operative than they are now.
There is just one point I wish to make in connection with this matter of co-operation between the dominion government and the provincial governments in regard to social security. Seven provinces have already signed financial agreements with the federal government, and I think the government has an obligation to these seven provinces to conclude with them, as I believe they are anxious there should be concluded with them, agreements covering social security measures such as were mentioned in the dominion government's green book proposals of 1945.
A national policy on this question is urgent as neither the provinces nor the municipalities have the financial resources to deal with the many problems which the end of war prosperity has once more placed upon them; consequently I would urge the government to act at once. Do not leave this important matter until you have to begin looking around for a vote catcher. The day for that sort of thing, if it ever had validity, has long since gone by.
Mr. L. 0. BREITHAUPT (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, at this point in the throne speech, late as it is, I wish to congratulate the mover, the hon. member for Lake St. John-Roberval (Mr. Dion), and the seconder, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey). The people of Waterloo North, which is one of the great industrial, financial and agricultural ridings in Canada, are naturally interested in the positive approach to the problems which confront us as a nation today. On account of the diversification of activities in the riding from which I hail, the country's problems are our problems in a very real way.
While I do not intend to make a speech at this time with purely local implications, nevertheless I do wish to draw the attention of the house and of Canada to the fact that since the last throne speech debate much of interest has happened in my riding of Waterloo North. In September last we had the pleasure and the honour of a two-day visit from the riding's most distinguished son, the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mackenzie King). Besides visiting in his native city of Kitchener he also paid a visit to the rural communities and renewed his former acquaintance with his many friends there. Many recalled the occas-sion of Mr. King's first election to the House

of Commons from Waterloo North, and it goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that the welcome he received was tumultuous.
On January 1 of this year the town of Waterloo graduated to the ranks of full-fledged cityhood. Naturally the event was suitably celebrated, such as only Waterloo citizens could celebrate an event of this kind with their well-known liquid resources. Most Ontario towns become cities when their populations reach the statutory requirement of 15,000. In the case of Waterloo, however, what it lacked in population was more than made up in other ways. It became a city by special act of the Ontario legislature after reaching a population of slightly over 10,000.
The new city of Waterloo can point with a good deal of pride to forty bustling industries, unquestioned leadership in the insurance field, together with the best of facilities for educational, religious and recreational training, hockey included, real hockey, not just broom ball. Now that Waterloo has become a full-fledged city, adjoining as it does, the city of Kitchener, the twin community has become unique in that the two centres form the Dominion of Canada's only twin cities undivided by a river or natural barrier. It is indicative of the splendid spirit of co-operation evidenced by the good neighbour attitude of citizens of both cities that many of the educational and cultural institutions are run jointly. Thus, while actually two municipalities, to all intents and purposes, they might as well be one. Probably in years to come a closer union, which many believe is inevitable, will undoubtedly be consummated.
Agriculturally, the riding of Waterloo North has probably more happy and contented farmer families than any district in Canada. Some hon. members will dispute that. Mixed farming has been the order of the day for many generations and still continues to yield satisfactory over-all results for our people in the rural communities. Many of our farmers are a good deal better off than their city brothers, and it is a matter of quite some interest that best business properties in our cities are often financed by mortgage money which the farmers provide on developed real estate.
Financially, the district is characterized as *the insurance centre of Canada, and is often referred to as "the Hartford of Canada". The financial institutions there have taken their full part in assisting to build up Canada and in protecting the Canadian public against loss and damage to life, limb and property. The record of these companies is so well

The Address-Mr. Breithaupt
known that to dwell further on this point at the moment would be superfluous at a time when we are all endeavouring to reach the end of the present debate.
Industrially, Waterloo North has been built up, not only to supply the requirements of the domestic markets, but factories have made extensive additions to plant and equipment during the last number of years to cater the better 'to home and export trade. As one out of every eight employees depends on export business, it is a truism that to live Canada must export. This can have no truer implications or applications than those which apply to the people of my riding.
It is a matter of great satisfaction and much pride to us all that Canada can point to a 1947 eclipse of all trade records, including wartime peaks. Figures released by the dominion bureau of statistics on the weekend of February 9 showed our foreign trade for 1947 totalled over $5,385 million compared with $4,266 million in 1946. The previous high figure attained, which was during the war in 1944, was $5,241 million. When it is considered that this figure included great quantities of war materials shipped to our allies, the figures for 1947 become all the more impressive.
This great industrial expansion, while establishing a very enviable record, has, nevertheless, probably resulted in one of the chief causes of our shortage of United States dollars. New industrial projects and developments, as we have recently been informed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, reached the imposing figure of two and one-third billion dollars in 1947.
It appears, therefore, that Canada, as a result, should hit a new high in production for the current year, if new plant extensions and manufacturing facilities are to be fully utilized. Fully to utilize this plant extension, I am convinced that a determined drive will have to be put forth to increase our exports to the United States and other hard currency countries. I was much impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) who preceded me, when he also came out for the Marshall plan. I am pleased to note that the Hyde Park agreements are still in effect. This should help our export picture.
I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating our dynamic Minister of Trade and Commerce, his deputy minister and his able cohorts for the steps they have already taken in connection with the stimulation of exports, and at the same time, I wish humbly to suggest
that if the economy of our country is not to undergo a recession of some proportions, these efforts might well be doubled and redoubled to keep industry fully employed, and to keep our surplus products moving. The time is near at hand when favourable consideration might also be given to the export of a much larger percentage of our farm products, including cattle, if it can be established that these are not required for Canadian or United Kingdom consumption.
As regards our trade position, statistics show that at confederation, as pointed out in a recent speech by the deputy minister of trade and commerce, fifty-six per cent of our imports came from the United Kingdom. A steady decline has resulted in imports from this source ever since. The percentage fell to just under twenty per cent before the beginning of the last war. At the present time our imports from the United Kingdom are only 7i per cent of our total imports. This situation should be speedily remedied as Britain's ability to export improves. All hon. members know that there has been a serious shortage of men's shirts in Canada. To remedy this it is to be hoped that the United Kingdom will soon be able to supply us with much larger textile shipments. It would be particularly good news to the many shirt factories in my riding if these would soon materialize. I am pleased to learn that the government has a capable emissary, Mr. A. G. S. Griffin, now in the United Kingdom, chasing up increased shipments of much needed materials.
I am firmly of the belief that, as and when the United Kingdom can supply us with a greater volume of all lines, we should definitely increase our imports from that source. Undoubtedly as British manufacturers are able to step up production their prices will swing more into line; so that volume will result. A feature I wish to stress particularly at this time is possibly one that does not need further emphasis. Nevertheless, I think it is important and will bear repeating: that is, that our import trade has turned largely to the United States wdthout a similar increase in our exports to that country. Surely, if any businessman in this country or any other country had a top-ranking customer from whom he could purchase supplies in return, he would be only too glad to do so, and I am sure that the United States will arrive at the point where similar treatment to their best customer will also appear to be good business to them.
At the time of confederation the United States supplied us with only 30 per cent of our total imports. By 1946 the figure had
The Address-Mr. Breithaupt

risen to about 75 per cent-an advance in imports from the United States of 45 per cent! It surely must be apparent to all hon. members and the country as a whole, that unpleasant as the task is for the government, corrective steps had to be taken to rectify this situation.
It is a fact that stands in bold relief that we have turned largely to the United States for our foreign purchases, and they in turn have not reciprocated in kind.
The present program of the government designed to meet the situation is apparently pretty good, better than we are given credit for in some quarters. This is clearly demonstrated by the facts recently submitted to the house by the Minister of Finance. It is gratifying to know that the steps which have been taken have produced results far beyond the expectations of even the most sanguine. Canadian holdings of gold and United States dollars were at a low of $461 million during December, and at the end of January they had bounced up to $514 million, thus registering an improvement in the position during that short time of some $53,000,000, which represented an improvement of 11 per cent. Obviously, if this trend continues and exports increase, the picture will soon improve. I am sure that all hon. members, including the Minister of Finance himself, will look forward to the gradual easing of some of the present restrictions. At this point I think it is only fair to say that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have been very reasonable and helpful in connection with situations which have arisen owing to the first draft regulations. Many of these situations have been ironed out to the satisfaction of all concerned, I believe, and not only for the members of the government, as was feared by the opposition would be the case.
While import bans and restrictions may assist in partially rectifying the present exchange situation, nevertheless in my opinion the one really effective remedy which should be stressed to the utmost is for the government to encourage production as much as possible and also production for export of those commodities, and only those commodities, which are in plentiful and surplus supply here. Surely we, the best customer of the United States, have every right to expect of our great neighbours to the south of us that, besides selling to us such a tremendous percentage of our total requirements, they too should be willing and anxious to patronize their best customer by taking more of our products.

As I said before, I was glad to hear that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has taken initial steps to bring to the attention of the United States government the case for Canadian exports under the European recovery program or Marshall plan, also referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East. There are many industries which can assist in the rehabilitation of European countries through this plan. As an example of what can be done I wish to draw to the attention of the house the situation in connection with the Canadian shoe industry.
The shoe industry reached its highest peak of production in 1946, when it manufactured 43,000,000 pairs, mostly for home consumption. This high production was possible and necessary to fill domestic requirements which ran short during the war years, and was only possible because the shoe industry had built up a large capacity during the war to take care of service requirements. Reference might be made here to the high quality of footwear supplied to the armed forces, and testified to by General McNaugbton while he was head of the Canadian army. According to figures supplied by Mr. Frank Millington, of Montreal, executive vice-president of the shoe manufacturers association of Canada, we are advised that it has been estimated that even if production again reached 43,000,000 pairs in Canada, the industry could still further increase production to allow for two and a half million pairs additional for. export. This industry submits that it would be able to make five and half million pairs of shoes for the European recovery program, and that at the same time export possibilities to countries other than Marshall plan countries would not be prejudiced, nor would shoe requirements for our domestic trade suffer. I might point out that if shoe business were to accrue to Canada under the plans now being made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the various provinces throughout Canada would benefit from such a program. The shoe industry is spread from coast to coast and beneficial results in employment would therefore be felt across the country.
While a great deal has been said in and out of this house about the unfortunate rise in the cost of living, it appears to me that while we here at Ottawa are placing thousands and literally millions of words on Hansard, the situation as far as Canada is concerned seems to be improving daily. A recent report from the Kitchener-Waterloo Daily Record states:
Retail meat dealers today refer to bacon price reductions from ten to fifteen cents a pound, since the high of eighty-five cents a pound in the twin cities.

The Address-Mr. H. O. White
A drop of this kind is certainly an indication of the trend. A recent letter received by me from a friend in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, indicates that best butter is now selling at ninety-four cents a pound there, and only recently had been selling at ninety-nine cents a pound; eggs at seventy cents a dozen and milk at twenty-three cents a quart. Comparison with the prices we are still privileged to enjoy in this great country indicates without the shadow of a doubt that we are far better off in Canada than some hon. members would lead us to believe. From what I have seen of the raw material markets, I am convinced that the trend in most commodities is definitely down. Production has caught up with demand in many industries and is rapidly reaching the saturation point in others. With the prices committee doing an excellent job in ferreting out certain situations, it appears to me that with natural economic forces also at work the cost of living will soon be down for our Canadian people.
I wish to refer briefly to the case for government aid to flying clubs throughout the country. I understand from members of our flying club at Kitchener that an appeal has been made by the Royal Canadian flying clubs association to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) to have prewar subsidies reinstated to these flying clubs for the duration of the current year as a temporary measure until an up-to-date proposal for subsidy can be carefully worked out and considered. Realizing what a splendid job the flying clubs have done during the pre-war period, to say nothing of the really wonderful piece of work they did during the war and since, I sincerely hope that consideration can be given to relieving the present situation as far as these clubs are concerned.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, and if my time permits me to do so, I should like to refer briefly to the question of reduction of income taxes for the coming year. While the matters discussed1 in this house for the last month have undoubtedly indirectly interested some of my constituents, some of your constituents and some Canadians some of the time, the fact remains that all my constituents, all your constituents and all Canadians are directly interested1 at this time and all the time in the subject of further income tax reductions. I would therefore strongly urge the Minister of Finance again to give most serious consideration to a further general reduction in income taxes in his forthcoming budget. Last year I believe an average over-all reduction of twenty-nine per cent was made by him, and to say that Canada received the good news
with enthusiasm would be an understatement. Abbott was a real hero I Surely with the much larger surplus this year of three quarters of a billion dollars, a further all-round substantial tax cut can be made and at the same time a reasonable proportion of our national debt retired. I wish to repeat my well-substantiated and, I hope, effective case of last year when I put in a special plea for white collar workers and low income groups. Until rates for these groups are brought more into line with general levels, I believe they should have special consideration and much needed relief from high wartime imposts.
Mr. H. 0. WHITE (Middlesex East): Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate this evening I wish, following the custom in this house, to compliment the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Listening from time to time to various hon. members one would come to the conclusion that Canadians were poor people; we hear so many arguments in favour of cheap food. I want to point out, however, that in 1947 Canadians spent $400,000,000 on alcoholic beverages, $275,000,000 on tobacco and $120,000,000 on movies and cosmetics, which makes a total of about $795,000,000. In addition the governments paid some $230,000,000 in family allowances, which brings the total to nearly $100 per person. It would seem to me, then, that people want subsidized food so they can afford luxuries; and they want the farmer to bear the brunt of it. I am not going to say anything more about farming tonight, except that I am glad the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) acceded to my suggestion that he give the fruit and vegetable growers some idea of how long the dollar conservation program might last, so they can make their plans for 1948.
Tonight I wish to deal particularly with two lines of endeavour carried on in my constituency of Middlesex East. First I should like to deal with the needs and development of the university of Western Ontario. I have no hesitation in saying that from what I have heard from various sources Western is one of the finest universities in Canada. I need only mention two outstanding men, Doctor Banting and Doctor Best, who received their early education and training and carried out many of their experiments at London and Western. On March 7 next the new president of the university, Doctor G. E. Hall, is to be installed, and a special convocation service is to be held to commemorate the event. In passing I want to pay tribute to Doctor Sherwood Fox, past president of the university, who is
The Address-Mr. H. 0. White

now retired. He is still carrying on many activities, however, one of which I should like to mention particularly because I am rather interested in it. During the past few years the native sweet chestnut of the lake Erie region has been suffering from a disease or blight that has practically wiped it out. A few stands remain, but they never get to the fruiting stage. This fall in the city of St. Thomas a few sweet chestnuts were offered for sale at $1 per nut, and were bought eagerly by people who are trying to propagate them and grow the sweet chestnut again in southwestern Ontario. Doctor Sherwood Fox is spending much of his spare time gathering data and carrying on experiments in the hope of finding some way to perpetuate this great forest tree.
Western, as I said before, is well known in connection with the arts and sciences, and also for its extension work. It is looking to the future, providing training for many of our student veterans and young people from all over Canada, particularly from western Ontario. Like all growing institutions it requires many things, including new buildings; and if and when they ask for assistance, I hope it will be forthcoming. In this connection I should like particularly to say a word in reference to the Department of the Secretary of State. Western university has a very good library and a very good librarian, with whom I am personally acquainted. According to law I understand each university in the dominion should have forwarded to it six copies of all governmental documents that are not of a secret nature. That is only right; but as far as Western is concerned, and I believe this is true of all universities, their collection is incomplete. I have with me a list which has been compiled of the missing governmental documents required by the library of Western university, and I am going to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson) to do everything possible to see that these missing documents are supplied. I understand this is supposed to be done by the king's printer. As we know by looking at Hansard and other documents the king's printer is a busy man. Some of the work has to be turned out on very short notice, but some other documents are weeks, months and years behind. When I see the quantity of paper that comes to my desk every day, some of it nothing but waste paper, I believe some of that energy could be employed in providing these missing documents for Western and all the other universities of Canada. I believe they all find themselves in the same position, so I would suggest that the universities be asked to furnish lists of the government documents they require,
TMr. White (Middlesex East).]
and that the job of furnishing these documents be given some printing company. It seems to me that if there is any place in Canada where these documents are needed, where they will be used to advantage and the benefit of that use passed on to the country as a whole, it is our universities.
Along the same line I should like to mention the possibility of a national library. Yesterday we heard something about the national film board. We would not want a national library to turn out like that, and if I thought it would do so I would not mention it. I believe a national library could be a great asset. I know Western university borrows books from universities in the maritimes, from the University of Michigan and many other places. If we had a national library in Canada in time it could1 be developed into an institution from which our universities could borrow the documents and books they might require.
So much for Western university and its needs. I am passing over these matters rather quickly because time is limited. Now I want to say a few words about veterans affairs.
The largest military hospital in the British empire, Westminster hospital, is located in Middlesex East. I am well acquainted with the doctors, some of the nurses and some of the staff in that hospital. They are loyal. I know that the doctors and others are doing everything possible to help the veterans. They are doing a great work. But there is one thing that I find there, and this applies toother departments of government. There are some employees who are permanent civil servants and others who are temporary. Some of the temporaries have been there since the first great war. I do not know how you can expect to build up loyalty in that way. If they are-going to be there for a lifetime, let us make it a permanent job.
Some of these are doing the work of grade three civil servants but they are not always getting the pay. When inquiry is made we are told that the position has not been created. These people are doing the work, and I suggest that if they are doing the work the job is there..
In connection with that hospital is the western counties tubercular centre which is located in beautiful grounds south of the hospital and1 of the city of London. I had the opportunity to visit this institution and I know they are doing a fine work.
Westminster hospital is south of London on Wellington road, a paved highway with heavy motor traffic. There is no sidewalk along this highway from the city limits to the hospital. It is true there is a bus line, but many people prefer to walk, and the only place they can walk is on the side of the road. Sooner or

The Address-Mr. H. O. White
later someone is going to be killed. It is going to take a life to awaken the authorities to the fact that by the expenditure of a small amount human lives may be saved. Some of the property past which this sidewalk would run is still farmland and the owners are not interested in paying any frontage tax. I know the Department of Veterans Affairs does not want to build sidewalks for municipalities, but I venture to say that ninety per cent of the people who walk up and down Wellington road are going to or from the military hospital. With a little oo-operation between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the municipal authorities that sidewalk could be provided in the immediate future.
I am not going to go into this in too much detail, but I would remind hon. members that I mentioned this matter on the last day of the last session, July 17, 1947, and of course no one paid any attention to it. I would refer the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) to page 5823 of Hansard of July 17, 1947. I suggest that in dealing with these employees at the hospital the civil service commission and the Department of Veterans Affairs get together to try to work out some satisfactory arrangement so that these employees will not be left where they are now.
I want to say a word or two about pensions. I do not think that anyone in Canada would complain about what we might do for the veteran and those who fought our wars. There would be no complaint if we increased pensions because there is a debt which can never be paid in money. Why be niggardly about this particular item? I am going to suggest that the plan set out in The Legionary, and which has been mentioned on more than one occasion in this house, be followed. There are others who took part in the great war, and I refer particularly to Red Gross workers. I might mention also student veterans, both married and single, who are attending schools and universities. The cost of living has increased since these allowances were granted and they are now finding it rather difficult to get along.
I wonder if it would not be possible for the bureau of statistics to set up a realistic cost of living index. About 33 cents out of every dollar that we spend is in the form of hidden and other taxes. Taxes are not considered in setting up the cost of living index and therefore it is not a true index. This index should be brought up to date and be made more realistic. I believe pensions could be linked with the cost of living index so that when living costs went up pensions would automatically be increased. When the reverse was the case, the opposite situation would apply.
It would avoid placing the veteran in the position in which he finds himself today where his pension is not adequate to meet his living costs. I might mention also the widows and children of veterans, some of whom are finding themselves in a most difficult position.
One hundred Veterans Land Act houses have been built in my riding. It has been my opportunity to meet many of the young veterans who have returned and purchased these houses. As I said last session, these houses in the township of Westminster are nice little homes but they cost too much money as far as the veteran is concerned. I think $500 or $750, or even more, should be written off the cost of these houses so that these veterans will have a fighting chance to pay for them. I notice in the London Free Press of a couple of days ago that these veterans have formed an organization to beautify their houses. They are showing a community interest in the project and I believe they are going to do a good job. Let us give them some encouragement.
I have been in many of these houses. While they look as though they had been hastily built, it took a long time to build them and they cost too much. I suggest that some reduction should be made. I am not certain that the deal has been completed but I do not believe anyone in the country would object. We heard a story the other night about the film board. We can question the expenditures made there, bu't I do not think anyone in the country would question anything we did for the veteran.
I received a telegram from the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans of London, unit 227, in which they complain about some of the things I have referred to in my talk tonight.
There is just one other thing I want to mention-immigration. I think I have mentioned this before. Canada is a country with vast resources and we must face the fact that we need more people. I have mentioned the fact that we would gladly share our national debt with them. I repeat that we have a national debt that should satisfy anyone. Any child born in Canada tomorrow has a debt of over $7,000 over his head. We need people to help carry this burden.
I have had considerable to do with assisting people in this country to bring over their relatives from Europe. The present set-up is inadequate. I often get excuses and passing the buck. It is always someone else who is holding up the entry into this country of some immigrant. While we are doing that, other countries are skimming off the cream of the immigrants that we might get, and the
The Address-Mr. Croll

first thing we know all that will be left will be the dregs. I mention, one particular case, which could be multiplied many times, in which I attempted to assist a would-be immigrant from one of the European countries. He had left Latvia before the war, but like many others got caught in the jam and now finds himself in Germany. He is not in a displaced persons camp and so comes, they tell me, under the international refugee organization. Each of these organizations, the one looking after displaced persons and the international refugee organization, has given him a number, and there he is wandering about Europe with a number, and nobody doing anything about it. So far as I can see our immigration policy is simply a delaying action, and when I contrast it with what I read in the newspapers of the influx of reds from across the border, I wonder how they get into this country so easily. We seem- to be struggling with one hand to keep immigrants out, and with the other hand we are welcoming undesirables.
There is another feature. Many of our young educated Canadian boys and girls are crossing the border to seek a living in the United States. I quote from an article in the Windsor Star of February 13 last, under the heading "Over border in droves", which says:
Boys and girls in their teens are going over the border in droves from Canada to the United States. R. P. Bonham, chief of the United States immigration service at Seattle, reports that these young folks are seeking employment in the United States. Most of them are being picked up and returned to their homes in Canada.
A group of young Canadians w-as taken to the immigration people in the United States. One of -them explained why they are leaving Canada by the simple statement: "There just isn't much chance for a young guy in Canada today."
Some of these young people should be sent down to Ottawa to speak to the dominion government. With managed lives the rule in Canada today, the officials should hear the stories of these young people, who want to get away from this country -to seek a new life in the United States.
It does not speak well for Canada's trend to socialism to find so many young people wanting to escape to better living under free enterprise in the United States.
Mr. DAVID	CROLL	(Spadina): Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to speak about the tragic case of Palestine, with all its heartaches and frustrations and dis-illusionments. The case is now before the united nations assembly at Lake Success. It is not only of importance to the Jewish people; it is of importance to Canada and to the united nations.
Today the Holy land is being engulfed in an unholy war, in defiance of the decision of the parliament of man, which may well turn into

another Ethiopia or Manchuria. The matter is of special concern to Canada; for we are in great measure responsible for the decision which was reached by the united nations. The effort of Mr. Justice Rand on the united nations special committee on Palestine has been hailed throughout the world as a signal achievement. Without his patience and understanding it is fair to say that the UNSCOP report would not have seen the light of day. I think Canada may be justly proud of the fact that in our first participation in a major united nations decision we were so well and ably represented. The work of Mr. Justice Rand and the members of the Canadian delegation to Lake Success has given Canada a new and an impressive position in international affairs and has permitted her to make a notable contribution towards world peace.
No problem in modern times has ever been under such a strong searchlight of investigation as the Palestine problem, and in our desire to be involved in peace rather than in war we have made superhuman contributions in order to reach a decision.
The Palestine case today comprises, I think, two main issues. On the one hand there is the immediate fate of Palestine itself and its people, and on the other hand the larger question of the ability of the united nations to solve international problems without resorting to armed conflict. In order to appreciate these two issues we have to consider briefly the background.
Before 1917 the Arab states, as we know them today, did not exist. For four hundred years they had been part of the Turkish empire. Palestine itself had then no separate existence. Its population of some 690,000, of whom about 85,000 were Jews, was under Turkish domination.
During the first world war the British troops under General Allenby occupied Palestine. At that time the British government made certain commitments to the Jews and Arabs. They were contained in the Balfour declaration of 1917, pledging to set up a Jewish National Home, and in an exchange of correspondence beween Sir Henry McMahon and the Sherif of Mecca, assuring British assistance to the Arabs in establishing their independence.
We start, then, with these two solemn undertakings by Britain. Are they mutually exclusive? The British government has specifically repudiated the Arab claim to Palestine in the following words which I quote from the white paper of 1939:
In the recent discussions the Arab delegation have repeated the contention that Palestine was included within the area in which Sir

The Address-Mr. Croll
Henry McMahon, on behalf of the British government . . . undertook to recognize and support Arab independence. The validity of this claim, based on, the terms of the correspondence which passed between iSir Henry McMahon and the iSherif of Mecca, was thoroughly and carefully investigated by British and Arab representatives during the recent conferences in London. His Majesty's government adhere to the view that the whole of Palestine west of Jordan was excluded from Sir Henry McMahon's pledge, and they therefore cannot agree that the McMahon correspondence forms a just basis for the claim that Palestine should be converted into an Arab state.
On the other hand, there is a pledge contained in the Balfour declaration of which, it should be observed, Canada was a signatory. In 1946 the Anglo-American commission of inquiry commented on the meaning of national home in the following words:
This term "national home" was new to international law and subject to varied interpretation. It appears certain that no one in 1917 contemplated the immediate creation of a Jewish state to rule over the large Arab majority in Palestine. But many responsible persons in the British and United States governments, and among the Jewish people, believed that a considerable Jewish majority might develop in Palestine in the course of time, and that a Jewish state might be the outcome of the Balfour declaration.
Following world war I, Palestine was placed under a league of nations mandate, with Britain as the administering power. The mandate, in the words of the Anglo-American commission to which I referred-
. . . recited the Balfour declaration and gave recognition to the historical connection of Jews with Palestine and to their right to reconstitute their national home in that counry. The mandate, moroever, required Great Britain to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement of the land. Though extensive safeguards were provided for the non-Jewish peoples, the mandate was framed primarily in the Jewish interest.
It was apparent from the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that the Arab leaders were unwilling to agree to the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine. Their aim was an independent Arab state, and the riots and the unrest that followed are too very well known by this world.
In eighteen years no fewer than ten separate commissions were appointed to investigate conditions in Palestine, of which the most significant was the Peel commission headed by Lord Peel, which investigated the riots of 1936. The findings of the Peel commission were that the Jews had been promised a state and that the Palestine administration was antagonistic to this plan. It found, however, that the aims of the Jews and the Arabs were irreconcilable and recommended the partition
of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states with international control of Holy places. A subsequent commission to delimit the boundaries of the new states failed to achieve its purpose, and, when renewed Arab disturbances followed, Britain called1 Jewish and Arab representatives to London to come to agreement on policy. The roundtable discussions broke down when the Arab delegates refused to meet with the Jewish representatives, and as a result Britain announced her own decision in the white paper of 1939.
Briefly, the white paper put forward plans for an independent state in which Jews and Arabs would share authority. At the same time it severely restricted the purchase of land by Jews and limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 over a period of five years, to be permitted thereafter only with Arab consent. In other words it relegated the Jewish community in Palestine to a permanent minority status in what was to have been a national home; for at the present time the Arabs in Palestine outnumber the Jews two to one.
Now, the white paper requires a little comment from me. It was unanimously condemned by Jews and Arabs alike. It was also declared by the mandates commission of the league of nations to be in conflict with the terms of the league mandate under which Britain held the trusteeship of Palestine. Despite this, during the war some of the terms of the white paper were put into effect, notably restrictions on land holdings and immigration, and I need not tell this house that they were deeply resented by the Jewish community.
As a result of post-war tension, the Anglo-American committee of inquiry was set up in 1945 to study the problem. Their unanimous report favouring abolition of the ban on immigration and land holding was, however, rejected by the British government and so the situation continued to deteriorate. Finally the British government announced its readiness to surrender the mandate because of failure to find a solution acceptable to both the Arabs and the Jews, and placed the responsibility on the united nations for recommendations regarding the future government of Palestine.
The record of those earlier years of fruitless discussions about the settlement of Palestine must be considered against the background of European history from 1933 on. While commissions sat, and white papers were handed down, the Hitler tyranny systematically reduced the Jewish communities of half Europe to slavery and then proceeded to annihilate them in cold blood. In all, six million Jews perished in the gas chambers
The Address-Mr. Croll

and furnaces of Germany and Poland. This is how the Anglo-American committee described their terrible ordeal:
In the cold print of a report it is not possible accurately to portray out feelings with regard to the suffering deliberately inflicted by the Germans on those Jews who fell into their bands. The visit of our subcommittee to the ghetto in Warsaw has left in their minds an impression which will forever remain . . . Adjoining the ghetto there still stands an old barracks used as a place for killing Jews. Viewing this dn the cold grey light of a February day one could imagine the depths of human suffering there endured. In the courtyards of the barracks were pits containing human ash and human bones. The effect of that place on Jews who came searching, so often in vain, for any trace of their dear ones, can be left to the imagination ... In Germany and dn Poland, which was often described to us as "the cemetery of European Jewry," a Jew may see, in the face of any man he looks upon, the murdeTer of his family. It is understandable that few find themselves able to face such conditions.
In short, Palestine has become, for these dispossessed and disinherited people of Europe, more than an ideal to be realized some day in the distant future. It is a very real and very immediate home for them from the suffering and persecution which even today follow them wherever they may go. I use the word "home". I do not mean refuge, nor do I mean asylum, nor do I mean shelter; I mean home with memories and hope.
I have reviewed briefly the background of modern Palestine, although not as a basis for further arguments on the merits of the case. The problem facing the Canadian and other delegates at Lake Success was not to balance claims based on who had majority status in Palestine-when, in what numbers, or for how long.. The fact to be faced was that here were two irreconcilable groups of people, each of them entitled to self-government and selfdetermination.
The official position of the Canadian government was stated by Mr. Ilsley when he quoted from the majority recommendation of UNSCOP:
The basic premise underlying the partition proposal is that the claims to Palestine of Arabs and Jews, both possessing validity, are irreconcilable, and that among all the solutions advanced, partition will provide the most realistic and practicable settlement, and is the most likely to afford a working basis for meeting in part the claims and national aspirations of both parties.
The Canadian delegation, therefore, held out partition as the only feasible solution. To the Pakistan argument that partition should not be adopted without consent, the Canadian delegate observed that the question

arose whether it was any better to try to maintain unity without consent. To the threats of disorder from the Arab speakers, in the event of the passing of partition, Mr. Ilsley, as Canadian spokesman, had this to say:
It would be folly to assume that there would be any less likelihood of disorder if any of the other alternatives were adopted. Indeed, in our judgment, this likelihood in the case of every one of them would be not less but greater . . . But something must be done with this problem, and we are satisfied that, full of difficulties as the partition solution is, any other solution would be worse.
Our representative also discussed the alternative of abstention, and it was felt that obligations to the united nations and to the people of Canada would not permit abstention. I quote Mr. Ilsley again:
We have, as this assembly knows, taken our full share of responsibility in this matter throughout the entire session. We have worked day and night to obtain a solution which would be practicable and workable, and we feel that our obligations, not only to this organization, but to our own people, are such that we could not justify an abstention, and that we should vote for the resolution. This we propose to do.
Now the support for partition given by the Canadian delegation was accorded in the belief that partition provided the shortest cut to a settled middle east. This was expressed by the Under-Secretary of State, Lester Pearson, a week before the vote:
The Canadian delegation has only one desire in this matter-to bring peace and security to this unhappy land of Palestine, which is a holy land for us all and from which has come to so many millions security and peace . . . The plan that has been recommended by the subcommittee, and which is based upon the majority report of the united nations special committee which investigated this matter for many months, has the best chanoe of success of any that has been submitted to us; the best chance of bringing peace and order to that torn and troubled country. In that spirit, Mr. Chairman, our delegation will support the plan of subcommittee 1.
As a result of its deliberations the general assembly of the united nations, by a two thirds majority of its members, decided on partition with economic union. This decision was reached on the basis of a full investigation of the facts, and after lengthy debate in which the Canadian delegation took a leading part. This was the greatest amount of international agreement ever achieved by the assembly on any controversial issue up to that date or since.
That being so, I am sure it will be unnecessary and even presumptuous on my part to discuss the merits of the case. The highest court in the world, the parliament of man,

The Address-Mr. Croll
has passed its judgment. In legal language, the matter is res judicata. The issue has been settled. In cannot be tried all over again, and there is no room for revision or reversion.
I think it is fair to say that the Jews, although very much disappointed by the decision, have expressed their willingness to abide by the terms, but it is also true that the Arabs have from the start objected strongly to the united nations dealing with the problem and their objections have not been confined to mere threats. It remains to consider what course Canada and the united nations will- follow in the future.
If the united nations decision is to mean anything, it must be implemented, and the question is, how is that to be done. Well, we must first, I think, accept some basic facts upon which to predicate our future policy. In the first place, the united nations' decision which does the maximum of justice to both sides is final. The Palestine case has been settled and I am sure that we shall have no part of any manipulating so as to make it appear that the opposition to partition is so formidable that the plan cannot be carried out.
We cannot afford to retreat in the face of force. True, the threads that we have spun have become knotted-it is our -task to help unwind the knot.
Fact No. 2 is that Canada has freely and wholeheartedly committed herself to participation in the united nations on many occasions, but particularly I have reference to page 1282 of Hansard, on the orders of the day, where the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked the following question:
In view of the grave warning made by the Palestine commission to the security council vesterday that "a tragic and dangerous precedent" will be established if force or the threat of force is allowed to thwart the decision of the -united nations, is the government prepared to accept its share of responsibility in such action as may be taken by the security council with a view to averting further bloodshed in Palestine and implementing the assembly decision?
The answer given by the right hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) was:
In answer I can only state that Canada accepted full responsibility under the charter of the united nations and has at all times been pressing to have all the organs of the united nations set up in accordance with the charter and in such a manner as to make the charter fully effective. There is no intention of not complying with the requirements both of the letter and of the spirit of the charter.
No more heartening words have been uttered in this house. Those words can only mean that, whatever the decision and whatever the obligations, Canada will contribute her full share towards carrying them out according to her means and her ability, whether it be in Korea, Trieste or Palestine. True, to do so may well involve us; but it seems to me we might as well get involved in peace, for if we do not we shall certainly get involved in war.
Fact No. 3 is that the British government mean business when they say that they are getting out of Palestine.
Fact No. 4 is that the united nations cannot leave a vacuum in Palestine. The surrounding Arabs have said in no uncertain terms what they intend to do, and today across Palestine falls the Arab vendetta. This house must well remember that Hitler defied the league of nations, and you know the rest. The league was discredited and it died. We want the united nations to live.
The Arabs today defy the united nations. What will be the result? I recall again to this house Ethiopia and Manchuria. I want to avoid similar consequences. Today the authority, the prestige and the very existence of the united nations is being challenged, and it cannot be settled by fine notes, strong resolutions or back-tracking.
Fact No. 5 is that the Arabs are directly or indirectly getting arms and infiltrating into Palestine.
Fact No. 6 is that the Jews in Palestine are not being reinforced by arms or men from outside. None the less, scarred by the heat that burned six million of their fellowmen, they are determined to fight with whatever arms they have. The Jews today are left without means to defend themselves. In fact, they are denied means to defend themselves. They are not permitted to import arms; they are not permitted to import people to fight; they are not permitted to organize an army from their own resources.
It seems to me that if the makers of the united nations' decision are not themselves ready to enforce it, they ought surely to permit the legatees to defend their ward. Surely if the world will not let these people in Palestine live in peace and liberty, live decently, it should at least give them an opportunity to die not as their brothers did in Poland and in Germany, but to die in defence of their own homeland.
I think it cannot be too strongly emphasized that the basic issue which confronts us at the present time is not Arabs versus Jews. There is more involved here than the lives of Jewish settlers and Arab tribesmen. It is collective
The Address-Mr. Croll

security; it is moral force; it is either one world or two worlds. If it is to be two worlds, then we had better get on with the task of building bigger and better atom bombs and dust off the old ones we have on the shelves at the present time. If it is to be one world, now is the time to make our influence felt in the united nations to avoid the prospects and the dangers of a third world war. I think the question is whether a decision of the united nations is to be openly flouted, and the answer to that question will involve not only the fate of Palestine but also the fate of the united nations and of the world. If the nations are not prepared to honour their commitments under the united nations charter, then the delegates might as well pack their suitcases and go home. It is not a christening they are attending at Lake Success; it is a wake. And if the united nations fails we are back to the naked tactics of balance of power diplomacy and ententes which will lead us inevitably to a third world war just as they led us to the first two.
Since the Palestine decision is a united nations decision, it must be implemented by all the nations. There is no room for unilateral action, pipeline diplomacy or for playing it safe. The inescapable truth is that there is no solution to the Palestine crisis without United States leadership, participation and responsibility. What action we took at the united nations was taken with our eyes wide open. We calculated the risk and we took it in the interests of peace. The price of failing to implement the action is an uncalculated risk far more hazardous and dangerous. From everything I have quoted here today it is clear that we are prepared to carry out our proportionate share, but we cannot be expected to carry out more than that. Under these circumstances I do not believe that the frontier of our homeland is our boundary. I recall the statement made by the late President Roosevelt in 1940, that the frontier of America was on the Rhine. Since then it has extended across the whole world. In our support of the united nations and all it stands for, it may well be that the frontiers of Canada are not only on the Jordan but on the Yalu.
Let us consider for a moment the alternatives to implementation of the united nations decision. Well, we can do nothing-in which case the consequence will almost certainly be civil war; and this, it should be noted, on Russia's back doorstep. The danger involved in allowing Palestine to become the Spain of world war III surely precludes a policy of non-intervention. The united nations might recruit troops from the national armies of its member states. This possibility should be

seriously considered. None the less it should be clear that we, the smaller nations, are not there to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the big five. A volunteer united nations force might be recruited from the member nations. This has the disadvantage that the united nations has neither the time nor the facilities to train a volunteer army. In any event, this is not a task for adventurers, enthusiasts or mercenaries. The united nations might recruit a militia in Palestine to keep order. The experience of Britain in raising a Palestinian home defence army known as Haganah, which she did during the war, would commend this as a feasible alternative, although I am quick to admit that it too has some obvious objections. It has been suggested that the united nations freeze the situation in Palestine and bring the matter back for further discussion and compromise. This is no more acceptable than the do-nothing policy which I first suggested. Events have gone too far to permit of any protracted reconsideration at this time. The decision has been made. To modify under pressure is to encourage more pressure. All this will do is to give the Arabs, with their open supply lines and free communications, an opportunity to pour men and arms into Palestine. Finally, one great power might take over the job. But which one? Russia would certainly Object to a United States army in Palestine just as strongly as the United States would object to a Russian occupation force. The united nations veto would certainly kill any such proposal. While all this goes on in Europe, shade by shade, the iron curtain grows, the lights are dimmed one by one and from one nation after another comes silence.
It may be that the method of implementation is not for Canada to decide, but this much is certain: that since we shall participate in whatever plan is ultimately adopted, we must consider the alternatives carefully; for we are not a nation that talks united nations and acts unilaterally.
Palestine is the supreme test of the united nations. The eyes of the world are focused on this small yet highly strategic land. It is a test because we are witnessing something unique in history, namely, the replanting of a people. The Jewish people have initiated the rebirth of human and spiritual values in Palestine. They have developed the economy of the country, established industries and reclaimed land which had lain barren for centuries. Their long fight has finally been recognized by the united nations, and the united nations decision means that one more democratic nation has joined the world.

The Address-Mr. Croll
Canada fortunately at this time possesses statesmen of international stature both in office and public service. I am impressed by the tremendous confidence the rank and file in this country have in the present Secretary of State for External Affairs. The same is true of the Minister of Justice, who was our spokesman at Lake Success. And there is great comfort in the knowledge that we have in the public service men like Lester Pearson and General McNaughton. Here is an opportunity for Canada to play an even more important role; to act as the conscience of the united nations in the interests of peace, to bring together the great English-speaking nations of the world and in that way apply her talents and her good will in helping solve the problem of implementation as magnificently as she helped the united nations reach a decision on partition.
Let us not lose sight of this all-important fact. The united nations must implement the decision, and the main responsibility lies with the great powers. To fail now is to cast dark shadows, yes, to extinguish for a time justice and honour and freedom and liberty. I implore this government to rise to the occasion; for if the united nations fails at this time it bares its impotency before the world and becomes a spent force. I am certain that is not the wish of the people of Canada. As
for me that is an impossible and unthinkable position for this world to find itself in at the present time.
On motion of Mr. Aylesworth the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT moved the adjournment of the house.
He said: It is intended tomorrow to proceed with the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce preceding a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. If that resolution is disposed of we shall take up the one in the name of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), No. 8 on today's order paper, preceding a bill to continue the Agricultural Products Act in force until March 31, 1949. Should those two resolutions be disposed of, the Minister of Veterans Affairs would ask the house to revert to government notices of motion and take up the resolution standing in his name setting up a committee on veterans affairs.
John Ritchie MacNicol: What will be taken up after eight o'clock?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I understand that for the first hour private bills will be taken.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Friday, February 27, 1948