1949-02-04

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 10, to amend the Income Tax Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this bill would add to section 121 of the new Income Tax Act the following words which are underlined in the bill:
Provided that nothing in this section shall operate to prevent a minister of the crown from communicating to the Senate or to the House of Commons any information with respect to corporations obtained under the provisions of this act.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove in part the restrictions as to secrecy imposed by section 121 of the Income Tax Act, which as it stands at present can have the effect of preventing a minister of the crown from giving the Senate or the House such information as it might be perfectly legitimate to ask for and obtain. No change is made by this bill in the matter of information obtained from personal income tax returns. Such information must still be kept secret. I may say that in this particular the bill is different from the one which I introduced last year and to which some objection was taken. On the other hand, this amendment would make it possible to make public any information respecting corporations obtained by the income tax division of the Department of National Revenue.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to present a bill to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act to provide authority for advances to the corporation by way of loan out of the consolidated revenue fund and to extend the time of operation of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend several statutes to make them applicable to or otherwise conform with the Canadian confederation as and when Newfoundland becomes a province of Canada.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister when provision will be made for answering the sixty-nine questions now on the order paper, and for dealing with notices of motion for production of papers?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall be glad to take the question of the leader of the opposition as notice. I will discuss the matter with my colleagues and give an answer at the earliest opportunity.



REVISION OF STANDING ORDERS


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Has the government given consideration to recommending to the house the adoption of any of the proposed changes in standing orders that were recommended to the house last session by a committee of which Your Honour was chairman, and the report of which, as the Prime Minister will recall, was unanimous?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has been discussing the recommendations that were made by that committee, but feels that there should be informal discussions with the various groups in the house before deciding whether or not they should be brought forward during this session. It is a matter which does, of course, affect the way in which government business can be dealt with in the house, but primarily it affects the rights and privileges of members of the house. Therefore the government would not be disposed to recommend these modifications unless, after informal discussions, it appeared to be the desire of a large number of members of the house that an opportunity be afforded to discuss them.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: May I
ask the Prime Minister if any opportunity will be given to try out at this session, on an experimental basis, a change in the hours of sitting of the house by advancing the time of the sitting by, say, an hour?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If I remember correctly that was one of the recommendations, and naturally it will be considered when the recommendations are before the house, if it is found desirable to bring them before the house.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter which I suggest does require that some information be given to the house, in view of other proceedings which will be taking place. In a radio speech last night the Prime Minister said, in part:
You all know that the terms of confederation are set out in the British North America Act. That act is the foundation of the Canadian union. The British North America Act is a most important part of the Canadian constitution. But it is also a statute of the British parliament. Every time we Canadians want any change made in the British North America Act we have to go through the form of getting the change made by the parliament of the United Kingdom. As a Canadian I do not like to have to do that. What is more, I feel sure, the United Kingdom parliament does not like it either. I believe we Canadians should work out a method of making our constitutional changes right here in Canada.
In view of the fact that certain matters are before the house which may well raise a question as to the necessity of amendment of the British North America Act, I believe the house should be informed this afternoon whether it is the intention of the government to take proceedings which would have the result of empowering the parliament of

Canada to change our constitution, and if so, whether that is to be done without consulting the provincial governments.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, no one could contemplate anything of that kind without consulting the provincial governments. As the leader of the opposition knows, there was a consultation with the provincial governments ten or twelve years ago, perhaps more than that. The negotiations reached a stage where it was required to have the provincial governments consider the situation as it had developed throughout the conference. While that consideration was being given by some of the provincial governments, there was a provincial election in my province which brought about a change in government, and the matter dropped. The procedure which I believe would be required to deal with a question of the kind would be similar to that which was followed at that time, some twelve or fourteen years ago.


George Alexander Drew: May we take it, then, that it is not the intention of the government to deal with this subject during the current session?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, no. I do not think it would be possible to complete the preliminary negotiations which would be required to give to this matter the serious consideration it deserves, in time to enable us to have anything for parliament to consider at this session. It is probably one of the most serious steps since confederation for the people of Canada to contemplate. I think it would be desirable, if we can find a method that would satisfy the two requirements I mentioned in my radio broadcast last night, to have the power to deal with constitutional amendments here. But I pointed out that on the one hand we would not want a constitution so rigid that it would be a strait-jacket on the Canadian people and prevent the proper development of our national personality, and on the other hand there would have to be the most positive safeguard for all the historic rights which are to a certain extent safeguarded by the act as it exists at present.


Mr. Coldwell:: I was going to ask the same question.



PARTICIPATION BY CANADA IN MAINTENANCE OF AIR OPERATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I am not
taking any part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I understood him to say that Canada has taken no part in the maintenance of air supremacy at Berlin

because it was not invited to do so. As I understand it, the government is not taking any part, although the Canadian Legion have asked the government to do so. As I see it, if the west is driven out of Berlin-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: -we will lose supremacy of the seas. Is the minister prepared to make a statement on the question?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am not quite sure whether I understood the exact purport of the hon. gentleman's question. I should like to answer it, but I would wish to answer it correctly. I think I had better wait until I see it in Hansard and answer it at the first available opportunity.



PASSPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: In
view of recent press reports indicating that there is racketeering in and fraudulent use of passports, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs make a statement as to what steps his department is taking to guard against the improper use of Canadian passports?
Hon L. B. Pearson (Secreiary of State for External Affairs): The hon. member was good enough to advise me of his intention to ask this question. I have been able to get some information bearing on the point which he has raised. The inquiries I have been able to make-they have not yet been exhaustive -do not bear out the suggestion that there has been extensive racketeering in Canadian passports. The present procedure is that an applicant for a Canadian passport is required to complete an application form which contains information as to his name in full, occupation, place of residence, and citizenship. He also gives such physical description as will reasonably ensure his identification. A photograph of the applicant is attached to the application form. Attached to the form also is a declaration to be completed by one of a number of classes of persons who may themselves readily be identified in the community. The person who makes this declaration must certify that he has known the applicant, and must identify the photograph. Heavy penalties are provided by law in the case of a person who misrepresents or conceals the facts in making application for a passport, or who falsely represents himself to be a Canadian.
No indication of any widespread impropriety in the use of Canadian passports has been revealed. Nevertheless the officers of my department are constantly on the alert 29087-16
Inquiries of the Ministry for abuses, and are taking the necessary corrective or precautionary measures.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to follow up that question by asking the minister another. Why is it that since January 1 no renewals have been allowed, that those applying for renewals have had to take out new passports?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot give the answer to that question at the moment, but I shall get the information and give it to the hon. member later.



OLEOMARGARINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Assiniboia):: Is the
government taking any steps under the pure food laws to protect consumers from fraud through the unrestricted sale of margarine?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer is yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Edward George McCullough: If I may
ask a further question, will the minister tell the house what steps are being taken?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under the authority of the Food and Drugs Act the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare, in the food and drugs division, are watching this product, and all others offered for sale to the consuming public, to make sure that no substance or product is offered which is injurious to health.



ALBERTA LIBERALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi Fair (Baffle River):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters), based on an article which appeared in the press yesterday, coming from the Canadian Press, under date of February 2, and emanating from Calgary. The article reads in part as follows:
In an address before more than two hundred delegates attending the annual convention of the Alberta Liberal Association, Mr. Winters said-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
knows it is against the rules to read from newspaper clippings when asking questions on the orders of the day. He should not give information to the house; he should ask for information.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Fair: Then I need not quote the article, but in effect the minister stated that at least seventy-five per cent of the people of Canada are Liberals at heart.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Fair: Then he went on to say, "They are ours for the asking; let's go out and get them." Based on that, I wonder if the minister would care to venture a guess as to what will be the success of his party in the province of Alberta at the next election.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: After visiting that convention, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I was a little modest in my estimate.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: I should like to reply to a question asked on Monday last by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), as to the steps being taken to see that the houses of the Bow River Construction Company at Calgary are completed.
The answer is that although the lending institution and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are mortgagees only and are not parties to the contractual relationship between the builder and the veteran, every effort has been made to find a solution which will allow this project, now in default, to proceed. In the case of owners in possession, an offer has been made to increase the mortgages so that they may pay the liens and complete the houses. Where veterans take advantage of this offer it should be possible to effect a satisfactory solution. For those not yet in possession because the houses are incomplete, the lending institution has offered to buy the purchasers' equity.
Although the houses cannot be completed until financial arrangements are made by the purchasers, every effort is being made to find a way to bring the project to completion.


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: If I may
ask the minister a supplementary question, I should like to know who appointed the contractor and what inquiry was made with respect to his ability, either by practice or his financial position, to carry out the project?


Robert Henry Winters: I believe a similar question is on the order paper; at any rate I will take this as notice.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Can the minister not tell me now?



PRIZE MONEY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Will the Minister of National Defence, either now or at an early date, make a statement as to the distribution of the $3,000,000 in prize money resulting from the disposition of enemy vessels captured by the navy during the war? I may say I have information that there are a number of complaints with regard to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I can answer the hon. member by saying the government has decided to bring before parliament a measure to provide for the distribution of prize money received from the pool of prize money obtained from the capture of enemy ships by the nations of the British commonwealth. The share of the total pool which will be received by Canada and payable in Canada will be divided in the proportion of 68 per cent to the navy, and 32 per cent to the air force, which, as hon. members know, participated in the destruction of many enemy ships. The exact form of the measure to be brought before parliament has not yet been determined, because this decision has just been arrived at; but it will provide for the payment of the sums of money to the Royal Canadian naval benevolent fund, in respect of the navy's share, and to the Royal Canadian Air Force benevolent fund in respect of the air force's share.


Some hon. Members:: Where does the army come in?


Brooke Claxton: The army did not share in the destruction of any ships at sea that we know of; their work was on land.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Will the
minister consider making a contribution from this money to the army benevolent fund, because of the fact that the army captured many of the bases and airfields from which the air force and the navy were able to operate?


Brooke Claxton: No, Mr. Speaker; no such consideration will be given.



COARSE GRAINS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ronald Moore (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or his parliamentary assistant. In view of the fact that the government passed legislation in 1948 to provide for the marketing of coarse grains through the wheat board,

is the minister in a position to say whether the government intends to proclaim this legislation in 1949?


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This question involves a pronouncement of government policy, and I am afraid I shall have to leave it for the minister.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. D. F. Brown 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. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my first
words in this debate, indeed my first words in any debate in this house, must be those of appreciation for the privilege of representing the riding of Algoma East. In this riding live friendly and industrious people. It is a riding of great undeveloped resources, of beauty of lake and stream and mountain, which makes it a tourist's paradise. I have been given a very difficult task in succeeding, as member for Algoma East, a man who has now been translated to another place and who held for so long the confidence of his constituents. I shall do my best, Mr. Speaker, to follow his example, both in service to his constituents and in his ability to sit here for so long a time. I already realize there is a connection between those two things.
I should also like to add my very warm congratulations to those that have gone before, to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I assume there will be a debate on external policy later in this session and possibly a debate devoted more particularly to the ratification of the North Atlantic pact. Much, therefore, of what I should like to say in regard to external affairs generally will have to be reserved for those occasions. Today, I should like to attempt to do two things. In the first place, I should like to deal with some of the points that have been raised in this debate concerning international matters. Secondly, I should like to make a few general observations on the international picture with particular reference to communism and the proposed Atlantic pact, both of which are mentioned in the speech from the throne.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) in his speech suggested, if I correctly understood him, that it was a mistake for Canada to become a member of the United 29087-16i
The Address-Mr. Pearson Nations, and that the reference in the speech from the throne to the Atlantic pact constituted an admission by the government of this error in judgment. If I interpret him correctly, he seems to think that the weakness of the United Nations is due to some fault in its structure, and that the members of his group discerned the inadequacy of the United Nations when the charter was signed. No one claims or has ever claimed, Mr. Speaker, that the United Nations charter is a perfect document.
On many occasions this government has expressed the hope that the United Nations will be improved in many respects. The basic difficulty, however, which the United Nations encounters at the moment is not constitutional but political. The unsolved problems which divide the soviet union from the rest of the world today make it impossible, under the present circumstances, for the organization to fulfil all the purposes, or indeed most of the purposes, for which it was designed. It is precisely for this reason that the government is now giving its support to the discussions which are taking place in regard to the North Atlantic pact. By that fact we do not, however, admit that we were wrong in signing the United Nations charter in 1945 or that we are wrong in supporting the United Nations in 1949.
The hon. member for Peace River raised certain other points to which I may just refer, though I am afraid I cannot deal with them in detail. He stated that the unfortunate situation in Berlin, at the present time blockaded, with no corridor leading to the west, could not have been the result of stupidity some years ago, but he suggested it might have been, in part at least, due to the influence of perfidious civil servants. I think those were the words he used. These civil servants, he implied, may have been responsible at that time for keeping Great Britain and the United States out of Berlin and permitting the Russians to enter ahead of them before the end of the war. It has been pointed out on numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, that that particular decision which resulted in the occupation of Berlin by the soviet union was made not by civil servants, perfidious or otherwise, but by the supreme commander himself, General Eisenhower.
The hon. member also referred somewhat critically to his experience in Germany when he witnessed the dismantling of a steel plant which was going to Yugoslavia. The house will recognize of course that, since Canada is not an occupying power in Germany, we are not directly concerned with these matters which fall within the province of Great Britain, France and the United States. I believe the hon. member said this was a matter about which I should be informing

The Address-Mr. Pearson myself and, therefore, I should like merely to tell him that, in my opinion, this might well have been a legitimate procedure because reparations from Germany were worked out at an international conference at which an overriding agency was set up on reparations to be levied on Germany. These reparations were to be divided by percentages among the eighteen active belligerents. These belligerents were entitled to take their share, and no doubt this was part of Yugoslavia's share, Yugoslavia having been a devastated country.
The hon. member then referred to the question of steel scrap in the Ruhr valley and the many millions of tons which were lying there idle. He believed that steps should be taken to get it out of Germany. Such steps are being taken. I believe the day before he arrived in Germany, early in October, an agreement had been reached between the United Kingdom and the United States by which 500,000 tons of this scrap was to be sent to each of those countries, and 225,000 tons to the other countries. It is hoped that within the present year more than two million tons of this scrap will have left Germany. Indeed, it is hoped some of it will come to Canada.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked if we could state the views of the government on the situation in the Pacific. He believed the House of Commons was entitled to have those views at a time when we were talking so much about the Atlantic. I would remind the house that last year in the discussion on external affairs there was a very complete statement by the then Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). At that time, he dealt with the Pacific, and I hope there will be an opportunity at this session for me to go into greater detail on this subject than at present. I should like to quote one sentence from a statement made last year by our present Prime Minister when he said:
It is also the view of the Canadian government that the immediate menace of communism in the far east should not be met by the restoration of Japan to a position of such power she could once again become a threat to peace.
That remains the policy of the Canadian government.
The hon. member for Vancouver South, not unnaturally, was somewhat perturbed lest the preoccupation of the government with the Atlantic pact might indicate we were not alive to our responsibilities in the Pacific. I can assure him, however, there is no better way of ensuring the security of the Pacific ocean at this particular moment than by working out, between the great democratic powers, a security arrangement the effects of 

which will be felt all over the world, including the Pacific area. Our preoccupation at the moment with the North Atlantic alliance does not suggest that the government need do nothing in regard to the Pacific. We are, in fact, actively participating in the far eastern commission. We maintain a diplomatic mission in Tokyo. We took part in the commonwealth discussions in 1947 in Canberra. In various other ways, we are participating in Pacific affairs.
In his remarks the hon. member for Vancouver South referred to newspaper reports which stated that some Pacific bloc was being formed. He wondered why the government had not made any announcement in regard to that situation. I can tell him and the house that, so far as we are concerned, no proposals of that kind have been made to us by any government. We have no knowledge whatever of proposals for a Pacific alliance, nor have we been asked to give our blessing to any such proposals. The statement which he read, and which I have also seen, was a purely speculative one and, so far as we know, had no foundation at all.
To deal with more general subjects now, Mr. Speaker, I should like for a short time to give the house a review-and it can be only a cursory review at this time-of the international position as I see it. Naturally that position still gives cause for much anxiety. However, the situation should be considered, I suggest, without panic but without illusions. There is no doubt that fear has gripped the world again, fear arising primarily out of the extension of the brutal domination of revolutionary communism, based on the massive and expanding militarism of totalitarian Russia.
As yet, though there is still no ground for undue optimism, there has been, I think it is safe to say, an easing of the tension in recent months. Hon. members, and in fact the people throughout this country, will be asking themselves the question, why is that? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is certainly not due to the so-called peace overtures which have recently been made in Moscow, in Rome and in Paris, by communist leaders. To my mind it would, of course, be folly and even worse to reject or discourage any genuine move toward a peaceful solution of the problems that divide the world today between the democratic west and the totalitarian east. In this connection the house, and I am sure the country, will have read with much interest the answers given recently by the head of the soviet government to certain questions asked him by a United States newspaper correspondent. I suggest that we should be careful, in our reaction to these answers, not to

confuse words with deeds or to be lured by them into wishful thinking. There is no doubt that much of the icy dread and fear in the world today would tend to melt away under the warm radiance of Mr. Stalin's smile if he could only hold it, and if it were the smile of genuine friendship. But Mr. Stalin himself has said that "there is no logic stronger than the logic of facts." That is true, and I think it can be applied to statements which come from Moscow or indeed from any other capital. The leader of the soviet government also once said to a journalist:
The export of revolution?-that is nonsense.
But to his own people he has said in the soviet bible, which is called Problems of Leninism:
The goal is to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, using it as a base for the overthrow of imperialism-
-that is noncommunism-
-in all countries.
The people of Czechoslovakia know which of these statements is true. The leader of Russia and his followers in the various countries may now be willing to issue conciliatory statements. Of course, we should not go out of our way to rebuff them but at the same time we should not forget, in our anxiety to go far beyond half way to meet peace, that those leaders have affirmed and reaffirmed that it is inconceivable that communism and the soviet republic should continue to exist indefinitely side by side with capitalistic states. "Ultimately", Mr. Stalin has said, "one or the other must conquer." By peaceful means? There is nothing of this in the communist dogma. Let me quote again from Stalin. He said:
Transition from capitalism to socialism can be accomplished not by means of slow change, not by means of reform, but by means of revolution.
In bringing about this revolution, tactics of course may change and misleading answers may be given to questions asked by American journalists, and which the soviet people are not allowed to see; but the strategy outlined above remains fixed and consistent. Again to quote Stalin, and I think this is the last time that I shall have to draw on his speeches or books in this speech of mine, he said:
. . . Tactics change dozens of times, whereas the strategical plans remain unchanged. Tactics deal with the forms of struggle and the forms of organization of the proletariat, with their changes and combinations . . . The object of this strategy is to gain time, to demoralize the enemy, and to accumulate forces in order later to assume the offensive.
Is it any wonder, therefore, that the western world looks to the future with anxiety?
Men of good will continually and rightly hope for a basic change in the relations of
The Address-Mr. Pearson soviet Russia with the noncommunist world. But easy optimism and self-delusion are disastrous substitutes for cool analysis and consistent policies. The door to real co-operation should always be open but not to admit Trojan horses.
If then, Mr. Speaker, the tension has recently decreased-and I think it has-it is not because of words which have come out of Moscow or because of any fundamental alteration in communist doctrine. It is because of the policy of steady but unprovocative resistance to communist aggression; of progress toward an Atlantic security league; of the steps taken to restore the military and economic strength of western Europe. These policies are working and they may have provoked one of those recurring changes in communist tactics of which we have had examples in the past.
We may welcome any such change, but we should not permit it to divert us from the course that may well have brought about the change. We should keep on the road which the democracies have recently been following and which is the best road to peace.
We must continue the policy of deepening and broadening the basis of economic and social co-operation between free democratic states; of pressing forward toward economic and social justice within our own states. By showing that democracy can contribute more to the dignity and well-being of the citizen than communism can ever hope to do, we are making our best ultimate contribution to the defence, the "home defence", against communism. This, however, will not be effective if we rely exclusively on the building up of armed forces or if we allow ourselves to be frightened into reaction and repression. In every country the communists have two great allies, social and economic injustice on the one hand, and political reaction on the other. If we can destroy these allies and build up a strong, healthy, and progressive society on a democratic foundation, we can destroy communism. That should be, I suggest, our purpose and our objective.
But, while we are attempting to reach this objective, immediate protection is necessary against aggressive forces outside our country allied to subversive forces within it. If these aggressive forces should lead the world once again into war in a struggle between totalitarian communism and our Christian democratic way of life, Canada, in my view, could not and should not remain aloof. If we attempted to do so and the other free democracies, including our two mother countries and our neighbour, were involved, as they would be, what would happen then?
Leaving aside for the moment the diplomatic and strategic strain that this would put

The Address-Mr. Pearson on relationship with our mother countries and our neighbour, isolation would split our own country wide open in a way which we have avoided happily, but not too easily, in two world wars. It would be the end of Canadian unity, and therefore it would be the end of the Canadian nation. For this reason alone, Mr. Speaker, and quite apart from the fact that the next war, if we permit it to occur, would make the last one like a militia skirmish, the foreign policy of this government must be directed to one single end, the avoidance by every means within its power of this atomic catastrophe.
How can we do this? By burying our heads in the snow and allowing others to make the decisions, without our participation, which would bind us in spite of ourselves? There is no safety there. Or relying wholly on the United Nations? That to my mind would be clearly unrealistic, because that body, though it must remain the basis of our policy on international co-operation, and we should spare no effort to improve and strengthen it, remains, under present circumstances, quite unable to provide the means by which any country can ensure its security; nor does it, in present circumstances, provide an effective instrument for use in removing the causes of war.
What is the remedy, then? Surely, Mr. Speaker, the best way to minimize the possibility of war is for the free nations to stand together on a regional basis, and, by doing so, to make it clear that no aggressor has any possible chance of winning any war which he may be tempted to start. It is necessary to accumulate enough force now to preserve freedom in order that ultimately freedom can be preserved without force. This force must be organized in such a way as to ensure that it will guarantee that the free nations cannot be defeated one by one. This is the policy, sir, which I think would have prevented war in 1914 and in 1939. It is our best hope of preventing war in the years ahead. It is a policy of peace.
In the pursuit of this policy, the government has been for some months now negotiating with other north Atlantic countries who share our democratic ideals a treaty for collective defence, which would strengthen the national security of each of the participants. I hope that these discussions, which have been taking place in Washington on an ambassadorial level, will soon be concluded, and that the representatives who have been participating in them will be able to submit to their governments a complete draft of a north Atlantic treaty, which in its essentials at least can, I hope, be made public at the same time that it is submitted to govern-


ments. The next stage will be a careful study by each government, and careful examination by the public opinion of each country, of the principles embodied in this draft. Amendments can be submitted, and then a conference will be held at which I hope the treaty can be signed. It would then be for each government to submit the treaty to its legislature, in the democratic way, for approval or rejection.
What has been said about this proposed Atlantic pact in the present debate, Mr. Speaker? The leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) has declared that his party agrees that Canada should support and join such a north Atlantic pact. Similarly the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) said the other night:
We of the Social Credit organization favour the Atlantic pact and support it.
There is, however, Mr. Speaker, a serious omission in the unanimity with which this matter is otherwise regarded in the house in that no single Progressive Conservative member has so much as mentioned the pact. I think I am not strictly accurate in that statement, because the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) did mention it. He said that he thought we were busy on it. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew), the leader of the official opposition, went back two thousand years and talked about the Achaean league, which he seemed to think was a federal state, but he had not a word to say about the Atlantic league of 1949. In his opening speech, all that the leader of the Conservative party had to say about international affairs was:
No one will disagree with the fact that the first concern of this and every other government and every other parliamentary body is to do everything humanly possible to preserve the peace and to protect the people in the country which it serves.
That of course is quite true and very well said; but why this omission? Why no reference of any kind to this very important measure which is forecast in the speech from the throne? Is this parliament not united in the objectives that we are seeking through this pact? Or are any of us playing politics with peace at this time?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Would the hon. member permit one question?


Mr. Graydon:: The first speech and he plays politics.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the minister permit one question? In view of the fact that foreign policy has been a matter of co-operation of all parties, does the minister think he is doing any good now by making this a political issue?


Gordon Graydon: We expected more of him than this.


Mr. Abbott:: Suppose you listen to the answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is because I think and hope that the foreign policy of this country can be the foreign policy of all parties in this house and of all sections of opinion in this country that I am so disappointed that no reference to this important aspect of foreign policy was mentioned in any speech from the other side of the house. I agree that foreign policy should be as nonpartisan as is consistent with responsible government and I hope it will continue that way.


Gordon Graydon: That is a poor way to start.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why did the government cut off the debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted without his permission.


Gordon Graydon: That is bargain-counter politics; that is all.


Mr. Sinclair:: The big foreign affairs expert.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Cheap playing with the nation's future.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The reason I mentioned this particular matter, and this important omission, is that it seemed to me that I have been reading about and hearing about speeches on foreign policy made in other parts of this country which are far removed indeed from some of the statements that have been made in this house. That is why I express the hope once again that we will not play politics with peace in this house.


Gordon Graydon: Hear, hear; give us an example of that. The minister had better set the example on that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have known the hon. member for Peel for a long time, and I do not think he believes for a minute that he is going to be able to intimidate me or throw me off my balance.


Gordon Graydon: He won't show you how to play politics.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He used to be so effective, Mr. Speaker, in our college debating society. May I return to the main stream of my remarks. May I mention to the house certain principles which have guided the Washington discussions about which I have just spoken, and which will be embodied in the resulting treaty. In the first place, this pact will be a regional agreement, if it is concluded, under the united nations charter. It should be subject to the provisions of the charter and it
The Address-Mr. Pearson should be registered with the United Nations, which it is designed not to replace but to supplement. Indeed, if by some chance the security council of the United Nations should become an effective body for the preservation of peace, then our Atlantic pact would be unnecessary and it could be allowed to disappear.
We should also make sure that the Atlantic pact does not become merely a screen for narrow nationalist suspicions and fears; an instrument of unimaginative militarism or an agency of power politics or imperialistic ambitions of any of its members. In this respect I agree entirely with what was said the other evening by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I feel strongly, as he does and as I am sure all hon. members do, that this regional association must be far more than a military alliance. It must make a collective contribution to the social and economic betterment of the peoples of its member states.
In the past, alliances and leagues have always been formed to meet emergencies and have dissolved as the emergencies vanished. It must not be so this time. Our Atlantic union must have a deeper meaning and deeper roots. It must create the conditions for a kind of co-operation which goes beyond the immediate emergency. Threats to peace may bring our Atlantic pact into existence. Its contribution to welfare and progress may determine how long it is to survive. The Canadian government, therefore, attaches great importance to the part which the pact may play in the encouragement of peacetime co-operation between the signatories in the economic, social and cultural fields.
There is another point and it is for us an important one. The parliament of Canada, when the time comes, must be in a position to take its decision, in regard to this proposed security pact, deliberately and in full knowledge of what it means. The nature of the obligations which we undertake must be clear. Further, our own constitutional processes by which we call these obligations into action must be preserved. There must be mutual confidence and mutual trust in the will and ability of each member of the league to discharge its responsibilities. This mutual confidence is something which we do not now find in the United Nations, and it is a fatal defect in that organization at the present time. In our Atlantic league we can hope that the situation will be different.
Canada's obligation under this pact, however, must be within the measure of our resources and as part of the plans agreed to by all and by which each member of the group does the job for which it is best qualified. If I were asked now what precisely

The Address-Mr. Pearson those obligations will be, what they will involve, I would have to reply that I am not at the moment in a position to answer. But I can say this:	The pact will be a group
insurance policy and group insurance is cheaper and more effective than any individual policy.
Finally, every member of the group must share in all the decisions of the group even though we may recognize that the greater responsibility of some in carrying out these decisions must give their views special weight in reaching them. The treaty must therefore establish a constitutional basis by which that which concerns all is decided by all. Canada is no satellite of any country and would not be one in this association. If Canada is to be asked to share the obligations of the group, it must also share in the responsibility for determining how those obligations shall be met. On no other basis could Canada, or indeed any self-respecting state, sign such a pact.
On the other hand, it is by full partnership in a group of this kind that we can best hope to exert any influence which we possess to ensure that peaceful policies are followed by all its members.
This Atlantic pact, if we can bring it to a successful conclusion, does not give us the certainty of peace. No pact, no human achievement can do that. But it may give us a chance to establish peace in the future; and it is essential to our security in the present. It is certainly our best hope now for the prevention of aggression. It is our best hope for the establishment of relations between the two worlds on a basis, if not of friendship, at least of mutual toleration. That would give us time for men's minds to change and their souls to be freed so that toleration may turn to something better. That is all that we can ask for at this time from an Atlantic pact, but that is much and I think it is within our grasp.
In this breathing space which we may now secure, there will be time to resolve the eternal struggle that goes on between conflict and co-operation; the paradox of good in the midst of evil, of life in the midst of death. That paradox, and the utter futility of war as a method of resolving it, was never more dramatically illustrated than by the fact that the same bombers and bomber pilots who smashed Berlin and its people in 1945 are keeping those people alive in 1949.
There is nothing inevitable about war; there is nothing unchangeable about evil. If we of the free world can pursue the firm and constructive policies of resistance to communism that are now in train, refusing to be dazzled by the delusions of appeasement or stampeded by the rash counsels of panicky

men, we may emerge from this wasteland of our post-war world into greener fields.
I feel certain that the people of Canada will support this Atlantic pact because it can lead us just in that direction. They will support it, not primarily because under it they can successfully wage war but because it will help them successfully to wage peace.
We Canadians know that, no matter how great the effort we make, how large the armed force we may try to build up, how peacefully we may behave, we cannot preserve our security and maintain our freedom by our own unaided efforts. To do this we must join our fortunes with those of the other north Atlantic democracies.
This is for us a new venture. But it is also a new adventure. It is an adventure in the building of a new community-the north Atlantic community. This year 1949 is an historic one for Canada. By union with Newfoundland we shall complete the work of confederation begun long ago. By helping to create a north Atlantic pact we shall have begun the work of uniting the north Atlantic community.


Mr. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be of appreciation for the kindly greetings which have been extended to me by all members of the house regardless of the side upon which they sit. In that connection I should like particularly to express my personal appreciation of the greetings tendered me by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). These are things that shall never be forgotten. I realize that some of these expressions may be tinged with regret, but I realize also that they are nonetheless sincere and they certainly are most welcome.
If it were not for the ordeal confronting me I would think that this was a most pleasant place in which to find one's self. I am sure that I have the sympathy of all those who have preceded me in this rather trying experience.
I appreciate that on an occasion such as this one does not engage in partisan political discussion. I trust I will have the indulgence and forbearance of the house. I should also like to express my best wishes and congratulations to those other fellow sufferers of the other afternoon who were introduced to the house prior to myself. I am sure that like myself they found the walk from the door to the clerk's table one of the longest walks upon which they ever entered in their lifetime.
I think most of them have already participated in the debates of the House of Commons despite the fact that only a little over one week has elapsed. I wish to congratulate all of them and express my good wishes to them,

although I do not want that remark to indicate my agreement with all the remarks of the last speaker, who, I think, very unfortunately interjected a political atmosphere into something which should be absolutely devoid of politics. Perhaps it would not be amiss to remind the hon. gentleman that those on this side of the house, in order to keep external affairs out of politics, sedulously avoided contesting the election so that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) might enter the house as he did.
I understand it is appropriate at this time to make some passing reference to the constituency which one has the honour to represent. If I embarked upon that course it would exhaust the time that is allotted to me. Therefore I will simply say in passing that my constituency is a sort of microcosm of Canada. The home of the first government of Canada was in my constituency. It is the land of Evangeline, the background for the expulsion of the Acadians. I am sure that British Columbia members will admit that we grow the finest apples in the world.
I will proceed to other matters without further remarks on that score.
There are various matters of local interest to which I should like to refer. I think we all appreciate that an occasion such as this is perhaps not the best time to deal with them. There are many that perhaps would be dealt with better when the estimates are before the house. I do not intend to enter upon a discussion of local matters to any greater extent than necessary. It is true, however, that the result of the election in my riding was, to some extent, determined by the fact that the people wanted certain protests uttered, and certain demands brought before the House of Commons.
With your permission I should like to refer for a few moments to matters which, although of local interest, may have some interest outside of my own constituency. I should like to say something about our fishermen. When I say "fishermen" I do not mean the fishermen of the riding of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) who go out on the banks in schooners. I wish to deal with inshore fishermen only.
We have many of them in my constituency. During the last few years United States trawlers have dragged along the coast line of the United States until the fishing grounds there are certainly depleted. Whether that is due to this or other causes may be a matter for argument. As a result, United States trawlers are now appearing off our own coast in ever-increasing numbers. The livelihood of the inshore fishermen of my constituency and of the maritimes-I know noth-
The Address-Mr. Nowlan ing about the west-is threatened because of this practice. As I understand it, under international law these heavy United States, trawlers can drag to within three miles of our coast line. Yet Canadian trawlers, built with Canadian money and manned by Canadian crews, are prevented by government, policy-and, I suggest, proper policy-from fishing within twelve miles of our coast. I suggest that it is a rather anomalous situation that Canadian fishing vessels, manned by Canadian seamen, should be prevented from fishing within twelve miles of our coast, whereas United States fishermen on United States trawlers are permitted to fish within three miles of our coast. It is a situation which should be rectified.
Not too many years ago, the Department of Justice was not slow in moving the three-mile limit out to twelve miles when it was a question of catching rum-runners hovering off the coasts of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. During the first great war the navy decided to scrap the old three-mile limit and move it out to twelve miles. I believe this is a matter with which the government should deal. It is my understanding that at the present time there is proceeding an international conference on fisheries. I would suggest to the Minister-of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew), and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, who I know, has a tremendous interest in the matter, that this question should be taken up at that conference and some arrangement made concerning it. If that is not possible, then I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if this is not a proper matter for negotiation with Washington. It must be done, and it can be done. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs undoubtedly knows, in so far as the bay of Fundy is concerned, this is an open question. If you read the correspondence between Mr. Bacon, who was Secretary of State at Washington, and Lord Bryce, you will find that the British claimed the bay of Fundy was coastal waters, and the United States said it was a part of the high seas. They both agreed to disagree, and to keep the matter open for future reference. I suggest that the time has now come to settle this matter once and for all, and I urge upon the government the necessity of taking action which will avoid the absolute ruin of our inshore fishermen.
Nor is that all of the trawler story. Not only are United States trawlers fishing outside the three-mile limit, but persistently and consistently they are fishing inside that limit-under cover of darkness, and sometimes in broad daylight. They drift to within a short distance of our coast line. As a matter of fact, on more than one occasion lobster
242	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nowlan traps set within a few hundred yards of our coast line have been caught up by the trawls of United States trawlers. This matter has caused a great deal of concern to Canadian fishermen. It is bad enough to have the three-mile limit, but not to be able to enforce it is something which causes dissatisfaction. The reason for that is that we have in that area only one small, old and inefficient patrol boat, the Capelin. In a stiff breeze no self-respecting sailor would embark upon her because he would realize that he was risking his life. That boat has to tie up at night because it cannot patrol after dark. Representations were made to me by the fishermen a short time ago. I took up the matter with the Department of Fisheries, and as a result of my representations the superintendent of the fisheries department at Moncton sent the big patrol boat, the Cygnus, down to the bay of Fundy. I am sure that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the Minister of Fisheries know what result attended upon that. On its first patrol of the bay of Fundy the Cygnus caught a United States trawler within two and a half miles of the Nova Scotia coast line.
If one had the time it would be rather interesting to read the newspaper stories which appeared last week concerning this matter. The first day there was a glaring headline announcing the seizure, and a picture of the boat with men of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police guarding it. The next day the statement appeared that the boat was going to be forfeited and sold. Then there were stories of protests from various places outside the country, but the department still stood firm and said that the boat was going to be sold. On the next day there was a suggestion that possibly the boat might be released in order to engage in fishing, but that a deposit would have to be made with the department. Then the next day, Friday to be exact, the Minister of Justice issued a little statement-for which he should be commended, because it was certainly brief and economical-in which he said that on his instructions the Araho was being released immediately. I asked if it was released without a deposit, and he replied that it was; therefore the incident is closed.
I presume the department felt this was a proper case in which justice should be tempered with mercy, and perhaps one should not quarrel too much with that point of view. But I am sure neither the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) nor the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson)-and I am certain not the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters)-would be so naive as to accept the explanation that the radio direction finder 

was out of order, and that this was the reason this boat was within two and a half miles of our coast line. These were deep-sea fishermen. They could tell by glancing across the water, either by day or by night, whether they were within one, two or three hundred yards or one, two or three miles of the coast line, and no radio direction finder was needed. It is the story we always hear when the murderer is caught; he says the gun went off by accident.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, two things are necessary. In the first place the Cygnus must be maintained in those waters, and in the second place more and more efficient patrol boats must be built. In that connection I should like to mention another matter which has been advocated by the Halifax Herald from time to time and which I think is in the thoughts of most people in the maritimes. We are a maritime people. We are proud of our sailors, proud of our fishermen; yet on our eastern coast, at any rate- whether or not this is so on the west coast I do not know-we do not have any coastguard service whatever. When our ships get into trouble we have to call upon the United States coastguard to help us out. They have done so generously and well. I realize that in this modern day and age the aeroplane renders wonderful service, and certainly the search and rescue squad of the R.C.A.F. at Dartmouth, and now at Greenwood, has rendered yeoman service. But aeroplanes cannot rescue drowning sailors; and I suggest that to help maintain the traditions of Canada as a great maritime nation we must have an efficient coastguard service to help our sailors and carry out the work which has to be carried out in that connection.
Then, Mr. Speaker, if we had a patrol service and a coastguard service I believe the difficulties of the fishermen would be met temporarily, at least until such time as it is possible to negotiate a treaty under which the coastal line may be moved further off shore.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer, a matter which has been mentioned in this house a great deal, of course, during the last few days; that is, the plight in which our farmers find themselves. We in our constituency are particularly conscious of that situation, because the fruit growers of the Annapolis valley have been largely dependent upon the export markets of Great Britain and, to some extent, western Europe. Those markets have been lost to us, first because of the war and now because of sterling restrictions. This applies not only to apples. This week here on parliament hill we saw a committee representing all the poultry raisers of Canada, who were worrying about the restriction of their markets, and who could see that within the immediate

future their industry might be facing disaster. Our fishermen are facing restricted markets because of lack of sterling; our lumbermen see the possibility that the British market may be closed to them through restrictions on sterling, and they are facing a most serious situation.
All these primary producers are in difficulties. This government has inaugurated a system of price support, and that is good. However, I am sure the minister and everyone else will admit that price support in itself is not a solution. We see these surpluses starting to build up; and what the end may be it is hard for any of us to say. I think we must go further than that, even as a temporary measure. Many may not like it; there are those, I know, who are violently opposed to it, but some system of controlled, orderly marketing of all these surpluses which are starting to overhang the markets of this country and of the world must be developed. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) one step I believe he should seriously consider; that is, the inauguration of a natural products marketing act. I believe the minister is giving this matter consideration; I hope he is, as I know he has been giving consideration to many of these matters for a long time. So I do urge upon him the importance of this action.
But that would not be a final solution. You can have your price support; you can have your marketing act; but the only possible solution in the long run is some action to regain the markets of western Europe, Great Britain and the entire sterling area. Unless that is done I believe our producers may be in great difficulties and even reduced to the level of a peasant economy. Our principal market has been across the seas, and without that export market we may barely eke out an existence. Thousands may be forced to migrate, as has been suggested; and the economy of the country may be permanently impaired.
I am not suggesting for a moment, of course, that this government is wholly responsible for the loss of the sterling markets. We all realize that various factors enter into this matter. There was the war; there have been the controls which have come on since, and the various policies of other governments. All these things enter into the situation. I do believe there has been a trend of thought-perhaps a proper one-that Canada was going to develop into a great industrial nation because of changes that have occurred in regard to natural resources and so on, and that during the coming years we would see an increasing flow of goods to the south, with the result
The Address-Mr. Nowlan Canada would become a wealthy exporting nation, sending tremendous quantities of goods to our neighbour the United States. Then we would be wealthy and powerful, and exchange restrictions would be a thing of the past. That is a pleasant picture, and it may become a true one; it may materialize within the next twenty-five years. Given that development; given migration; given an increase in population, and all these things can happen. But, sir, that is not a solution for the people of this generation. They will not live long enough to benefit from those markets. They must regain the overseas markets.
So if this government is vulnerable-and I think perhaps it is on some points-I would suggest with respect that there are two points on which I would differ markedly with it. One of these points, of course, is only indirectly in reference to sterling; but I think the financial policy of tying our dollar to parity with the United States dollar brought a great deal of economic loss and disaster and prejudiced our dealings with the sterling area. More than that, I believe there has been a tendency, probably not on the part of the minister but on the part of officials in various departments, to assume that Great Britain was through, that sterling never again would be convertible, and that those of us who had any hope of regaining access to the markets of western Europe or Great Britain were living in a fool's paradise and ought to resign ourselves to the harsh facts of life. I think there was and probably still is an attitude of defeatism in that respect, Mr. Speaker, which has motivated this government in not proceeding as aggressively as I think it should in trying to rectify these difficulties and get us back into the sterling area.
We talk a great deal about the iron curtain; in his speech this afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) referred to it. There is another curtain which is causing almost as much trouble in the world, economically. That is the curtain which is hanging across the world with a dollar sign painted on one side and the pound sterling painted on the other.
That curtain must be lifted, sir, so that people can trade easily back and forth. Unless that is done the primary producers of this nation face disaster. This government must do something about it. Without interjecting political complications into this opening debate, I say this, that if this government does not succeed in overcoming this difficulty, with respect to trading in the sterling area, then as surely as day follows night it will be replaced by another government which will attempt, and will finally succeed in doing so.
844	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nowlan
There is a minor matter relating to agriculture to which I should not refer at all perhaps at this time, and that is the plight of the potato growers in my province. I know it is a matter of which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has considerable knowledge. It is the unsatisfactory situation in which we find ourselves in Nova Scotia, not only from an economic standpoint, but it is also definitely irritating to the pride of the people of that province. I am not criticizing this government for what it originally did. It had to take some action. The only trouble was that it moved too late. We were embargoed, kept out of the United States market, in so far as table potatoes were concerned.
Then, this government proceeded to set floor prices for potatoes grown in certain parts of New Brunswick, floor prices for potatoes grown in Prince Edward Island, but no floor prices for potatoes grown in Nova Scotia.


An hon. Member:: How about Manitoba?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not know about Manitoba; that is a matter for the Manitoba members themselves to discuss. I am saying that the minister well knows the situation that developed. Unfortunately, perhaps there were election complications injected into it. Assurances were given that floor prices would be forthcoming. A floor price has not been established as yet, as far as I know. Certainly, it is not in effect today.
As a result, potatoes are being sold in my constituency today for export. They are being bagged, graded and trucked, and all those expenses are being paid by the grower who receives less than the floor price that is promised to the growers of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island next April.
Next April those growers will receive a greater amount for the potatoes in their cellars, in bins, unpacked, ungraded, and all the rest of it, than our growers now receive for potatoes graded and delivered. You talk about your iron curtain! In our case, there fell across the strait of Chignecto an iron curtain which made it impossible for us to export potatoes and which kept the money of the government from coming in.
Speaking of Nova Scotia products, I am reminded of something which I saw in the speech from the throne. There is a reference to loans which are being made for the development of the steel industry. I am glad to see that, sir. I trust, not only that legislation will be introduced to that effect, but that that legislation will afterwards be implemented, because in Nova Scotia we have the potentialities for a tremendous steel industry.
I hope and expect that this government will inaugurate a policy under which the steel 

industry will be enlarged and strengthened-If this is done it will provide an additional market for our agricultural products.
In that connection, sir, many statements, have been made in the press lately with respect to a bridge which is or is not to be built across the strait of Canso. I understand the engineers are not yet ready to report on that. Certainly, sir, that must be done. Although I am speaking as a very junior member of this party, judging from the position taken by our party when this matter was discussed in the past, I think I am safe in saying we are unanimously behind this proposal to erect a bridge across the strait of Canso. We believe it must be done by this government at the earliest possible moment.
Dealing with matters of transportation, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to a rather peculiar situation which exists with respect to the Canadian National steamships operating from Halifax to the West Indies. Preliminary surveys show the possibility of developing a small export market for our apples in the West Indies. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) realizes how important that might be. Our apple marketing board has taken this matter up with the management of the Canadian National boats with a view to obtaining the use of cold storage facilities on these boats. Cold storage facilities are essential in exporting apples to that market. We have been told by the management that we should first get the orders and then take the matter up with them and they would see if they could make some arrangements. How in the name of common sense can you get orders for the shipment of apples until you are assured of transportation facilities?
These ships contain at least three cold storage compartments. I quite realize that the beautiful aroma from Nova Scotia apples might affect the butter, eggs or cheese being shipped from Ontario. But at least, it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to reserve one compartment for the shipment of apples during the period when apples are normally exported. It is estimated that, had we been able to ship these apples, we would have exported 10,000 barrels this year. I quite realize that 10,000 barrels does not seem a large amount, but to people suffering from a lack of markets, as our people are, 10,000 barrels is an important amount.
Since the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) is in the house, I should like to mention another matter of transportation. In our constituency, we are not served

directly by the Canadian National Railways. "We are served by the Dominion Atlantic Railway, a subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In the old days, of course, the Dominion Atlantic Railway provided the most efficient means of shipping to an export market. Today, however, we have to pay freight over the Dominion Atlantic Railway to a Canadian National railway point, then pay freight over the Canadian National railways, which means paying freight for goods to travel over that long, tortuous, winding, military road which was built nearly a century ago when we were expecting an invasion from another country. It is absolutely impossible to ship goods efficiently or cheaply over that road. Perishable commodities cannot be shipped over this route at all because the time taken is too great. We have to face the fact that whatever is done in the future, there will be a restriction on the development of the apple industry. We will have to develop other products to some extent. In the meantime, we have to ship those apples wherever we can. We need faster shipping facilities to the markets of the New England states, Montreal and Toronto; that is essential.
I noticed the other day it was suggested that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply would have a billion dollars to spend on public works when the period of unemployment is upon us. I should like to tell him that in my constituency unemployment is present today, and there is a great deal of it. If the lumber situation continues to deteriorate, there will be still more. I suggest that the piers at Saint John and Digby be constructed so that a car ferry can be operated across the bay of Fundy. This would mean that we could ship our goods in carload lots direct to the markets of Montreal, Boston and Toronto. That, sir, is more than a possibility; it is something which I think should be done in the very near future.
One other reference should be made to the apple industry, and with that I shall have finished. Our growers have received, and they appreciate the fact that they have received, from the treasury of the Dominion of Canada, substantial payments during the last few years. Those payments were made because of the fact that the industry found itself, through no fault of its own, deprived of its export market. The government realized that, unless those payments were made, the apple industry of this nation would be ruined. Every dollar, sir, which was received by the growers was of direct benefit to the apple growers in all the rest of Canada.
Let no one overlook that fact. If the government had not adopted that policy, the marketing system of Canada would have been completely disorganized. This expenditure
The Address-Mr. Nowlan was for the good of Canada. Our growers do not want, and they did not receive, handouts. They do not want, and they did not receive, beneficences. I am making this statement now, not because of any words or expressions that may have been used by any individual or individuals. I quite realize that statements are sometimes made in a jocular manner and not with the intention of being taken as seriously as they sometimes are. I want to make that plain. But I realize that some parts of the country are under the impression that special benefits have been given to that industry. I want to disabuse the minds of the public on that score. That industry received nothing more than was essential to maintain it. This government now faces the situation that, within the next few days, it will have to decide what its policy will be for the future. Policy is a matter for the government to determine. It will have to decide whether it wants to allow the industry to go under or whether it will give it further assistance. No government is justified in continually spending money on an industry that cannot be saved, and certainly the apple growers of the Annapolis valley do not want that, and do not expect it. I believe, however, that where an industry has every probability of recovery, when it can be reorganized, when it can be put back on its feet, then the government is justified in giving it support. Without discussing the matter further, because I realize that I may be trespassing upon ground on which one should not tread in a semipolitical discussion, I leave it at that. I only say that if help is to be forthcoming, it must come now. Here we have an industry in which within the next few weeks millions of dollars must be spent for fertilizer and spraying materials. The growers have not the money with which to buy them. If satisfactory arrangements can be made so that spraying material and fertilizer can be purchased, those things can be purchased. If those arrangements cannot be made, they cannot be purchased. The worst thing that could happen would be to have this matter delayed and delayed until, in the end, perhaps some financial arrangement would be made; but in the meantime it would be too late, and the industry could not function efficiently this summer.
I wish to deal with one more matter and then I am through, because I notice that my time is rapidly expiring. As I said at the outset, I appreciate greatly the welcome I received from all members of the house, and particularly from those on the other side. I feel that I am under some obligation to them, and I should like to return that courtesy now. The other afternoon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was calling expert witnesses to

The Address-Mr. Nowlan deal with the matter he was discussing, that of dominion-provincial relations. I think perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I would not be accused of being immodest if I should classify myself as an expert witness on the subject of why the government candidate lost the election on December 13. I think I might possibly be able to give some information to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house with respect to that matter. It certainly was not because of the candidate, who was a man who had in the past won by large majorities, and who for many years had been a responsible minister of the crown in that province. Many local factors entered into the situation, but there was one primary matter which motivated the thinking of all the electors, and that was their resentment against the crushing burden of taxation imposed by this government at the present time. I wish to give this explanation to my hon. friends, if they have not already got it. I heard them getting it the other day from their own side, but possibly they can take it from me as a disinterested, unbiased observer! That is the explanation. That is the answer: the burden of taxation, the reckless expenditure, as I think it was termed. I should like to show certain hon. gentlemen opposite letters I have received from many Liberals whom they know throughout the province. These men wrote to me after the election and said they believed that the electors were justified in protesting against a government which imposed such heavy taxation and maintained such reckless expenditure. Those are not my statements. Those are statements from Liberals whom three of the hon. gentlemen opposite know well and whose judgment they would respect.


An hon. Member:: Thanks for your advice.


George Clyde Nowlan: I hope you profit by it. The only possible hope my hon. friend has of coming back in the next election is that the government accept that advice. It is not only the burden of taxation that is resented, but particularly the administration of the income tax. I do not intend to weary hon. members with a recital of the farmers' complaints with respect to the income tax. As I understand it, the Department of National Revenue proposes to issue to the farmers an income tax return about the size of a post card.
I am glad to hear that, but may I say that it never was the size of the return which bothered the farmers so much. It was the interminable nagging, the questions asked, the letters which were written time and time again, year after year, about something which happened in 1942 and 1943; that was what broke the hearts of the people. Such questions were asked as when a cow was sold, 

or what happened to it. The people were asked to give a full explanation about such matters.
I realize that it is good financial policy to balance the budget. I realize that there is justification for decreasing the debt. But I suggest that the debt should not be decreased through the imposition of a heavy burden of taxation when the cost of living is bearing down on the people as it is at the moment. That policy cannot be justified.
I heard the Minister of Finance speak on an occasion on which, as he later said, he had never laughed so hard in his life. Speaking of taxation he first said that the government was setting aside something for a rainy day. Then he said it was to reduce the debt. Then finally he said it was to prepare for national defence. I suggest that this country is prepared to assume a burden of taxation for national defence if it is asked to do so properly, and for that purpose. But if we continue to impose a burden of taxation and try to justify it one minute on one ground, and another minute on another ground, sooner or later, when the necessity for national defence arises, we shall find ourselves in the position of the boy who called "Wolf, wolf," when no wolf was there; and the public will even resent paying taxes for the purpose of national defence.
I see that my time has just about expired. May I say this in closing, with regard to the matter of taxation, particularly as it concerns farmers and fishermen. At this session, I believe, a committee should be appointed- and I believe there is some hope of it-to deal with this whole matter. The farmers and fishermen do not wish to avoid the payment of taxes but they resent certain features and injustices in connection with the administration of the present act. I urge the appointment of a committee of the house to go into the matter thoroughly, to work out a system whereby the taxes may be collected and whereby at the same time the co-operation of the farmers and fishermen may be obtained.
I thank the members of the house for the courtesy they have shown me on this occasion.


Mr. Max Campbell (The Balilefords):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of following two new members who have made their maiden speeches in this house, and I wish to congratulate both of them on the splendid effort they made. I was greatly interested in the address delivered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and was most happy when he accepted in large part the C.C.F. policy in regard to the north Atlantic pact. I wish the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) had

gone a little further in one statement he made, namely that he was in favour of a national marketing act.
I wish he had said whether he was in favour of a voluntary act or a compulsory act, because I attended a conference of farmers in the Chateau Laurier a little over a year ago, and I heard members of that organization from his province and from New Brunswick talking about a national marketing act. Every one of the speakers I heard that morning made remarks to the effect that in the maritime provinces they had tried voluntary marketing and it had been a failure, but now the maritime provinces are in favour of compulsory marketing schemes. I hope that the hon. member will agree with those farmers who came from his part of the maritime provinces, and will try to get his party to follow along with him.
I wish to deal this afternoon with one part of the minister's speech in which he made a jab at the official opposition. They resented it. I am not going to say whether they should, or whether he should have said what he did say. But let me give a little advice to the government members. This will probably be the last session of this parliament before the next election. In a good many provinces last year we had provincial elections. In Manitoba we had a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives, a coalition for the sole purpose of stopping the C.C.F. The same was true of British Columbia. While in Saskatchewan the Liberals and Conservatives did not form a coalition, they had gentlemen's agreements of one kind or another. The fact that my hon. friends on the government side are going after the official opposition in a rough manner is proving most embarrassing to some of my Liberal friends in Saskatchewan. In order to be fair and reasonable with their own people in Saskatchewan perhaps they should pull their punches a little. I picked up the North Battleford Optimist the other night, and I saw that my friend, and our old colleague in the House of Commons, the former member for Rosthern, had made a speech in that city. I read the speech because I am always interested in Mr. Tucker's speeches. Mr. Tucker was in the city of North Battleford, and his speech is reported in part as follows in the issue of January 20:
Our Conservative friends helped materially in making the gains we did in the provincial elections. Our mutual differences were overcome by the common aim of defeating socialism.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For once Tucker is right.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I continue:
It is different in the federal field. Mr. Drew has stated that every seat in Saskatchewan will be contested, and his organizer in this province has made attacks on both Liberals and the C.C.F. I hope that
The Address-Mr. Campbell
the provincial relationship between Liberals and Conservatives will not be destroyed by these attacks.
My friends over on the other side: put on your boxing gloves, but do not be quite as hard on the leader of the opposition and the supporters behind him. Mr. Tucker says that his Conservative friends helped materially. There is no doubt that if it had not been for the support the Conservatives gave to the Liberals in Saskatchewan, not many of them would have been elected. He said:
Our mutual differences were overcome by the common aim of defeating socialism. The problem is different in the federal field.
He then complained about the Conservatives making attacks not only on the C.C.F. in the House of Commons, but also on the Liberals, and he said that it would be most embarrassing when the next provincial election rolls around. He hopes that hon. members here will be just a little bit milder in their language and in their attacks on each other so that these attacks will not destroy the unity that helped in the last provincial elections in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia. I just give this as a little bit of advice.
Already in this house issues are beginning to appear. The parties are beginning to show the people of Canada what they are to fight on in the coming election. I was interested in the leader of the opposition's frontal attack on the government the other day, and I was equally interested in the answers of some of the hon. members on the other side. If I were to be appointed a judge of what has taken place so far I would say that possibly the official opposition got the worst of the encounter.
The position taken by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is that he does not believe in subsidies to provincial governments. He does not believe that one government should collect revenues and another government spend them. 1 believe the opinion in western Canada is largely summed up in an editorial I read a few days ago in the Farm and Ranch Review. There is a little politics in this which, if I were writing it, I would leave out. This is what the article says:
Mr. Drew, unhappily, decided to double-talk about dominion-provincial relations. Mr. Drew is against subsidies from the federal government to provincial governments. He can be quite eloquent on this point, for he says that when subsidies are substituted for taxing powers the federal system breaks down.
The fact remains that no taxing power yet devised by man can be effectively levied against wealth or income that is not there. That has been the essence of the prairie problem for twenty-five years. That was why we went through the wringer during the depression. That is why we lack roads and schools and hospitals and even industries.
The immense profits made through the years by Canadian business on the prairies have been shipped

The Address-Mr. Campbell to Ontario and Quebec. National corporations have paid corporation taxes in the provinces where their head offices are located, not in the prairies from which a substantial portion of these profits are earned. Prairie governments, before the war, were forced to impose heavy taxation on local corporations and local taxpayers in an effort to stay solvent. That placed western companies and western business men in an impossible competitive position. Ontario and Quebec, because they were taxing the wealth earned all across Canada, could afford to charge lower rates.
The system now in effect recognizes this fact, and the payments made to the provinces are in large part based upon it. In his speeches out here Mr. Drew seemed to be saying that this arrangement wasn't good enough for us, and that he had something better to offer. He was exceedingly vague on this point, and with good reason. The Tories hone to win in Ontario on promises to get back to the pre-taxation agreement era of low taxes on corporations and personal income. And they hope to win on the prairies on promises they have not made.
I heard somebody say the other day-I do not remember who it was-that the same appeal would be made from one end of Canada to the other. I could go back and give instances, and a good many of them, in which different appeals have been made in different parts of Canada by both the old parties, but I shall not take the time to do it.
We have been hearing a good deal about socialism, and different names have been attached to the C.C.F. with regard to socialism. I wonder if those who are attacking the socialistic part of the C.C.F. and socialistic ideas of the C.C.F. realize the extent to which socialism has spread throughout the world during the last ten or fifteen years. If we stopped to consider I think we would agree that it spread because there was some reason for its spreading. Six out of the nine countries in the British commonwealth of nations have democratic socialist governments.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: The hon. member can disagree if he likes, but I say that six of the nations in the British commonwealth have democratic socialist governments. The Scandinavian countries, France, and nearly all the countries in western Europe, have democratic socialist governments. The last election in the United States showed a definite trend away from monopoly capitalism. Canada, South Africa and Rhodesia are the only three countries in the British commonwealth of nations that still retain the old system of laissez-faire or monopoly capitalism.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: And prosperity.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: The people should consider that. When slurring remarks about this group are made in the house-I think we accept most of them with good grace-hon. members should realize that this trend is not only in the C.C.F. movement, it is spreading


pretty well all over the world. In western Europe, and the British commonwealth of nations there is what we call democratic socialist government; in eastern Europe they have what they call socialist government, but I call it totalitarian government.
I took the trouble to get different definitions of the word "socialism". I have my own idea of what socialism means; it is not totalitarianism, and it does not mean doing away with our democratic principles. I found this definition in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Ethics of socialism and the ethics of Christianity are identical. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society in behalf of the poor. In general it may be described as that movement which seeks, by economic changes, to destroy the existing inequalities of the world's social conditions.
And then Webster's dictionary gives this definition:
A theory of society which advocates a more precise, orderly and harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than that which has hitherto prevailed.
Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia has this definition:
Socialism is a moral reform; it is the vices of mankind and the miseries resulting from these vices, to which socialism wishes to put an end, and it seeks its means not in a new religious issue, but in a new social organization.
If I were asked to define the kind of socialism in which I believe, I would take the first of these definitions and add three words, so that it would read:
Ethics of socialism and the ethics of Christianity are identical. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society in behalf of the poor. In general it may be described as that movement which seeks, by economic changes and democratic methods, to destroy the existing inequalities of the world's social conditions.
I would add the words "and democratic methods".
The reason for the trend that has taken place all over the world I think can be found in the evils of the capitalistic system. My main criticism of the speech from the throne is that it does not provide for any legislation to curb the monopolies that have grown up in this country. I think every hon. member will agree that we have giant monopolies and cartels, both national and international. I should like to present some evidence to prove absolutely that this government knows, and has known for a great many years, that these cartels exist, but it has done nothing effective to curb them. I do not say that they have not done anything; I say that they have not done anything effective to curb them. I realize that Mr. McGregor is investigating certain businesses and industries, and action may be taken against them, but even though action is taken and they are found guilty, the only result is a small fine.

As I said, I intend to present proof that this government knows and has known for a great many years that these things exist. I have in my hand a little book which perhaps a good many members of the House of Commons have never seen. It is entitled, "Manifesto of the Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier." It was issued on November 5, 1917. It will be remembered that the Liberals were in opposition at that time. The title on the page is, " Who shall rule, the people or the big interests?" The title continues:
Democracy and a free people or
Autocracy and organized privilege
On Which Side Are You?
The soldier The worker
The consumer The taxpayer
The profiteer The trusts
The food manipulators The pork barons
The Liberals went to the country in that election and promised the people that they would take care of the situation, which, even at that particular time, was growing into a problem. I say that they have not done anything effective. It is true that a commissioner was appointed, and I think he has done a good job. I have in my hand the report of the commissioner, and I should like to direct attention to it. It sets out some examples of cartel arrangements affecting Canadian import commodities.
A great number of people in Canada are affected by high prices. During the last recess I think I had more complaints from my people about high prices of the things they have to buy than about anything else. One of the reasons why we have high prices is the monopolies and cartel arrangements that exist.
The first chapter of this manifesto gives examples of cartel arrangements affecting Canadian import commodities as follows:
Fertilizers: potash, nitrogen, phosphorus; tanning materials; quebracho; flat glass, sulphur, dyestuffs, tools-cemented tungsten carbide; magnesia refractories, titanium pigments.
The next chapter deals with examples of cartel arrangements restricting Canadian manufacturers to home market on an exclusive basis:
Chemicals, soda ash, electric lamps, radio tubes and sets, matches.
The third chapter is with respect to examples of cartel arrangements involving participation by Canadian exporters. It deals with the base metals, copper, lead, zinc, nickel, and it also deals with steel, aluminum, acetic acid, radium and newsprint. Chapter 4 deals with the need for an effective policy. Chapter 6 comprises the conclusions and recommendations. I hope all members of the house have read this report. The leader of the opposition
The Address-Mr. Campbell in his speech complained about the concentration of power that the dominion government has today, and the danger of greater concentration in the future if we allow the dominion government to exercise certain powers. He did not say one word, however, about the tremendous concentration of wealth in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. He did not say anything about the tremendous power that that monopolistic situation has over the whole life of our country.
The other night the member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) made what I thought was an excellent speech. He went into the matter of what combines and monopolies were doing to the Canadian people. In this report five recommendations are made. I say that the government is lax in its duty. It is not doing its duty to the people of Canada when it takes no effective measures. There is nothing foreshadowed in the legislation outlined in the speech from the throne which will take care of the situation.
I am not going to read all the recommendations, but the fourth is as follows:
It is recommended that public policy be carried forward in a number of directions to deal effectively with the varied conditions of industrial control. What is required is an integrated program to ensure that the possibilities in modern industrial efficiency are developed and stimulated to serve the public interest. Investigation, publicity, and prosecution have their parts to play, but they cannot in every case serve as a solution to the problem of monopoly. Prosecution can be relied upon to remove restraints of trade only where it is possible and desirable to restore competition. In other circumstances different remedies must be applied. Canadian public policy with respect to combines has been established in existing legislation and judicial decision.
I say it has not gone far enough.
Further formulation of Canadian policy in regard to international cartels, presumably by the extension of similar principles, will enable representatives of this country to enter more readily into negotiations with those of other countries . . .
And so on. My contention is that this is one of the big problems facing us. The government has done nothing to implement the recommendations of this report. I also believe that this problem is being recognized to a far greater extent in the United States than it is in Canada. The United States has set up a small business committee of the house of representatives, and that committee has presented a report to the government. I have here an article in the Christian Science Monitor commenting thereon. It says:
The house small business committee, in a unanimous report on its investigations on monopolies during the past year, said:
"If capitalism in the United States is not to experience the fate of other capitalistic systems abroad, then time is of the essence in achieving a successful working of the nation's laws against private monopoly and restraints of trade."

The Address-Mr. Campbell
The report said present penalties, which include fines and prison sentences for anti-trust violations, are not adequate, and "have not served to deter offenders." Violators usually are only fined, the report added. "The fines are just a slap on the wrist for a serious offence," Chairman Ploeser of Missouri said in a news conference as the report was released. "They are a cheap tax to pay, and in fact a fine can be used as a base of expense for new profits-just a business expense."
The committee made certain recommendations as follows:
1.	Creation of special anti-trust courts to hear anti-trust cases. Appeals could be made directly to the supreme court.
2.	That preferential commodity freight rates by railroads be made illegal.
3.	Losses of individual chain stores should not be deductible from the parent organization's income for tax purposes if the losses are incurred by selling below cost "or at unreasonably low prices to eliminate competition."
4.	That a graduated percentage tax on cigarettes be substituted for the present flat rate. The tax would be based on the selling price of the cigarettes.
5.	That the federal trade commission be directed by congress to investigate "the problem of bigness in business" and study "the desirability and feasibility of breaking down so-called conglomerates in American business."
There is no suggestion there that any action should be taken by the government to take over any of those industries and operate them as a public monopoly. I think that in the near future it will be necessary for both Canada and the United States to take over and operate some of these monopolies. I do not say it will be necessary with all of them. I think that in a good many cases co-operation can be secured from them, and they can be persuaded to deal fairly with both the United States and the Canadian people.
I heard my friends to the left say that a government monopoly would be just as bad as a private monopoly.


An hon. Member:: Worse.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Somebody says "worse". I cannot see the logic in an argument of that kind. As an illustration, let me speak of a project that is a monopoly right here in Ontario, the hydroelectric system. I think the people of Ontario were very wise when they took over and operated most of the power producing facilities in Ontario. The hydroelectric commission is operated as a public monopoly. The whole idea is to give the people cheaper electricity, and to give it to them at as near cost as possible. A private monopoly is operated mainly for the purpose of extracting more from the consumers. It does not make sense to me, therefore, for anybody to interject that a government monopoly is worse than a private monopoly. There is no comparison. The purpose of a government monopoly is to give service at cost to the

people. I think if you tried to get the people of Ontario to go back to a private enterprise, or a private monopoly, for their electricity, you would not get very far.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I listened this afternoon with a great deal of interest to the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I am sure that all hon. members will agree that in his first speech in the House of Commons he created a very favourable impression. The speech from the throne commences with a declaration regarding the government's concern to ensure peace and security throughout the world. Nevertheless, we in this group feel that many of the government's post-war policies have had the opposite effect and, moreover, that by the very nature of those policies the inevitable result must be insecurity and international friction. When I say that I have in mind particularly the government's post-war international trade and financial policies.
In recent months the Canadian press has given a good deal of publicity to the warnings issued by the food and agricultural organization. I note that Sir John Boyd Orr is quoted as saying that the situation in the world today may be likened to the death march of our civilization. Then a warning is also issued that, unless the undernourished world spends as many billions of dollars on increasing food production as on war. half its population in the next twenty years may suffer from food deficiency and premature death. I think all hon. members will agree that is not a condition conducive to peace. It is a situation or a warning that cannot be lightly set aside.
The food and agricultural organization urges that greater consideration be given to soil conservation and increased efficiency in methods of production; and I would recommend that hon. members, if they have not already done so, should read a book entitled "Road to Survival" by Vogt. This is a statistical summary which fully backs up the warnings issued by the food and agricultural organization. Some of the recommendations may be considered somewhat drastic, but I think one must agree that the basis of the warning is sound.
The food and agricultural organization points to conditions throughout the world. It points out that in Australia the area of the desert is steadily expanding; that in South Africa the jungle is steadily encroaching upon the fertile cultivated lands; and that on the North American continent there has been a loss of top soil amounting to three billion tons annually. Then I noticed in the November 13 issue of Foreign Trade an article on

India entitled, "Greater Agricultural Production Essential to Economy of India," and I quote from page 999:
There is at present an annual deficit for the Dominion of India of approximately five million tons of food grains. Without any increase in production and taking into consideration the natural increase of population, the deficit will amount to nine million tons at the end of five years.
Then it outlines a very progressive program the government is endeavouring to put into operation to increase the productivity of the land, including a large-scale program of irrigation; and I quote from page 1000:
Out of the numerous projects that are under consideration it is proposed that immediately priority shall be given to two developments that would require an expenditure of 1,000 million rupees, and would bring a further 3,600,000 acres under irrigation, while nearly 2,000,000 acres of hitherto uncultivated land would be made available for the growing of food crops.
Now I want to say a few words with regard to the situation in Canada. I think much could be done to assure the continuation of a high level of production of food by means of irrigation. A large number of projects already have been surveyed and are ready for action on the part of the federal government, but unfortunately in the past the policy of the minister of reconstruction appears to have been to hold back these projects as a cushion against unemployment. I was very glad to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in a speech he made last year in a bid for the leadership of the Liberal party, state that he believes these irrigation projects should be proceeded with immediately and not held back as unemployment relief projects. I attended the annual meeting of the eastern irrigation association in Alberta last December; and in spite of very severe weather-the temperature was more than 25 below and the roads had been drifted-a large number turned out, some of the farmers driving for a hundred miles in order to be at the meeting. The government representative, Mr. E. L. Gray, gave a very interesting talk on what had been done in connection with building two small dams on east and west Berry creek, and he urged the convention not to press the government too hard to proceed with the main project in that area, known as the Red Deer diversion scheme, but to utilize the water that could be obtained from the two new dams and later on ask the government to proceed with the Red Deer diversion project. The interesting point to note is that after he had completed his remarks a prominent Liberal in the audience rose and moved a resolution to the effect that the government be asked to proceed immediately with the construction of the Red Deer diversion project. The reason given, of course, was that owing
The Address-Mr. Quelch to the conditions which exist in that area there are many years when the surface runoff water is altogether insufficient to meet the needs of any irrigation project depending upon it, and that therefore it would be necessary to divert water from the Red Deer river to ensure an adequate supply.
There is something else I think the government should do in order to maintain production at a high level; that is, adjust their taxation policy in regard to agriculture. I do not think there is any doubt that the government's agricultural taxation policy is running foul of the law of diminishing returns; and until such time as that legislation is changed in relation to agriculture they are definitely handicapping the production of food.
In spite of various warnings issued by the food and agricultural organization, today many people are warning of the danger of impending surpluses of food. I have in my hand an extract from the Calgary Herald, dated Tuesday, December 21, 1948, which reads:
Sir Hartley Shawcross, Britain's attorney general, said Saturday that "the world will starve unless all nations pursue an aggressive agricultural policy to pump up food production."
And Tom Williams, Britain's minister of agriculture, stated that failure of a single harvest in North America could mean disaster. Underlying a temporary improvement, he said, is a fundamental longterm insecurity.
In New York, however, two economists, Dr. Julius Hirsch and his wife Edith, give another view, and state that the world is headed towards surpluses.
Already, they say, wheat supply outstrips demands, adding that American food prices have passed their peak and, despite a probable interim rise, will fall next autumn below the price level of this fall. They state that world production of six of the seven main foods already equals or exceeds pre-war production. These are wheat, corn, potatoes, oats, fats and oils, and sugar.
While there may appear to be some contradiction between the views expressed by those gentlemen, I would point out that in reality there is no contradiction. On the one hand the FAO is warning that our production is altogether insufficient to meet the needs of the people of the world and that unless steps are taken to rapidly increase production there will be large-scale starvation. On the other hand the United States economists are pointing out that owing to the fact that the people who require food lack the means with which to buy it, surpluses will accumulate. In other words it seems to be a repetition of the situation which developed throughout the world in the thirties, when on the one hand we had thousands, yea millions, of starving people and on the other hand we had surpluses of food available for distribution; but unfortunately owing to our financial policies and the system of distribution, it was not possible to make that food available to the

The Address-Mr. Quelch starving masses. So, we actually had a reduction in the production of food to meet an inadequate buying power. It is mainly in that regard, Mr. Speaker, that I say government policies are not such as to provide security, nationally or internationally.
Most people, I think, appreciate that, in order to maintain high levels of agricultural production, the producer must be assured of adequate markets at fair prices. Failing that, production is bound to suffer. As a matter of government policy during the war and postwar years, farmers were forced to accept less than they might otherwise have received in return for some nebulous form of promise regarding stabilized prices. The farmers of Canada today, Mr. Speaker, are greatly concerned over what is happening in connection with the United Kingdom food agreements and in connection with foreign markets generally. They wonder what might happen if the United States had a large wheat crop this year and declared wheat a surplus commodity, when ECA funds would be no longer available to the European countries for the purchase of Canadian wheat.
I have read with a great deal of interest the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) before the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in London on December 17. In this speech I note the minister time and again deplores the fact that Britain is increasing her purchases of food from other countries at the expense of trading with Canada. He points out this is largely due to the shortage of dollars. I noted the minister deplored the fact that no basis has been established for the conversion of sterling into dollars, and the minister implies that the blame rests upon the manipulation of some small group of crackpots called economists. I think the minister should remember that he and his government supported these same crackpots at a time when they were formulating post-war financial policies on an international basis. I have in mind, of course, especially the Bretton Woods agreement and, in some respects, the Geneva trade agreements.
Mr. Speaker, people who look for the convertibility of currencies are indulging in a pipedream unless, first of all, a basis is laid for the balancing of international trade. Looking at the world situation today, we see that the United States has a favourable balance of trade in the neighbourhood of $12 billion, whilst the rest of the nations of the world to a very large extent suffer an unfavourable balance of trade. Does anyone think that, under circumstances such as these, it would be possible to have the convertibility of currencies into dollars? The only way those countries can obtain dollars is by selling

goods to the United States. Obviously, at a time when the United States has a favourable balance of trade to the extent of 10 to 12 billion dollars, there must be an adverse balance somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 or 12 billion dollars. To talk of convertibility at such a time is to talk utter nonsense.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that Europe was advised by the international monetary fund to reduce her imports from the western hemisphere and expand her imports from other countries. We should keep in mind the fact that the government of which the minister is a member enthusiastically supported the international monetary fund at the time it was brought into existence. People have been criticizing Britain, and I have in mind the statement of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), for dealing with the countries behind the iron curtain. I say to him that Britain is doing the very thing recommended by the international monetary fund. I do not say Britain would not have done it without the recommendation of that fund, but I would say she is taking the only action open to her in view of world conditions.
I should like to quote from the annual report of the international monetary fund, dated April 30, 1948. Turning to page 11, I quote:
The gap in Europe's dollar payments may be bridged in part, as it has been in the past, through the development of an export surplus with areas other than the western hemisphere, particularly Africa and Asia. For this to be possible it will be necessary for these parts of the world, in turn, to develop an export surplus with the western hemisphere.
I pause for a moment at this point to say that it is very easy to tell these countries to develop an export surplus with the western hemisphere without laying down any basis for doing so. We know very well that would not be possible unless the United States was willing to exchange goods for goods instead of dollars.
I proceed, then, to a point to which I especially wish to draw the attention of this house.
These areas might also be further developed as alternative sources for certain European imports and this would diminish European demands for imports from the western hemisphere. Such developments, however, even if supplemented by American investment abroad and by increased expenditures by United States tourists, are unlikely completely to restore the dollar payments position of Europe.
Then, the report continues, and this is the crux of the whole situation:
An expansion of European exports directly to the western hemisphere, therefore, appears essential if Europe's dollar shortage is to be eliminated by the end of the program of the United States assistance.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is only possible, or it will only be possible, for Europe to expand her exports to the western hemisphere provided there is a change in the international trade policies of Canada and the United States. We stressed that point time and again during the discussion on Bretton Woods. We pointed out that that agreement placed the main responsibility on the debtor nations for balancing their trade and placed no responsibility whatever on the creditor nations to accept payment for their goods in the only way a debtor nation can pay, and that is with goods. The Bretton Woods agreement gave the creditor nation the right to demand payment in its own currency without providing any means by which the purchasing nation might secure that medium of exchange.
According to the outline of Canadian policy as given time and again by the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Ilsley, and more latterly by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), we want to continue sending goods to Britain for dollars instead of accepting payment in goods, knowing full well the only way Britain could obtain dollars would be by exporting goods equivalent to the value of those they buy; unless, of course, Britain is to be forced into a position of unpayable debt, and no nation wants to be placed in that position.
It is also very interesting to note that the production of most nations in Europe today is greater than it was before the war. Again, I quote from the international monetary fund report, page 2:
Although European production in 1947 was hampered by another unusually poor harvest and by shortages of coal and other vital materials, industrial production was about ten per cent greater than in 1946. By the end of 1947 nearly all the European countries had reached or exceeded their prewar outputs. This was a remarkable achievement for a group of economies which had so recently been devastated and dislocated by war.
I think we may judge from that that the European nations will, in the future, insist that when they buy goods from other nations those nations must accept goods in return, because with their production rapidly expanding they will have the goods with which to pay for their imports.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we have consistently urged that exporting nations be willing to accept payment in the currency of the importing country, so that with this currency the exporting nation may buy an equivalent value in goods from the importing nation. In other words, currency obtained in payment for the exports would be convertible into goods of the purchasing nation. If we adopt that policy I do not think we shall in future have any difficulty in selling our exports in Europe. To those people who would say to me that what I am suggesting
The Address-Mr. Quelch is bilateral trade agreements, and that it is desirable that we should put trade on a multilateral basis, I would point out that such an objective could easily be accomplished py the setting up of an international exchange on which the credits held in one nation could be traded for the credits held in another. For example, if we exported one billion dollars' worth of goods to Britain and needed to bring back only $750,000,000 worth of goods, we could then take that credit of $250,000,000 worth of goods from France; and France would then take goods in payment from Britain. In that way you would be putting your trade on a multilateral basis and would be making goods convertible into goods instead of making goods convertible into currency.
However, I notice that the international monetary fund stresses an important condition which must be met if we are to increase our imports from Europe; and again I quote from the report of the international monetary fund at page 13:
A high level of demand in the western hemisphere will be a necessary condition for increasing exports to this region. A further relaxation of tariffs and import quotas in the western hemisphere countries applicable to primary commodities as well as to manufactured goods would be helpful in encouraging the necessary increase and redirection of world trade. But recognition of these considerations should not obscure the fact that Europe's need to increase its exports to the western hemisphere arises not only from the exceptional circumstances of the transitional period but also from more enduring changes in the world economic structure.
It is well to note that they stress the fact that this is not a temporary situation.


Mr. Blackmore:: The old order is gone.


Victor Quelch: In order that the condition mentioned might be accomplished with regard to Canada, I think it would be highly desirable for the government to conduct an educational campaign urging upon the people of Canada the necessity and desirability of buying more European goods; pointing out to the people that if we desire to maintain in Europe our markets for our agricultural and other products we wish to export there, we must be prepared to accept payment in goods. Therefore, the Canadian people should be encouraged to buy European products.
In that regard, an important point will be that of seeing that the purchasing power of the people is at all times maintained at a level that will make it possible to buy these imports when brought into the country. In other words, demand by itself is useless unless backed up by money so that it may be effective.


John Horne Blackmore: Let us have dividends.


Victor Quelch: In a speech before the Canadian chamber of commerce at London, the

The Address-Mr. Quelch Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made a statement regarding surpluses and starving people, and I should like to quote what he said, because I agree 100 per cent.


Mr. Gardiner:: I would ask the hon. member to read in Hansard the two statements. Apparently he is agreeing with the two statements.


Victor Quelch: I agree with most of what the minister said. I think the speech was a good one. On the other hand, the minister did not seem to realize that the very people he was referring to as crackpot economists were the people that he and his government so thoroughly endorsed and supported in their post-war policies at the conclusion of hostilities; and therefore the situation which has developed in Europe has been brought about by the very policies he and his government have been supporting.


John Horne Blackmore: Along with the United States.


Victor Quelch: I wish to quote what the minister said. He stated:
... X am convinced that the world is not in any state of mind where it can be expected to agree that the manipulation of any system or systems of currency is going to be allowed to interfere with getting surplus food to those who have empty stomachs.


John Horne Blackmore: What is the government going to do about it? That is what we want to know.


Victor Quelch: I would agree with that statement 100 per cent, but I would point out to the Minister of Agriculture that the condition is not merely a general one throughout the world. It applies equally to our own Canadian economy.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what I was talking about.


Victor Quelch: The minister was referring chiefly to the European situation. I would point out that I do not believe the people of Canada will again tolerate what happened in this country in the thirties. They will not be willing to see surpluses pile up on the one hand and see hundreds of thousands of people suffer a bare existence, on the other.


John Horne Blackmore: What is the government going to do about it?


Victor Quelch: What is the situation today? Surely the minister will agree that it is not to the credit of Canada that, at a time when our production, employment and income are at their highest level, no provision whatsoever has been made to take care of those people who are physically incapacitated and unable to take care of themselves. While these people may not be exactly starving,


they are only barely existing. The same thing, but to a lesser degree, may be said about our old age pensioners and about those benefiting under the War Veterans Allowance Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in the area in which my hon. friend lives, the fundamental responsibility for people physically incapacitated rests with the provincial government which, as I understand, had a large surplus last year.


Mr. Johnston:: They are trying to pass the buck.


Victor Quelch: It is really amusing, Mr..
Speaker. The government are always trying to pass the buck on a question of this kind. But it is the federal government which has-sole control over the issue of currency and credit in this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was a $20 million surplus, I believe.


Victor Quelch: On various occasions the government of Alberta have tried to pass legislation that would give them some control over credit, but, as the Minister of Agriculture knows only too well, those measures have all been declared ultra vires. As a matter of fact, the government did not wait for the legislation to be declared ultra vires, but disallowed it themselves.


John Horne Blackmore: That is right.


Victor Quelch: That shows how much the government of this country are interested in Alberta's trying to solve her own problems. Instead of trying to help Alberta, they impeded her progress, and they impeded the-social credit program of the government of Alberta, in spite of the promise that was made by the Prime Minister of this country in September, 1935, when he spoke in Saskatoon and stated that a great experiment was being tried in Alberta, that he hoped from the bottom of his heart it would succeed, and pledged that his party would do nothing to impede the progress of that movement.


John Horne Blackmore: The bottom dropped out.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why do they not spend that. $20 million surplus on the people who need care?


Victor Quelch: The Minister of Agriculture seems to be a little bit jealous of the progress that Alberta is making. 1 shall not give special credit to the government of Alberta for what is happening with regard to oil; that is a fortunate circumstance. I can assure the minister that the government of Alberta will use those resources to the greatest possible benefit of the Alberta people and of the Canadian people as a whole.


Mr. Low:: And they will not be putting on taxes as hon. members opposite are.


Victor Quelch: In order to help to promote peace and security throughout the world, it is imperative that Canada do everything in her power to maintain her production of food at the highest possible levels. First of all, in order to satisfy the needs of the Canadian people; second, in order that our surpluses may be used abroad for the purchase of goods which we cannot produce economically; third, to the extent that our production is in excess of the needs of the Canadian people and in excess of the amount of goods which are needed to bring imports into the country, a contribution could be made to a world pool of food, from which all other nations less happily situated than ourselves may be able to draw supplies.
On the other hand, to suggest curtailing the production of food for fear of piling up surpluses in the face of actual physical want would be an act of criminal folly. We have to face the fact that, owing to certain international policies supported by the federal government, our foreign markets are drying up. I listened to a broadcast just yesterday by the exporters association, in which it was said that they were having great difficulty in selling their products abroad owing largely to the shortage of dollars. Briefly I have placed on record what we believe to be a solution in part of our international trade difficulties.
I wish to devote the few minutes remaining to the government's agriculture policy, and I am especially pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his seat. Since 1942, as a result of government policies, farmers have had to take less for their produce than they would otherwise have received. Those are practically the words of the Minister of Agriculture himself, and that has been the situation since 1942. In return they have received some kind of vague promises regarding stabilization. Nobody knows just exactly what the government's policy regarding stabilization is, and certainly we have not before us at the present time any long-term policy. But the point is that the farmers have already paid the premium for insurance against low prices. The British wheat agreement has only one more year to run, and the Agricultural Prices Support Act has only been continued in force to March 31, 1950, by order in council. I noticed what the minister said in the house yesterday, as reported at page 185 of Hansard. I thought we would have something more definite. He said:
The present order In council sets the date at March 31, 1950, and before that date the matter will be further considered.
The Address-Mr. Quelch
I had hoped he would say that before that aate the act would be further extended. We have absolutely no assurance whatever that the Agricultural Prices Support Act will be continued in force after March 31, 1950. In the house we have time and again urged upon the government the desirability of making the Agricultural Prices Support Act permanent legislation so that it could be discontinued only by act of parliament.
Many attacks have been made upon the-Canadian wheat board, but all farm organizations across Canada are solidly behind the-continuation of the wheat board as the solemarketing agency for wheat. On the other hand they are asking that certain policies or principles governing the wheat board be changed. I hold in my hand a report of the western agricultural conference held in Saskatoon on January 20, as reported in the Manitoba Co-operator. I wish to quote from a part of a long resolution which states:
That the Canadian wheat board should be an agency operating in the interests of grain producers, with a duty at all times to sell grain for the best available price whether in export or domestic markets, and should not be used as an instrument of government policy to limit domestic prices.
We agree with that 100 per cent, and we would emphasize this fact, that if it becomes necessary or desirable in the future to subsidize any body of consumers, whether of another country or the people of Canada, we insist that the cost of that subsidy should be borne by the Canadian people as a whole, and not placed solely upon the farmers, as has been done under the British wheat agreement, and the subsidizing of the Canadian consumers of wheat.
I also strongly believe in long-term international wheat agreements. Personally, I believe they are absolutely essential if in this country we are to receive a parity price for wheat. I believe that no government will maintain a parity price for wheat unless they can also obtain a parity price for their exports. Therefore I am somewhat critical of the policy which was laid down in the former international wheat agreement, because the price of wheat was in no way tied to the price of other commodities. I suggest that in the future the price of wheat in the first year should be set in relation to price of other products, and that price should be tied to the general price index of the countries buying our wheat, with the result that if the general price level went up 10 per cent the price of wheat would go up that amount. If the general price level went down 10 per cent the price of wheat would go down. The net result would be that our exports of wheat would always bring back to this country an equivalent value of imports, which would be desirable from the

The Address-Mr. W. A. Robinson point of view of the importer as well as from the point of view of the exporter. But merely to try to gamble or speculate as to what the price is going to be in the future and say that this year the price is so much, and next year it will be so much, and the following year it will be so much, may lead to a repetition of what happened under the British wheat agreement. The government was badly fooled as to what happened. At the time the price was set it may have seemed a fair price in relation to other products, but the general price level rose and no provision was made for the price of wheat rising with the general price level. I am suggesting that when longterm international wheat agreements are signed they be signed on a basis that will assure to producers a parity price on an international basis.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. W. A. Robinson (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to join with hon. members who have spoken already in this debate in extending congratulations to the mover (Mr. Brown) and the seconder (Mr. Demers) of the address. I am sure my colleague from Ontario will forgive me if I make particular mention of the seconder, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. We on the back benches to your right, Mr. Speaker, welcome him to our midst and predict for him a long and honourable career in this house.
I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) on starting his journey the other evening over the great lakes at the port of Midland. He mentioned our wonderful harbour and he said something about our elevators, but he failed to mention our shipyard. I propose to spend some time this evening in a discussion of shipbuilding and of six words contained in the speech from the throne. Those words are, "assistance for the Canadian shipbuilding industry."
Those six words were of considerable interest to the municipalities in Canada in which are situated our seventeen great shipyards, and also to the numerous other municipalities in which our smaller yards are located. Shipbuilding is one of Canada's oldest industries. I understand that the first two ships built in Canada were two small vessels that were launched by Francois Grave in 1606 at Port Royal, now Annapolis Royal, in Nova Scotia. A seagoing vessel was constructed at Quebec as early as 1663 and others soon followed.


It is reported that in 1715 shipbuilding was a busy industry in Quebec, but it was suffering from a lack of encouragement by the governing authorities in France. This is an instance of the way in which history repeats itself. We find that in recent years the Canadian shipbuilding industry has been complaining about a lack of governmental encouragement. The words in the speech from the throne which I have quoted bring great hope to all those engaged in this important industry.
We had a striking experience last fall in Midland of the way in which history repeats itself. At that time there were launched two hopper barges for the French supply council. On that occasion my thoughts inevitably turned back to the past history of the Georgian bay district. Three hundred years ago this district was as densely populated as it is today, but in that far-off time the population was made up of Huron Indians who were living peaceably in their numerous villages.
Fort Ste. Marie stood as the westernmost outpost of New France and was the sanctuary of a gallant band of Jesuit missionaries who had left the comforts of France for the hazards of life in Canada in order to bring light to the aborigines. Three hundred years ago- this is where history has repeated itself-the natives supplied the visitors from France with Canadian-made transportation in the form of birch-bark canoes. Three hundred years later the natives were again supplying visitors from France with Canadian-made transportation, but this time it was in the form of fine steel ships. I need not remind hon. members of the disasters which overtook the Huron Indians and their Jesuit friends at the hands of the Iroquois. However, I would remind them that the year 1949 marks the tercentenary of the murderous attack on Father Brebeuf and Father Lalemant. This historic occasion will be commemorated next summer by appropriate ceremonies and pageants at the original site near Fort Ste. Marie, close to Midland.
I have mentioned the early days of shipbuilding in Canada, but I do not intend to trace its history down through the years from 1715 to date. But I should like to say a few words about the development of this industry on our upper lakes. The first Canadian shipyard on the upper lakes was established at Collingwood, Ontario, in 1902 for the building of steel steamships to be employed in those waters. I understand that their first important contract was the building of the s.s. Huronic of 3,329 tons and 308 feet in length, built for the Northern Navigation Company.
In 1912 another shipyard followed at Port Arthur, larger in size and designed to take

care of the increasing size of the upper lake freighters. One of this company's first ventures was the building of two steel canal type freighters which were completed in 1912 and 1913. Later in 1913 they built the celebrated passenger steamship Noronic for the Northern Navigation Company.
The yard at Midland was established a little later but it proved itself during the first war and in 1926 had the distinction of launching the great bulk freighter, the s.s. Lemoyne. That ship was 621 feet in length, it had 70 feet of a beam and a gross tonnage of 10,480 tons. This steamer, which I have mentioned before in this house, holds many records for cargo carrying.
Sad to relate, all these yards, which had proved their capacity in war and in peace, fell on evil days. During the fifteen years preceding the last war our Canadian yards constructed about 42 steel ships exceeding 150 feet in length, or an average of less than three such vessels a year. Twenty-three of those were canal size freighters; three were St. Lawrence river passenger steamers; six were upper lake bulk carriers, of which two were the s.s. Lemoyne and the s.s. Stadacona; the remainder were in various other categories. Those vessels were built at Midland, Port Arthur, Collingwood, Montreal, Sorel, Levis and Halifax. Some of those yards built no more than one of the larger vessels during that entire period.
One of the causes of this situation is not hard to find. It has been estimated that in 1931 only about one-third of the Canadian-owned ships of the larger class were Canadian built. Out of approximately 530 vessels exceeding 150 feet in length, 234 were British built, 118 were foreign built, and only 178 Canadian built. During the depression and up until the start of the war in 1939, our shipyards had constructed only about 14 larger vessels. Repairs and minor construction work kept some of the yards in operation at a low level of employment, but some of them were closed entirely.
I think the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) and other hon. members who represent ridings in which large shipyards are located would be glad to bear testimony with me to the calamity which overwhelms such a community when the big yard begins to lay off its men. How much better it might have been, in view of the approaching war, to have helped those yards to remain in operation rather than to pay out fantastic sums in unemployment relief, to have kept intact the skilled staffs of workers rather than to allow them to scatter? As a result we found ourselves unprepared for the challenge which met us in 1939.
The Address-Mr. W. A. Robinson
Accordingly, the outbreak of the second world war in 1939 found the Canadian shipbuilding industry in rather poor shape. Expensive machinery had been rusting for years in the yards, and the skilled workers, who are so essential to the success of the industry, had scattered far and wide, and had taken other employment. As you will well remember, submarine warfare soon broke out in its full fury, and the cry went out for ships and more ships. I think it is significant that one of the very first references to Canada in Winston Churchill's book, "The Gathering Storm", occurs in his account of his activities shortly after he took over his old post at the Admiralty. I should like to quote from that account:
The usual conflict between long term and short term policy rises to intensity in war. I prescribed that all work likely to compete with essential construction should be stopped on large vessels which could not come into service before the end of 1940, and that multiplication of our anti-submarine fleets must be effected by types capable of being built within twelve months or, if possible, eight.
Mr. Churchill was referring there to the program for corvettes, frigates, trawlers and motor launches, in which we in Canada played so large a part. I go on to quote:
Orders were placed to the limit of our shipbuilding resources, including those of Canada. Even so, we did not achieve all that we hoped, and delays arose which were inevitable under the prevailing conditions and which caused deliveries from the shipyards to fall considerably short of our expectations.
I think these remarks by a world statesman of great experience in these matters should have great force in emphasizing that, if only from the standpoint of national safety, our Canadian shipbuilding industry must not be neglected. We all realize that we are living in troubled times. In fact, the dreadful word "war" was heard in this chamber only a few days ago. There seems little doubt that the signing of the north Atlantic security pact will increase, rather than diminish, our responsibilities.
I listened with great interest this afternoon, as did other hon. members, to the magnificent speech by our new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I am sure that none of us could help feeling that there is a situation of gravity which must be faced. Some of the parties to the proposed north Atlantic security pact lie across the Atlantic. Should hostilities ever commence again- which, of course, I pray will never happen- it is plain to see that the need for shipping will be very great, and that the time will be very short. In other words, in the national interest, it is important that our shipyards be kept in constant operation, and that they be ready to expand their activities at a moment's notice.
258

The Address-Mr. W. A. Robinson
I now turn to some of the physical aspects of our great lakes fleet. We have in Canada 61 upper-lakes freighters, and 116 canalers, making a total of 177 vessels of an aggregate of approximately 510,000 gross tons. The year before last, I believe, I put on Hansard figures as to the age and comparative obsolescence of some of these vessels. Suffice it to say now that the average age of our upper-lakes fleet is approximately forty-two years, of the canalers twenty-four years, and of the whole fleet thirty years. With the average age of our dry bulk carriers at approximately thirty years, and with only two bulk carriers in process of building at the present time, one at Collingwood and one at Midland, some definite action must be taken at an early date if the great lakes shipping industry is to survive.
I mentioned the bulk carriers at Collingwood and Midland. I should like hon. members to bear with me for a few minutes while I say something about those vessels.
I only have particulars of the vessel under construction at Midland, but I think the one at Collingwood is similar. These vessels will surpass the Lemoyne in length, and I think it is a Canadian achievement in which hon. members might be interested. The bulk freighter now under construction at Midland is scheduled to be launched in June and to be completed in September. Provided there is no delay in the delivery of steel from the mills, it is considered that the program can be accomplished. When completed, the freighter will be one of the two largest vessels in operation on the great lakes. It will have an ore-carrying capacity of 8,000 tons. Other interesting features of the vessel are over-all length of 640 feet, over-all breadth of 67 feet, and depth of 35 feet. The engine is being built by Canadian Vickers of Montreal and will have an indicated horsepower of 3,200.
As I said before, these two vessels when completed will be two of the largest on the great lakes. In many trades our upper-lakes fleet is in direct competition with ships of the United States, and the average age and carrying capacity of their fleet is much better than our own. In the United States upper-lakes fleet there are about 325 vessels of approximately 2,000,000 tons, with an average age per ship of thirty-six years,while Canada's upper-lakes fleet consists of only 61 vessels of approximately 292,000 gross tons, and with an average age of forty-two years. The passenger fleet on the lakes is also far from satisfactory. The only part of the great lakes fleet which has been increased in recent years is the tanker fleet, and there is still a need for an increase in this trade.


I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is imperative that effective steps be taken without delay to replace the ageing Canadian lake fleet. We must keep Canada independent in lake shipping, and in a position to take care of Canada's domestic business, both in peacetime and in times of emergency. I think it was sufficiently demonstrated in the last war that our very life may depend upon our ability to move our commodities; and it is of almost equal importance in times of peace.
This situation is urgent, requiring immediate attention. I have already mentioned how disastrous it is when skilled employees leave the shipyards and are scattered throughout the country, and then we find that an emergency must be met. Already this scattering process is in full swing, as I think I can show from the employment figures. In 1944, at peak employment during the war, the shipbuilding industry in Canada employed approximately 75,000 workers, of whom some 9,000 were in great lakes yards. The average monthly figure for the fourth quarter of 1948 was only 12,449 workers, of whom 2,181 were employed on the great lakes.
Then there is the matter of steel. Information from the office of the steel controller as to monthly shipments of primary steel and steel castings to the shipbuilding industry, in relation to the total Canadian production, is equally revealing as to what is happening to the shipbuilding industry. In March of 1944 that industry received 34,404 tons, which was 15-4 per cent of total Canadian production. In September of 1946 the industry received but 367 tons or -6 per cent of the total. In the first six months of 1948, shipbuilding got 2,990 tons in its worst month and 5,327 tons in its best month, ranging from 1-4 per cent to 2-3 per cent of the total Canadian production. Here again we see evidence of the recession in this important industry. Some of it, of course, is the result of the ending of our huge war program, but some of it is working to the disadvantage and detriment of the industry. I was informed that in Midland our contracts for French hopper barges were held back considerably through lack of steel; and I am also informed that for almost two years a very large Canadian steamship operator has wished to build a large passenger steamer, but that steel has not been made available. Surely the least we can do is see that essential supplies reach this important industry.
United States policy with regard to shipping was clearly defined in the United States merchant marine act of 1936, as follows:
It Is necessary for the national defence and development of its foreign trade and domestic commerce, that the United States shall have a merchant marine sufficient to carry its domestic water-borne

commerce and a substantial portion of the water -Dorne export and Import foreign commerce of the United States.
In implementation of this policy, four government aids are available in the United States. First, there is the construction differential subsidy, which consists of absorption by the government of part of the higher labour and material costs of building in United States yards. Second, is the operating differential subsidy, which is based on five items, the chief of which is labour. Third, is a countervailing subsidy, designed to offset any bounties which may be paid by foreign governments. When last I inquired into that feature I understood it had not been invoked. Fourth, is assistance in the financing of new construction-trade-in allowances on old vessels and a system of tax exemption and tax deferments to channel profits into the acquisition of new tonnage.
What is our Canadian picture? One of the most recent statements of policy I think was contained in the address of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) last year in this house when moving the adoption of a resolution for the establishment of the maritime commission. I should like to summarize some of the points he made in that address.
A merchant navy adequate to our needs should be retained . . .
The merchant navy has to pay its way if it is to survive . . .
It is a definite part of a nation's defensive armoury and a considerable factor in a nation's economic structure . . .
The efficiency of such an important industry is therefore a matter which must be of concern to any government . . .
Inseparably related to the merchant navy is the shipbuilding and repairing industry which must also be taken into full account . . .
The continuation, development, prosperity and welfare of these enterprises is of national importance both economically and strategically . . .
Naturally I stress the reference to the shipbuilding and repairing industry. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope the words "assistance for the Canadian shipbuilding industry" in the speech from the throne mean immediate implementation of that part of our policy relating to shipbuilding. I think it is clear that the Canadian shipbuilding industry is confronted with special problems and, at the same time, is of special importance in the economy of the nation. At this time I do not intend to discuss what form the assistance should take, but I do urge that it should be entirely adequate to the needs of the industry and the great national interest to be served. I therefore urge this with all the force at my command, not from the standpoint of national 29087-17|
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell prestige, but from the standpoint of the national welfare and the national safety.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Oniario):: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow the pleasant custom of congratulating the mover and seconder of the address. It seems quite a long time now since they made their speeches, and perhaps it will be a still longer time before the actual vote comes, but at any rate I have pleasure in following that custom.
I should like tonight to ask the house to spend a few minutes in considering one interesting paragraph in the speech from the throne. It is a very innocent sounding paragraph, Mr. Speaker. It might mean anything or it might mean nothing. This paragraph reads as follows:
Prosperous conditions now prevailing are being reflected in the buoyant level of national revenues; a condition to which due consideration is being given by my ministers in the preparation of forthcoming budgetary proposals.
From one point of view, as I said a moment ago, that could mean anything or nothing, but there is no question whatever but that the meaning taken out of it is that it indicates a reduction of taxes. The Prime Minister was jocular about it the other evening. He said people could guess that if they liked. He suggested some newspapers favourable to the opposition had made that point, and he left it there. The Prime Minister might have gone further because, actually, one of the newspapers which took this inference quite strongly was the Toronto Star, a newspaper of which I presume the Prime Minister has heard and which I hope he reads from time to time, because it seems to spend most of its time supporting his party, especially when they are wrong.
Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's jocularity, I do not think anyone doubts very much what that was intended to mean. You will observe, Mr. Speaker, it was given a very important place in the speech from the-throne. It is not just tossed in with the other benevolences; it is put right at the end in a very prominent position along with the-request for the customary provision for essential services. If it was given a very prominent position, I think it was intended to have a prominent position, and I presume it was given that prominent position, among other reasons, so that the electors in the Nicolet-Yamaska district would not miss it when they were reading the budget speech. No doubt it was with them in mind that that paragraph was put in and given such a prominent position. One really wonders why the tax reductions were not put right in the speech from the throne so that the electors in the Nicolet-
260	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell Yamaska district would know all about it and would not have to guess at all.
One can sympathize with the government in that because, after all, they have suffered a bit lately. This afternoon the new member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), with a generosity which I admired but which I could hardly emulate, gave them the secret. He said he had won and the government had been defeated because of the crushing burden of taxation.
A year ago this intention of the government was really made known. When no reduction was made last year, in spite of the large surplus, it was pointed out at that time by your humble servant:
The one universal comment made when the minister was through was, "Well, no election this year."
I am reading from Hansard of May 21, 1948, page 4241:
The reason is obvious. The reason was that the minister did not, like little Jack Horner, put in his thumb and pull out a plum.
He was keeping the plum until next year. This question of tax reduction leads to the 'question of surpluses and it is the latter *question, Mr. Speaker, to which I shall ask the house to confine its attention for a few moments. I think it is of interest to us to consider the fact that in the last two years the government will have taken from us something like $1,200 million surplus and used it in various ways. I am going to ask you to examine some of the ways in which it was used later because some of them have no possible relation to the day-to-day business of the country; I mean the ordinary purposes for which the budgets are set up. I wish to ask the house before I take my seat whether they consider it proper and wise that a government should play about with these hundreds of millions of dollars with which it has been playing. It is apt to prove a temptation to them and get them into bad habits.
What we really want from the government is a clear statement of receipts and disbursements, not a mixed-up jumble such as has been given us this year. It is really worse than that. Like other governments, this government has fallen into bad habits. It really seems to be getting to the point where the government hardly regards a man's income as his own income at all. In fact, one impatient man said to me the other day, "Why don't they take the whole lot and then give each of us back a little?" Really, when you consider the effect of some of the taxation, I must say I think his impatient remark had something in it. It does seem as if the government was not only collecting enough taxes to carry on the business of the country, but as if they wanted, in their wisdom, to


determine just how much should be left to the individual person. We have not yet got the planned sandwiches as they have in England. Yes, they have planned sandwiches in England. Instructions are issued as to how to make sandwiches. We issue instructions as to recreation, I understand, but we have not got the sandwiches yet.
In England, I believe, they also have undertaken to tell the housewives they can do the shopping better than the housewives. We have not got that here as yet. Nevertheless we have gone quite a long way. Really, this business of the government getting money and playing about with it in various ways has got to stop. If we do not stop them, they will go on doing it more and more.
Let us look at these surpluses. You will remember that in 1947-48 the government had a surplus of some $670 million. The minister explained to us that was not the whole show because there were other special receipts, as I think he called them, which enabled him to get the surplus up to $1,180 million by the end of that year. In the first nine months of the current year it was $609 million. There you have $1,200 million with which the government has been playing.
Let us look at that and compare it with some other things. Let us take $600 million as the annual surplus. It is interesting to note that the total revenue of all the provinces for the last year for which I can get statistics, 1946, shows their revenues as $450 million, $150 million less than this little pin money with which the government has been playing. If you take $600 million, you will find that it works out to about $45 per head for the people of Canada. If my simple arithmetic is correct, for a family of five, that means $225.
Since 1939, the dominion tax has gone up from $38 per head to $198 per head which would mean $990 for a family of five. It is wise to remember that, while the dominion per capita tax has risen, municipal taxes have happily stayed put.
This conception of large surpluses is a kind of new conception of government financing. Philip Snowden, only a few years ago, said that any government that found it had half a crown more than it needed for its expenses was guilty of getting money under false pretences. That may be a little extreme. I think extreme leftists like Snowden are always inclined to be a little more extreme than those of us who go down the middle of the road.
In this house some forty-eight years ago, Sir George Foster, speaking on the budget, quoted from a Liberal minister named Mills. This Liberal minister, for once, was a sensible man. Mr. Mills was referring to a surplus which had occurred. I imagine it was

about the size of the half crown to which Mr. Snowden referred, because in those days they would argue for a whole summer afternoon about a few thousand dollars. Speaking about his opponent, Mr. Mills said:
He boasts of a surplus. I say a government is not entitled to a surplus. There is no stimulus to economy when a large surplus remains in the hands of the government.
I am not going to go as far as Philip Snowden, but I think it is true that when governments get a large amount of money in their hands, they are inclined to spend those moneys rather easily. It makes benevolence so easy.
There is a little incident I am going to give you concerning a million dollars. We know that to the people across the gangway a million dollars does not mean very much. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said that, and I am glad he is not here tonight because I have quoted that remark before when he was here, and I know he does not like it. But in the supplementary estimates last spring provision was made for $500,000 to uproot some of the fruit trees in Nova Scotia. I understand-and I say this on the strength of information which I have always found accurate before-that actually the amount spent on that project up to date is $1,500,000. The government most kindly has found an extra $1 million. I do not know where they obtained the authority. I checked the supplementary estimates today and the amount shown there is only $500,000. But with $600 million at their disposal, how are they to be careful with $1 million? They say, "Oh, well, that is $1 million. There is $599 million left."


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the hon. member
like to know the reason for that?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is my
arithmetic wrong?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. The arithmetic is
right. But the provision was for the pulling up of 240,000 trees and the pulling was to have taken three years. But it was found that the trees could all be pulled in the one year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That
is the very point I am making.


Mr. Rowe:: Most of them were pulled in Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am
grateful to the Minister of Agriculture, because that is the very point I am making. The government have a great deal of money and do not need to pay any attention to what is in the estimates. They do in one year what
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell is supposed to be done in three. I am grateful to the minister, as I say, for what he has said.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a very good job, as the hon. member will And when we get through.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am
interested to observe, Mr. Speaker, that this is just a joke to ministers opposite. They are taking our money, without any authority, and spending it; and when we point that out to them, they say "Well, it was worth doing." I am not objecting to the trees being taken up. I am objecting to our money being spent without any authority.
I should like to go back to the budget speeches of the last two years and bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, for a moment or two, what I call the "surplus mind" of the Minister of Finance. First of all, I should like to go back to 1947, two years ago. At that time the minister told us that he had a surplus of some $352,000,000. Then he really corrected that by saying that there had been special receipts of $372,000,000, I think, so that the surplus was really no surplus at all. But nevertheless the minister, for reasons that I shall outline to you, made a reduction in taxes at that time. He was rather frank about it. As reported on page 2553 of Hansard, 1947, he said:
Economic considerations alone would hardly justify immediate tax reductions.
Then he went on to say this:
One must reach the conclusion that those who must bear them-
That is, the taxes.
-are not ready to support income taxes on the present scale.
In other words, he just said it should not be done, but the income tax payer wants it, so therefore we shall do it. So taxes were reduced by about $160,000,000.
Then in 1948 the Minister of Finance comes along and says that he has a surplus that would gladden the heart of any Minister of Finance. He has not heard about Philip Snowden. He does not know that he has stolen this money from us. He says that the surplus would gladden the heart of any Minister of Finance. Nevertheless, he gives many reasons, and some of them do not sound so bad, for not making any tax reduction last year. The year before, when he had no real surplus, he made a tax reduction. But last year when he had a surplus which, by various means, he totted up to about $1,180,000,000, he made a tax reduction of some $60,000,000. He explained there should not be any tax reduction then and gave a great many reasons for that. He talked about inflation among

The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell other things. One always talks about inflation when in doubt about other things. He also talked about cyclical budgeting, and I shall come back to that in a moment. He entirely ignored some of the suggestions that were made to him by those on this side of the house to the effect that with this big surplus he might have given a little relief to those in the low-income brackets. I myself suggested that some relief might be given. We calculated as well as we could that it would have cost about $125,000,000. But although we had a surplus which, as I say, he totted up by various means to $1,180,000,000, nothing could be done. We suggested a little easement on small companies so that small companies could become big companies, so that they would get a chance to increase enterprise and increase production, which we want. But no; the Minister of Finance would not listen to that suggestion at all.
I just want to make the point that in 1948, when we had a surplus of almost four times as much as the year before, we had no reduction.
Now we come to 1948-49, and in the first nine months of that year we have a surplus of $609,000,000. The minister says sometimes that it gladdens his heart, and sometimes it does not seem to gladden his heart so much. It is what I call a kind of concertina surplus. Sometimes he pulls it out to make it look big and at other times he squeezes it in to make it look small. Recently he has been squeezing it in to make it look small. He points out-


John Ewen Sinclair: When I hear the hon. member quoting Philip Snowden-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wonder if I could have a little silence from the hon. member across the way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The
minister explains that he has this surplus but he says, and I ask hon. members to listen to this, that this surplus constitutes the principal source of cash for financing large demands upon our cash reserves over and above the regular budget expenses. I think it is desirable to realize what is going on. The government has hundreds of millions of dollars which they are using not for ordinary budget purposes but for all kinds of other purposes.


An hon. Member:: By-elections.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me
just give one example. The minister says they spent $275 million to increase the assets of the foreign exchange control board. In other words, they used $275 million of money collected from the taxpayers for the purpose of these United States assets which, I sup-
[Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario) .1
pose, are the premier security in the whole world and for which they could easily have obtained the money in other ways. In addition, another $140 million was spent partly for the purpose of the security investment fund, this highly mysterious fund which has now risen to some $600 million. That is another way in which the government plays about with our money.
This whole business reminds me of a kind of arithmetic question we had when we were children at school. I am sure all hon. members had it. You remember the cistern that had running into it a pipe which would fill it in two hours, and other pipes running out which would empty it, one in three hours, and another in four hours, and so on. We were required to figure out how long it would take to empty or fill the cistern. That question would be all right here if you had one pipe running in, which would be taxes, and another pipe running out, which would be outgo. But here we have the foreign exchange control pipe and the security investment pipe, and so on. They are all running out, and nobody knows where they are running to, least of all the government, in all probability. We therefore just have this thing all jumbled up so that the ordinary citizen has not the slightest idea of what is happening.
I now want to say a word about another thing. Whenever the minister runs out of reasons for this huge surplus, he is asked to fall back on cyclical budgeting. There is such a thing as a proper plan of debt reduction which every sensible man would approve; but that is totally different from crystal gazing, from trying to look years ahead and decide that in this year you will collect several hundred million dollars more than you need because four or five years from now you may be four or five hundred million dollars short.
The Prime Minister stepped into this, and he invoked the name of Mr. Ilsley, whom we all here respect very greatly. Mr. Ilsley, as a good Baptist, had gone back to his bible. He had gone back to the story of Pharaoh and Joseph, to the fat kine that ate the lean kine. My Presbyterian friend over there will know all about this and I hope others do. All hon. members will remember that this was a dream.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This was Pharaoh's dream and of course Joseph interpreted it. I am quite prepared to believe that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) can have dreams, but I want to know who is to interpret them, because it makes a very great deal of difference.


John Ewen Sinclair: Didn't that dream come true?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh,
yes; that dream came true. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Vancouver North is listening. Have you the bible there?


John Ewen Sinclair: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Good. I am saying that if we could be sure that we had someone who could interpret those dreams as well as Joseph did it might be all right. I am not sure that we would get along so well in these days.


William Earl Rowe: Does it say anything about oleomargarine there?


John Ewen Sinclair: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Ewen Sinclair: You would not know much about it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am
glad that I have everybody interested in this and that they are all taking part.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is becoming a coat of many colours.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The
coat of many colours is not in this. That is another story.


John Ewen Sinclair: That is Tory leadership.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Tonight I intend to stay well within my time, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to get me a little quietness if you will.
As we look back over the last two years and try to take stock of $1,200 million, I think it is a serious matter. It is too bad we have been laughing about this because it is a serious matter. As we look back, in spite of all these reasons that the Minister of Finance gave, which sounded so good-I can see him working over this; I wish he were here now to give us some more-it is perfectly clear that the real reasons that were interesting were political reasons. The cycle they had in mind was not an economic cycle; it was a political cycle.
I have been reading the minister's speech. It was such a good speech. He worked so hard at it. He read pages and pages giving us reasons. I can think of some that were contradictory. At one time he said it was because they had underestimated. Then he said that if they had not taxed that way it would have gone higher. I say the reason that he did not give a reduction in taxes in 1948 is that that year was not an election year. We were going to wait until 1949. We are now in 1949, and as far as I can understand from various things that the Prime Minister and others have said, all the pollsters
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell -though they are now a discredited lot-are anticipating that 1949 is going to be an election year. It looks to me as if they are going to be right.
If that is so, what I want to say is this. It may be that the political cycle has turned up the number in this revolving wheel that the minister and his assistants surveyed so carefully. But I think that the people of Canada are entitled to have their taxes this year assessed on a proper basis, on an economic basis and not on a political basis. They are entitled to ask that their taxes be levied on the basis of what is necessary to run the affairs of this country for the next year, and not to run a lot of enterprises which the government has become interested in and on which they spend a few hundred million dollars here and a few hundred million dollars there.
It is quite true in a general way that if the minister were here he would say that the various projects were mentioned in his speech a year ago. That is quite true. Nevertheless it has nothing to do with the ordinary principles of budgeting. It merely confuses the ordinary man on the street and I say it is time we simplified this situation. It is time that we put this thing in such a way that the ordinary man can understand it. When the budget comes down this year it should have a very substantial reduction. I say that the people of Canada should see to it that that reduction is on a proper basis. I do not believe that the people of Canada, who have had the government's hands deep down in their pockets for years now, unnecessarily, are going to be unduly pleased if those hands are withdrawn just such a little way but still kept pretty deep down.


Mr. Warren:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Mr. Green:: You are too late.


Ralph Melville Warren: Will the hon. member not agree that the average man on the street might be pleased with the knowledge that we are endeavouring to pay honest debts?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Ralph Melville Warren: Does the hon. member believe that it is a good thing to pay one's debts?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I said that, yes. Why did you not listen to me? I made a good speech on that.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is the proper time for me to follow the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. He has been talking in thousands and millions of dollars, and I am going to talk of the commodities which make these things possible, namely, agriculture. I am going to point out that I

The Address-Mr. Jones come from the riding of Yale. It may not mean a great deal to some of you, but Yale is one of the finest fruit producing ridings in the dominion. It comprises a couple of valleys, the Okanagan and the Similkameen. It has been seriously suggested to me by several people in the riding that the name of Yale should be changed to include Similkameen or Okanagan, one of those, if not the two names. The Okanagan would be more in keeping with the riding because Yale itself is a community wholly outside the riding and has no connection with it.
I shall confine my remarks mostly to local matters, but in doing so I shall only be doing justice to a riding which has been neglected for the last eighteen months or so through not having a member, and in the last session having one for roughly two weeks of that time.
During the last session events took place which affected the welfare of that riding probably more than any other riding in this country. I refer to the Geneva pact, which affected apples. During that period we lost the British preference, and also during that period the British austerity program hurt the fruit industry. Freight rates were increased, costing our fruit industry in the valley approximately $1,000,000 in freight alone. Added to these troubles, we had flood conditions, and that is still with us. All of these things may be ordinary events in the economy of Canada but to us in the Okanagan they are major events, and that is why I wish to deal with them.
Our fruit industry is a major event, and I should like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, the marvellous growth that this industry has made in the last few years. In 1941 our production of cherries, apricots, peaches, plums, prunes, pears and apples amounted to $7,175,000. In 1946 it had increased to $24,999,000.
The plight of the fruit industry in the mari-times has naturally caused us a great deal of alarm. Stories coming from Nova Scotia, where trees have been pulled out, and the conditions reflected in the talks in this house have naturally caused us alarm. I am going to make one or two suggestions that would materially strengthen our position economically and avert such a calamity before it overtakes us.
First of all, I should like to outline briefly the history of the fruit industry. I shall not go back to the days when we had to sell our fruit at twenty cents per box, to the days when the fruit grower was exploited to such an extent that he did not get enough from the sale of his fruit to pay for his freight. Those were the days of private enterprise, but we are now operating under co-operative meth-


ods of production and sale. I hope that those other days are gone forever.
The production of fruit in British Columbia started in a small way at the beginning of this century in an effort to supply the four western provinces. Production increased more rapidly than consumer demand in those provinces. At that time there were no cold storage facilities. Then production began to disturb the available markets toward the end of the great war, and shipments to Great Britain were started in an effort to supply a high-class product. Tremendous investments were made by the growers in order to produce the varieties that were wanted in England. They took out old trees and replanted new ones. In 1932 the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, who was then Prime Minister, and his associates, intimated that the British Columbia fruit industry should feature the production of apples that were suitable for the British market. Following that intimation the industry planted new varieties and increased cold storage facilities. The fruit was well packed and was produced under the best of conditions.
The industry has grown to the point where we are fast approaching the ten million box stage of production. In 1946 our production was 8,800,000 boxes. The pre-war market in the United Kingdom had been developed to take about 50 per cent of our apple production, which was made up of sizes and varieties not acceptable to the Canadian and United States markets. The British housewife wanted a small apple of a particular variety.
The uncertainties of the export trade due to conditions imposed by the war were partly overcome by an increased market demand in Canada. The Canadian worker and the farmer were able to get more apples than they normally could. However, today we find ourselves without the British market, when the industry has been geared to that market for 50 per cent of its product, which is suitable only for that market.
Under these conditions we in the interior of British Columbia feel that we are entitled to special consideration. The British people want our Canadian apples, but a shortage of dollars has denied our apple producers that market. Other member nations of the commonwealth and other countries in the sterling area as well as countries without the commonwealth are supplying the British market with apples. We fear that a prolonged absence of Canadian apples from the British market will mean that those people will develop a taste for other apples and that once again we will have to fight in order to be able to enter that market and have our product accepted by the British people.

In view of the fact that British people are buying apples in other countries, I urge the government to take steps to review the situation, particularly with regard to the exchange difficulties. I submit that when the people of one country desire a commodity produced in another, a commodity which that other country has in abundance, ways and means should be found to carry out some form of commodity exchange to their mutual advantage.
This would not call for the setting up of an export-import board, because we have already established a corporation that could do this work very nicely. Chapter 40 of the statutes of 1946 provides for the setting up of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and section 4 reads:
The corporation is established for the following purposes:
(a)	to assist in the development of trade between Canada and other nations, and
(b)	to assist persons in Canada
(1)	to obtain goods and commodities from outside Canada; and
(ii) to dispose of goods and commodities that are available for export from Canada.
(2)	The corporation shall comply with any general or special direction given by the governor in council or the minister with reference to carrying out its purpose.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) mentioned that the continuing committee on trade exchange is now sitting in London, and perhaps that body could carry out this work. I have stated that 50 per cent of our market is in Great Britain. I feel quite sure that by approaching the problem on the basis of exchange or barter the difficulties of marketing this 50 per cent of our production could be overcome. Great Britain has already approved that principle because she has signed a pact with Poland providing for barter and exchange. If the Canadian government could get into the same frame of mind and accept the barter principle in carrying on their negotiations with Great Britain we could get rid of some of our surplus fruit.
We could sell some of our fruit and berries from the Fraser valley to the British people. If they were not ready to exchange goods, our fruits and vegetables could be converted into sterling, which could be frozen in England. Until such time as England was ready to supply the necessary goods, that sterling could be used. In the meantime the farmers and fruit producers of Canada could be financed by the government, who would have as a pledge the sterling payments which had been frozen in Great Britain. I am quite satisfied that that could be done.
The Address-Mr. Jones
There is another suggestion I am going to make. Probably I am quite green in political matters, but on reviewing the trade between Canada and the United States it has struck me that there are several commodities and articles that could very well be purchased in Great Britain. Our trade with the United States shows an adverse balance and by trading with England we could take up some of that adverse balance and place ourselves on a better footing. We could adopt the barter or exchange principle in trading with Great Britain and thus obtain many of the goods we now buy in the United States. I am thinking particularly of such things as sporting goods, golf clubs, and so on, which England manufactures, and quite well.
I should like to deal now with the domestic market for fruits and vegetables. The bulk of our fruits and vegetables are sold on the domestic market. There is no question but that the stabilization of that market does not involve foreign exchange or international agreements. It merely calls for a sound, sane, federal marketing act. I do not intend to enter into the details required in such an act. Competent authorities are available to do that for the department. I shall merely make one or two observations from the point of view of the fruit and vegetable producers.
Fruit in particular is a perennial crop and calls for long-term marketing. You cannot rotate fruit trees as you can other crops. Therefore you must regard it as a long-term crop which calls for a different type of rules to govern the conduct of its marketing and production. To some extent the production of vegetables follows the same pattern. Through the Canadian federation of agriculture the industry has submitted to the government a sample act in which they seek power to market their products in an orderly fashion. They seek to eliminate unfair practices in the marketing of their product. In normal times such a federal act would give producers more confidence in their industry, and would eliminate many of the present-day abuses to which both the consumer and the producer are subject. It would bring stability to an industry that has always been sensitive to the nature of its commodity.
The government has had this legislation under advisement for several years, and farmers are becoming impatient. A simple act is all that is required. I have a copy of a draft given to me by a farm organization, and they have asked that I include it in my speech.
266

The Address-Mr. Jones
It is suggested that the marketing act be in simple form but with all the teeth necessary to bring about orderly marketing. I read:
1.	The purpose and intent of this act is to provide for the marketing and regulation of the marketing of any farm products that may be designated by the governor in council in accordance with the provisions of this act.
2.	Whenever, under any law of a province, any board or agency has been established to market, or regulate the marketing of, any farm product, the governor in council may confer upon such board or agency authority to exercise in respect to interprovincial trade or export trade in such product, such powers similar to all or any of the powers provided by or under such provincial law.
3.	The governor in council may make such regulations as may be necessary for the efficient enforcement and operation of this act, and for carrying out the provisions thereof, according to their true intent and meaning.
4.	Every person who fails to comply with any regulation of the governor in council, or with any order, rule or regulation made by any board or agency pursuant to the authority conferred under this act, shall be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not less than $25 and not more than $1,000, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
They feel that such an act has teeth in it. it covers the object they have in mind, security for the farmer in marketing his own products within the dominion. The proof that farmers are ready for it and need it is evident from the fact that all provincial federations of agriculture, the Canadian federation of agriculture, the western agricultural conference, the Canadian horticultural conference, and many other bodies such as the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association, have already endorsed in principle legislation similar to that.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows the wishes of the farmers. That is apparent from what he told a gathering in Kelowna on May 17, 1948, as quoted in the Vancouver Sun of May 18, 1948.
Mr. Gardiner assured growers that his government was prepared to grant the federal marketing legislation required, and this would be done as soon as the government allows the present Emergency Transitional Powers Act to expire.
That is the very assurance the growers wanted. I was at the Chateau Laurier this last week attending a conference of the Canadian horticultural council. I was there shortly after they passed this resolution, and I was rather surprised. The resolution reads:
Whereas Canadian farmers face changing conditions with increasing costs of production and declining demand for many of their products;
And whereas the need for dominion marketing legislation is now more urgent than ever;
And whereas at a public meeting held at Kelowna, British Columbia, on May 17, 1948, the dominion Minister of Agriculture stated that the government was prepared to enact marketing legislation that would meet the needs of Canadian farmers;
Therefore be it resolved that the Canadian Horticultural Council register an emphatic protest with
[Mr. Jones.l
the Canadian government against the unreasonable delay in introducing marketing legislation, which legislation is now recognized by all main political parties as being necessary and desirable.
And that if unable to obtain from the government a definite promise that a satisfactory marketing act will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity, the council insists upon being given valid reasons for the ignoring of the wishes of the farmers of Canada by failure on the part of the government to furnish them with a legal basis upon which the marketing of their products could be stabilized.
I believe that if agriculture can offer greater security to the people employed in it there is no doubt that many young people would stay on the farms who are now leaving them to go into our already overcrowded cities. But they feel they lack that security which is essential, and which could be given to them in part by the passing of a federal marketing act.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was reported recently as saying that industrial production last year exceeded agricultural production for the first time in our history. Canada has always been regarded as a food-producing country, but from his statement it would appear that a change is taking place. I do not know to what extent, but a change is definitely taking place in our status as a food-producing country. I was amazed to find that this trend has had tangible results in some of our international trade. I had occasion to secure certain statistics from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics regarding trade with Australia. I was amazed to find that trade with Australia amounts to total exports of over $38 million and total imports of about $25 million; but all of the imports from Australia are agricultural products and all the exports from Canada are manufactured goods. To me that indicates the trend of the change that was referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I should like to deal briefly with another matter, believing as I do that the British market is only a temporary loss, and that a federal marketing act will be introduced, both of which events would not only bring stability to our industry but make it possible for us to consider its extension as well. I believe that steps should be taken now to protect the interests of the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys. The Okanagan regional advisory committee have been studying the resources of this district for several years. They are of the opinion that the two chief resources upon which the population must depend are irrigable land and hydroelectric power.
Both of these resources are complementary to one another. They have given all our other resources a very low rating. Their present concern is with the damming of the Arrow lakes, and the materials to be used in the con-

struction of the proposed dam. That is what is causing them worry. According to my information, owing to the cold winter, water supplies are drying up in the state of Washington, and agitation has begun for storage of water in the Arrow lakes, the interests to be served being primarily those of the United States. So far the press items are limited to a proposal for an earth dam near Castlegar or Syringa.
No mention has been made of any power development. It has been said that a subsidy of several millions would be paid the provincial government of British Columbia for the storage of the water. I have no quarrel whatsoever with that; all I ask is that any storage dam that may be constructed should be built of reinforced concrete or some similar material and so designed that in future it may be used for the development of hydroelectric power. May I also suggest that the Okanagan interest in this project be kept in mind, especially during the period of technical studies that precedes design and construction, and before the international joint commission which is now considering the proposal.
At this time I should like to place on record for future use some reasons why the interests of the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys should be protected in this proposed development. The figures I am going to quote were supplied by the regional planning board I have mentioned, which was set up with the approval of the provincial government at Victoria. In the area I am dealing with, commonly called the irrigation area, there has been an influx of nearly twenty-one thousand people in the last six years; and this movement continues unabated. This has caused a high demand for our limited irrigable land, causing a sharp rise in prices. Canada will continue to grow and our particular district, with its fine climate, will always attract its quota of newcomers. While our climate probably will prolong their lives, it will not provide a living unless they have the land as well; and we are looking to the future and are anxious to meet this need, and to provide the means whereby our people can live under healthy conditions and at the same time maintain a high standard of living.
Our present limited land cannot carry our population. We must enlarge our irrigation projects and bring new land under water. At present the land is mainly irrigated by gravity, with some small pumping schemes. Water is supplied for a total irrigated area of 44,897 acres. I need not give the details as to how that is made up, but the bulk is 28,037 acres of fruit trees. The gravity water is not available for 23,421 acres of fruit and vegetable land and 13,500 acres of mixed-farming land in this region. That is an area 29087-*81
The Address-Mr. Jones practically equal to that now irrigated, which now provides a high standard of living for all the people living there. Therefore we need a policy based on power to supply water for 36,000 acres, at a cheap rate.
According to a survey it has been found that without irrigation it takes approximately fifteen acres to support one person; but when the same land is brought under irrigation and intensively farmed, as in the Okanagan, four-fifths of an acre will produce a good living for one person. So these added 36,000 acres placed under pump irrigation could support a population of at least 36,000; and we could also develop our dairy industry to meet the demands of that increased population. I have a table showing in detail the lands comprising the 36,000 acres I have mentioned, compiled by the bureau of post-war rehabilitation and reconstruction. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like it included in Hansard, rather than take up the time of the house in reading it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman shall have permission to place the table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Owen Lewis Jones: The table follows:
Average Pumping Acreage Lift
Similkameen Valley:	feet
Cawston Bench	 1,426	110
Okanagan Valley:
South of McIntyre Bluff	
600	450South Kaleden	
500	400North Kaleden	
100	400Penticton I.R. Cutoff	
750	500Westbank I.R. Cutoff	
259	500Westside (Stevens Property) .... 1,200	500Okanagan Mission	
400	120McKinley's Landing	
86	100Carr's Landing	
250	250Mission Hill	
1,500	300Grandview Bench	
3,000	200Salmon Arm (present project)....	4,000	300Salmon Arm (Potential)	
4,300	500Bailey Property (near Vernon)	...	800	300
Thompson Valley:
Tappen-Sorrento (Lake fringe)	...	500	200Pritchard	
3,600	250Pump Scheme No. 1. Kamloops ....	150	50Total	
23,421	286Av.
Mixed Farming Land Areas, Large Farm Units Requiring a Low Water Rate
Average Pumping Acreage Lift
Okanagan Valley:	feet
L. & A. North Vernon (Clay) .. 500	100
Armstrong clays	 8,000	100
Thompson Valley:
Tappen-Sorrento Clays	
5.000	200Total	
13,500	133AV.
Total area that requires pumping: 36,921 acres.

The Address-Mr. Jones
During the war some of these lands, particularly the government lands, were frozen in the interests of veterans, but there are still no veterans on them because there is no water. Beyond a few preliminary surveys of soils and water supplies, no actual development of any major irrigation project has yet been completed. Today we have a market for the products of from five to six thousand acres of canning crops. We have the canneries and the facilities for packing as well as the markets; but we have not the irrigated land to produce the crops. In addition to this, eleven irrigation districts administering some 15,261 acres report an insufficient water supply; and of course the yield and quality of their products is reduced accordingly. They, too, need power for irrigation.
Of course the cost of power is a limiting factor in determining how high it is economical to pump. In the list I have just submitted is shown the height of pumping required, which averages 286 feet. One large grower, Mr. J. W. Hughes, who is located just outside Kelowna, is already pumping some 450 feet on a high-priced crop, and finds it profitable. For the Columbia basin project they will pump 280 feet at Grand Coulee dam, at a power cost of half a mill per kilowatt hour. At Foster creek, down the Columbia from the dam, it is proposed to pump 600 feet with power at between one-half and three-quarters of a mill per kilowatt hour. Current rates in the Okanagan of $4.50 net per horsepower per month represent 6-94 mills per kilowatt hour, as compared with the Grand Coulee power cost of half a mill.
I realize that power developed for irrigation alone would leave the power plant without customers during the winter months. Therefore I suggest that we are ready for vast industrial development to balance our economy in the Okanagan and take a great deal of the load for the winter months. We are also confident that the West Kootenay would purchase our surplus. Already they are purchasing a small surplus from Princeton, and some from the hydroelectric power in Vernon, and they supply the full power needs of C.M. & S. at Trail, so probably they would welcome that. As a means of developing a winter market for the energy used in pumping in summer I am going to suggest that it is feasible to heat homes by electricity. At least that possibility should be investigated. In the study of the Bonneville power administration, as reported in the bulletin "Pacific Northwest Opportunities", I find this statement:
There is little question that for moderately well insulated homes, power rates of approximately one-half cent per kilowatt will prove definitely competi-


tive with other fuels. Advantages are convenience, cleanliness and automatic control, which favour the use of electricity.
Actual operating experience with fifty electrically heated houses at Longview, Washington, indicate that no unusual peaks are experienced. Accurate tests show that maximum demands with thermostatic control averaged 5 kilowatts per individual house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the hon. member permit a very friendly question?


Owen Lewis Jones: I will talk to you outside afterward, if you wish.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask if
the source of the water is the lake? I gather it is.


Owen Lewis Jones: The main source of the irrigation project would be Okanagan lake; but there are other lakes, since the area we are dealing with is from Kamloops to the international boundary. In the table I have placed on Hansard is shown the location of the districts to be pumped.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In other words you want to irrigate higher levels?


Owen Lewis Jones: Yes, levels that cannot be irrigated now by gravity.
The offer of a load-building rate opens the way to a wider use of electricity, but it may take years before the more expensive equipment is in common use. Given a rate at which electricity can compete with other fuels for cooking and heating water, the average man is prevented from taking advantage of the favourable conditions by the high cost of equipment and the terms of sale. I suggest, therefore, that a policy of low-cost financing of high consumption equipment should be introduced as a means of building the market for electricity. Before the war the United States government loaned money at around three per cent interest for this kind of financing. This enabled retailers to lower service charges and thus encourage sales. A similar policy would speed up conversion to electric cooking and water heating in the Okanagan region.
These lands, I might point out, are amongst the wealthiest untapped resources of the Dominion of Canada. The increase in population of our Pacific coast cities and the prairie provinces in general will increase the demand for our fruit, vegetable and dairy products. The interior of British Columbia is the logical place to produce these products, not in California. We are not asking the government at this time to develop a hydroelectric project, but asking them to protect the future interests of the Okanagan and Similkameen people by including their future power needs in any proposed plans for the development of the Arrow lakes project. We

are asking that any proposed dam provide adequate facilities for hydroelectric development.
When our marketing difficulties are overcome, when we have first-class arrangements for the barter or exchange of goods with other nations, then we can quickly develop that land to give you some of the finest fruit and vegetables in the Dominion of Canada.
I have been considerably worried over the attitude of the government to the flood conditions of last year, plus the possible flood conditions of the coming year. The commission determining the best course to guard against future floods in the Okanagan made its report some time ago. The cost of protection, I understand, is in the neighbourhood of $1,700,000. The government has been requested time and again by the people, probably driven by the fear of another flood, to start this work. To date, a year has gone by and the condition in which we find the Okanagan lakes and rivers is worse than it was a year ago before the floods took place. The creeks are silted up, the boulders and rubble are still there. Certain of these creeks cannot possibly take care of the resultant runoff from the heavy blanket of snow which lies on the land surrounding our lakes.
The dominion experimental station itself lost some land in the flood of last year. There is a good chance it will lose a great deal more this year, not only by erosion but owing to the action of the flood in Trout creek. Some of the experimental station buildings are in direct line with the flow of water down the creek if the creek is unable to follow its present channel. I assure you the creek cannot possibly follow its present channel, for the reason that there is much low-lying land in the surrounding area.
I have just one other matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the house. I should like to make an appeal for the old people. I am going to ask you to consider the high cost of living, which hits the old people possibly more than any other group in Canada. I do not know whether you have old people in Ottawa but, if you have, I do not know how they pay rent. The old people find it difficult to pay rent in British Columbia. I am sure that if there are any old age pensioners living in Ottawa they have not much left with which to buy food.
Speaking for the old age pensioners of British Columbia, where possibly we have a higher cash pension than any other Canadian province, I find that even in that province the old people are having a grim economic struggle. They can afford no luxuries. I shudder to even contemplate what their life
The Address-Mr. Jones is like in non-pension bonus provinces where their maximum income is $360. The greatest hardship in British Columbia is where two old people have to live on one pension. This should be eliminated by the granting of an adequate pension so that two people could live decently upon it.
It is my belief that the means test should be abolished and the pension should be paid to everybody as soon as they reach a pensionable age, just the same as the children's allowances are paid, thus removing the stigma attached to the payment of the old age pension. The pension should be payable on the date of the application. I find that a lot of old people get muddled about the form. There are many documents which must be produced. Sometimes there is a period of two or three months in which these documents are brought from England. The pension starts only at the date it is registered in Vancouver. I suggest the pensionable date should commence on the date of the first application.
This is not a party issue. I believe every member in this house is sympathetic to the proposal to increase the pension and to lower the age. We have financed two wars without any difficulty and, if one is to judge from the sentiments expressed in this house, we are prepared to finance a third war. The cost of increasing the old age pension is only a fraction of the cost of war. Really, it is a matter of whether we are willing to do it or not.
We face a serious problem in connection with men who are over forty-five years of age. I have here a letter from a man who has just turned forty-five. About two years ago the government told the municipalities to try to find work for men over forty-five to ease the pressure on unemployment insurance and so on. This man about whom I am speaking is a man qualified for the postal service. He left the postal service after twenty years' service and lately applied for re-admission. He was told he was over forty-five years of age and too old to get the job. I bring that to your attention because the>
government itself must set the example and find work for people over forty-five, and not leave it to others to do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: I draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that his time is up and he cannot continue without the unanimous consent of the members.


Some hon. Members:: Let him continue.


Owen Lewis Jones: These people are not seeking charity. They are the people who have built up this dominion. They have built up what we have today, what we are enjoying now. Many of these people lost what they had
270	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Lalonde built up during' the depression and during the days of high taxation. I know of one man who was reputed to be worth $200,000 twenty years ago. He invested in railroads, mines and real estate, all the things in which a man usually invests. He lost it all. Today he is dependent upon the old age pension. His money is gone. Many of these old people have contributed their own efforts, their own work plus their money to the building up of this dominion during their lifetime, just as this man did. We are not granting charity but justice to these old people. On their behalf, I am entering a plea.


Mr. Maurice Lalonde (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne is characterized by the magnitude of the subjects with which it deals, by a cohesion of concrete proposals which constitute a well drawn up legislative program. Other colleagues in a masterly way dealt with and authoritatively discussed national problems which I will not attempt to consider immediately, but which I will reserve for a later date. I will confine my remarks to the North Atlantic pact and to certain local problems.
I remember the numerous protests which arose in this house in 1937 when the federal government of that day asked for a few additional millions for re-armament purposes. It cannot be denied that some of us in all good faith saw therein a statement of imperialist policy. Others thought that it was a foolish race towards useless re-arming. Unfortunately, the tragic events of 1939 proved that the Liberal leaders of that time were right. Together with other free nations of the world Canada was dragged into the vortex of the second world war. It then appeared that we had not spent foolishly the money we had put into re-arming. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, we face a similar situation.
War did not kill evil. War did not kill nazism. War did not kill communism. We have not found yet the true peace formula. The world is divided into two different political ideologies, communism and democracy, and some day one or the other will have to prevail. Is war imminent? Only God knows. Only one fact remains certain: the old conflict between the ideologies remains. The strife between good and evil, which is as old as the world, will disappear only when the last suns have ceased to shine. Attempting to unify the whole of humanity under a single political unit would be aiming at Utopia. Those governments which are aware of their responsibilities must lay their cards on the table and reveal to their citizens the truth as they know it through the privileged position they occupy. However brutal these facts may be, we must know them.


I wish to thank the Prime Minister for revealing completely and truthfully the position Canada occupies among the nations, together with the magnitude of our commitments toward the other free nations of the world. Some in my province were alarmed when they heard this. We are not quite accustomed to politicians' frankness. We will therefore be a party to the North Atlantic pact. This commitment bears several meanings. It shows that our country has attained, through its efforts, a high rank in the international sphere. It means that real progress has been made towards our total constitutional independence. We thus assert ourselves as a military and economic power of the first order. By adhering to this pact Canada takes its rank among the great nations of the world.
It would indeed be impossible to secure unanimous consent with regard to such a question. With their old mentality of isolation, a loud minority in the province of Quebec will surely criticize the north Atlantic pact. One Rene Chaloult, trying to mimic my predecessor in this house-and God knows, Chaloult does not measure up to Bourassa's knees-shouts his noisy ultra-nationalist principles in the chamber of the Quebec legislature. But he who opens his eyes and faces the hard facts and the unavoidable truth will better understand the tragic scope of his duties than he who, through political design and with an eye on election results, conceals from his constituents the only meaning of the obligations they have assumed. And still we should remember the teachings of these last few years.
Can a member of parliament who knows his duties advocate seriously, and without wincing, that Canada remain totally isolated among the free nations of the world? Can we imagine that nowadays an honest public man can go back to his constituents and make the same promises and take the same pledges concerning our external policy which we made and took with sincere statesmen like Lapointe, King, Rinfret and Cardin? Can we still believe that events will be shaped by men and that men will not be led by events?
The other night, when I heard the ineffable member for Pontiac repeat the same worn out, isolationist stories which we heard on the hustings in 1935, I became convinced that the hon. member must have been sleeping during these last thirteen years and had not yet awakened to the thunder of the frightful war which upset the world.
- Mr. Speaker, whether Rene Chaloult likes it or not, Canada is changing. Whether the isolationist school likes it or not, Canada has become of age. Whether our ultra-nationalist

friends like it or not, Canada, owing to its providential position and the forces inherent in the very nature of things, is a great nation and as such must assume important duties and terrific obligations. No power in this world will prevent our country from climbing the road which will eventually lead it to constitutional independence. I am most upset when I see that those who protest against the importance of our international commitments are precisely those people who demand total independence for our country. How can they reconcile the total independence of Canada with the weakening of the obligations which are a part of the status of total independence? How can they stop the irresistible progress of events and repudiate the political evolution of our country during the last twenty-five years?
As I recall the events of the last years of the nineteenth century I think of the time when, under the inspiration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, political liberalism was being properly defined; when, in a slow and gradual process of labour, the various constituent factors of Canadian political liberalism and of Quebec nationalism were being separated and shaped into different units; when, under the pressure of jingo traditionalism, the political theory of Canadian conservatism was being evolved, as dictated by protectionist interests of high finance; when after the first world war, under the leadership of Mackenzie King, the political life of Canada was beginning to free itself from colonial ties, and the independence of Canada within the British commonwealth was being proclaimed by the Quebec nationalist school led by Bourassa; when the Tory conservatism of Sir Robert Borden was sinking deeper in the old tradition of closer colonial ties; when, after the coup d'etat of 1926, the Canadian people, at the request of Mackenzie King, were telling those advocating imperial solidarity that we were determined to tear loose from the colonial strait-jacket, in order to enjoy the privileges and freedom of free nations. When I think of all that, Mr. Speaker, then I realize that our constitutional evolution was swift and continuous.
We then had Westminster, which was the first test of our strength and the first important constitutional step towards Canadian independence. A Canadian signed our first treaties with foreign powers. In 1939, war was declared by the Canadian parliament, under its own authority, and Canada entered into this conflict of its own free will, without subservience to colonial ties. Bourassa himself, in his book entitled "What do we owe to Great Britain?", admitted that Canada must take part in any foreign war where the pres-
The Address-Mr. Lalonde tige of Great Britain and France would be at stake, as long as such a step be not dictated by the strength of colonial ties.
Then we attended international peace conferences, where Canada was brilliantly represented by statesmen like the minister for external affairs, the Minister of Transport and the parliamentary assistant to the minister for external affairs, and the hon. member for Lotbiniere, all of whom spoke on behalf of Canada, a free country, where free men live, a country which, in the short period of half a century, became an essential factor to the peace of the world.
We must admit, Mr. Speaker, that we are now paying the ransom of freedom, and a politician who would allow himself to be led by the fear of electoral results, and would neglect to raise the curtain of secrecy in order to tell the brutal truth to his constituents, would fall down miserably in the fufilment of his duties.
Do our opponents wish to ignore twenty-five years of history and continue to deceive the people of Quebec by leaving them under a sense of false security? Is it their intention to forget fifty years of keen struggles toward national independence, in order to satisfy a very small part of a backward public opinion, and for the advantage of an old-fashioned political ideology? After the frightful events of the last decades and the tragic and forceful lessons imposed upon humanity during the last ten years, I cannot admit, Mr. Speaker, that in my own province a person can so lack realism as to deny that it is necessary and urgent for all free democratic countries to unite for the defence of their common inheritance.
When I support the government on this question, I know that I am fulfilling an imperative duty towards my constituents. Far from being a hostile demonstration, the North Atlantic pact is rather the expression of a collective determination towards universal security. Russia slightly raised her iron curtain when she offered to discuss peace. Would she already realize that an alarmed public opinion is exerting pressure upon her people? Would she be aware of the importance of the coalition of free nations which she knows she will never be able to defeat?
The future alliance, Mr. Speaker, is already bearing fruits. Stalin offers to talk peace, he offers democracies a wavering hand, and I believe democracies should not accept Moscow's offer straight away. If we bear in mind the treasons and repudiations of solemn pledges, the repudiation of solemn signatures affixed to official parchments, will we believe that it is still possible to have faith in Russia

The Address-Mr. Lalonde and her satellites? It is indeed interesting to recall the pacts which our enemies tramped upon from 1889 to 1939. The Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907; the treaty of Versailles, of June 28, 1919; the treaty of Berlin, August 25, 1921; the treaty of mutual security of Locarno, October 16, 1925; the treaty of arbitration between Germany and Czechoslovakia, October 16, 1925; the treaties of arbitration between Germany on one hand, Belgium and Poland on the other hand; the treaty of conciliation of June 2, 1926, between Germany and Denmark; the Kellogg-Briand pact of August 27, 1928, under which the signatories renounced war; the treaty of arbitration of September 11, 1939, between Germany and Luxembourg; the treaty of nonaggression between Germany and Poland, January 26, 1934; the guarantees given by Germany on May 21, 1935, to the federal state of Austria securing inviolability of its territory; the convention of July 11, 1936, between Austria and Germany; the German guarantees of January 30, 1937, April 28, 1939, August 26 and October 6, 1939, that the neutrality of the Netherlands would be respected; the conventions of January 30, 1937, October 13, 1937, April 28, 1939, August 26 and October 6, 1939, offering Belgium the same pledges and the same guarantees; similar conventions between Germany and Czechoslovakia, on March 11 and September 26, 1938; the treaty of Munich of September 29, 1938, the guarantees which Germany gave to Norway, September 3, April 28 and October 6, 1939, that the independence and sovereignty of that country would be respected; similar pledges to Luxembourg, April 28 and August 26, 1939; nonaggression treaties between Germany and Denmark, May 31, 1939; between Germany and Russia, August 23, 1939; guarantees which Germany gave Yugoslavia, October 6, 1939, concerning the neutrality and territorial integrity of that country; there you have, Mr. Speaker, so many scraps of paper which were torn up by Germany, so many lessons which we should not forget.
We will soon have the North Atlantic pact. Let us hope earnestly that the signatories of this pact will be sincere, since without sincerity no human convention can be effective.
(Translation):
Moreover, such a unification of the material strength of free nations is conclusive


proof of the futility of international isolationism. I ask those who advocate the total independence of Canada on the world scene to suggest a definite formula for the participation of Canada in the bilateral benefits of trade agreements and for her withdrawal from bilateral commitments. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that we can always demand benefits from other countries without assuming ourselves the risks inherent in such deals. If the constitutional independence of Canada can, in the course of time, become a reality and attain its ultimate perfection, I submit that our country cannot at this time isolate herself in total independence from the world scene. We are now bound to the other free countries, and these must take into consideration Canada's influence in framing their foreign policy. Exposure to danger makes men wiser. The great human brotherhood finds in world events its most positive manifestation.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal, for the next few minutes, with certain local problems. Obviously, it is hardly possible, in the course of the few moments at our disposal, to analyse each and every one of the problems mentioned in the speech from the throne. I would like however to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, three problems affecting in particular the people I represent, namely, the tourist industry, forest protection and income tax. Other hon. members have already dealt with them in a much more eloquent fashion. Already these members have asked from the government a substantial reduction in the taxation of personal incomes of less than $3,000 a year.
A few moments ago, I heard the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) express his amazement at the government surpluses. Mr. Speaker, it is evident that no Conservative government ever administered the country in such a way as to show a surplus. During all the time our friends opposite were in power they had nothing but deficits. They are therefore surprised when the Liberal government of today shows a surplus. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) resorted to arguments I would like to refute when he stated that the government was playing with its surplus. I am taking the liberty to remind him that according to official information which has been given to us by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), it was quite the opposite. The government paid the people's

debts by reducing the national debt by almost $3 billion, while paying such expenses as are authorized by the laws and statutes.
The hon. member was quite content to make statements without adducing any concrete evidence that these expenditures were illegal. The charges leveled at the Minister of Finance, the latter will refute much more ably than I could when he brings down the budget.
I wish to refer now to an important matter concerning Labelle county and the surrounding counties, located in the beautiful Laurentian region. I refer to the tourist industry.
According to official statistics, the tourist trade earned this country $166,354,000 in 1945 and, in 1946, $220,800,000. It is therefore one of our chief industries and one that should receive proper support from the authorities.
Right away, the Quebec Tories, who forever borrow misleading misnomers and hide under the cloak of the Union Nationale party, will state that the Canadian constitution puts the tourist industry outside the ken of the dominion government. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian constitution does not forbid the dominion government to co-operate with those who wish to do so. I am convinced that the present government is willing to spend the money required to help the tourist industry in our locality.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents have three means of livelihood: farming, lumbering and the tourist industry. May I therefore urge the dominion government to dig deep down in its coffers, even in its surplus, if possible, and promote the tourist trade in our district by building good roads, as was done from 1935 to 1937.
Mr. Speaker, I will support any legislation designed to help the provincial governments establish tourist guide training schools. The first question of any visitor to Canada is to ask if we have good guides to take him where game and fish are most plentiful.
We have, of course, specialists in this field, but I believe that such men would profit greatly if the Quebec provincial government, assisted by federal funds, could provide them with guide training schools where they would learn to perfect their trade.
Lumbering, the second largest industry of my county, must be protected at the earliest possible moment. Between 1938 and 1945, it brought this country hundreds of millions of dollars. If the house permits, I shall place on record a table showing that in 1945, this country produced almost 7 million cubic feet of lumber, valued at more than $133 million.
The Address-Mr. Lalonde The lumber industry is therefore one of those that deserves assistance, but, Mr. Speaker, it-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. Has he unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Mr. Casselman:: Two minutes.


Maurice Lalonde: It will take only a few seconds, but perhaps it will take an hour to understand it.
(Translation):
Quantity Average price per Year	(Cu. ft.) thousand cubic feet Value
1938	
634,954,194	? 96.27	$ 61,125,6281939	
362,899,189	102.45	37,180,1951940	
559,035,364	109.20	60,948,5701941	
649,250,184	119.12	77,341,8261942	
698,334,208	136.12	95,060,4411943	
591,672,197	155.55	92,032,1631944	
653,989,310	175.72	114,918.0461945	
698,204,256	190.86	133,261,833
However, Mr. Speaker, I wish you could see the sorry spectacle the forests present from the air. Thousands of acres of wooded areas have been clear-cut, not unlike meadows shorn of their hay, and in the north of my constituency the forests are disappearing with a terrific speed. We find that logs must now be looked for at a distance of more than 50 miles from the mills in Mont Laurier while a few years ago we could get them a few miles away. I say, Mr. Speaker, that an emergency exists and that the dominion government should take immediate action with a view to helping the provincial governments to plant trees in sufficient number to ensure future crops.
The program forecast by the speech from the throne is one of those which call for approval.
It is national in scope. Let our forests be despoiled and in less than twenty-five years you will witness desolation instead of the prosperity of our people. Let our forests be despoiled and within twenty-five years there will be no more tourist business. Let our forests be despoiled and within twenty-five vears there will be widespread unemployment.
I congratulate the government on taking this situation in hand. Mr. Speaker, the government will never spend too much on helping the provinces restore to our forests the life of which they are being depleted to satisfy the needs of trade.
I am happy to see my good friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his seat. May I support the requests he probably heard already for tax reductions. It is imperative,
274	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Lalonde Mr. Speaker, that the government grant adequate tax reductions to white-collar workers.
I will not make so bold as to suggest a figure, being no mathematician, but I believe that if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) could see his way clear to grant white-collar workers and those whose income is less than $3,000 a year income tax reductions proportionately equal to the reduction in national debt, I believe that people would be satisfied. This would mean a decrease, if I am well informed, of approximately $100 million a year.
There is another project which I would like to submit to this house, that of assistance to municipalities. Before the war we passed a law enabling the federal government to lend municipalities money with which they could build waterworks, sewers and other local improvements. We were fortunate enough to benefit from this law in my district. It has helped us to alleviate unemployment. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the government could not examine, at an early moment, the advisability of renewing these provisions. There now exists an incipient condition of unemployment. Admittedly it is not yet serious; still it is not impossible that, within a few months or a few years, we will be faced with real unemployment.
The coming economic readjustment cannot happen without some of us being hurt. Can anyone think of more beneficial legislation than one involving the spending of dominion funds on local improvements in our municipalities?
Mr. Speaker, in making those suggestions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), I ask him to plead with his colleagues on behalf of the electorate so that this legislation may be re-enacted during the present session. If it has become obsolete, let us take the steps required so that by next spring our municipalities, especially the poorer ones, may benefit by it.	*
Perusal of the speech from the throne might lead to other considerations. However, I have nothing else to add tonight, except this final thought which has just crossed my mind.
As the years go by and men and things disappear, as we begin to grasp the true meaning of life and understand that men come and go but their achievements stand, we detach ourselves from the contingencies of human politics and consider only truth and
IMr. Lalonde.]

reality. Who among us will be here, in this house, a century from now? No one. The coming generations will then be sending other Canadians to sit in these same seats and discuss other problems and follow other ideals. Though our names will be forgotten our achievements will stand and it is through them that our sons will judge us, because they will be eternal. Glory, prestige and human ambition will vanish as the echo of a lonely osprey's cry dies out on a peaceful summer evening over our Laurentian lakes. It is because I have a deep and burning faith in those things that I ask my fellow countrymen to tie up their names with works of Christian peace and of real progress which time will chisel in the rock of history, as an indelible memorial to those who will have served their country well.
(Text):


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendment to the amendment. I do so at this time because this is the conclusion of my first full week in the House of Commons. In view of the fact that the motion which we opposed, but which was adopted by the house, will bring to an end temporarily, the debate on the speech from the throne, I think I should deal tonight with certain of the things that have been said during this past week, because I do not think it would be either desirable, or in fact appropriate, that they should be left unchallenged. I confess that I came here with a natural feeling of respect for the great chamber in which the nation's business is conducted. I had expected during the early days that I would be attending the sessions of the House of Commons to hear debates in keeping with the measure of responsibility that is supposed to be assumed by this house. I must confess that in the ten years I was in the Ontario legislature I did not in any one week hear, from the government ranks, or from elsewhere, speeches which reflected so little of a sense of responsibility as many of the speeches have during this past week.
A very considerable part of the time that has been devoted to debate by those sitting in the government ranks has been employed for a type of personal attack which, on the one hand, is a reflection on the members making those attacks, and which, on the other hand, does indicate a very flattering degree of attention to speeches I have made over a very long number of years. It is quite obvious that a good deal of effort has been devoted to an examination of those speeches. Of course, members may not be aware that this is not the first occasion on which similar efforts

have been made to do the same kind of thing. Really it is not in any way new nor in any way original.
There are some points that I should like to make in regard to the emphasis on consistency which was put forward first of all by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), then in such a lordly manner by the new Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), and also by others who have spoken. It is very interesting to listen to these lectures on consistency which perhaps invite an examination of the consistency of some of those who have assumed the role of high authority on this particular virtue. This afternoon we had one rather interesting example of that very thing. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), throughout the major part of his speech, made a presentation of the Canadian position with which every Canadian will agree, and of which members of this house may well be proud. It was unfortunate that, perhaps carried away by the new sensation of being a member of the party he has recently adopted, he should have found it necessary in the middle of that very important and responsible speech to embark upon what was so manifestly a political interjection. He had this to say:
There is, however, Mr. Speaker, a serious omission in the unanimity with which this matter is otherwise regarded in the house in that no single Progressive Conservative member has so much as mentioned the pact.
A little later he qualified that by saying he believed the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) had referred to it in some way; then he went on to say:
Why no reference of any kind to this very important measure which is forecast in the speech from the throne? Is this parliament not united in the objectives that we are seeking through this pact? Or are any of us playing politics with peace at this time?
It was very appropriate for him to make that remark, because unfortunately he was playing politics when he did so. The answer is given in his own remarks, at the beginning; these are his words:
I assume there will be a debate on external policy later in this session and possibly a debate devoted more particularly to the ratification of the north Atlantic pact. Much of what I should like to say, therefore, in regard to external affairs generally will have to be reserved for those occasions.
That, Mr. Speaker, was precisely why I omitted to discuss-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: -why I omitted to discuss-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: That was exactly why I omitted to discuss a pact that is not yet before this
The Address-Mr. Drew house, a pact no member of this house has seen except the government, in fact a pact which it would be most improper to discuss until the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has tabled it in this house. But may I say to some of those who are giving such striking evidence of their disregard for the business of this house that a subject of this kind is one that should be discussed with knowledge of the details, and hon. members opposite may feel quite certain that when that pact is before this house it will be discussed in a way which will leave no doubt about my stand or the stand of any other member of this party. And may I say to some of those who are making these strange and not very impressive sounds that, long before any of them were prepared to recognize that there were such things as international problems of this kind, my position was perfectly clear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to
hon. members on both sides that they must not interrupt the hon. gentleman who has the floor.


George Alexander Drew: I want also to refer to another statement that was made this afternoon. Referring to a radio address by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) last night in which a new statement of policy-which might well have been given to the house-was announced to the people of Canada, I asked whether that suggested that we were to deal with this very important question of amending the British North America Act during the present session and, if so, whether this was to be dealt with in consultation with the provinces. The answer was that it would not be dealt with without consulting the provinces, and that there was no possibility of dealing with it during the course of the present session because of the difficulty of the problem involved. Now I suggest to the members of this house, to those on the government side as well as elsewhere, that they ask themselves exactly why this statement was made last night if there is no intention of dealing with this very important subject during the present session. Was that just a political suggestion, with no intention of carrying it out? Let us see just what the position of the Prime Minister is in regard to meeting the provinces in conference. The other day when we were discussing the necessity of having the governments come together to deal with those problems which affect the people of Canada so seriously, the Prime Minister left no doubt that he did not believe we could have any general conferences between the

The Address-Mr. Drew provinces and the dominion government with any hope of success. This is what he said, at page 83 of Hansard:
The results there show that, when we have meetings with the provinces that are not full dress performances of the premiers, their ministers and associates, we do get effective co-operation and collaboration to the benefit of the general Canadian public.
Later he went on to say, at page 86 of Hansard:
I am convinced that conferences of that kind, when there are elections in the offing, are stalemated from the start. There is no genuine desire at any of these conferences to deal with the various matters on their merits; and they were not dealt with on their merits. Since then on many occasions we have had meetings with representatives of the provincial governments, meetings with officials, and meetings even on the ministerial level, and have done things that have been for the benefit of the whole community. But when we have these full-dress provincial conferences, such attitudes are taken-and I will not say it is all on one side; there may be just as great fault on our side as on the other-that it is quite impossible to expect anyone who has his eye cocked on elections to do anything about the merits of the matter under discussion.
Let us see exactly what that means. The conference to which these remarks referred met on August 6, 1945, and the Prime Minister tells us there were elections in the offing in Ontario and Quebec. He seems to have forgotten that there had been an election in Quebec a very short time before, with results which perhaps were not entirely satisfactory to him. There had also been an election in Ontario just two months before, almost to the day, at which time the Progressive Conservative party was returned to power for a second consecutive time with 66 out of the 90 seats in that legislature.
We had a fairly satisfactory mandate to speak for the people of Ontario in spite of what was said by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) last night. I may say that mandate was continued on a very satisfactory basis in June of this past year.


An hon. Member:: What about High Park?


George Alexander Drew: You know, Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear references to High Park because the early part of this session was devoted to extolling the virtues of the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King), who was hailed as one of the great examples of leadership of a political party. He holds the all-time record for having been defeated as Prime Minister in the various ridings in which he ran.


John Ewen Sinclair: But never because of cocktail bars.


George Alexander Drew: So, if I did avoid the necessity of a second election in High Park which appeared to be quite necessary, may I say that was the first occasion on which, as 
premier, I had had that experience. I still have to have it many times more before I equal the record of the right hon. member for Glengarry.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You asked for that one.


John Ewen Sinclair: He was never defeated on cocktail bars; he was defeated on issues.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Sharply so.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the statement that has just been made is a statement to the effect that, although a series of elections had just taken place in 1945 when the conference met, there was no hope of success because those attending that conference were not sincerely approaching the problem before them. Now that, Mr. Speaker, is a serious reflection upon every premier of every province of Canada, including the Hon. Angus Macdonald, the Hon. Mr. McNair and the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson).


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Look at me worrying.


An hon. Member:: He does not mind it as much as you do.


George Alexander Drew: I will say this much, that the present Minister of Justice was preaching for a call during that conference and he has been called. This is a statement to the effect that these men, chosen by the people of their own provinces, were not meeting here with any sincere intention of reaching a solution of the problems before them. No statement which has been made here or elsewhere throughout this country more clearly indicates the reason that conference broke down, because the Prime Minister indicated he felt quite sure that was likely, and each delegate felt that in his own mind as well. Well, he cannot speak for the others, but he can speak for himself. He apparently left no doubt that he was not approaching this in such a way that he ever expected success.
Now the Minister of Justice, after having gone to the United States to find someone who had come here to get an official handout from those who give the anonymous statements on behalf of the government, and then getting as far away as Tasmania, challenged me to produce any statement which suggested I had not been responsible for the breakdown of the conference. Let me quote one witness who was not in Tasmania but was here in Ottawa at the time that conference was meeting in May of 1946. This is what he said.
If this conference fails-then the responsibility rests squarely on the doorstep of the dominion government due to its attitude of uncompromising rigidity as expressed by the Minister of Finance.
That was the statement of Mr. Manning, the premier of Alberta, who, along with

Premier Macdonald of Nova Scotia, made statements which stand out in the clear and which constitute an extremely important record of the efforts of the provinces of this country, or most of them, really to reach results at that conference.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of privilege, what I said in my remarks, as I recall them, was that the hon. gentleman, the leader of the opposition, should produce some statement of an objective and judicial character, meaning thereby someone not connected with the conference itself. Let him produce such, if he can.


George Alexander Drew: What the Minister of Justice actually said was:
I challenge him to do so-some judgment of an equally objective character-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, equally objective.


George Alexander Drew: Equally objective to a man from Tasmania. This house has it within its power, Mr. Speaker, to express an opinion that there should be a conference in which all the provinces can meet with the dominion government to achieve these results which can only be brought about by the various governments coming together. We have been told by the Prime Minister first over the radio-we might have liked to hear it in this house but that is the way we heard it-of the tremendous importance of being able to amend our constitution. Having been told that, we are told, first, that he has no intention of bringing that up during the present session and that, while he does believe he should discuss it with the provinces before he does anything about it, he has no intention of meeting the provinces at any time.


William Earl Rowe: He says it would be a waste of time.


George Alexander Drew: Yes; he says it would be a waste of time.


Mr. Brunelle:: That is what is happening now.


William Earl Rowe: I do not know what hon. members opposite are going to do now. One can almost see the handwriting on the wall.


Mr. Hartt:: Stop your dreaming.


William Earl Rowe: The chickens are coming home to roost.


John Ewen Sinclair: It is nice to see the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) here on Friday evening.


William Earl Rowe: I am sticking around to see what is going to happen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
The Address-Mr. Drew


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I must say that there are times when I regret that there are in the chamber no loudspeakers connected with the broadcasting system of this country so that the people of Canada might hear how some people conduct themselves here.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Television is what we want.


George Alexander Drew: Since this matter has been entrusted to your care, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will take this demonstration as a unanimous expression of the desire of hon. members to have loudspeakers, and an indication that they would welcome the chance to have their utterances conveyed to the public.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Television too.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


George Alexander Drew: It depends on what the question is.


An hon. Member:: Getting scared?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is the question. My hon. friend has stated that he has expressed himself upon these international matters. Will he tell us this evening what his views upon them are, so that we may hear them?


George Alexander Drew: That remark is a perfect example of how much we ever received from the hon. gentleman in the way of useful contribution at the conference.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: No co-operation on television.


Mr. Grant:: Tell us about the iniquitous family allowances.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, I will. I came here, Mr. Speaker, expecting to hear contributions to the debate.


An hon. Member:: And the hon. member is going to get them, too.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Why does the leader of the opposition not make one, then?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Instead of that, I have listened
to a type of personal attack which, I am sure, is unprecedented in the records of this chamber. I listened to a dissertation by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on frankness, and I accept the challenge to deal with that subject. The Prime Minister referred to a statement from which he quoted an extremely short part, and left the impression that I had expressed my opposition to family allowances.


An hon. Member:: Iniquitous family allowances.

The Address-Mr. Drew


George Alexander Drew: He said that it was only at a
later date, when the party met here, that there was any change in attitude. If the Prime Minister had been frank or fair he would have quoted from the same speech these words of mine which he knew were there, because he had the speech.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Which speech is that?


George Alexander Drew: This is what I said:
We are in favour of every proper step being taken to encourage large and healthy families. We believe in sound provisions for family allowances and social security.
He also knew perfectly well when he made that statement, and a highly offensive one it was, that I had made this statement in the Ontario legislature, which was the body to which I was responsible on February 22, 1945, because we had subsequent meetings dealing with this and other subjects. This was what I said, and it is contained in the record of that legislature under date of February 22, 1945. I would ask hon. members to compare this with some of the statements that have been made.


Mr. Sinnoif:: We will not allow this iniquitous bill to pass; that is what the hon. member said.


George Alexander Drew: I am now quoting from what I said:
I have stated over and over again that we regard family allowances as one of the most important social services; that it is therefore within the exclusive constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces; that the provinces must be consulted if there is to be any effective administration of family allowances; and I have publicly urged over and over again that there be a dominion-provincial conference to settle the basis upon which the dominion and provincial governments of this country can best combine their legislative authority for the benefit of all our people.
The problem with which this and every other provincial government is faced has been stated most clearly by the Hon. Stuart Garson, Premier of Manitoba. I will quote his own words on the subject:
"We are still puzzled as to one of the most important points . . . We have no information before us which indicates conclusively whether the dominion government itself regards and justifies family allowances primarily as a social security measure, or as an instrument of federal fiscal policy . . .
It seems to me that the point here is that the dominion government in introducing family allowances without consulting the provinces, whose jurisdiction over the field of social services heretofore in practice has been considered almost exclusive, surely could not have intended to justify them solely or even primarily as a social service measure. As such they would constitute a federal intrusion in a provincial field of jurisdiction."
Those are the words of Mr. Garson. Then I go on with my own words in that speech in the Ontario legislature, which was well known to the Prime Minister of Canada when he

charged me with lack of frankness the other day. This is what I said:
I do not believe the situation could be more clearly stated. If family allowances are to be regarded solely or even primarily as a social service measure, then again to quote Mr. Garson's words-
I almost said "garcon."
-they would constitute a federal intrusion in a provincial field of jurisdiction.
Now we are told by the minister responsible for the administration of this act that it is part of a broad system of social security. If that is so, and we have never been in any doubt that it was so, then this act is an intrusion upon the provincial field of jurisdiction without any consultation with the provinces. In fact the situation goes very much farther than that. Having disregarded the constitutional position of the provinces and their jurisdiction over social services in the introduction of the act, the dominion government has refused repeated requests from myself and other provincial premiers for a dominion-provincial conference to discuss this and other invasions of our authority.
I wish to assure the members of this legislature that we have at all times made it abundantly clear that we were not seeking to raise constitutional issues but that we were seeking to avoid constitutional difficulties in the future. I have made it clear, and I believe the premiers of other provinces have made it equally clear that our purpose in insisting upon a dominion-provincial conference immediately is not to raise barriers against measures which will be for the benefit of our people but rather to make sure that we combine the full constitutional power of the dominion and provincial governments, so that whatever is done may not be upset subsequently by anyone who wishes to test the validity of legislation of this nature in the courts. We also wish to make sure that the highly trained and competent social service workers in the different provinces have their part in the administration of any plans of social security which may be adopted.
Anyone, with the least knowledge of family and child welfare, knows that the health, housing, nurture and all the interests of human beings, hang together in a well integrated whole. You cannot deal with the human needs of a family today without relating closely all the resources in your social catalogue-maternal	care, nutrition, housing,
mothers' allowances, all forms of assistance, etc. So, your whole welfare security program cannot be done on a bits and pieces basis. It has to be unified and its administration rests with the provinces unless the whole basis of confederation is to be destroyed.


Mr. Marlin:: Would you repeal the present act if you became Prime Minister of Canada?


George Alexander Drew: That, Mr. Speaker, was known to the Prime Minister when he made his speech, because several months after that we met here in Ottawa in a dominion-provincial conference when they finally acceded to our requests and we discussed these very subjects and the Prime Minister knew that we were in favour of family allowances on a higher basis than had been paid, but we said that these family allowances should be for the benefit of the children, and the advantage of our social service organizations should be brought to play upon the administration of this tremendously important function.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Page the Minister of Justice, who has run out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that before interrupting an hon. member who has the floor permission should be asked.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was going to ask the hon. gentleman-


George Alexander Drew: No. My time is not up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have heard these appeals to prejudice which have been made. I want to say that I am not in any way concerned about these appeals except to the extent that they themselves are doing immeasurable damage to Canada by appealing to prejudice in that way.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: You started it.


George Alexander Drew: The reason I say that is this.
1 had been premier of Ontario for some years, until I resigned to come here.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: You were beaten.


George Alexander Drew: I must ask that if these hon.
members are unable to recognize the responsibility of this great chamber and are unprepared to listen to debate, the hour should not be called at the usual time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask hon.
members to be serious and to listen to the hon. member who has the floor.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have reason for
saying that I am not concerned with the slanderous attacks which have been repeated over and over again long before this. I am not concerned with them for this reason. In Ontario we have seven ridings where there is a substantial majority of French Canadians who are as proud of being French Canadians as any French Canadians anywhere in Canada. In these constituencies the same appeals were made.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: They were afraid of you.


George Alexander Drew: In the last election in June,
after I had been premier of Ontario for five years, and they knew my record, we won six of the seven ridings. I am not concerned, but I do say to the Prime Minister, who set the pattern which has unfortunately been fol-
The Address-Mr. Drew lowed by those who were not competent to judge their own course, that the weapon of prejudice-


An hon. Member:: Iniquitous.


George Alexander Drew: -is a sharp and dangerous two-edged sword, and it would be well for those who wield it to realize that it is very sharp and very dangerous and it is very sharp on both sides.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: I do not for one moment accept the proposition that the type of attack which has been made here during the past week, not by members of any one party-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eleven o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: -not by members of any one group, but by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), represents the real feeling of our people and I am sure above all that it does not represent the sentiments of the great race who populate the province of Quebec.
In view of the interruptions, Mr. Speaker, may I just have one moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Let him finish.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let him finish.


Mr. Cote (Matapedia-Matane):: Let him finish.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it would be only fair to give a few minutes to the leader of the opposition.


George Alexander Drew: I have no intention of delaying the house very long beyond merely completing the remarks I was about to make. This country today is a very fortunate land.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Good government.


George Alexander Drew: This country today has opportunities unequalled anywhere else in the world; but one of the great questions with which this country is confronted is whether, in a world torn by dispute and strife, we are to seek every little ground, whether justified or not, for fanning the flames of prejudice, or whether on the other hand we are going to seek common ground of agreement on which we can march forward as a great people to the destiny that lies ahead. That is the challenge that lies ahead. That is the challenge to every one of us, and a challenge which I believe is put forward in the continuance of this debate.
On motion of Mr. Drew the debate was adjourned.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: On Friday last the house passed a motion giving priority to government notices of motion and government orders from February 7 to February 18 inclusive. On Monday next we shall proceed with the two resolutions concerning Newfoundland. I do not know whether the house will wish to debate these resolutions at length or whether the discussions will take place on the second reading of the bill. If the motions are passed a bill will be introduced, read the
first time and the second reading would come up the next day. If that takes place we shall then proceed with resolutions numbered 7, 5 and 4 on the order paper. Those are the resolutions relating to emergency powers, the Agricultural Products Act and the Foreign Exchange Control Act. If we conclude that work we will resume the debate on the address.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 7, 1949