1949-09-19

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the very unfortunate disaster which occurred in Toronto on Saturday morning, September 17, when the Canada Steamship Lines
S.S.	Noronic took fire at her berth, with a loss of life reaching well over 125, according to latest reports. I understand that all the passengers have not been accounted for, and the list of persons missing over and above those whose bodies have been recovered stands at approximately 70. I am sure that all the members of this house will join with me in extending to the families and relatives of those who have lost their dear ones our most sincere sympathy in their hour of grief.
The passenger list of S.S. Noronic was made up of nearly 500 United States citizens and some 20 Canadian citizens. It is .deplorable that such an accident should have occurred where loss of life affects so many families of our friends in the United States, and I am fully conscious of their sorrow and tribulation in the fate of their next of kin. I would like to pay tribute to the authorities of the city of Toronto for the magnificent way in which they marshalled their various emergency organizations to give assistance in connection with this tragedy and to alleviate, as far as is possible in such circumstances, the physical and mental burden of those afflicted.
As soon as the extent of the tragedy became known, I immediately appointed Captain W. N. Morrison, supervising examiner of masters and mates, Toronto, to hold a preliminary inquiry under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act. He will be assisted in his duties by Captain G. L. C. Johnson, assistant to the supervisor of the nautical division here in Ottawa. The inquiry was started this morning in Toronto. Also under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act I have appointed Hon. Mr. Justice R. L. Kellock, of the Supreme Court of Canada, to act as commissioner in a formal investigation which will be proceeded with as soon as it is humanly possible to get it under way.
I would like to inform the public in both the United States and Canada that I examined the report of the steamship inspection of
S.S.	Noronic and found that the vessel had complied with the steamship requirements of the Canada Shipping Act. On April 23 the master of the ship was given his certificate authorizing him to operate the vessel on the great lakes and connecting waters, carrying up to 600 passengers and 200 of a crew. This certificate is issued after it has been found that the engines, boilers, fire extinguishing equipment and life saving apparatus are operating efficiently and in accordance with the act. The report also indicated that the owners had installed a new fire alarm system. The certificate issued by the steamship inspection service of the Department of Transport is recognized by the United States coastguard service. I am also advised that when the S.S. Noronic called at a United States port early in the navigation season, a representative of the United States coastguard inspected the ship, and as he was satisfied with the condition of the ship, he likewise issued a certificate under the provisions of the United States act. I think I should state that the owners of the vessel had complied with the requirements of the Canada Shipping Act and of the United States coastguard inspection service in so far as it applied to Canadian ships.
This terrible disaster is of such gravity that it has been considered advisable to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada to hold an inquiry. As the investigation will be proceeding immediately, it would be improper for me to make any further statement at this time. However, the inquiry will be a public one at which all the facts will be fully disclosed, and if there is any blame or negligence on the part of anyone, it will be brought to light.


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I should like to ask the minister one question. Why is not the inquiry into this terrible disaster in one of our harbours, to a guest ship which had rights and privileges not allowed to our Canadian shipping, being held under the Inquiries Act rather than by officials of the department?-because that is what it is. It is in the public interest that the investigation should be under the federal Inquiries Act.

S.S.	Noronic
I suggest also that the minister should ask that services be held in our churches next Sunday to express our sorrow at the disaster and our appreciation of what we owe to the people of the United States.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if the hon. member was able to hear the statement I made about the appointment of a commissioner under the Canada Shipping Act. Such a commissioner has the same power as a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act.


Thomas Langton Church: The investigation should be under the Inquiries Act. It would be a much wider investigation than one made under the Canada Shipping Act. I know the minister is not to be blamed for everything-far from it; but a royal commission should be appointed. There should not be merely an inquiry by officials of the department.


Lionel Chevrier: The Canada Shipping Act provides for both a preliminary and a formal investigation, and both are being carried out in this case.


Mr. Fraser:: Has consideration been given to compelling passenger ships to use flash- or fire-resistant paint in the interiors instead of ordinary oil paint?


Lionel Chevrier: The steamship inspection branch of the department has given consideration to that from time to time. I understand that in the United States, following the disaster to the Morro Castle, consideration was given to the passing of regulations to that effect.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is it not compulsory?


Lionel Chevrier: So far as I know, no such regulations have been put into effect in this country.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think the minister should put them into effect.



NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) told the house on Friday, September 16, the first meeting of the North Atlantic council was held in Washington on September 17. The council approved a communique which I now have the honour to table. Because of its importance and interest I believe it would meet the wishes of hon. members if it were printed in Votes and Proceedings.
At its first meeting on September 17 the council also established a defence committee

in accordance with article 9 of the treaty. This defence committee will be composed of the defence ministers of all the signatory states. It is expected that the first meeting of the defence committee will be held at Washington on October 5.



SUPREME COURT ACT


Hon. Siuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this bill is to create in the Supreme Court of Canada ultimate exclusive appellate jurisdiction by abolishing appeals to the privy council and making the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada final and conclusive.


Thomas Langton Church: You mean statutory appeals only, and not appeals of grace to the King, which cannot be abolished; but the bill does not say so.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether construction of the new general post office in Winnipeg will be undertaken soon.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: I shall look at the file and tell my hon. friend exactly where the matter stands.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When the minister is looking that up will he also find out and tell me when he is going to start the one in Peterborough?



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REMOVAL OF OPERATING HEADQUARTERS FROM WINNIPEG TO MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the repeated representations that have been made to me by my constituents about the transfer of
T.C.A. personnel from Winnipeg to Montreal, will the minister be prepared to make a statement in the near future?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall be glad to obtain the required information from Winnipeg and make a statement in due course.



IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government received any representations from western Canada asking that Imperial Oil Limited be directed to build its oil pipe line through Canadian territory to Port Arthur instead of south to a terminal at Superior, Wisconsin? Has the government considered the matter, and if so, has a final decision been reached?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have received representations from Fort William and Port Arthur, as well as from a number of surrounding municipalities. I should like to point out, however, that, by virtue of the pipe lines bill which was passed by the House of Commons at the last session, all jurisdiction over the routing and location of pipe lines was placed in the hands of the board of transport commissioners. The board held hearings at which representations were received from the lakehead, and a decision of the board has been rendered approving the route as filed by Imperial Oil Limited.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Has the minister issued a licence to this particular company to export oil?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The Department of Trade and Commerce, as a matter of ordinary routine, has issued a licence under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, which permits the company to export oil for reimport into its refinery at Sarnia.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Then the decision is final.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, September 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maurice Boisvert for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to extend my warmest congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on his elevation to the position he now occupies. No higher honour can come to any Canadian than to be chosen, by the free decision of the people of this country, for the high office of first minister. As I said on another occasion, he has every reason to be satisfied with the decisive support he has received from every part of Canada. No matter how much many of us may
The Address-Mr. Drew have wished that the results had been somewhat different, I sincerely extend to him my best wishes for his health and happiness in carrying out the heavy responsibilities of his great office. Whatever differences of opinion there may be from time to time as to the way in which the business of our country should be carried on, I am sure there will be general agreement that he will occupy that office with distinction, and with credit to himself, his race, his profession, and the historic party which he leads.
No matter how much some of us may have preferred to see a different disposition of the seating arrangements in this chamber, we can all sincerely thank God that we do live in a country in which decisions of this kind are made by a free people, who will be equally free to make other decisions on other occasions in the future.
I wish also to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Boisvert) and the seconder (Mr. Laing) of the motion now before us-and I do so, Mr. Speaker, not as a matter of mere formal expression. Each discharged in an able manner the responsibilities delegated to him, and each expressed that pride in the particular part of Canada he represents, which is in itself a source of strength to the whole nation. No matter what party we represent-and most certainly that representation is overwhelmingly one way-we do collectively, by the choice of the electors, represent all the people in every part of Canada. They have made their decision, and we are gathered here to do the business of those people, who are fully represented by those who sit in this House of Commons. It will certainly add greatly to the strength of Canada as a whole when every member has the feeling of pride and affection for the constituency he represents which was so unreservedly expressed and so well exemplified in the words of the mover and the seconder of this motion.
May I say something at this point about the announcement made a few moments ago by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). As leader of the opposition I wish to join with him and with the other members of this house in expressing deep regret not only that such a dreadful tragedy should have occurred, but also that it should have involved so many of our friendly neighbours who visit Canada in large numbers and whose constant movement back and forth is one of the factors contributing to the deep understanding which exists between the two countries.
The announcement that inquiries are already under way to determine the cause of the disaster will undoubtedly be reassuring. They will serve the purpose of determining in what way the repetition of such a calamity may be prevented. It would be unfortunate

The Address-Mr. Drew indeed if there were any fear on the part of those using our lake ships that such a tragedy might occur again. Undoubtedly it will be conducive to the continued use of the many ships which carry visitors to Canada, as well as our own people, to know what steps will be taken following the inquiry to strengthen the various legislative measures which provide protection to travellers.
Perhaps a reason for special precaution in connection with ships which are primarily for summer use is the fact that their crews are not associated with them during the whole year. Without any suggestion that every member of the crew did not completely perform his task, it would seem that some special supervision might be required of ships which start their services in the early part of the summer and continue for only a few months, to ensure that every member of the crew has a knowledge of safety standards and the handling of passengers. In making these remarks, I do not feel that I have transgressed the boundaries which are imposed by the fact that an inquiry is now under way by one of the most eminent jurists of the country.
It is only natural that in the speech from the throne there should be little that is new, because, although this is a new parliament, a session at this time is necessary only because the business of the house had not been finished at the time of dissolution. It will be a pleasing and unusual novelty that nearly all -though certainly not all-the statements in the speech from the throne will receive the support of most members of the house. Those that are new are referred to so briefly and in such general terms that they can be much better discussed when legislation is introduced which will set forth in exact terms what the government has in mind. This is particularly true of the reference to procedure for changing the constitution. I am sure that every hon. member of this house will warmly approve the proposal to consult the provincial governments in regard to the procedure by which amendments to our constitution should be made. There is some suggestion, however, that this consultation will relate only to that part of the procedure which would affect limited fields of provincial jurisdiction.
I earnestly hope that there will be consultation with the provincial governments before any proposal is put forward to settle the procedure for the amendment of our constitution.
That constitution is necessarily one and indivisible. In a great many instances the borderline between national and provincial jurisdiction is not too clear. This is perfectly natural. The constitution was framed at a time when many of the most important activities of this country had not even taken form. For this reason many of the appeals

to the privy council have been for the purpose of determining whether a particular subject fell within the national or the provincial field of jurisdiction. This being so, I urge the government not to make an attempt to draw a distinction between a national and a provincial authority in any of those doubtful areas, or, in fact, to take any step which would have the effect of changing our constitution, without first consulting the provincial governments and obtaining their views. Under any federal system the procedure by which amendment to the constitution is to take place, and the determination from time to time of the expanding responsibilities of all governments, are of the utmost importance. It is not so much a question of who has the power or who has the authority; it is a question of how this can best be done. Agreement as to the procedure is of particular importance in Canada because of the special circumstances under which the provinces joined to form one nation.
As the details are not before us, it will be more satisfactory to discuss this subject when the legislation is before us; but once again I urge upon the government the importance of consulting the provincial governments before this parliament is called upon to make any decision which would have the effect of changing our basic constitution. There never was a time when the avoidance of any possible misunderstanding in regard to a matter of this kind was of more importance to the future of this country than it is today.
One subject referred to in the speech from the throne is of paramount importance. There is a brief reference to the currency situation. The real problem is, of course, world trade and the necessity for finding satisfactory means by which the currencies of different countries can be used effectively for the purposes of international trade.
The past week has in many ways been the most eventful since the end of the war. A week ago today the conference between the foreign and finance ministers of Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States terminated in Washington. From Tuesday to Friday representatives of forty-eight member countries attended meetings of the international bank and monetary fund. While many subjects were under consideration, it was obvious that the primary subject was the closing of the dollar gap. On Saturday the foreign ministers of the twelve countries in the Atlantic pact took steps to organize the Atlantic pact council. Yesterday Great Britain announced the bold and generally unexpected decision to change the value of the pound for the purposes of international trading from $4.03 to $2.80. Each of those events was directly related to the other, and each had

in impact upon the other. Each will have a jrofound effect on the future of all free lations of the world.
When the ten-point recovery plan was mnounced at the end of the Washington con-erence it was difficult for those who were ;aining their information from the press and he radio to find reasons for the optimism expressed by those who had attended the con-erence. Important though the decisions were, md gratifying though it was to see a unani-nous plan of this kind produced, the ten joints put forward did not seem to solve the eally fundamental problems, and some of hem would in any event take many years to vork out. It is now apparent that the con-idence expressed related to the fact that the lecisions of those attending the conference vere to be followed by a revaluation of the urrency in many countries for the purposes if international exchange.
This is at least a first step on the road owards flexible international exchange which vill facilitate free movement of goods and ommodities from one country to another mder normal trading practices. It does seem dear that the international value placed on he pound sterling is an attempt to estimate he actual present value of the pound in inter-lational trading. It is to be hoped that this is nerely the beginning of a more flexible pro-:edure, and some measure of continuing idjustment to actual international exchange values, as was intended when the world bank ind the international monetary fund were et up.
Quite apart from any detailed results which nay flow from the A.B.C. conference, as it las already come to be called, there was one ireat achievement which will undoubtedly jring satisfaction to everyone; its importance annot possibly be overestimated. There is 10 doubt that the efficacy of the Atlantic pact ests upon the economic strength of the lations who have joined together in order to (reserve peace. Their unity depends, how-ver, upon something more than trade and iconomic stability. It depends also on mutual ;ood will, friendship, and understanding, "here is no escaping the fact that during the atter weeks of the summer there had been ilarming suggestions of increasing friction jetween the United States and Great Britain, [rowing out of the economic problem. I am lot suggesting that there was any evidence if friction between the governments, but here certainly was some reason for concern :bout the increasing misunderstanding letween many of the people in those two countries. If this friction had become a eality, it might have threatened the whole uture of the North Atlantic pact, because
The Address-Mr. Drew the wholehearted friendship of the United States and Great Britain is the very foundation of that great fellowship.
Much has been accomplished, and undoubtedly now that the facts are more fully known it certainly will be agreed that more has been accomplished than was originally thought; but if nothing else had emerged from the Washington conference which terminated a week ago than the clear evidence of harmony and good will among Canada, Great Britain and the United States, that meeting would still have been a very great achievement at this particular time. In bringing about this measure of friendly understanding of their mutual problems, Canada's representatives played a part which will, I am sure, meet with the approbation of Canadians generally in every part of the country.
It is important that we remember, however, that dramatic and far-reaching as were the decisions announced yesterday, and important though the decisions may be that will be announced by the Canadian government later today, this is only the beginning of the solution of our major problem, gratifying as the steps already taken may appear to be. Although the government of the United Kingdom expresses confidence that the revaluation of the pound will greatly expand Britain's export trade, the problem still remains of finding a way in which Britain and the other sterling countries can purchase our products. Undoubtedly the intention and the hope in this decision is that this change will make it possible for Britain to export more dollar-earning goods. But still dollars must be earned, and therefore it is only the first step and not the ultimate solution of the problem itself.
Much of what Britain has been buying from us had depended upon the availability of ECA funds. It is expected that those funds will no longer be available after 1952. In the meantime the amount available is steadily diminishing. It is not to be expected that the United States, enormous though their production power may be, can long continue to assume the tremendous international burden which they have assumed during the years since the war. Therefore everything that is now done, every plan that is now examined and considered, should in caution be based upon the assumption that the funds will no longer be available after 1952, and that in any event a diminishing amount of these funds will be available for purchases in Canada by Marshall Plan countries.
There has been a tendency for Canadians to feel that this is a problem remote from us, that it is a problem affecting Great Britain alone, and that we can stand back and hope

The Address-Mr. Drew to see them find a solution to their own problem. But we Canadians are not on the sidelines. This is not merely a problem of dollar shortage in Great Britain. We must sell in the export markets of the world if we are to survive. Our economy is a delicate and very highly specialized one. No other country has greater opportunities for the future than we have to sell our goods in the markets of the world. No other country has greater concern about the solution of this problem, which, as I said before, is not a problem of dollars, but a problem of world trade. It is a problem that affects us almost as directly as it does the people of Great Britain. If Britain is short of dollars, then we lose our established market for a very large part of our products of the farms, the forests, the mines and the sea.
It cannot be repeated too often that jobs on the farm, in the factory, the forest, the mine or anywhere else in Canada depend upon trade and the money which comes from that trade. There is only one sure solution of our problem, and that is to bring about as soon as possible an interchangeability of currency which will give us the widest possible markets, not only in Great Britain but throughout the whole sterling area. The revaluation of the pound and other European currencies marks a vitally important step in the history of the economic problems of the past few years. The next step, and one which the Canadian government should explore in every possible way with the government of the United Kingdom, is to find some means by which the Canadian dollar and the pound may be freely interchangeable. This is no suggestion outside of the realm of practical international exchange or operation. It was the clearly stated intention of the international monetary fund. Every effort should be directed toward the taking of that second step, which is quite as important in its ultimate results as the first.
There has been a tendency to look upon increased exports to the United States as a satisfactory substitute for exports to Great Britain and other countries overseas. I am sure that all Canadians want to see exports to the United States increased to tlie highest possible level. One thing we must remember, however, is that the whole system of transportation and distribution is designed to handle an enormous overseas trade. Our railways, our seaports, our shipping, and all the many services associated with them, as well as the municipal organization of the seaports themselves, depend upon continued trade overseas. There is no more important task facing the government than that of taking such steps as will ensure the maintenance and expansion of that overseas trade. Primarily this means trade arrangements, through
IMr. Drew.]
some adjustment of the financial problem, with Great Britain; because the solution of the exchange problem with Great Britain will carry with it the solution of the exchange problem throughout the rest of the sterling area.
There is an added reason why a solution to this problem must be found. Competition is becoming keener every day. Many products which we have been able to sell almost without competition since the end of the war must now be sold in competition with the products of countries which are rapidly restoring themselves to pre-war levels of production, or even higher.
It is necessary for Canadians to remember that there are two nations which present a very real question mark in this whole matter, namely, Germany and Japan. Now that western Germany has been established as a nation, there will be increasing insistence upon their right to trade freely with other nations. The Germans have great industrial skill. The world has had much too tragic evidence of that fact to make any emphasis of it necessary. Already a number of their products are being sold in Canada. It is difficult to see how Germany can be excluded from some measure of free competitive trading, unless she is to be held down to a point which might encourage the spread of communism, which the western powers are trying so hard to prevent. Undoubtedly this will be a problem calling for the utmost wisdom on the part of those who are supervising the rebirth of what, it is hoped, will be a free and democratic German nation.
All these remarks would apply with almost the same force to Japan. We had evidence of Japan's great industrial skill. Small though it may be, the products of that country are beginning to re-appear in Canada. They too have a very high degree of skill. In years gone by they demonstrated their willingness to put every effort into export trade; and if they are given an opening to the markets of the western world, undoubtedly they will sell at prices which will make competition increasingly strong.
Then there are the great industrial nations of Europe. Although Czechoslovakia is behind the iron curtain, she is selling to the western world; and we know that she too has high industrial skills. Czechoslovakia, so long as she is permitted to sell to the western world, will provide extremely keen competition.
It seems to me all this points to the fact that as soon as possible we must get ourselves out of the strait-jacket of controlled international trading. If we are to meet the kind of competition growing up in the sterling area; if we are to meet the kind of competition emerging from the revitalization and

recovery of so many of the industrial nations devastated by war, we Canadians, who have demonstrated our ability and our skill, must be free to go out and meet that competition by vigorous and effective salesmanship, as we have done in the past. We have the very best of natural products. Nature has endowed our soil with qualities which give us special advantages in many types of production. Canadians have demonstrated their industrial skill; and I should think there is a general belief that Canadians can sell against any type of competition if their salesmen are free to go out and sell by ordinary selling methods.
Now that the first step has been taken by so many countries to make international currency an effective vehicle for promoting international trade, I urge the government to do everything in its power to find a way of taking the second step, at least so far as Canada is concerned, within the sterling area.
I am sure every hon. member will hope that the bold decision taken by the British government will bring the results they expect. To a very great extent the whole problem has resulted from the enormous sacrifices made by the people of Britain in two world wars. Canada stood beside them in both those struggles for the freedom of all mankind. But because there was a wide ocean between us and Europe, we did not in the same way feel the direct physical impact upon our soil. It may sometimes be forgotten that the only nation in the world outside Germany which felt the full physical impact of those two wars was Britain. And Britain has paid an enormous price for its contribution to the survival of freedom.
This country has demonstrated in many ways its sympathy with their situation, and its willingness to assist Britain in meeting its problems. No matter what hon. members may feel about the details of the procedure to be followed, I am sure all of them will hope that Great Britain, as a result of the steps she has taken, will be in a position to meet the problems which lie ahead.
It is not my intention to move an amendment-and not only because it would obviously be defeated by an overwhelming vote. After all, the voting strength of the government is not the factor which determines the duties of the opposition or influences the introduction of an amendment seeking to express a certain opinion and to call for an expression of opinion by hon. members of the house. The truth is that rarely indeed has any government in Canada been in such a commanding position to carry its own motions. This government has just had a decisive vote of confidence from the people of Canada. For that reason I believe the introduction of an amendment would
The Address-Mr. Drew serve no useful purpose. Perhaps I may be permitted to add, however, that the introduction of amendments during the present session will not be influenced by the fact that we may well anticipate what the nature of the vote may be.
By the very size of its majority in the house, the government has assumed a great trust and a great responsibility. Because of the mandate so freshly given to it to speak on behalf of the people of Canada, the government is in a most favourable position to participate in the international discussions that are taking place. I hope this great trust and responsibility will be carried out in the best interests of the people of Canada.
Under our democratic system, the opposition, too, has a great trust. We will fulfil that trust to the best of our ability. It is in that sense that we will take our part in the debates of the house-not only as the representatives of the 1,742,000 Canadian voters who supported the Progressive Conservative party, but also with a realization of the responsibility, which I am sure is shared by all members of the opposition, of all parties, to demonstrate that our people in Canada do not believe in a one-party system, and that a vigilant, vigorous and effective opposition is an essential part of our Canadian parliamentary procedure.
I would hope that my omitting to deal with any particular subject mentioned in the speech from the throne will not be taken as approval or otherwise of the measures proposed. I have mentioned that there are a number of subjects which are stated in very general terms, and which are very important; but it will be much more satisfactory to deal with them when the legislation is before the house and the way in which the government proposes to deal with them is known to the members of the opposition as well as to the government.
With its great majority the government is in a position to give leadership at this extremely critical time. As Canadians we have been very fortunate, but there can be no escaping the fact that we are passing through a grave period in the world's history. When I speak of an opportunity to give leadership, I mean especially leadership in the international field. The solution of the problems which will face us in the comparatively near future, if all our hopes for recovery from the war and the preservation of peace by the combined strength of free nations are not to be shattered, depends upon vision, depends upon boldness, depends upon willingness to try new courses in meeting those tasks. It calls for confidence on the part of the government in our own great future, which is so
34

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent clearly before the eyes of every Canadian who has had an opportunity to see Canada as a whole.
As I said a few moments ago, we will seek to fulfil our historic obligation as the official opposition in this house. In meeting the tasks which must be undertaken, and in seeking solutions of the many grave and important problems which must be solved, we will at all times offer constructive criticism and constructive suggestions, and we will be ready to help the government in every way that this can be done by the members of His Majesty's loyal opposition.
Right Hon, L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, first of all may I once more express my best wishes to you and my congratulations upon the distinguished manner in which you have begun the discharge of your duties. I should like also to express very sincere thanks to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) for the chivalrous and kind remarks with which he opened his address this afternoon. I thank him personally for his wishes of good health, which I reciprocate. I think both of us come before our colleagues of the house this afternoon with some evidence that there is a prospect of those wishes being realized.
It is gratifying that, whatever the result of an appeal to the people may be, those who made that appeal, and who have come here as a consequence of their electors' response, should feel that they have a responsibility not only to those who supported them, to the members of their party, but also to the people of Canada as a whole. I can give the leader of the opposition the assurance that at all times we will endeavour as best we can to serve the interests of all Canadians. I am sure that the constructive criticism which he has promised to offer as occasion may arise will also be offered in the hope that it will be of benefit to the entire public.
I have much pleasure in joining with him in extending congratulations to the mover (Mr. Boisvert) and the seconder (Mr. Laing) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. These newly elected members have delivered their maiden speeches. We who have been here before know that it is a pretty trying experience to speak for the first time in the House of Commons, and we realize that when such an event takes place at the opening of a new parliament the difficulties are increased by that circumstance. I am sure we are all proud of the admirable manner in which these two new members, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska and the hon. member for Vancouver South, spoke in moving and seconding the address.

As to my friend the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska, those of us who had the privilege of following all his remarks can testify to the fact that he acquitted himself in a fashion most creditable to his electors and to himself. He comes to the House of Commons with a sound reputation arising out of his achievements at the bar and in other fields, and I think we would all wish to say to him that he has added to that reputation by the manner in which, on Friday last, he moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Those of us who knew something of the background of the hon. member for the federal riding of Vancouver South were not surprised to hear the address which he delivered. To those of us who have recently seen the part of the country from which he comes, it was no surprise to hear him extol its beauties and resources. The hon. member for Vancouver South has not only taken an active interest in the affairs of his local community, which he served from an early age, and in a distinguished manner, before coming here. Not all but a good many of us on both sides of the house appreciate the fact that for a long time he has been taking a keen interest in the organization work of the Liberal party in his native province.
Those of us who heard these hon. members, all feel, I have no doubt, that they are to be commended for their broad grasp of public questions as well as for their vision. They have impressed us by the fact that they come here with confidence and look forward to a future in which they hope to have some part in realizing the happy prospect referred to this afternoon by the leader of the opposition as the ultimate destiny of the Canadian nation.
No doubt, as the leader of the opposition has said, it will be more helpful and more pertinent to discuss the matters referred to in the speech from the throne when the measures dealing with them come up for detailed consideration. I am sure that all will agree with that. I shall refer only briefly, as the leader of the opposition has done, to some of the measures forecast in the speech from the throne.
First of all, the hon. gentleman referred to that portion of the speech which forecasts a measure to further the constitutional development of our institutions as fitting for those of a completely autonomous nation. He expressed the hope that that could be achieved without provoking any clash with the authorities of our Canadian provinces and also the hope that there would be no attempt to draw that rather shadowy line between matters that may be of special concern to the federal government and parliament and those other

matters which may be the exclusive concern of the provinces or the joint concern of both the federal and the provincial authorities. He said that he hoped that that might be arrived at by consultation with the provinces.
I would be most happy, indeed, if I could expect such a result could be achieved in any short period of time, but I am afraid that it will be a considerable undertaking. Not because there would, on either side, be any effort to obtain an advantage one over the other but because of the realization which we all must have that anything which is done in that respect is done for a long period ahead and to serve a constantly enlarging Canadian nation. Having that responsibility, no one can easily contemplate giving any consent or acquiescence which might under any possible circumstances take from one or the other of those authorities something which it would otherwise have enjoyed.
But there are other ways in which this tenuous or shadowy divisional line may be pointed out or marked, and these ways have been followed since the earliest days of confederation. I refer to the judicial process. I think it will be a prudent course to have the language used indicate that there will be ample opportunity for anyone who may feel that anything which is being attempted does not come within that language to challenge its correctness before the courts of justice and have them determine whether what is proposed is something which is exclusively of federal concern, exclusively of provincial concern, or of joint concern to both the provincial and the federal authorities. I hope we shall be able to dispel any feeling that there is an attempt to settle by legislation something which could more properly be determined by judicial process.
The hon. gentleman dealt with the situation in which the world finds itself, and to which reference is made in the speech from the throne in the declaration that the ultimate aim of the Canadian government is to move toward that situation where trading nations can engage freely in mutual trade under a multilateral system. There is no doubt that currency is a medium of international trade, and I think it is obvious that there is a serious sterling-dollar problem which has been an impediment to the restoration of that trade in which this nation has perhaps a greater proportionate interest than any of the nations with whom we have been discussing these problems.
I tried to realize for my own benefit, and to point out to some of those to whom I was speaking the other day, the extent to which we are interested in international trade. I got figures from our statistical department 45781-3J
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent showing that our exports were of the general order of $3,000 million. I told those to whom I was speaking that I had never seen a billion dollars nor even a million dollars. In order to get some conception of what such a figure means I have tried to reduce it to a simpler form. A simple calculation has shown me that for every family of five in this Canadian nation we are required to sell something over $1,200 worth of our surplus in order to continue to live as we have been living in the past. I would be surprised if there were any of those with whom we have been discussing these problems who find it necessary to export such a large proportion of their surplus as is required to be done by this country in order to maintain the level of welfare for its people.
As the leader of the opposition stated, during the last week most important international meetings have been held and well-intentioned efforts made to remove the impediment to world trade resulting from this sterling-dollar problem. I think the hon. gentleman was quite right in pointing out that such solutions as have to be envisaged must be predicated on the statement that was made in the communique issued by the ministers of finance at Washington, that by the middle of 1952 no more extraordinary help will be coming from the North American countries. That being so, it is quite apparent that we have all got to work toward a situation where the earning of dollars by sterling countries, or those tied closely to sterling as their main currency, must become sufficient to enable them to secure from us the things that they need and want from us, the things it is very important for us to be able to sell to them, the things for which we have no immediate use in our own economy.
I should not like in any way to say anything which would anticipate what my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), will be communicating to this house this evening, but I can give hon. members the assurance that all those factors are very much in our minds in the consideration we are giving to what action, if any, is required at the present time from Canada in view of the announcement made by the United Kingdom and followed by so many others yesterday and today.
I believe that, with the leader of the opposition, we are all satisfied that this Washington conference proved conclusively that, when men of good will meet and frankly expose what they believe to be the causes of the difficulties which are to be overcome, their very frankness is evidence of the degree to which they can have confidence in each other and to which they will contribute to the best possible solution of those difficulties. We were all, of course, rather scandalized at the tone
36	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Coldwell of some of the comments on both sides of the ocean during the last few weeks concerning the attitude of the other. I am confident that what has taken place from the time the President of the United States made his speech a couple of weeks ago and preparations were actively undertaken to bring about this meeting in Washington, as well as during the course of the meeting itself, demonstrates that reasonable minded people in the three nations-who are the vast majority-recognize the inevitable nature of the difficulties which have arisen. These difficulties they regard as facts, not as faults to be attributed to any of them.
I am sure what has been accomplished does, to a degree, implement that which the government had in mind in expressing the view that the economic stability of the western world was extremely important, as important possibly to resisting and therefore deterring aggression as military strength itself. Within the last week, I believe, reasons have been given, first of all by the representatives of the United Kingdom, United States and Canada, then by those who attended the meeting of the international monetary fund and, last but not least, by those who attended the meeting to implement the causes and purposes of the North Atlantic treaty, why aggression would be resisted, could be resisted, and therefore will not be undertaken.
Now, the hon. gentleman has said that many of these difficulties arise out of the great sacrifices made by the United Kingdom in two world wars. I am sure all of us have the greatest possible admiration for what was done in those two world wars, and the greatest desire to understand the lasting effects of those sacrifices as well as the conditions they have created and the necessity imposed upon us all to co-operate for the alleviation of the consequences of those conditions. Whatever decisions any of us have to make should properly be conditioned by our appreciation of the manner in which our share of this tremendous job of putting the world back on its feet can be done and will be done. I am sure that, although we will not be claiming we are giving leadership, we will not be found wanting in our willingness to do our part, as we have done in the past.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: First,
I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Boisvert) and the seconder (Mr. Laing) of the address. I have been here on a number of occasions when that has been done and I say most sincerely that I do not think two new members ever acquitted themselves better than the two hon. gentlemen who respectively moved and seconded the address.
I should like to associate ourselves, too, with the leader of the opposition and the


other members of the house in expressing our sympathy with those who suffered loss and the relatives of those who died in the tragic event which occurred at Toronto last week. I suggest to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that every consideration should be given during this inquiry to the strengthening of the legislation, if necessary, and the supervision of the building and equipping of our ships in order that such an event may not occur again.
On June 27 the Canadian people elected this parliament and the government received an overwhelming majority at the polls. On behalf of my colleagues as well as of myself, I should like to join in congratulating the Prime Minister personally upon that victory. As an older member of this house who has sat in parliament during the past fourteen years, may I say this to the new members. Whatever we thought of the government's policies, we always appreciated the unfailing courtesy and consideration the Prime Minister extended to every member of this house. I wish to join with everyone in wishing him health and happiness in the high office to which he has been called.
May I say of my own party that we are a democratic party and, as such, we accept the verdict of the people as delivered at the polls. We believe our policies and our program are sound. The election showed we have a substantial following in Canada. We are certain that, as in so many other respects, time will justify many of the proposals we have made from time to time as well as during the course of the general election. As for our policy in this house, we shall continue to do as we have done in the past: to advocate progressive measures and policies in the interests of the whole country and to support every proposal, no matter from where it comes, which seems to tend towards better conditions for the Canadian people. We shall oppose anything that we believe will restrict their freedom and their opportunities.
The overwhelming support accorded the government places an obligation upon the Liberal party to fulfil, during the lifetime of this parliament, the promises which the party has made for many years and which, in a number of instances, remain as yet unfulfilled. I would remind the government that we still lack a national social security plan, including national health facilities as free to all our people as are the public schools to our children. That is a target at which this parliament must aim. The senior citizens of our country, as the old age pensioners are now often called, still await the fulfilment of the specific promises made in the government's manifesto of 1945 and repeated on many

platforms during the election period, for a national old age pension plan without a means test.
I could enumerate, of course, other promises we regard as unfulfilled pledges. But with the overwhelming following which the government has in this house, there can now be no excuse for delay in bringing down the necessary legislation to implement the promises and the pledges that have been made to the Canadian electorate from time to time.
Looking at the speech from the throne, we find that it foreshadows a great deal of important legislation and it would seem to involve a heavier and a longer session than some observers thought likely before the house was called. Before parliament was dissolved in April last, the budget resolutions had not been considered. Little discussion of the estimates had taken place. The house had granted interim supply to the government to enable it to carry on the business of the country until the end of this month. One of the present duties of this parliament is of course to scrutinize the expenditures of the government and to provide money to carry on its business in the future. I think it is our duty to scrutinize carefully the expenditures made, and I suggest that the public accounts committee should be called early this session so that past expenditures may be more thoroughly scrutinized than they have been in some former sessions.
The speech from the throne records the presence in this parliament of representatives from the new province of Newfoundland. We join most heartily in welcoming them as members of this House of Commons, and in expressing the belief that the entry of Newfoundland into confederation will prove beneficial to the people of old Canada, to the new province of Newfoundland, and indeed to the new confederation. In this session of parliament in which for the first time are united all the scattered British colonies of North America, as I believe they were called at the time of the Quebec conference, it is fitting that we should consider ways and means of rounding out our nationhood so that it will be more complete than it has been in the past.
In the same spirit we welcome the decision of the government to consult with the provinces at an early date with a view to agreeing upon an appropriate procedure for making within Canada such amendments to the constitution as may be necessary from time to time. We agree with the statement to this effect in the speech from the throne and trust that the hopes held out for the success of such a conference will prove to have been well founded.
The Address-Mr. Coldwell
The speech from the throne also expresses the hope for world peace and security under the auspices of the United Nations, and specifically and correctly states that the hopes we held in 1945 and the years that immediately followed have not been fulfilled. We believe of course that the fear of military aggression has been minimized by the North Atlantic agreement, but we urge the government to continue every effort to bring into effect the security provisions of the United Nations charter, thus relieving Canada-as I remember the Prime Minister stated before the assembly in 1946-and all the other nations from the crushing burden of national defence and rearmament, and releasing for us the means of improving in so many respects the conditions of our own Canadian people. After all, the best insurance against war is a healthy social and economic structure enjoyed by all our people. It is of the utmost importance that we shall do everything we can to improve the economic and social well-being of our people and of the north Atlantic community. But it is equally important-and in some respects perhaps more important-that the economic health and well-being of the peoples of Asia and of the world generally shall be promoted in every possible way in order to remove the economic causes of war and the discontent which fosters the spread of totalitarianism in any form.
Canada has been a direct beneficiary of the economic aid which the United States has given to the European nations. Without that aid our own position economically would be vastly different from what it is today. Indeed, the provision of United States dollars for the purchase of Canadian wheat by the United Kingdom enables us to market a large quantity of that commodity this very crop year. United States aid to Europe has enabled Canada to maintain a considerable amount of economic stability which, incidentally, is as vital to our own country as it is to the economy of the European nations. When we remember that some $800 million of Marshall aid, so-called, will be spent in Canada during the next year, we can understand why, in common with the United States, we have been able to maintain an unexpectedly high level of employment and trade-and I use the word "unexpectedly" advisedly, because 1 remember the report of the James commission, the government's own commission, which was placed before this house in the late years of the war, which predicted considerable post-war unemployment. Happily this has not yet materialized.
But it is authoritatively stated that this United States aid will end within the next three years. It is therefore the obligation
38	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Coldwell of the government and of this parliament to review all our commercial policies with a view to protecting the Canadian economy against the difficulties which are almost certain to arise when this aid ends. In spite of the search for alternative markets for Canadian products, our best and most stable market for our wheat, fish, fruit, lumber and a good many other surplus commodities, both now and in the future, is bound to be in the United Kingdom. As we have been reminded during the last few hours, the position of that country has changed fundamentally because of the loss of overseas investments and of shipping in two world wars, a condition to which both the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) properly referred. If we are to market vast quantities of Canadian goods in the United Kingdom, it is vitally necessary that we increase our imports from that country. Under the new circumstances that have arisen, we cannot expect the United Kingdom to buy some $700 million worth of goods in a twelve-month period, while we, Canada, take from her in return less than $400 million worth of imports in the same period. The United Kingdom cannot find the dollars unless of course we are prepared to accept sterling, freeze it, or invest it in the sterling area or the British colonial possessions.
With regard to our imports of British goods, over the week end we have seen some steps taken by the United Kingdom to enable her to market more goods in North America. I am not going to discuss them now because they will be before us in more detail tonight,
I presume, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) speaks. A great deal of discussion has taken place recently in Canada and the United States with regard to the increased cost of production of British goods and the necessarily higher prices charged-for them abroad. If this is true, it seems to me that, apart from the currency matter, attention should be given by this parliament to a drastic reduction in Canadian tariffs against United Kingdom commodities in order to promote the exchange of goods between our two countries on a more even basis than in the past. For after all the old contention that Canadian industry requires protection from cheaper British goods, if it were ever valid, no longer has any basis in economic fact if the statements made regarding the costs of British goods are in any sense correct. We therefore urge the government to consider at this session a drastic reduction of tariffs as a major step in promoting Canada's trade with the United Kingdom.
I note that the speech from the throne speaks with a great deal of satisfaction about


the international wheat agreement. Coming from the prairies, I welcome that particularly, and I believe that it should be welcomed by every hon. member of this house. But, when we see these agreements, they bring before us in a very concrete form the new pattern of world trade which is emerging among the nations. The old system of unplanned, unregulated, competitive and so-called multilateral trade has passed away, and a new form of trading relationship, based upon planning and co-operation among the nations, is taking its place. It is difficult sometimes to understand the interpretation placed upon that term, "multilateral trade", in this very modern and new setting. To -some it seems to mean the old-fashioned laissez-faire system which some people think existed before the war, when indeed it did not exist. Yet the people who advocate in our country and elsewhere such a policy are often those who within the confines of their own countries and within Canada demand protection against foreign competition, and who have often succeeded in stifling all competition within their own domestic economy by building nation-wide monopolistic enterprises. In no country is this more true than in Canada. In the United States they have the Sherman anti-trust law. We have nothing comparable to it. It is true we have the Combines Investigation Act, but it is not in the same class as the anti-trust legislation in the United States. As those of us who were in the last house and saw the reports made by the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act know, we have no effective means of dealing with combines and with monopolistic practices in our own country.
In the speech from the throne the government emphasizes the necessity for international trade, and yet at the same time, for example through its tariff protection, and as of July 1, through its restoration of certain tariffs against British cotton and rayon piece goods, it aids powerful industry, and is endeavouring, it seems to me, to promote a certain type of national self-sufficiency. This policy, incidentally, was followed in the United States, which because of its wide and varied resources, enabled that country to establish self-sufficiency, an example which is being followed in many other countries of the world. Therefore it is the duty of this parliament to give close attention to economic policies which will expand rather than restrict our ability to trade with other nations of the world.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) pointed out a few moments ago, there is no country in the world so dependent, because of the peculiar type of our production and of

our economy, on external trade and exports as we are in Canada. It is true that we should make every attempt to improve and increase our domestic consumption, but even if we increased our domestic consumption greatly we would still have vast surpluses which must be disposed of by export trade.
Now I want to turn to another problem which I think affects a good many of our people and which requires immediate attention. In the speech from the throne we are told that new legislation will be introduced to broaden the scope of the National Housing Act. As we have contended for some years, the need is for subsidized, adequate low-rental housing for the low income groups. That is made particularly necessary by the very high cost of living which is now, according to our bureau of statistics, at record heights. It is possible that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) may announce some dollar policy tonight-I do not know-involving further increases in living costs in this country. 1 do not propose to say anything further about that until I know what he has to say this evening.
Cases have been brought to my attention from time to time, and I am sure to the attention of every hon. member, of families, including many young war veterans, who are compelled to pay one-third or more of their meagre income for accommodation in what is often submarginal housing. Go around this city and you will find families with one room and a clothes closet turned into a little kitchen with an electric grill or oil stove. You will find them paying one-third of their income sometimes, particularly if they are students, for that kind of accommodation. When the government has provided housing as for instance for veterans, as in my constituency of Rosetown-Biggar in a suburb of Saskatoon, the quality has often been unsatisfactory. I use this as an example. Contractors from time to time-not always of course- have failed to live up to the specifications, and the veterans have sometimes been left to make expensive repairs in the first year or two of occupancy. In some cases inferior equipment has been installed and little or no redress has been forthcoming either from the contractor or from the responsible department of government. In Montgomery place, Saskatoon, hot-water tanks installed had not been in use for one year before they developed holes in the sides from poor quality or deterioration. Veterans and their families, with houses having ill-fitting doors and windows, doors and floors that sag, poor insulation, lacking eaves-troughing, and with no sidewalks to save them from the mud, have in my opinion a legitimate complaint
The Address-Mr. Coldwell against the failure of contractors or the government to live up to the specifications and proper standards. There has been inadequate planning for the comfort and convenience of residents in new districts of that sort.
As I said at the beginning, we believe that low-rental houses must be subsidized; there is no other way of dealing with the problem. But in the interests of health and of happiness, planning and construction should be given careful supervision in order that proper standards of building and equipment should be maintained.
I know that the project to which I have referred, and other projects of a similar sort, have been brought to the attention of the government from time to time, but in some instances-and in the instance to which I have referred-while some improvements have been made, they are insufficient to rectify entirely the unsatisfactory conditions. If public moneys are expended in the construction of homes, or financial guarantees given to investors and veterans, and others are forced by circumstances to purchase homes, then it is the duty of the government to exercise supervision and to rectify any defects in construction or material within a reasonable time of occupancy or sale.
A national subsidized housing program, then, as we have said for several years, is essential. But parliament must insist that the government should assume responsibility for the supervision of construction, and guarantee satisfaction to the purchaser or occupant. When I refer to the "government" I do not necessarily mean the federal authority. If it is a regional plan, then the responsible authority should see to it that these abuses do not occur.
One other point in connection with housing: meantime, the public must be protected against excessively high rentals by the continuance of rent controls. Indeed, persons who have been compelled by circumstances to rent new occupancy housing units should be given the right to appeal against unreasonable rents to which most-and again I say not all-have been subjected. Let me emphasize that this is particularly true in view of the spectacular heights to which living costs have risen since the removal of other beneficial subsidies and controls.
While the level of employment is high, there have been some disturbing lay-offs in Canada. Unemployment in the United States, we read, during the summer reached approximately 4,000,000, although there has been some seasonal diminution lately. We have no assurance, other than expenditures for European aid, that lay-offs will not increase in Canada during the next year or two. So

The Address-Mr. Coldwell that various public projects should be planned and undertaken to safeguard the people against such a condition.
Two of these are mentioned in the speech from the throne. Apart from the necessity of providing employment, these in my opinion are essential in any event. The two mentioned are the trans-Canada highway and forest conservation.
The wastage and depletion of our great forests has been for years a national disgrace. We shall await the government's proposals for conservation which we hope will do more than conserve in a narrow sense, and will be sufficiently comprehensive to include reforestation, afforestation and flood control, to be undertaken of course in co-operation with responsible provincial authorities. We would hope, too, that in co-operation with the provinces our forests may be planned, and that also there may be proper planning of their development, exploitation, or whatever appropriate word one might choose, so that future generations may not be denied what we have enjoyed.
The building of the trans-Canada highway is long overdue. Obviously this must be an all-Canadian project. Let me make the suggestion that a flat grant of money to the provinces on a percentage basis will not suffice. It seems to me that the federal highways plan in effect for many years in the United States should be considered and studied. The experience gained there should be used as a guide in this country.
The needs of the provinces vary: some are richer than others. Some of the provinces have great distances and sparse population, with consequently larger mileages per capita of all types of roads to build and to maintain. In other provinces there are mountain regions and soil conditions which would mean that the kind of highway the trans-Canada should be would prove a costly undertaking. Indeed it would be too costly for some of the less favoured provinces to bear. Those factors, as well as the choice of the best, most efficient and most economical route should be reviewed carefully by parliament as well as by a federal-provincial conference.
Now that the matter of Canada's right to amend her constitution has arisen, and we believe that the constitutional rights and privileges of the provinces must be recognized and protected, we believe that ways and means must be found by agreement to assist the provinces in improving other public facilities, particularly those having to do with education. A modern system of education involves large expenditures in plant and equipment, but of the most vital importance is the type of person engaged in the teaching profession. As I have good reason to know, unfortunately

many of our most able, most gifted and best fitted young men and women either leave the profession or do not enter it because of the lack of opportunities and remuneration it offers. The limited financial resources of some of the provinces, and the communities comprising them, simply cannot cope with this situation. In the discussions with the provinces I should hope that some consideration would be given to the problem of providing federal aid for education in all its branches, without restricting the rights of the provinces in that regard.
Opportunities for discussing other aspects of the proposed constitutional changes will arise. Therefore I am not going to discuss them at greater length today. We shall await presentation of other matters mentioned in the speech from the throne, requiring consideration by the house, before attempting to discuss them. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his seat. Let me say to him that I hope the proposed amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act will increase the benefits and enlarge the scope so as to enable all farmers affected by crop failure to participate in the benefits of that act.
It has been said already this afternoon that opposition members in parliament have a most important function to perform. The Liberal party has been given an unprecedented mandate to govern this country. Under the circumstances, however, an alert and vigorous opposition becomes of the greatest importance. It has been said often that the best kind of government is the government that is a bit insecure in office. Having sat in several parliaments, I believe the best one in which I have served, because of the discussions which took place and the manner In which hon. members kept on their toes, was the last one, in which the government had a fairly slim majority.
Consequently in this parliament we find that more responsibility falls upon members of opposition parties. Though we are small in number, the C.C.F. will do its share in making critical examination of the government's proposals and activities and, as in the past, will continue to work for social and economic justice for all our people.
Because we believe there are certain specific measures which for some years had been promised by the Liberal party, I do not propose to follow the example of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and let this opportunity go by without offering some amendment. Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I move this simple amendment:
That the following words be added to the motion:
"We regret, however, that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose legislation to remove the means test from the old age pension."

The Address-Mr. Low


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. by members on all sides. I am certainly not Speaker, at the outset I should like to join going to be guilty of continuing this debate with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) beyond a reasonable time. I thought, how-in expressing congratulations to the Prime ever, that this matter which was drawn to Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the overwhelm- my attention a short time ago should also ing victory which he won in the election last receive the attention of the members of the
June. I thought that the leader of the opposition expressed that feeling of congratulation very graciously, and I sincerely join him in every word he said, and the things which he meant in that connection.
I should also like to express my sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Boisvert) and the seconder (Mr. Laing) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It has rarely been my privilege to listen to more eloquent and beautiful addresses in French and in English than I heard on Friday last. Without question you have brought to this house very high ability, and doubtless we shall hear more from you in the days to come.
I should also like to join in expressing sincere regret and sympathy to those who suffered as a result of that most incredible disaster which took place in Toronto harbour last Saturday. I say incredible because it seems almost beyond one's imagination to think that such a thing could happen right within the harbour of that great city. Knowing something about ships, it is difficult for me to understand just what caused such a terrible tragedy. I want to commend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) for his positive and swift action in ordering an inquiry into the disaster.
I also wish to say how happy I am to see in this house representatives of the newest province of Canada, Newfoundland, and also to see amongst those on the front benches a minister of the crown representing one of the ridings of that province. I join with other members in welcoming to the house these and all other new members, and I express the hope that they will enjoy their experiences here, the family squabbles along with the many instances of family accord that we shall have in the days to come.
I have been thinking of late, Mr. Speaker, about something which was drawn to my attention some weeks ago, and I thought that it was of sufficient importance to merit a place in what I shall say in the few minutes I shall speak this afternoon. I say few minutes advisedly. I am going to follow the example set by the leader of the opposition. I think he sensed that if he spoke too long this afternoon members might feel that he should take some of the feathers out of the wings of his imagination and put them into the tail of his discretion. I noticed that his brief but very fine remarks were greeted with enthusiasm 45781-4
house.
I refer to what appears to be a concerted drive by certain sections of the Liberal press across Canada to influence the Speaker of this house and the Prime Minister into denying recognition to what these newspapers call splinter parties, and also denying them what they are pleased to describe as the very great privileges that these parties enjoy at the present time. I refer more particularly to the Lethbridge Herald and the Montreal Star. At first I thought by splinter parties these partisan newspapers might mean the Conservatives and the C.C.F.
I once went to see an entertainer whose specialty was playing the xylophone. I found him to be an accomplished musician, especially on this particular instrument. The climax of his entertainment came when he announced that he would render that famous old selection, "The World is Waiting for the Sunrise". In the course of playing the piece he scattered bits of his precious instrument all over the platform. After the last piece had flown to the far end of the platform he explained to the audience that he believed in doing the job thoroughly. He said, "By rendering the piece I meant splintering it or tearing it to bits." What the Liberals did to the Conservative and the C.C.F. parties in the election of last June, and what they did not do to the Social Credit party, led me to believe at the time these articles appeared that the expression "splinter parties" simply could not refer to us. Nevertheless, these particular newspapers, the Lethbridge Herald and the Montreal Star, came right out and made it perfectly clear that it was the C.C.F. and the Social Credit parties they meant, and they called us splinter parties.
I do not know of any special recognition, Mr. Speaker, that has ever been granted to us by anybody. Furthermore, I do not know of any special privileges that we have enjoyed beyond membership on committees of the house, which I suppose would have come normally had we been merely members of the opposition. The government has always maintained and retained a majority on all committees. Therefore I cannot quite understand what these newspapers meant, but there is this point that has impressed me. I have never seen a press that has been as inconsistent as the Liberal press of this country. I refer particularly now to the Lethbridge Herald. When we held the provincial election in Alberta last year, and

The Address-Mr. Low returned fifty-one Social Crediters out of fifty-seven members in the legislature, the Lethbridge Herald, together with other sections of the Liberal press across the country, shouted to high heaven that the province of Alberta was going to the dogs because what was needed most was a good strong opposition.
After the election of last June they turned around, and in several different editorials they bemoaned the fact that the people of Alberta had not seen fit to add to the 193 Liberals who had already been elected. They wondered why it was that the people of the province did not vote Liberal, why it was that they were so crazy as to vote anything but Liberal. The fact is that the people of Alberta did not vote Liberal, and the reason is quite obvious. The province of Alberta has been enjoying the kind of good government under the Social Credit party that makes it unnecessary for them to change to any other party.
I want to pay a high tribute to the government of Mr. Manning in Alberta. It is being recognized more and more every day that through wise policies of management of resources and finance and of the affairs of the people they have brought that province to the forefront of the provinces of Canada. Because the people there are happy and contented, not even the presence of Santa Claus along with several other forces that came into the province with the Liberals could help those Liberals win against the Social Credit government in the province and the Social Credit feeling.
We have here ten good men and true, men who know exactly where they want to go, men who stand together. Furthermore they are men who have not sold their independence. They are men who are prepared to fight for the independence of the people of this country. I say to you that if this country needs one thing more than another it is more independence and independents in this House of Commons.
Let me refer just briefly to something which the press evidently has overlooked. Those who have been guilty of attempting to influence the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and the Speaker of this house, so as not to recognize the so-called splinter parties, should realize that the tree of liberty has not yet been so firmly rooted in the soil of this country or of any country in the western hemisphere that adverse winds cannot blow it down. No one denies that there are winds and storms about. Therefore we are still in need of increased faith, of vigilance, of work, of the will to fight and sacrifice in order to ensure that this old tree is kept standing and growing and putting forth new branches.

Our fathers fought and bled and died to establish freedom and personal liberty in this country. They fought and bled and died to secure for us the right to speak our minds freely, to worship Almighty God in our own way and in our own churches, to take part in our own government and to live our lives as individuals and not as members of regimented groups. I say to you that if our attitude toward these freedoms that have been so dearly bought becomes careless, then they will depart from us just as surely as darkness comes upon the earth with the setting of the sun. It is for that reason that I feel that the newspapers who sponsored this drive across the country have insulted the intelligent people of Canada who value their freedoms and who are determined that they shall continue to exercise them and to have as many parties as they want.
I do not say that I support the idea of a multiplicity of parties, but I say that if the people of this country want to organize in a democratic manner for high purposes that are perfectly out in the open and not in any way subversive, that is their right and no newspaper nor any pip-squeak newspaper writer ought to be allowed to interfere with that right.
I should like to say just a word about this most important matter of the devaluation of the pound. I think I am safe in saying that this whole matter is so complicated that perhaps no one man can grasp at once the whole significance of it, nor can anyone say what may be the results of the action that was taken by Great Britain last Saturday. So many factors are involved, including the human factor. If we could anticipate what organized labour will do under the impact of devaluation or what reactions may be expected from capital and from the United States exporters and industrialists, perhaps we would have some idea of the outcome of the present action taken by Great Britain. But I think we can see ahead clearly enough that a few words of warning might not be out of place at this time.
As a result of all the evidence that is available, I believe that we are justified in drawing certain conclusions. In the first place, Great Britain did not devalue the pound sterling voluntarily. I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that Great Britain was bludgeoned into it just as she has been bludgeoned in other ways in recent years, including Bretton Woods. I have noted the repeated statement by Sir Stafford Cripps that Great Britain would not resort to the devaluation of the pound, a statement that was repeated right up to the day that his vessel came into the harbour of New York when he was on his

way to attend the Washington conference. Sir Stafford Cripps has intimated over the past year that pressure was being brought upon Great Britain. I see in the Christian Science Monitor of September 13 an article under the caption "World Bank Spurs Devaluation", written by Mr. Neal Stanford. Mr. Stanford refers to the report recently issued by the international monetary fund and the international bank for reconstruction and development. Mr. Stanford quotes that report in one or two instances quite briefly as follows:
An adjustment in the exchange rate may be the "only" way for a country with high production costs to expand exports.
"The principal aim of deficit countries should be to increase their exports to the United States" so as to earn dollars.
And again:
Deficit countries cannot afford to forego any suitable instrument, including any necessary exchange adjustment, that could expand their dollar exports and thus provide their people with imports.
I think it can be assumed from what has appeared in the press in the past seven or eight months that tremendous pressure was put upon Great Britain and that the world bank was foremost in applying that pressure.
The second conclusion that one can reach as a result of the action taken last Saturday is that Great Britain must expand her exports by thirty per cent in order to break even, and by more than thirty per cent if one single extra dollar is to be made available to her. The question is: Can she do it? It seems a fantastic increase to make. What if United States industry and exporters make substantial reductions in the prices of their products? There is only one answer. Cutthroat competition on a world-wide scale could easily develop and this would wipe out the benefit of devaluation. Is there any guarantee that such a thing cannot happen?
May I voice a third conclusion, Mr. Speaker? I think we are justified in the conclusion that Britain's dollar problem could have been solved quite as successfully and with much less danger to the whole world through reductions in United States tariff rates, coupled with a sensible easing of customs regulations, rather than through devaluation. It must be remembered, sir, that Britain has advanced to the position where her trade is in balance with the rest of the world. However, it appears that very powerful interests and blocs in the United States have successfully opposed this sensible alternative, and the world bank as well as the government of the United States have allowed themselves to be influenced by political rather than by humanitarian and economic considerations. Only when men in high places fully 45781-44
The Address-Mr. Low realize that honourable and just economic relations underlie harmonious and happy political relations can we ever hope to begin to build for world peace and the brotherhood of man.
At this point I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on his forthright talk to the people of the United States about their responsibilities in this world of confused and unbalanced trade relations. I thought he did well. If I have any criticism at all, it is that only technicians and profound students of world trade could possibly understand the exalted diplomatic language he used. After all, these things have to be impressed upon the understanding of the average citizen of our neighbouring country if the necessary pressure is to be generated to induce a favourable change of attitude and just action. The United States must join the rest of us in relieving Britain of some of the burden of the loans and gifts as well as other forms of assistance she has been forced to advance to other countries. Britain must not go down. I am afraid there are powerful forces seeking to destroy her.
I come to my fourth conclusion. It is hard for me to find real justification for the drastic devaluation of the pound. There might have been some justification if large-scale unemployment existed in Britain, but it does not. For some time there has been full employment in that country. We therefore have to seek in other directions for whatever justification there may be.
This leads me, sir, to a fifth conclusion. The heavy pressure which forced Britain to devaluate appears to me to be part of a world-wide scheme to bring about deflation. Business, you know, has been too good. Labouring men have been, generally, too prosperous and happy to suit the powers that hunger and thirst after power. Wages must be brought down, prices must be forced to lower levels, and the volume of purchasing power available has to be reduced substantially in every country of the world, they contend. How can interest rates be brought up to their accustomed level and how can men be rendered docile and subservient without widespread and drastic deflation? Those are the questions vested interests are asking. Those are the things they are demanding.
If this conclusion proves to be well founded, and I think it will be, I ask the government what is going to check the deflationary trend before it forces producer prices to uneconomic levels and wages below the subsistence level? Moreover, if these latter conditions do return, what is going to prevent the whirlwinds of revolution from shaking the world? Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the people of

The Address-Mr. Low the democracies will not tolerate a repetition of the dirty thirties. What will the "Big Bear" be doing while we are floundering in the morass of trade stagnation, unemployment and breadlines that might follow that sort of deflation? It would be easy for me to venture a guess on what he might be doing.
This leads me to the sixth conclusion. Some students of world affairs see in this whole business a move to discredit the pound and make the dollar the undisputed master of the world. This may or may not be so, but I am inclined to believe it is. One thing is certain, and that is that for too many years now the world has witnessed a conflict between the manipulators of the two systems of currency, the dollar system and the pound sterling system. Millions of people in many countries throughout the world have suffered needlessly as a result of that conflict.
Surely, it must be evident to all thinking people that in international trade the important thing to our country, as to all other countries, is to succeed in getting the surplus Canadian goods in the hands of people in other countries who need and want them, and to bring back into Canada the surplus goods from those other countries which Canadians want and are prepared and able to buy. No currency war should be allowed to interfere with this normal and natural process. No currency manipulations can prevent just, successful, and mutually satisfactory exchanges of goods and services internationally, provided the worship of gold and the almighty dollar, as well as the power that goes with it, is replaced by a sincere and honest desire in the hearts of men to love their neighbours as themselves.
I urge the government of this country in the next week or two while this serious crisis exists-it might last longer than that-to use the utmost caution in meeting the situation which they are facing. Britain's action, I presume, will force Canada to devaluate if we are to be able successfully to meet the competition of such countries as Australia and the other countries that have already followed Britain's lead. Canada should not take sides in the currency war by championing either currency. Rather, I think, it is Canada's duty to take the lead in an effort to achieve a happy world of honest trading relationship, even if it might involve completely by-passing the present currency requirements. Surely, sir, goods balances are more important, and more tradeable for that matter, than are money balances.
At this stage I am led to remark that we in this corner of the house are prepared to assist the Prime Minister and the government in any worthy moves that they make to improve conditions for the people of this country.

We do warn the government that we shall fight with all our might any tendency towards restricting the freedoms of the people of this country through the government's efforts to be fatherly or paternal in their attitude towards the people of this country. We will not be found carping in our criticisms. We hope that the government will allow us the same privileges we have had in the past of expressing our views as a group, but we are not asking for any special privileges. We of the Social Credit party will continue to work for the freedom of the people. We shall continue to explore and to advocate every means of achieving in Canada a national economy based on individual enterprise in which the production of all wanted goods and services is kept at the highest level required to satisfy the needs of the Canadian people; in which the distribution machinery provides for the equitable distribution of our total production; in which the cycles of booms and depressions are eliminated through the use of sensible financial policies; in which every individual is afforded the opportunity to obtain the highest possible level of social security and is accorded the maximum degree of personal freedom; and in which justice is as readily accessible to the poor as to the rich. Those are the things for which we stand. Those things it is our determination to help bring into our fair country.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, for a few moments this afternoon I should like to call a few matters to the attention of the house and the country. In the first place I want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the victory he achieved. After all is said and done, I am one of those who believe that the people should rule, and the people have given their decision. I also want to compliment the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I have known him longer, I think, than anybody else in the house has. I have always looked upon him as a sportsman more than a politician. I am not a politician myself, never have been one, and do not claim to be one. I am more of a sportsman than a politician. I came into this house just for three or four purposes. I congratulate the younger members of the house, a large number of whom come from the province of Quebec. I have always had a high admiration for the people of that great province. I believe that the house and the country would be far better off if we had more men coming up from the municipalities to this parliament. I also want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the high office you occupy. You have been well equipped for it. Your diligence and zeal not only as a lawyer but as chairman of committees and Deputy Speaker have fitted you well for the post you

occupy, and to which you were elected on the unanimous vote of the House of Commons.
I always look upon the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne as an opportunity to bring matters before the house and the country. I do not speak from the party standpoint because 1 am not and never have been a hidebound party man. I make some mistakes. We all have our faults. You may speak of the Toronto district as you like, but since 1935 we have never had a representative in the cabinet. We used to have five or six. Is it fair that we should not have one? Is that one of the cardinal principles of Liberalism as we have it in this country at the present time? Sir Wilfrid Laurier used to visit the city of Toronto, as did the Prime Minister; and I know of no city where they were given a better reception than in Toronto. The present Prime Minister will always be well received there. He has opened our winter fair. He has had a keen interest in the city and is well liked there.
I am speaking today without any preparation because I did not wish to occupy too much of the time of the house or to prevent the address in reply from being adopted. But is it fair that the city of Toronto should have no cabinet representative? The greatest financial district is in our city. It pays nearly forty per cent of every dollar the government collects. The city of Toronto is a centre of trade and commerce, the centre of education in the province of Ontario, the site of the university of Toronto, which has given so much to medicine, the arts and the sciences, and is the greatest taxpaying centre in the dominion today. Is it fair, right or proper, under the name of Liberalism, that that great district has never had a representative in the cabinet since 1935? I think it is a great mistake for any government to take that position, and I am in hopes that we shall have a representative. There are in the Liberal ranks some good men from our city, and I hope that the situation to which I have referred will be remedied accordingly.
There are some other matters that I wish to bring to the attention of the house. I believe that the debate on the address affords an opportunity of calling to the attention of the house and of the country grievances which the country has-and the country is full of grievances at the present time. For example, in the Toronto district, where there is a shortage of housing, there is no cheap land. Last year there was a long debate in this house on prefabricated housing. In our city only 117 houses have been built in the last year. We did not have this difficulty in the past. As the former member for Davenport said in this house in answer to the
The Address-Mr. Church bright young minister from Nova Scotia, cheap land is what is wanted. I remember that the former member for Davenport told the minister that land used to be obtainable for $6 a foot right back of the district I used to represent in the house when I first came here, in northwest Toronto, away out from where the soldiers built their homes, then all around the fringe of the city starting away down east of little York and east Toronto, right north to the township of York and right straight across the city of Toronto. Land was cheap then.
It is unfortunate that we do not get more support from the steam railways. Toronto is the only large Canadian or American city I know of that has no suburban steam service. The people cannot get out to the country. The city has spent millions of dollars on roads, giving services to the surrounding districts; street cars and buses, water, sewers and many of these other municipal services have been given far beyond the city limits into the township and the county of York.
I remember being one of the heads of the city when the township of York, which I described as going around the city to the east, north and west, took only one hundred horsepower from the city. The city had to provide the poles and give them that cheap light and power at cost, directly. That action of providing transportation and cheap power did a great deal for housing. I hope something will be done to give us a suburban steam service, because there is no cheap land in the city. We are the only city I know of that lacks suburban steam service. The city of Montreal has such a service given by the rival systems, the C.P.R. and the C.N.R., with the distance between the tracks equal to about the width of this room. During the summertime the people are, by this service, taken out to those villages and towns on the border of the St. Lawrence river, such as Beaconsfield, Dixie, Lakeside and Dorval. People can live out there for eight months of the year. Some of them live there all the year round. In Toronto we have not that suburban steam service. I am sorry the railways do not do something more for us.
I believe that the time is coming when we should be up and doing something for labour. I have always had the nearly unanimous support of the working classes and of the trade union movement ever since I entered public life-as a member of the school board, as alderman for five years, as controller for five years and as mayor of the city for seven years. The city of Toronto system bought out the old street railway that gave service only to Bloor street practically; and the city from 1911 to 1921 built itself civic car lines. About sixty per cent

The Address-Mr. Church of the new city was served by civic car lines, with six tickets for ten cents, until 1921. We obtained the York radials for nearly nothing. The Metropolitan railway, one of the York radials, used to run freight cars from lake Simcoe all along Yonge street in the centre of the road, to the C.P.R. crossing on Yonge street; and the city of Toronto, with the province, in the clean-up deal of 1918-19, purchased the power companies in the Niagara district for $32 million. Under the street railway agreement of 1891 and the city system between 1915 and 1921 and a little before, we built city car lines of standard gauge in the new districts, so much so that when we took over the railway on September 1, 1921, we had the new city supplied already with street cars of standard gauge, and that did a great deal for housing.
Over the Don river, the riding which I now represent, they had hardly any bridges. Ash-bridge's bay was just a marsh. It had no industries. We had a very large delegation of 130 members of the House of Commons who were invited by the board of trade and by the city to come up to our city the year before last. The board of trade, the city and the province, along with the lieutenant governor, entertained them. They saw something of our city, of the harbour, and of Ashbridge's bay. They saw our street railway system and many other things. We were glad to see them there and we hope that they will come again.
There are one or two matters to which I was referring the other day. I should like to see some action taken on a Pacific pact, as the Pacific is the back door into Canada; whereas the Atlantic pact is at our front door. The Atlantic involves only two hundred million people, but in the Pacific we have six or seven hundred million people. We need to take some action immediately against communist Russia, which has met its match in the west, but it is now out to control the east, which is our back door into Canada.
In 1938 I called the attention of the house to it. I pointed out that from Puget sound to the southern Queen Charlotte islands there was nearly seven hundred miles of an unprotected western coast of Canada, and it was only by a miracle that Canada escaped direct invasion after Pearl Harbor.
Canada should take some action to thus control the east and stop communist Russia from controlling Asia. The Atlantic pact and the Marshall plan discourage them in the east, which is our front door into Canada, but let us not forget that, unless we have a Pacific pact, all we do at the front door of the west will be of little effect, and will not prevent Russia from overrunning all the Far East. 
There must be a considered plan backed by economic support from the countries that are involved in the Pacific.
General MacArthur has done good work in the Far East, and the United States should take the lead in establishing immediately a Pacific pact. In these modern days, when bandits and burglars are so busy in our large cities, one must not forget to lock the back door as well as the front, and it is the same in warfare in the Atlantic and the Pacific at present. I think that is very good advice.
There are many other matters to which I might refer. I want to refer to the speech that my friend General Crerar made at the Canadian National Exhibition. He asked the government of the day, "Are we secure, or are we not secure"? I asked the Prime Minister the same question. I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) the same question away back last spring. Are we secure, or are we not secure if we were invaded from the east and west, the front door, the Atlantic, or the back door, the Pacific? We are apt to be invaded as we were in 1914 and 1939. I can tell you that we have not the security which we should have. We can no longer depend on the British fleet to defend our shores. They protected our shores for four centuries, in the days of Louis XIV, Philip of Spain, and Napoleon and later against the Kaiser and Hitler. For generations there was nothing but the command of the sea that saved the dominions. A million men went into the war of 1914. They enlisted under their own status, under their own autonomy and under their own sovereignty. A hundred and forty thousand of them fell on the field of battle, and what they did in the first war changed the whole history of the world.
In the second world war what did they do? They enlisted in five to ten times the number. They enlisted voluntarily, not to fight for Britain but to fight by her side against the enemies, and they came in much larger array, on land, on sea and in the air, and we saw the result of it. They came to the aid of the mother country. The dominions were the only ones who were supporting her, and they had to go on for nearly three years before anybody came to their support. What they did saved the whole human race and the whole world.
I believe that General Crerar was quite right in what he said at the Canadian National Exhibition on Warriors' Day. He wanted to find out if we were secure. I say that we are not secure. It is the duty of the government to inform the house and the country whether we are secure or not. Depending on

the UNO will never get us any security. It is the biggest tower of Babel that I know of. The UNO seems to be the cornerstone of the government's policy. Even the right hon. leader of the house when he was Secretary of State for External Affairs felt that way about UNO. I believe it was on the last day he was Secretary of State for External Affairs that he gave an address in the house-I think it was June 25-in which he said that the cornerstone of the policy of the government was based on the United Nations. Well, if it is, it is the biggest talk fest that I know of. It has got this house and the Senate beaten forty ways. We have had that kind of a pact for many years. It was the league of nations. This is not the first time we have had a league of nations. They had it over a hundred years ago. Away back in 1815 they established a league of nations, between Prussia, Austria and Russia, the three powers that are causing us all this world trouble today. It was known then as the Holy Alliance. It lasted from 1815 to 1823, when the great Prime Minister, George Canning, decided to get out of Europe altogether. What did it do? Well, it led to the Monroe doctrine. What was the Monroe doctrine? I can tell you what it was. It was the supremacy of Britain on the high seas. That is what the Monroe doctrine was first, last and always, and always will be. It saved the world in the four centuries I named, and it will save it again.
With regard to the particular address of General Crerar, I believe he was absolutely correct. We have no security, nor have the other dominions. We do not know where we are going. Russia and her satellite countries now have over 400 divisions ready to take the field. That is what they have at the present time. They may march; you can never tell. What is going to become of us? They have set the world in darkness for so long that the pact to which I have been referring should have been brought about long before this.
Mr. Churchill made a speech at Fulton in 1946. Right up until 1948, in spite of his warning, the western democracies did nothing to arouse the countries of the world to the real situation. However, last fall those democracies became more alert to the grave danger facing them. We heard the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) speak in this connection on April 5 and 6 in the House of Commons and I, too, said that I thought something should be done. I pointed out that we could not depend upon Britain to do it for us.
On that occasion I read certain questions into Hansard, setting out what the United
The Address-Mr. Church States was doing in the matter of submarines. We have no large submarine. Admittedly we have none this year. In the address I made on that occasion I referred to many other matters. During the second world war a secret session was held in the House of Commons, at which time it was learned that submarines had come up the St. Lawrence river as far as Riviere du Loup. While I was visiting the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) in August, 1947, I saw the cove which those submarines had used.
Surely we will not depend upon the United States much longer. I believe General Crerar was right in his recent statement, and I now ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) to answer this question: Are we or are we not going to be invaded? I asked the same question in the House of Commons in 1938, when I saw a second war coming. On that occasion I moved the adjournment of the house to see whether, if war came, we would be invaded.
We have gone through a war caused by Hitler. I believe we have no security at the present time on the sea, on the land or in the air. We depend entirely upon Washington, and in my opinion that is one of the greatest mistakes we have made. We have been surrendering too much politically, economically and financially to Washington. I have great admiration for the people of the United States, and always will have. However, I believe we follow them too much.
Let me in conclusion say a word about the Noronic disaster which occurred over the week end. Since I have been a member of the house I have tried to have the government realize its responsibility in matters of this kind. Since I have been a member I have repeatedly mentioned the lack of any proper or adequate life-saving equipment on our rivers and on the great lakes.
Some hon. members are from Ontario and the maritime provinces. I can remember a time away back in 1927 when men who had served at St. Julian and Vimy Ridge and other famous battlegrounds had to depend upon an American life-saving station. That is a fine basis for nationalism in this country!
Ever since I came to the House of Commons I have been advocating adequate and proper life-saving equipment. We need a maritime commission for the great lakes. Why should our present commission operate only for the benefit of one section of the country, and at the expense of the rest? I repeat that not only do we need a maritime commission for the great lakes, but that we must have proper life-saving equipment.
Hon. members will recall what happened to the Northumberland last spring. I know,

The Address-Mr. Church too, its sister ship, the Dalhousie City. I know that the Northumberland was in commission for six weeks, but that government officials did not know anything about it. That boat burned at the dock in Port Dalhousie. It is a wonder it did not go to the bottom of the sea long ago. It came originally from Prince Edward Island.
The tragedy which occurred in Toronto last Saturday took place on a guest ship, and I say a proper inquiry should be made into what happened. We do not want any whitewashing, because in our city we have nothing to hide. As the founder of the present harbour commission in Toronto, I can say that we expect something better than that from the government.
The tragedy which happened in connection with the Noronic might just as easily happen to the Cayuga. We know that something similar did happen to the Northumberland; and it might happen at any time on any of our inland waterways and lakes.
While I was in the Muskoka district

and I spent only five days there-I saw a boat carrying 1,460 passengers. I do not wish to criticize the owners of that boat, because I believe they are good people; but I can say that on that same lake there was an accident last spring when people in motor boats carrying passengers to Bala struck a reef which destroyed the boats and drowned the passengers.
The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Rooney), who is a member of the Royal Canadian yacht club, knows that this lifesaving station is necessary. Why have we not proper life-saving stations all along the great lakes? Shipowners need federal aid in this matter. We have no such stations either on lake Erie or lake Ontario or on the upper lakes. In the United States this service is under the control of the United States navy, and it is personnel from the navy who man these stations. But along the St. Lawrence, and at points like Port Dover and Port Burwell, we have not that service.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I wish to finish the few remarks which I was making regarding the great disaster which happened in the city of Toronto early Saturday morning. I was speaking about that when the house rose for the recess. Since I have been a member of the house I have pointed out to the government that their first duty, as I see it, is to look after the health, wealth, happiness, peace and prosperity of the citizens of Canada.

Let us say a citizen gets on a boat travelling on the inland waterways of Canada. He does not know what is going to happen to him. I was comparing the facilities on the two sides of the great lakes. Let us suppose that the space between here and the government benches represents lake Ontario. There is the south shore with the Niagara river and New York state. On the north shore there are several towns and cities, and the same thing applies to lake Erie. What facilities are there to protect anyone who gets on a steamer on these lakes? You start away down on the south shore at Brighton and Belleville, and you call at Cobourg and all those intermediate ports right up to the city of Toronto. There are no life-saving facilities on that waterway.
What is there on the United States side of the lake? The war department of the United States is in charge, and there is a wide difference between the two countries. On the United States side, under the protection of the navy, they have coast guard stations. There is a station at Charlotte, and there are stations right down to Buffalo. There is a large station at Buffalo. There are stations at Geneva, Erie, Ashtabula, Cleveland, all the way along right up to Detroit, and then on up the great lakes.
There has been a great disaster. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) coming into the house because he represents a maritime constituency in Ontario. I can tell him that, since I have been in the house, on several occasions on the upper lakes in the late fall there have been storms which have not only wrecked ships but have also taken the lives of men who served at Vimy Ridge, St. Julien, and other places in the first war, and also the lives of some who served in the second war. Not only have ships been sunk and lives lost; there has also been the loss of cargoes of grain on lake Superior and the other great lakes.
Are there any facilities on the Canadian side? No, not at all. There is not an adequate life-saving station on the great lakes today. For that reason I proposed in the house last spring that we should have a maritime commission for the great lakes. What happens when these men are faced with disaster? All they can do is sound their sirens and hope that by the grace of God- and many of them are returned men-they may blow hard enough that the crew of some United States life-saving station will come to their rescue and save their lives.
If that is a form of nationalism in this country I am surprised to see it because many of these sailors are returned men. Many of them have been drowned, some from

Collingwood, some from Owen Sound, some from Meaford, and from many other places. At last we have in this house many younger members who are interested in the municipalities. I know they are, and I know that they are men who will advance sane and sensible ideas if they are asked privately about this question.
It is the duty of the government to establish life-saving stations on the Canadian side of the great lakes. Why should we have to depend on the United States life-saving stations when an ex-soldier or a sailor is drowning? Is it any wonder that we cannot get enough men in the merchant marine to man the ships? Something has to be done about it. We need a maritime commission for the great lakes. We need a life-saving system for the inland waterways of Canada. What is there on the inland waterways of Canada today? There is only a rowboat. When I took over the Toronto harbour commission I came to Ottawa to see the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Mr. Hazen, a wonderful man who rendered brilliant service in the first world war, the father of the former member for Saint John-Albert.
What did they have on the great lakes? There was a boat about as long as from here to the desk of the hon. member opposite. It had oars in it and all that kind of thing. That was all that was available as lifesaving apparatus. We have no life-saving stations on the great lakes, and many of these disasters have happened. The same thing that happened to the Noronic in Toronto on Saturday last might well have happened to the Cayuga, to the boat running to Port Dalhousie. One of the two boats running to Port Dalhousie was burned at the dock. What did the officials say? They answered me by letter and they said, "Oh, the boat has not been on the route yet." I used to see that boat on its way out, an old dilapidated ship which came up from the maritimes forty years ago and was put on the run to Port Dalhousie. The officials said she was not on the route yet. I saw the boat making two trips a day, one at about 8.15 in the morning and one at about 2.30 in the afternoon. The old Northumberland was on the route for about four weeks and yet they said she had not made any trips yet.
She was burned at the dock-and there is no life-saving station at that port. What I say is true of the inland waterways. At lake Simcoe people call the Toronto lifesaving station when somebody drowns. I referred to the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Rooney) this afternoon. He has seen the truck of the Toronto life-saving station go up there. That service is paid for by the tax-
The Address-Mr. Church payers of Toronto and costs about $80,000 a year. The people at lake Simcoe, Huntsville and other plages simply telephone for the Toronto life-saving service to come up and find the drowned persons.
That is about all I have to say. We want a proper inquiry into this disaster, not a whitewashing inquiry. We do not want any whitewash. We want to know the facts. The people want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They are not getting the truth and the facts about the case. I do not see why anybody from the municipalities should object to having us know what happened to the ship. It is a guest ship and they can do what you cannot do under the Canada Shipping Act, that famous statute. They want to have an inquiry under that act instead of a proper inquiry under the federal Inquiries Act. A proper inquiry should take place.
I hope the day is not far distant when we shall go back to preferential trade. We know what that has done for Canada. We all know what the great Joseph Chamberlain did in his lifetime for the city of Birmingham. He created the policy of preferential trade. The first time we ever had it was under Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding. They proposed to give six cents a bushel on grain; and my former leader, Lord Bennett, was very much in favour of it. Let us forget all about isolationism and separatism in all these things. Let us go back to the old way of doing things.
Where would this country have been in the early thirties, when we were on the gold standard, off the gold standard and on the gold standard again, had it not been for preferential trade with the dominions? What was true then is true today. That policy was founded in 1897 by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was one of the authors along with Mr. Fielding. What was good for the government of that day should be good enough for the present government.
We should have trade with our sister dominions who stood with us in the two wars. Had it not been for the aid given by the dominions to Great Britain we would have lost the first war. We had to wait some time before our friends to the south came in. Then in the second war the dominions had to come to the side of the mother country, only in ten times the strength. It saved the whole world before Pearl Harbor, before the United States came in.
This country should buy from the mother country. Preferential trade should be restored. That is what saved this country away back in the thirties when Lord Bennett was the leader of my party. That policy increased trade between Canada and Great Britain 43

The Address-Mr. Knowles per cent, and it increased Great Britain's trade with the dominions 41 per cent. Not only that, but Canada increased her foreign trade with the countries on the seven seas.
A magnificent trade exhibition was held in Toronto under the auspices of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). We were able to see what Australia, New Zealand and other dominions were offering. We should trade with our sister dominions as much as possible and re-establish the system of preferential trade. I believe the future of Canada depends on that. This is what Sir John Macdonald said in 1844:
I, therefore, need scarcely state my firm belief that the prosperity of Canada depends upon its permanent connection with the mother country.
And then in 1891 he said:
For a century and a half this country has grown and flourished under the protecting aegis of the British crown. Under the broad folds of the Union Jack, we enjoy the most ample liberty, we govern ourselves as we please, and at the same time we participate in the advantages which flow with association of the mightiest empire the world has ever seen. As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born and a British subject I will die.
That spirit still lives and breathes in this country today, no matter what may be said to the contrary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since it appears that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is not to make his statement on the exchange situation until nine o'clock, I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), which reads as follows:
We regret, however, that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose legislation to remove the means test from the old age pension.
Frankly, I do not see how any hon. member of this house can vote against that amendment. A proper old age pension, free of the means test, is now part of the platform of every political party in this country. I remind hon. gentlemen opposite in particular that, during the recent federal election campaign, Liberal after Liberal contended that that was one of the things he would fight for if elected, namely, the abolition of the means test. I heard over the radio, from the lips of Liberals in the part of the country from which I come, the statement in strong terms, "The means test must go." Those who gave expression to that sentiment during the election campaign have the opportunity to vote that way when the vote is called on this amendment. I am sure that many Liberal members of this house who are new to this chamber will, when they look at the amendment, say that that is something that they want to vote for. I hope that

they will vote the way they really feel, the way their constituents expect them to vote.
This whole question of a proper old age pension is something that it has taken time to popularize in this country. When old age pensions were first being proposed on the floor of this house in the middle twenties there was strong criticism of the idea. As hon. members know, the first Old Age Pensions Act that was passed in this house was turned down in the other place. In the meantime, largely through the efforts of my predecessor, the late Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, former member for Winnipeg North Centre, and of this party across the years, it has been accepted by the Canadian people that as part of our national economy there should be a proper retirement plan.
I have no doubt that one reason why many people voted Liberal on June 27 was that they felt even the Liberal party had become convinced of the need for a proper old age pension plan. They felt that if given another chance in addition to all those chances they had had so far the Liberals would bring in a proper old age pension plan. I know, as do all hon. members, that at the present time we are facing grave international problems with which this house must cope, but I insist that we must not let our concern for those broad international problems blind us to the necessity of dealing with our domestic problems and of setting our internal house in order in the best possible way we can. High on the list of our domestic problems is the need for a proper retirement plan.
As hon. members who have been here before are aware, I have given most of my time in the speeches I have made on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to this question. Through the years I have tried to document our case with figures which I have been able to secure from the bureau of statistics, from the Department of National Health and Welfare and from other sources. Hon. members will recall that in March, 1948,
I gave figures which I had obtained from the bureau of statistics, particularly from a report having to do with the changes in our population' structure, which showed that through the years we are becoming a nation with a larger number of older people. To be specific, the figures given out by the bureau of statistics show that whereas in 1941 only 6-7 per cent of our Canadian people were sixty-five years of age and over, by 1971 10-1 per cent of the people in this country will be sixty-five years of age and over. In other words, the necessity for grappling with this problem increases as the years come and go.
That same bureau of statistics pointed out in that same report that, not only is the per-

centage of older people increasing, but so is the percentage of those in the working brackets. In other words, the bureau of statistics pointed out for all members of this house and all parties to see that the increased problem of providing proper retirement for our older people can readily be met by reason of the fact that there is an increasing number of people to do the work, to produce the wealth out of which to set aside a share for a proper retirement.
In March of this year I dealt with another phase of this problem, pointing out that, despite all of the efforts being made by private enterprise and through government action to set up pension plans, as yet we are hardly scratching the surface of the problem. The figures I gave related to the total number of people in our country who are trying to provide for their old age, including those in the civil service, those who are buying government annuities, those who are contributing to various pension plans in private industry, and those who are buying the kind of life insurance which will provide for their retirement. When those figures were all put together-I need not repeat them now but they can be found in Hansard of March 3, 1949-they showed that the best we are doing at the present time enables only about one in eight of our people in the working group between the ages of twenty and sixty to make provision for their old age.
I pointed out at the time that it was not to be assumed that that one in eight is making adequate provision, for in many cases the provision being made is extremely meagre. But that whole set of figures underlines the fact that this is a problem with which we have scarcely started to deal.
One of the reasons I dealt with that phase of the problem last March was the fact that a little over a year ago a publication issued by the Canadian Manufacturers Association published a story to the effect that private enterprise was doing a good job in this field. After reading this story, rather than argue with it, I felt it was a subject worthy of investigation. To my amazement, after I had given this analysis of the situation in the house in March of this year, that same publication, which is known as Industry, published by the Canadian Manufacturers Association, made reference in its issue of April, 1949, to the speech I had made. I shall not take the time to read the whole of the article dealing with my speech, but what the article attempts to say is that I, in fact, proved the very point the Canadian Manufacturers Association was trying to establish. What they were trying to point out, and they are perfectly right in it, is that about half of the
The Address-Mr. Knowles pension plans now in effect are under the direction of private industry. In dealing with it in the house, this publication says I simply proved that point. In other words, the Canadian Manufacturers Association completely overlooks the point I tried to make then, and which I repeat tonight, namely, that when you give full credit to everything private industry is doing, full credit to the life insurance companies, full credit to the government annuities program, and full credit to the civil service pension plans of all governments in this country, the fact remains that only about one in eight of our Canadian people between the ages of twenty and sixty is in a position to provide for their old age.
These facts simply underline the necessity of getting on with this problem early in the life of this new parliament. I repeat, there are great international problems with which this parliament must deal, but that must not blind us to the fact that these domestic problems are equally important. We in this group welcome the references in the speech from the throne to the discussions as to ways and means of amending the British North America Act within Canada. While the speech from the throne does not say so, it seems to be taken for granted, and we hope correctly, that one of the fields in which there is interest, so far as amending the British North America Act is concerned, is this field of social security. According to those who write in our various publications about what is in the government's mind, that sort of amendment is high on the list; that is what the government wants to be able to do, to make the necessary amendments to the British North America Act so that this whole question of social security can be put on a propel: footing.
With respect to that, there are two things I should like to say. On the one hand, I stress the point that it is not necessary to wait for an amendment to the British North America Act to remove the means test from the present Old Age Pensions Act. That is what the amendment of my leader, which I have had the honour to second, calls for at this time. I suggest that in view of the pronouncements made by all parties, in view of the pronouncements made by candidates who have been returned to this house that they would support that sort of thing, such an amendment should be approved. It should be an instruction to this government to bring forward-immediately-legislation to remove the means test from the Old Age Pensions Act.
A further reference I wish to make about seeking ways and means of amending the British North America Act-I am going to speak quite frankly-is that we do not want another round of political footballing over the

The Address-Mr. Knowles British North America Act so far as old age pensions are concerned. Four or five years from now we do not want another election on the issue of social security, with the Liberal party going to the country and saying, "We tried to do it, but this province or that province interfered." This time I hope the government will approach the provinces in a manner that will bring forth co-operation and get this job done. It is not going to be satisfactory to the Canadian people in 1953 or 1954 to throw out the Liberals because they did not bring in a proper social security plan. What the people of this country want is for this parliament, this government which they put in power, to do the job now.
In common with a good many members of this House of Commons who have come back for another term, during this past week I have spent quite a few hours going through my filing cabinets with a view to getting rid of some of the material that has piled up over the years. One thing that has amazed me has been the number of files relating to old age pensioners that need no longer be retained because those people have passed away without having had the opportunity of enjoying a decent old age pension which this parliament should have given them. I hope there will be no more delay in connection with this measure.
Mr. Speaker, it is our contention that something should be done about the Old Age Pensions Act immediately, and we feel there are other things that should be done as well, such as the raising of the amount and the lowering of the eligible age, and so on. For the purpose of this debate, however, we have tried to pinpoint pur attack on one item, namely, the means test, and that is the issue now before the house.
In addition to amending the Old Age Pensions Act, there are other ways in which the government could show its interest in social security, its interest in the welfare of the old people. I have raised in this house on many occasions the plight of our superannuated civil servants. Members who were here in the last session of the last parliament will remember that, towards the end of that session, a prolonged debate took place during which the members of all parties called upon the government to reverse its stubborn position in this matter and do the fair thing by these retired civil servants. That is something they could do right now to show they are genuinely interested, not in just talking about it or using it as a campaign slogan during elections, but in doing something for our older people.
Another way in which something could be done in the broader contributory field in
ZMr. Knowles.]
which we are interested is by bringing in a railroad retirement act similar to that in the United States. Again, I will not take the time to go into it because I have done so a good many times before; and what has interested me in this chamber, when I have argued the case for a railroad retirement act, is that despite the fact that some hon. members regard me as a nuisance on these matters and despite the fact that members are opposed to me politically, the house has always followed with interest my appeal for a proper railroad pension plan.
I mention railroad workers in particular because they are a group whose labour relations are already under federal jurisdiction. In other words, it seems to me that no amendment to the British North America Act is required to bring in a railroad retirement act for workers who come under federal jurisdiction. There again is a chance for this government with its huge majority to show whether it is interested in over-all social security, whether it is interested in getting something started, or whether we are in for another four or five years of political footballing over the British North America Act, with the result that nothing gets done.
I also want to say a few words about the need for more definite and progressive steps in the field of national health. My leader referred to this subject again this afternoon. It too is one of the fields in which we feel that the people of this country expect fulfilment during the course of this parliament, and they do not expect this government to wait until the eve of the next election. They want action now.
In this whole question of doing something for the health of our people there are three main fields in which action must be taken. In the first place, provision must be made of adequate equipment and personnel- hospitals, doctors, technicians, nurses, dentists and so on. In the second place, there must be health insurance to enable the people to pay for the services. It is no use having the best services and the best doctors available if people cannot afford to make use of them. In the third place there is required in a great many cases in this country, and increasingly so, a sickness benefit to take the place of the pay envelope that stops when the worker is off sick. Despite all the publicity that has been given and all the talk about the forward steps being taken by this government in the field of health, this government has so far really dealt with only the first of these three things. It has asked parliament to provide money, and parliament has done so readily, to assist in the building of hospitals and in the providing of the necessary equipment. But literally nothing has been done in the

field of health insurance. We are asked to vote a little bit of money for health insurance studies, but even that in former years had never been fully expended. And nothing at all has been done in the field of providing a sickness benefit. When we have raised this question in discussions related to the Unemployment Insurance Act and have pointed out the need for a benefit for unemployed people when they are sick, we are told by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) that actuarially that cannot be done by him, that it has to be part of an over-all social security plan. We agree, but the time to get such a program going is now when this government sits here in this parliament with an overwhelming majority and can do not only whatever it wants to do but what it has promised the people of this country that it will do.
There is just one other question, Mr. Speaker, about which I should like to say a few words tonight. It is in a slightly different field, but I am going to take this opportunity to speak about it because I feel it is extremely important and because of the promise which the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) made to me on Friday last, to the effect that he would give an answer to my question early this week. The minister might ask why I do not wait until I hear his answer, but my fear is that, if I do not give him some of the arguments in advance, he might give the wrong answer.
I refer to the whole question of the right of trade unionists to deduct their trade union dues from their taxable income for income tax purposes. As hon. members who were here in the last session will know, it is the case that certain groups of people are permitted to deduct, for income tax purposes, the fees they pay to the professional societies to which they belong. That deduction applies particularly in the case of lawyers, and there is a notable exchequer court decision of a few years ago which makes it clear that it applies to lawyers not only when they are working on their own but also when they are employed by a firm and paid a stated salary. For a long time it has been the contention of the trade union movement that if lawyers are allowed to deduct, for income tax purposes, the fees to the law society which they have to pay in order to practise law, so should trade unionists, who have to be members of their trade union in order to carry on in their trade, be permitted to make a comparable deduction.
This matter was brought to a head in a legal way by two Winnipeg trade unionists- they were moving-picture projectionists- who in 1945 claimed this deduction, and when it was denied to them by the income tax authorities they appealed and eventually
The Address-Mr. Knowles took the case to the Exchequer Court of Canada. This year, I believe on June 8, the exchequer court in the person of Mr. Justice Angers issued a judgment in favour of these two trade unionists. The position taken by the judge of the exchequer court was precisely the one that we had been taking through the years. He pointed out that if, under the section that was in the act, it was possible for lawyers to deduct their fees to the law society, there was no reason why trade unionists should not have the same privilege and be permitted to deduct their fees to their trade union.
As I say, that decision was handed down on June 8, but it did not reach the newspapers until about the middle of the month. I know that in trade union circles the decision was greeted with a great deal of satisfaction and it was felt that here indeed was a fair decision on the part of the Exchequer Court of Canada. But, lo and behold, within a day or two the officials in the income tax department began issuing statements which reached the press, and these same officials threw cold water on the idea that trade unionists henceforth were to be able to avail themselves of this privilege. Nothing was said by the Minister of National Revenue himself, so far as 1 could find in the papers, and I doubt if anything was said by his deputy. But these well-placed, well-informed officials told the press that this 1945 case could not be taken to apply across the board. In the main they said two things. First of all, they said that no trade unionist who did not claim this exemption in 1945 can get it now, as can these two men who took it to court, because the time for appealing has elapsed. That could be understood. One could see the administrative difficulties if it were possible to go back over three or four years and get all these exemptions. My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), points out that the income tax people could do that, and he is perfectly right. They reassess the returns of corporations, and there really is no reason why they could not reassess the returns of individual trade unionists right across the board.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: They do that for individuals now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good. I am getting even more support than I had expected, and I am glad to have it. The point I want to make is that the other statement made by these officials was, to my way of thinking, more serious and more ominous. In fact it seems to me nothing more or less than a defying of the decision of the courts. The other pronouncement made by these unnamed officials in the Department of National

The Address-Mr. Knowles Revenue was that, in the meantime, the act had been changed and we are now under the 1948 Income Tax Act rather than under the old Income War Tax Act of many years' standing, amended time and time again. Well, I have compared these two acts, namely, the one that was in effect in 1945, the Income War Tax Act, and the new Income Tax Act, which is in effect now. There is a slight change in the wording of the relevant section, but it seems the meaning is clear. Although I am not a lawyer I do not see how any judge who made the decision that Mr. Justice Angers made on June 8 could fail to make the same decision if in the case of a return for the year 1948, under the new act, trade unionists were forced to take their case to the exchequer court again. It seems to me that if the government decides they are not going to allow these deductions, but are simply going to force the trade unionists to go to the exchequer court again, they are just delaying justice, and certainly the trade unionists of this country will wonder what kind of action this is on the part of the government. After all, respect for the fairness of the courts is one of the cardinal principles of our democracy, and it does seem to me that this decision, recognized to be eminently fair, should be implemented in full by the officials of this department, and by the government.
In the old Income War Tax Act, as it was in effect in 1945, the section under which lawyers were allowed to deduct their fees to the law society, and the section under which Mr. Justice Angers decided that trade unionists should have the same right, was section 6, subsection (1), subparagraph (a). It is under the sectional heading "Deductions from Income Not Allowed". The section reads:
6.(1) In computing the amount of the profits or gains to be assessed, a deduction shall not be allowed in respect of
(a) disbursements or expenses not wholly, exclusively and necessarily laid out or expended for the purpose of earning the income;
That is put in the negative form. The positive form means, as it meant to Mr. Justice Angers, and as it meant to the income tax department in dealing with lawyers, that if the expenditure was made wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purpose of earning the income it could be deducted.
That clause has been changed. Here is its wording in the new Income Tax Act. It is section 12, subsection (1), subparagraph (a), and reads as follows:
12. (1) In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of
(a) an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from property or a business of the taxpayer;

Again it is put in the negative form. But put it in the positive sense and it says that you can claim a deduction if the outlay or expense referred to was made or incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from property or a business of the taxpayer. I suppose there might be some quibbling over the question of what a business is, but that is most unlikely. Surely if the law is a lawyer's business, printing is a printer's business and blacksmithing is a blacksmith's business. Since these workers have to pay their trade union fees in order to practise their trade, just as the lawyers have to pay fees to the law society in order to practise law, the case is surely all on the same level.
I know that there is very keen feeling about this question amongst trade unionists generally, and I would hope that if the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), in getting ready the statement that he is going to make early this week, has not already decided to give a favourable answer, he will take these considerations under advisement. I am sure that hon. members, regardless of party, even as last April they agreed with me in the position that I took then, will agree with me that in all fairness there is no question but that trade unionists should be allowed these deductions.
There are many other things that we in this group might talk about, but I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has come in, and perchance he is ready without waiting until nine o'clock to make the important statement that this house is waiting for. Therefore I shall not detain the house longer. I just want to say-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: New members will soon
learn that they do that every time I speak.


An hon. Member:: Then why do you speak?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the reason Winnipeg North Centre sent me back here-to speak, and to speak about these things.
I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that despite all the things that are being said at the opening of this parliament about the fact that we do accept the decision of the people, in that we have a parliament with an overwhelming Liberal majority, that imposes upon that Liberal majority the obligation not to sit here complacently, but to fulfil the promises that they made. If they do not, it will not be long until the people begin to wonder whether they did not make a mistake. Many of those who voted Liberal are doing that already. I call upon this government to get on its toes, and I call upon the back-benchers who are here in such overwhelming numbers to see to it that the government delivers the goods.

I suggest that there is no better place to begin than in the fields I have been talking about tonight, namely, in a broader and better old age pension plan, in a proper health plan for the Canadian people, and in doing something about this injustice to the trade unionists of this country.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In spite of your speech I agree with you.


Mr. Gardiner:: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Mitchell:: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McCubbin:: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Adamson:: As the house is anxiously awaiting the statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), I move the adjournment of this debate until later this day.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if I could have the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions, I should like to make a statement with respect to Canada's exchange rate.
Hon. members are aware, of course, of the details of the important announcement which was made yesterday afternoon by the Chan-

Foreign Exchange
cellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, and which has been followed by announcements from other capitals.
As the chancellor has said, the United States and Canadian representatives to the tripartite discussions in Washington were informed at the outset of the ministerial talks that the government of the United Kingdom had taken the decision to devalue the pound sterling. However, at that time the United Kingdom government had not yet decided what the extent of the devaluation would be. The proposed new parity of the pound sterling was communicated to us in a message from Mr. Attlee to the Prime Minister on Friday.
The government had immediately to consider Canadian policy in the light of this development. It was clearly not possible to give full consideration to this matter until we had more knowledge of how many, and what countries, would follow the action taken by the United Kingdom and the extent of the exchange rate adjustment, if any, that they would put into effect. We felt it desirable to await the more complete information which would be available during the course of today. Consequently, I issued the following statement last evening:
In view of the decision reached by the United Kingdom government, to devalue the pound sterling by 30 per cent, and of similar action which has already been taken by a number of other countries, the government of Canada has instructed the chairman of the Foreign Exchange Control Board to advise all authorized dealers and agents of the board not to deal in foreign exchange in Canada until the rates effective as from the opening of business Tuesday, September 20, are communicated to them by the board.
Before I go on to inform hon. members of the decision of the Canadian government, I should like to say a word of comment in regard to the British action itself. For some time it has been clear that a fairly radical re-alignment of some currencies was a necessary element in the readjustments required to balance international trade. The decision, however, was one which the countries concerned had themselves to take. The action which the United Kingdom has now taken constitutes a courageous and positive effort by the British people to do their part in the common endeavours that are necessary to provide the basis for a real and enduring recovery of world trade.
Since the end of the war we have been confronted with repeated dollar crises, each threatening to produce a breakdown in the economic relations between the democracies of the western world. These crises had their origin in the widespread economic dislocations and heavy losses caused by the war. Hon. members are familiar with the co-operarMr. Abbott.]
tive measures taken in the past to deal with these difficulties. First, there was the work of relief undertaken by UNRRA and the military authorities; then we had the establishment of the two international monetary institutions at Bretton Woods; this was followed by the extension of large loans and credits by the United States and Canada to the United Kingdom and other European countries. Finally there was the adoption of the Marshall plan, which has provided further substantial financial help from the United States. These measures have been highly successful not only in averting the incalculable consequences of economic and political collapse, but have been essential elements in the successive stages of physical reconstruction. With the help of these measures the peoples of western Europe have been able to perform the remarkable feat of repairing, in a few short years, the physical ravages of the most destructive war in history.
Although physical production has been largely restored, we have continued to face a most serious unbalance in world trade. The so-called dollar shortage has continued to get worse and has become all but universal. How to overcome the widening disequilibrium between the dollar and non-dollar world was the central task of the Washington discussions. Each of the participants was keenly and deeply aware of the consequences of failure. Unless the trend could be reversed the free world would, through the force of events, divide itself into two economic blocs. With this division there could not be a sound or lasting basis for political co-operation and security.
The problem was approached in the realization that these great issues were at stake. The atmosphere of co-operation and understanding in which the discussions proceeded could not have been better. Each side was prepared to re-examine its policies in the light of the adjustments that are required. The United Kingdom, the sterling area, and other non-dollar countries had to find ways and new incentives by which their dollar earnings could be quickly and substantially expanded. The dollar countries on the other hand would have to follow policies which would enable that expansion in dollar earnings to take place; and wherever possible undertake the removal of obstacles which stand in the way. The decisions taken by the government of the United Kingdom to achieve this common purpose were announced yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The courses of action adopted by the dollar countries are clearly set forth in the communique issued at the conclusion of the Washington talks. Hon. members will agree

that these decisions and courses of action constitute a positive and comprehensive effort to achieve a soundly balanced and expanding world trade upon which the prosperity of Canada so greatly depends.
At this point may I say that I know I am expressing the sentiments of my colleagues, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), when I thank the hon. leader of the opposition for the generous references he made in his speech this afternoon to the contributions which we were able to make at those discussions.
The action taken by the government of the United Kingdom, and followed by many other countries, has, aside from the longer-run effects, important immediate implications for Canada as well. It is clear, now, that a widespread and substantial readjustment of currencies is under way.
The Canadian economy is bound to be affected by changes in the exchange rates of countries which take so large a part of our exports. We are bound to be affected also by any changes in prices which prevail in our most important markets and sources of supply.
In considering the immediate and prospective impact upon Canada we have to look particularly at our balance of payments and foreign exchange position. Because of the dislocations in world trade which have prevailed since the end of the war, foreign exchange policy has been a major factor in our affairs. Hon. members will recall the heavy loss in foreign exchange reserves which we experienced during 1947, owing to the inability of our customers in Europe to pay for a large part of their imports from us. The measures which we were obliged to take in November of that year to stop the drain were highly successful. A substantial current account surplus in our balance of payments was achieved during 1948, and our reserves of gold and United States dollars was increased from a low of $461 million in December, 1947, to $998 million at December 31, 1948.
However, at the beginning of 1949 it was clear that the worsening world dollar situation and our rising imports from the United States would result in a sharp reduction in our current account surplus. The current account surplus in our balance of payments has in fact been declining and it is now estimated that, for the year as a whole, it will in any case be very small. Consequently any developments which tend to bring about a reduction in the total value of our exports or an increase in our imports is likely to create a deficit in our international accounts.
Foreign Exchange Such a deficit would result in a loss of exchange reserves.
While, as I have said, our exchange reserves have recovered substantially since the end of 1947, they have not been restored to the level which is adequate for our needs. In these circumstances it is highly desirable to pursue policies which would help to prevent a deficit in our trading position.
The substantial devaluation of currencies throughout the sterling area, and in many other countries as well, cannot fail to have important implications for our balance of payments position. Many of our exports are bound to face increased price competition in both the non-dollar and dollar markets. At the same time the extensive exchange adjustments abroad will tend to result in an increase in the total value of our imports. While we stand ready to co-operate with the efforts of overseas countries to expand their sales to us we cannot receive more imports from all sources without going into deficit in our international accounts.
In these circumstances the government has decided to adjust the exchange value of the Canadian dollar to the extent considered necessary.
Canada's basic position will continue to be strong. Our exports have been and will continue to be competitive. Our production is efficient and our costs are relatively low. Because of these underlying factors the government has felt that an adjustment of 10 per cent is appropriate. Such a change requires consultation with but not the approval of the international monetary fund. This consultation took place today. An order in council has therefore been passed adjusting our exchange rates on the basis of a 10 per cent premium on the U.S. dollar. The chairman of the foreign exchange control board has been instructed to advise all authorized dealers and agents of the board that rates effective as from the opening of business Tuesday, September 20, will be as follows:
Buying	Selling
Rate	Rate
in Canadian funds
U.S. dollar	
$1.10	$1,101Pound sterling	
3.07J	3.083
With the permission of the house, I should like to table as part of my statement a copy of a joint communique which was issued following the joint discussions in Washington. With the consent of the house, it might be convenient if it were printed as an appendix to Hansard.
(For text of communique see appendix A, pages 66 to 68.)

The Address-Mr. Adamson SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONSIDERATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Maurice Boisvert for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Agar Rodney Adamson: My
mind reverts back, Mr. Speaker, to the day in 1946 when the initial parity move was made by the then Minister of Finance, the Right Hon. James Lorimer Ilsley. That initial mistake has had dire consequences which have resulted in this evening's move. As the house will remember, the move was made as an anti-inflation measure. In other words, the excuse given for the then parity move was to cushion the Canadian economy against the rapidly rising prices in the United States. Since then the net result has been that practically every succeeding month has seen an increased basic cost of living in Canada until last month it reached an all-time high. Therefore, from the point of view of preventing an increase in the cost of living and an increase in the dangerous pressure of inflation, the move was certainly not a success. Particularly was it not a success when it is considered that the cost of living in the United States has been falling, not substantially but quite considerably, for some time. Our parity move, instead of cushioning us against increasing the cost of living, actually resulted in a continuously increasing basic cost of living.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we came through more and more difficult trading conditions until the move that has been taken tonight became more and more obvious as each succeeding week went by. The fact is that our hard currency reserves did for a time actually increase, but only owing to the stringent austerity moves taken in that famous radio speech by the Minister of Finance in 1947, and only because of the import controls put into effect. Those import controls are a direct negation of what we built this country on, namely free and open international trade. They were necessary because after the parity move our hard currency and gold reserves ran out at such a rate that not only had they passed the danger point but they were approaching a state of near exhaustion. That was the result of the parity move: a continued increase in the cost of living and the rapid diminution of our hard currency and gold reserves. We then proceeded by steadily retrogressive steps to impose travel restrictions, currency restrictions, import quotas, prohibitions and exchange control more and more rigidly until we approached a state of considerable austerity.
Many vital imports, even of foodstuffs and

machinery, were restricted from the United States-a necessary action, Mr. Speaker, because of the rapid drain on our currency resources, but not a move favoured by a young and virile country with an expanding economy, not a move that this country took happily or gladly. We then saw a continuous and gradually worsening international trading situation. We saw bilateral deals, barter pacts, exchange controls, multiple values of currencies and other subterfuges raised by many of the countries in order to overcome the regulations of the international monetary fund and the Bretton Woods agreements. We saw these things sweep the world like a plague. We saw the world divided, completely divided into a dollar and a non-dollar area. We were in a dollar area and every minute of every day our trade with the rest of the world became more and more difficult.
It was even suggested by the foreign exchange control board itself that we should enter into barter deals with the rest of the world. In fact, I believe that actually one or two barter deals were consummated. I want to speak very briefly on what barter deals mean. Barter deals mean nothing but state trade. If we enter into barter deals it means that a government agency is responsible for the sale of our goods abroad. We have seen what happens in the sale of wheat, and now coarse grains and many other agricultural products. If we entered into barter deals as between country and country it would mean that our entire economic life would be in the hands of the central government. This is state socialism and nothing else. Fortunately the Canadian people and the more conservative members of the Liberal party rejected state trading, barter and bilateral deals. But the rest of the. world, because of the division of the world between dollar and non-dollar areas, was forced to take these steps, and as each new barter deal was consummated between other countries it was just one more area from which Canadian goods were excluded.
Some months ago it was calculated that nearly five hundred individual bilateral barter deals had been made throughout the rest of the non-dollar world out of a total possible of some 700. That is nearly three-quarters of all the non-dollar trade, and the non-Marshall trade was being done by barter agreements. That was a situation that Canada simply could not tolerate. This country was built on export trade, but it was built on multilateral and free export trade. We, in our own right, have built up the greatest per capita export trade of any country in the world. Not only that, but there is no country in the world which depends on export trade to the extent

that we do in Canada. We depend on export trade and we are more vulnerable in the present situation than either the United Kingdom or the United States. That is a fact which is not generally appreciated by the public in Canada.
If our export trade fails, if we are unable to export the produce of our mines, our forests, our farms and our manufacturing industries, the economy of Canada comes to a standstill. That is the situation with which we are faced. There were two ways out of it. There was the way which the government has just taken. I would remind you, sir, of the ridicule, and scorn, heaped upon myself and my leader when we proposed the 10 per cent devaluation, which has just taken place, as one of the steps necessary to re-adjust our currency position. We were told, Mr. Speaker, that 10 per cent was a useless palliative, and would not cure the ills that beset this country. Fifteen minutes ago they adopted this useless palliative, and I say, Mr. Speaker, it is a useless palliative at the present time. It is inadequate now to cure the ills which beset us.
What are we faced with? We are still faced with a ninety-cent United States dollar. Those to whom we must sell must provide themselves not with one hundred cents of hard currency but with ninety cents of hard currency, and any country that has no hard currency is going to find it just as difficult to get that ninety cents of hard currency as it did to get a hundred cents of hard currency. The point is still that the trading economy of this country is in a strait-jacket.
During the last session we advocated the abolition of exchange control. We realized, Mr. Speaker, that our adherence to the Bret-ton Woods agreement and our membership in the international monetary fund required us by treaty to have our views presented to that organization before we took action. With that I am in entire agreement and concurrence. Rightly or wrongly we put our name to a treaty and we must stand by our name on that treaty. There were, however, and there have been for some time past, means which we could have taken to have overcome the difficulties which were gradually besetting us, and I say that they were troubling us a great deal more than they were either of the other two countries in the English-speaking partnership. We stood to suffer. We were the small country between the two great trading empires. Not only were we the small country. We were the small country with an enormous productivity and an enormous export trade. And yet we put ourselves in this strait-jacket of demanding payment in
The Address-Mr. Adamson a currency or in gold which the other member of the union which was our principal customer could not provide itself with. If there was ever a time when it was the bounden duty of Canadian statesmen to do everything possible to break down this impasse in currency, then this is the time. This is a matter of nothing else but currency control. We have the goods the world wants, and we can produce them at competitive prices. We have the foodstuffs, we have the timber, we have the base metals, and a greatly expanded manufacturing industry efficient enough to compete with the rest of the world.
All we needed was the right type of chip to play in the game. But all through the years 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949 the government said, "The game is going on; we must play it, but we are not going to try to provide ourselves with the right sort of chips." We maintained our tie with the American dollar, which as the months went on became more and more difficult for the rest of the world to acquire.
The economy of Europe has made a great recovery. However at the same time that it has made the recovery it has also entered the competitive markets of the world to a point where, instead of Europe being a great consuming market for Canadian goods, today Europe is becoming a competitor. We find industry after industry, first kept out of the market by our exchange rules, and now in the second place not only finding the market gone but, where there was once a market, finding now an active competitor.
There can be no solution for this impasse until we have a convertible currency. To attempt to fix the value of any currency by government edict is doomed to failure. It may continue even for a matter of years; but unless the world will freely and openly accept your currency at the amount at which you peg it, then what you say your currency is worth has no real or valid meaning. That has been the result in all attempts to control currencies throughout history. For a time they have succeeded. It is devoutly hoped that the courageous action taken by the United Kingdom will succeed at least until such time as she builds up a near equilibrium in trade. But it will not succeed if the world does not consider the English pound worth $2.80 in United States currency.
It is not for the government of England to say what that currency is worth. They pass a law saying it is worth so much; but they have to enforce that law by police action, just the same as we have to enforce our currency control law by police action. That is, the officials at the border must prevent

The Address-Mr. Adamson people from having more than $150 in United States funds. Investigators have to watch service stations and tourist resorts to see that they do not accumulate United States dollars.
Increasing police action to control the value of our currency means that that currency is not freely accepted; and unless a currency is universally accepted at its face value, the exchange rate is not a true one. Twice in the House of Commons I have moved for the abolition of the foreign exchange control board. I realize however that to take precipitate action now is probably impossible. Unless we can do away with currency control, unless we can have a currency freely exchangeable in the markets of the world, we are deluding ourselves that real trade recovery is taking place. That is the situation today in Canada.
The current move, the move that was so hotly denied as likely to take place, yet one which has become more and more obvious and inevitable as time has gone on, will not in my opinion relieve the pressure on our economy. It will not make it easier for us to trade internationally. Let me say just one thing about international trade; unless we can build up a trade and maintain it with the entire world, we are going to become ever more dependent upon the United States market. As each market is lost to us and as each market becomes more and more restricted against us, because we still demand payment with 90 cents of hard. currency, our trade will become more and more concentrated on the North American continent.
What does that mean? It means simply this, that we are becoming more and more dependent upon the United States for our economic well-being. Perhaps you say that that is as it should be, that no two countries have better feelings toward each other, that nowhere is there more genuine good will than is to be found between the United States and Canada, and that therefore they should trade. Quite right; they should; and the greater volume of trade we can carry on with the United States, the better. But if our trade becomes overwhelmingly with the United States, and if our markets elsewhere are either lost or so restricted that they are negligible, then the power exercised by a great industrial country ten times the size of us will be so great that our economic future will be in jeopardy. I want to make it very clear that if our economic future is in jeopardy our political future is also in jeopardy. If such a percentage of our trade is done with the United States, and if, by reason of depression, because of surplus products in the United States, or for other reasons, that market is closed to us either by government or economic action we

shall find our economy virtually strangled. If so, Mr. Speaker, I warn the house that our future as an independent country is in grave jeopardy.
There can be no question of that. The history of the last twenty-five years in Europe has shown that a small country which became entirely dependent on a large neighbour lost its security and eventually its identity. The small countries which have remained have remained because they were virile traders and independent producers in their own right. The small countries that have disappeared have been those which became wholly dependent on their large neighbours. That is the grave danger which this country faces today. We must trade internationally to exist. We can no more allow ourselves to become wholly dependent on one market than we can afford not to co-operate with the other nations of the Atlantic pact.
Possibly never in our history has so grave a decision been necessary on the part of the Canadian people. Never before has the impact of international trade been so important to us in Canada. We must find a solution for the currency question. Artificially pegging currencies through the device of exchange control will not solve the problem. Entering into barter deals, bilateral agreements, will impose state trading agencies on this free country. The channeling of our trade overwhelmingly with the United States will make us so dependent on that country that our economic well-being will be in jeopardy.
There is one solution which I have suggested. My party adopted it as a part of its platform. It is still an important factor in the life of Canada. We have got to provide ourselves with a convertible currency. It is suggested that the only common denominator against which currencies can be compared is gold, or a currency freely convertible into gold at a fixed rate. The United States dollar, Mr. Speaker, does not fulfil those requirements because it is not convertible into gold on account of the United States Gold Act, which prevents nationals from buying gold at the statutory price of $35 in the United States. Therefore in order to establish a medium of exchange, and a way in which we could provide ourselves with a convertible currency, it is suggested that a free-gold market be established in Canada against which all other currencies would have their due and proper price. Not only that, it would provide a free market for currencies in Canada so that the buyer and the seller could meet in the open market place and carry out their trading deals.
If we do not get back to a condition of free trade we are faced with the acceptance of the

socialist idea of blocked currencies, barter pacts, bilateral deals, or else, on the other hand, we must accept the domination and increasing control of our trade by our great partner on this continent.
The move taken tonight was ridiculed by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). In my opinion it is not the correct one, nor is it sufficient. Nevertheless we will continue to offer criticism and assistance to the government on this question. This is not a problem of party politics. This is a problem on which the very existence of Canada depends. If I thought the move already taken would be adequate or sufficient I would welcome it, but it restores the status that existed before 1946; it restores the currency to where it is 90 cents to the United States dollar in 1949 after the great inflationary expansion throughout the world has taken place.
It is for that reason, among many others, that I say that the move is inadequate. It does not solve the basic problem of convertibility and still keeps the economy of Canada in the strait-jacket of exchange control.
(Translation):


Mr. Raymond Bruneau (Prescoli):: Mr. Speaker, may I, at the outset, congratulate the hon. members for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) and for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) on their eloquent contributions on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
As a former translator of the debates -of this house and of the Senate, as well as of the proceedings of the parliamentary committees, I wish, especially, to tender my most sincere compliments to the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska on the interesting and felicitous statement he has made in connection with the language we speak in this house. The French language, even though it may not be the one spoken in Paris, is nevertheless the pure language of the seventeenth century, which has immortalized Corneille, Racine and many others.
May I add, Mr. Speaker, that the matter of abolishing appeals to the privy council certainly evidences the Canadian nation's will to consecrate fully perhaps not its autonomy but surely its sovereignty. I would be tempted to repeat these words from a great Liberal leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the silver-tongued orator and former head of our great Liberal family: "I remember France who gave us life, I love England who gave us freedom, but I am bound to hold uppermost in my thoughts and turn my eyes to my Canada, my beloved country."
There is also, Mr. Speaker, the timely
The Address-Mr. Bruneau proposal made by the horl. member for Nicolet-Yamaska in connection with a pension for disabled persons. The implementing of that suggestion would, I believe, remedy some deficiencies. I may say that since the election held on June 27, I have personally met some needy persons who, not being eligible for any other kind of pension, would at last obtain thereby some measure of relief.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, with your kind permission I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) and the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) upon their eloquent speeches in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was pleased with the reference made by the hon. member for Vancouver South to the necessity of multilateral trade with other countries which had been referred to in the throne speech.
With that multilateral trade I feel that we shall be in position to realize the prophecy of another outstanding Liberal leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who less than fifty years ago said that while the nineteenth century was the century of progress, the century of the golden era for the United States, the twentieth century belonged to Canada. I think we have in the speech from the throne all that is necessary to realize that prophecy.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate but I feel that all hon. members who have been here for any length of time must be rather surprised that the debate on the speech from the throne should end so abruptly. I am rather surprised that the large number of new Liberal members would not want to take advantage of the opportunity offered by this first all-inclusive debate to speak of those things of which they must feel they are obligated to their constituents to speak.
Not being particularly prepared to speak, as I had hoped to speak at a later sitting, perhaps it would be a good thing for me to take this opportunity tonight to practise my next Sunday's sermon on this congregation. Seeing the way the vote went tonight on whether or not we should do away with the means test after so many Liberals had stated in the election campaign that they were in favour of doing that, I think a suitable topic for my sermon would be: Repent ye, lest ye all likewise perish; or I might possibly take as my text: Be sure your sins will find you out.
Considering that this is the first complete day we have had in this session, considering that we have listened with interest to the leaders of the various parties and have waited
62	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hansell with some tension for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to make his statement, I think we have had a good and full day, and with that statement I would move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion negatived.


Ernest George Hansell: I wish to thank the house for its courtesy in permitting me to continue the debate. I am amazed, Mr. Speaker, that this house should have rejected the amendment which was made to the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to call the hon. member's attention to the fact that it is not proper to reflect on the proceedings of the house. The amendment was put to the house.


Ernest George Hansell: I was not going to debate the subject matter of the motion itself; I was going to analyse the political repercussions that might take place as a result of it.
I believe we all agree, however, that we are rather sorry the speech from the throne was not more definite with respect to the progress that might have been made in the matter of the social services in this country. We had been led to believe, when the Liberal party were bidding for power, that if they were returned to office we could expect great strides to be made in the field of social services. We regret that we do not find in the speech from the throne anything definite about legislation of that kind being brought down.
We are reminded that for the past few years, for instance, an unfortunate class of people in Canada known as incurables have been pressing, as much as they in their small way are able to press, for some consideration of their plight. Here are people who are, perhaps, crippled for life. They have no means of earning a livelihood. Perhaps they are what are known as shut-ins, bedridden cases. These people are thrown upon the mercy of municipalities to be included on the relief rolls or they are thrown upon the mercy of their own relatives and friends who may have enough interest in them to assist them.
Here is a class of people whose plea for some security should be heard by any responsible government. I say this because I had something to do with an organization known as the Canadian Association of Incurables. They are not asking much. They are not asking the government to revolutionize any system or turn everything upside down. Even if the government did that for them, it would be permissible. AH they are asking is that they be placed in a position where they will not be dependent upon relatives or upon relief from the municipalities. Now, that is a reasonable request.


I wish to say this, and I am only reminding the appropriate minister of what I intimated to him during the last session, that these unfortunate people have no way of earning a livelihood. I prophesy that any legislation which the government may eventually bring down respecting social services will be of a contributory nature. Personally, I would be opposed to that, particularly as it might apply to old age pensions or to social services for these incurables, because the incurable has nothing to contribute to any insurance scheme. Any assistance rendered to them must be in the form of an outright gift. I do not agree with some who speak of the psychological repulsiveness of receiving anything from the state. I am not one of those who believe that it is something to be shunned. So far as incurables and old age pensioners are concerned, I believe that anyone who devotes his life to the welfare of Canada until he reaches the age of sixty-five or seventy is entitled to a pension by right of citizenship and not by virtue of any contribution he may be able to make to any scheme. That applies to men and women alike.
Furthermore, might I suggest that during his lifetime that person has not only put his life into the general welfare of Canada; throughout his life he has contributed under the scheme of taxation which this government, especially, deems it wise to impose upon our citizens. Considering all these things, I say that our aged citizens have a right to some reward for good citizenship. If not, then we are living in Canada under a system of dog eat dog, get all you can and let the other fellow go by the board. This does not contribute to a healthy, loyal Canadian citizenship. I say that our aged people have a right to expect a pension. And when I say "pension" I use the term in the sense of a pension and not in the sense of a return on an insurance scheme. The return from an insurance scheme is to my mind not a pension at all; it is simply getting back something that you put into it. That might be all right. On the side you can do that. Many insurance companies offer pension schemes. Any citizen can take advantage of one of them if he so desires. But, in addition to those schemes that are managed by insurance companies, why cannot our aged citizens or any of our citizens look forward to a time when they may retire with honour on a real pension given to them as a right of their citizenship? That is what I plead for.
Referring now once again to the incurables I certainly believe they have a right to an honourable existence; and an honourable existence means not a handout in the form

of the crumbs that fall from the taxpayers' table, but the right to an honourable and decent living because they are our Canadian sons and daughters. I believe that is only reasonable, and that it is not asking too much.
With respect to old age pensions, I believe that the age limit should be lowered to at least sixty-five. Personally I should like to see it lowered to sixty for aged women and at least to sixty-five for aged men. I believe the pension should be increased, especially now since the announcement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) tonight with respect to the devaluation of our dollar. As far as I can see, the cost of living will naturally go up now because our people will not be able to buy as much for their depreciated dollar as they have in the past. What effect will that have upon the old age pensioner who must get along now anyway on what might be considered a pittance? I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is sometimes inclined to strut around a little bit and to pat himself on the back because the allowable pension has been increased in the last little while and the old age pensioner is getting more now than he did in previous years. But I wonder if he is really getting any more. You cannot measure what he gets in cold hard figures of dollars and cents. The way to measure what he gets is by what his present pension will buy now compared with what it would buy some years ago when he did not get as much. If his pension at the present rate will not buy as much food and clothing, and as good housing, as it did when he was getting $20 a month, then he is not getting as much today as he was getting then. That is the way to calculate whether or not the old age pensions have been increased.
There is sometimes some difficulty over the complicated way in which old age pensioners must prove their age. I am not going to be too hard on the administration in that respect, because I quite agree that, if the age is to be seventy, there should be some way for the applicant to be able to prove within reason that he has reached that age. But complications have arisen many times because a good many of our citizens who have reached the age of seventy cannot prove their age by virtue of its being registered somewhere in the vital statistics of this country. Seventy years ago mothers and fathers were not so particularly careful about whether the births of their children were registered or not. I am informed that some countries did not even register the birth of their infants seventy years ago, and sometimes it is difficult for people to find those certificates.
I know that the administration do not wish to cut anyone off. Those in charge of the
The Address-Mr. Hansell various pension boards throughout the country have no desire to deny a pension to an applicant if he is seventy years of age. But somehow or other there are a good many things they will not accept as proof of age when, to my mind, the proof is quite reasonable. I believe that some type of medical evidence could be given. There are other ways in which age could be proved.
May I now branch off to another subject, Mr. Speaker. We have been told that the present Liberal administration is anxious to build a trans-Canada highway. Personally, I have not been able to fully convince myself that the present administration is not playing with the problem. I do not see that there is any problem in building an all-Canada highway. I do not see that there is any problem about asking a provincial government if they desire a highway to go through their province. I do not see that there is any problem about asking a provincial government if they would like to accept several million dollars in order to improve a certain highway through their province. I have yet to be convinced that the government is serious about putting through an all-weather, all-year-round, paved highway from one end of this country to the other. I know that considerable pressure has been put on various governments, provincial and federal, to have highways go through this, that or the other route. When some delegations have waited upon the premier of Alberta they have said, "We should like the highway to go this way." There seem to be about three "main drags" through that province by which it could go. There is the one from Medicine Hat, down to Lethbridge, through the Crowsnest pass, Nelson, and on that way. I would have no objections if it went that way. Then there is the other route, through Medicine Hat to Calgary and through Banff and on through that way. I have no particular objection to that. Then there is the other route which concerns many people. That is the northern route by way of Saskatoon, Lloydminster, Edmonton, Jasper, Yellowhead and down that way.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Is that below Vulcan?


Ernest George Hansell: I will give my friend an answer to that. When this delegation appeared before Premier Manning, what did he say? He said, "I can answer yes as far as this province is concerned to any of the routes, because our objective is, as far as Alberta is concerned, to put three highways through."


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend does not have to laugh at that. All he has to do is to go into Alberta now and he will find that two

The Address-Mr. Hansell of them are practically complete. What the other provinces do in connecting these three highways is their own business. But I do say that there is no reason in the world why a country as wealthy as Canada in natural resources, and in what-have-you-we have everything-should not have one of the best highways on this continent running from coast to coast. We have all the gravel we need; we have all the cement we need; we have all the sand we need; we have all the oil we need; we have all these component parts that go into the paving of a highway and-


Mr. Johnston:: No American dollars.


Ernest George Hansell: We have not got enough of somebody else's money, a sort of crazy idea, I think. Perhaps Bernard Shaw was right when he said that if some race of people from some other planet could look down upon this earth and discover how we were running things, especially if they looked at Canada and the Liberal administration, they would conclude that this little planet would make a good lunatic asylum for the rest of the universe.
We have all sorts of materials; we have manpower. There is gradually becoming an unemployment problem in Canada. I am not going to paint the picture too dark. We have all sorts of materials, we have all sorts of manpower, but somehow or other we cannot get enough figures in bankers' books to be able to effect the exchange of goods to the extent that we can have that cement or that asphalt or whatever it takes to make a highway across there.
You know, we have a lot of brains in Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You would never know it.


Ernest George Hansell: But somehow or other we have not enough brains to make financial figures fit the physical facts. We believe we have some in this corner of the house. But if governments and administrations want to stumble on in their stupidity about this thing, let them do so. The day will come when force of circumstances will perhaps change the minds of even the Liberal administration.
May I ask that the government stop playing around with this all-Canada highway business. Perhaps, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) reminds me, that will be one of the planks in their next election platform. We want to see something materialize a long time before the next election rolls around. There is no reason why that highway cannot be started almost immedi-

ately. It is granted that winter might hold up some parts of the country. There is no reason why that highway cannot be completed in one or two years. When I say "that highway" I do not mean a lot of gravel on some prairie trail. I mean a highway to be proud of, a highway throughout Canada such as there is from Toronto to Hamilton or from Calgary to Edmonton or through the Crowsnest pass so far. I want it to be a real highway, so let them stop playing around with this thing. Let them get down to business and tell the world. Let us tell our American friends that if they come to Canada they will be able to get home safely.
I was in Vancouver this summer on a little vacation. I must say I went by way of the United States because I felt that with my wife and family we could ride more smoothly and enjoy ably on a United States highway, at least between Spokane and Seattle, than we could on the present route through British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That was after the 27th.


Ernest George Hansell: My friend reminds me that I went there after June 27. It was the end of July, and I still found a tremendous lot of wind and fog out in British Columbia. The air was not a bit clear. As a matter of fact, when I was looking around for information they said to me, "For goodness sake don't go through the Fraser valley because the fog and wind are so thick and hot there that you will never get out alive". I am sure it could not be that bad because our friend the member for Fraser Valley is here with us again to delight our hearts with his comments; and since democracy has spoken we are of course pleased to welcome him back. I must confess that I did speak in his constituency. What was I speaking about? Oh, the all-Canada highway. In order to safeguard the welfare of my family when I went to Vancouver I decided to go by way of Spokane and Seattle because I did not want to risk driving that route over those mountains where you can look down a few miles with not a stone to keep you from going over the side. I put up at a small tourist cabin in Vancouver, and became engaged in conversation with an American tourist who gave the appearance of an outstanding gentleman. He said, "I see you are from Alberta. Which way did you come?" I replied, "I came by Spokane and Seattle." "Oh", he said, "you did not come on this Big Bend road?" I said, "No, I have never travelled that road." "Good for you", he said; "I came that way, but I shall never, never travel that road again."
That conversation reflects the impressions gained by an American tourist. I am not

saying British Columbia has not done a good deal in connection with its highways, because they have some very beautiful ones-almost as good as those we have in Alberta. I cannot blame the government of British Columbia for what that man said. I realize it takes time to build highways, and that the funds in the hands of provincial governments are limited.
But I do say this, that since last year the government made the pronouncement that they were going to do something in respect of an all-Canada highway; and since they went into the election campaign proclaiming to the four winds of the earth that they were going to do something about that highway, we want to see it done-and we do not mean during the next election. We mean right now. There is no reason why we should have to route our traffic through another country, thus missing some of the best tourist attractions to be found anywhere in the world. When I say that, 1 am referring to the beautiful scenery.
There are many subjects clamouring in my mind concerning which I might go on until
The Address-Mr. Hansell after midnight. However, rather than take a half hour to develop another subject I shall be pleased to give the floor to my hon. friend.
On motion of Mr. Balcer the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. St. Laurent:: It is intended tomorrow to proceed with the second reading of the bill in the name of the Minister of Justice to amend the Supreme Court Act and, when that is disposed of, to move that the house resolve itself into committee of supply to consider the estimates. If we get into committee we will ask to have five departments opened, so that on Tuesdays and Fridays we may consider the estimates of those departments. Hon. members realize that on Fridays we cannot start on a department which has not been introduced on another day of the week. If we get into supply we will ask to mention five departments, and to proceed with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
66
[Stage Direction]
Appendix A

[Stage Direction]
1.	Representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada have met during the past week to examine the trade and financial relationships between the sterling area and the dollar area. The pound and the dollar are the two principal world trading currencies. While the development of a satisfactory balance of payments between the two areas is a matter of fundamental concern to the democratic world, it involves many problems which concern in the first instance the governments which are the centres of these two currency systems. The present discussions were held to examine these problems. It was recognized that the task of working out conditions under which world trade can develop steadily and in increasing freedom will require a strenuous and sustained effort, not only on the part of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, but also by all other countries desiring the same objectives.
2.	It was agreed that the common aim is to work toward an ultimate solution which will maintain employment and establish equilibrium of international trade on a mutually profitable basis at high levels. These objectives and general course of action have already been set forth in the United Nations Charter, the Bretton Woods agreements, and the Havana charter for an international trade organization. It was the broad purpose of the present meetings to explore, within this general framework, various specific measures which the three governments might take to prevent a serious breakdown in the dollar-sterling relationships which would have led to a crippling limitation of dollar imports into the sterling area and to hasten the achievement of those objectives.
3.	These conversations have carried forward the consultations initiated in London during July 8-10. They have resulted in a clear understanding of the character of the difficulties to be faced and an increasing realization that a fully satisfactory solution will necessitate continuing efforts in many directions. In the course of these conversations it has become possible to discuss with complete frankness specific problems and the types of measures which will have to be taken if the three countries are to achieve their common purpose.
4.	In the early stages of the discussion, attention was given to the immediate problem confronting the United Kingdom and the rest of the sterling area as a result of the rapid decline of gold and dollar reserves. Note was taken by the three governments of the emergency action which sterling area countries have decided to take to meet this situation. These measures are not pleasant ones; they will cause difficulties and sacrifices for everyone concerned. Nevertheless, they are a temporary necessity, and are recognized as such by all three governments.
5.	The ministers were in complete agreement that no permanent solution to the problem could be found in the emergency steps contemplated. A more fundamental attempt would have to be made by all concerned to expand the dollar earnings of the sterling area and to increase the flow of investment from the North American continent to the rest of the world, including the sterling area.
6.	This more fundamental attempt would involve both separate actions of the three countries operating individually, and joint action by the three acting in co-operation with each other. In approaching these possibilities of individual and joint action on the sterling-dollar problem, there was common agreement that this action should be based on the assumption that extraordinary aid from the North American continent would have come to an end by the middle of 1952. This would require that the sterling area increase its dollar earnings so as to pay its way by 1952. This would require in the sterling area the creation of appropriate incentives to exporters to the dollar area and a vigorous attack upon costs of production to enhance the competitive position of sterling area products. Maximum efforts would be made to direct exports to the dollar area and build up earnings from tourism and other services. As a part of this export campaign by the sterling area countries, it was recognized that an essential element was the creation of a feeling of confidence on the part of sterling area exporters. They must feel that they will be afforded the opportunity to remain in the markets of the United States and Canada in which they will have gained a place, and that the minimum of difficulties will be placed in their way in entering those markets.
On their part the creditor countries undertook to facilitate, to the greatest extent feasible, an expansion of dollar earnings by debtor countries, including the sterling area. It was agreed that the United States and Canada should reduce obstacles to the entry of goods and services from debtor countries, in order to provide as wide an opportunity as possible for those countries to earn dollars through the export of goods and the provision of services, including tourism. It was recognized that such a policy would be in the interest of producers in the United States and Canada, for only in this way can the future level of trade provide adequately for those sectors of the American and Canadian economies which depend in considerable part upon foreign markets.
7.	The discussion of possible individual and joint actions, both long-run and short-run, ranged over a wide field. In addition to the question of dollar earnings of the United Kingdom and the rest of the sterling area, mentioned above, the ministers gave special attention to the following subjects:
1.	Overseas investment
2.	Commodity arrangements and stockpiling
3.	Limitations on items which may be financed under present ECA procedures
4.	Customs procedures
5.	Tariff policy
6.	Liberalization of intra-European trade and payments
7.	Sterling balances
8.	Petroleum
9.	Shipping
10.	Provisions for continuing consultation
8.	A working group on overseas investment reviewed both recent experience and future prospects for the flow of productive investment, both private and public, from North America to overseas areas, especially underdeveloped countries. It was agreed that a high level of such investment could make an important contribution toward re-

Appendix
ducing the sterling-dollar disequilibrium and that every aspect of this problem should be explored on a continuing basis. In order to initiate this work, the President's Committee for Financing Foreign Trade will be asked immediately to explore possible lines of action in co-operation with corresponding groups of British and Canadian financial and business representatives. While dealing with all aspects of private and public investment, the committee will be expected to address itself especially to the problem of incentives and of providing a suitable environment for a high level of private investment.
9.	A working group on commodity arrangements and stockpiling gave special attention to rubber and tin. The Canadian representatives stated that the Canadian government was prepared to take steps to increase reserve stocks of tin and rubber in Canada. The United States representatives reported that the United States government was prepared to open to natural rubber a substantial additional area of competition, including a modification of the government order relating to the consumption of synthetic rubber. The United States would review its stockpiling program, with particular reference to rubber and tin.
10.	Special attention was given by another group to the practical difficulty being experienced by the United Kingdom in making fully effective use of its ECA aid to cover its dollar deficit. This difficulty arises out of the fact that, although the United Kingdom needs dollars to pay for goods in the United States, to make settlements with other countries, to pay for services, and for other purposes, the types of transactions which may be financed by ECA dollars have been definitely limited. It has been agreed that, in order to carry out the basic purposes of the Economic Co-operation Act, it will be necessary for the United Kingdom to finance with its share of ECA funds a wider range of dollar expenditures than has hitherto been eligible, both within and outside of the United States. After careful examination of the dollar expenditures proposed to be made or authorized by the United Kingdom, it appears that eligibility requirements can be broadened to the extent required within the limits set by the Economic Co-operation Act. This would broaden the use but not increase the amount of ECA funds allocated to the United Kingdom.
11.	In the consideration of measures which creditor countries might take to reduce barriers to trade, it was recognized that customs procedures may create obstacles, psychological as well as actual. Technical discussions of this subject disclosed that the United States, through administrative action and proposed legislation, was already contemplating constructive steps in this field. Canadian representatives stated that the Canadian government would undertake a further review of the administrative operation of its Customs Act in the light of these discussions. As to tariff rates, it was noted that high tariffs were clearly inconsistent with the position of creditor countries. There had already been significant and substantial reductions in U.S. tariffs during the last fifteen years. The policy of the United States government was to seek further negotiation of trade agreements through which additional reductions might be made, within the framework of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.
12.	There was agreement that one of the ways in which the competitive position of the United Kingdom products might be improved was by a widening of the area in which such products competed freely with those of other countries. In this connection as an initial step toward a more general liberalization the United Kingdom delegation outlined its proposals for liberalizing trade with countries with which it did not have balance of payments difficulties, and raised the question whether the provisions of section 9 of the Anglo-American Financial Agreement, and article 5 of the Anglo-Canadian Financial A_greement presented an obstacle to such a plan. It was the view of the United States and Canadian delegations that such liberalization of United Kingdom import regulations should be considered since the United Kingdom shortage of dollars should not in itself force the United Kingdom to reduce its purchases from areas with which it does not have a shortage of means of payment. It was agreed that any United Kingdom import regulations as they affect United States and Canadian products would be the subject of continuing review by representatives of the three governments through continuing facilities for consultation.
13.	(a) A further subject which was discussed was the United Kingdom liability represented by the sterling balances of other countries. A large number of countries has been accustomed to hold either all or a part of their foreign exchange reserves in the form of sterling. The existence and availability of such holdings is an integral feature of the wide-spread multilateral use of sterling for the purpose of financing international trade. One of the problems of the post-war period has been the existence of exceptionally large accumulations of sterling which were built up, mainly during the war, as the result of payments by the United Kingdom for goods and services purchased overseas in furtherance of the common war effort. In June 1945 these balances amounted to $131 billion. Since then there have been considerable fluctuations both in the total and in the holdings of individual countries, though the amount outstanding at the end of 1948 was approximately the same as at June 1945.
(b)	In principle the whole of these balances represents a charge on United Kingdom production of goods and services. In practice, however, a substantial proportion will continue to be held as reserves by the countries concerned. To the extent that the balances are liquidated, some proportion of United Kingdom production of goods and services is used to discharge this liability instead of to pay for current imports of goods and services.
(c)	This whole problem in its various aspects, including the necessity to provide capital goods for development, was discussed in a preliminary way on the basis of prior technical examination by the experts of the three governments. It was agreed that this was one of the subjects which concerned other countries and would require further study.
14.	Investigation of the ways in which the sterling area could move toward a position in which it could earn its own way led to the discussion of other special problems, including petroleum and shipping-two important elements in the sterling area balance of payments picture. The United Kingdom representatives set forth the facts of the very large dollar deficit which the sterling area presently incurs because of oil transactions, and their desire to reduce this deficit to the minimum possible level. It was mutually recognized that the question of oil production and refining, and geographical distribution raised problems of extreme complexity involving the protection of legitimate interests of the major producing countries and companies. The ministers recognized that these two questions of petroleum and shipping could not be resolved in the short time available to them, and that further study would be required. In the case of petroleum they agreed to appoint representatives to analyze the facts and to provide the basis for subsequent discussions.
15.	There has been agreement on the objective toward which policies should be directed and agreement on certain immediate steps which will be
[Stage Direction]
Appendix
taken to bring that objective nearer. There are, however, as has been emphasized, a number of questions requiring closer examination than this short conference has allowed. It is proposed, therefore, to continue the examinations, initiated during the conference, of questions on which it is hoped that useful understanding can be reached under the direction of the present ministerial group. These arrangements for continuing consultation- supplementing the usual channels of communication between governments-will be used to keep under review the effectiveness of actions already agreed upon and to prepare, for governmental consideration, measures which could carry further those adjustments which are considered to be necessary. In establishing these arrangements for continuing consultation, the three governments wish to emphasize that these arrangements underline rather than diminish their interest in the development of economic co-operation within the entire community of western nations. The tripartite arrangements will
not in any way encroach upon, or detract from, the area of competence of the OEEC and other existing organs of international economic collaboration. On the contrary, these arrangements for continuing consultation by contributing materially to the solution of problems which today adversely affect the working of the entire OEEC group and yet are not susceptible of solution within that group, will facilitate the progress of economic collaboration in the wider field.
16.	In summary the ministers of the three countries concerned are satisfied that a real contribution to the solution of the sterling-dollar difficulties has been made by the conclusions recorded above. They are confident that, with sustained efforts on all sides and with the seizure of every opportunity by sterling area exporters to enter into and remain in dollar markets which are open to them, there is the prospect of reaching a satisfactory equilibrium between the sterling and dollar areas by the time exceptional dollar aid comes to an end.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday. September 20, 1949