1949-04-28

STANDING COMMITTEES


Mr. E. O. Bertrand (Prescott) moved:: That the fourth report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Wednesday, April 27, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Second report of the standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think I will rise on a question of privilege, something that I rarely do. I note that in today's Montreal Gazette my good friend the resident correspondent of that paper has an interesting article which is headed "Abbott is proposed as author of prize parliamentary boner." I do not quarrel with that, but I should like to put forward a candidate for the second prize. A Canadian Press dispatch in the same paper contains a report of the proceedings which took place yesterday in the other place. It reads as follows:
Senator Haig said he would urge that, after the general election, Justice Minister Garson approach the Attorney General of Quebec with a view to "reforming" the system.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved:: That, for the remainder of the session, all private bills from the Senate, when received from that house, be read a first and second time and be referred forthwith, and that standing order 105 respecting the posting of private bills be suspended.


Mr. Knowles:: I think the motion is perfectly clear, but I should like it to be understood that if it is carried it will apply to bills that come from the Senate after it is passed, and not, I take it, to the Senate bills that are on the order paper for today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Coldwell:: May we have an answer to the question?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I listened to the language of the motion as read, and it appeared to me to apply as from the time it is adopted, without retroactive effect. I do not want to pose as the official interpreter of the resolution, but that is the meaning I took from it when I heard it read.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is good enough.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: Yesterday the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) asked for a statement on the situation in China, and I am now glad to give him one.
Communist troops began crossing the Yangtze river in force on April 21, encountering little opposition. Nanking, which was not defended, was entered some time on April 23 or 24. Communist armies are advancing towards the coast and the city of Shanghai.
Most Canadians in the Yangtze valley are now in Shanghai. One hundred and eighty-nine persons are registered as Canadians with the Canadian vice-consulate in Shanghai. In January, 1948, and twice in November, 1948, the Canadian embassy warned Canadians in north and central China that, in view of the spread of the civil war, all those who could do so should leave. Many followed the embassy's advice and returned to Canada. On April 25 the Canadian vice-consul published a notice in the Shanghai newspapers repeating and emphasizing this warning.
Canadians who wished to leave Shanghai, following the vice-consul's notice, were given an opportunity to embark aboard a Dutch passenger vessel bound for Hong Kong. Reports from the vice-consul indicate that the majority of Canadians now in Shanghai plan to remain in the city. The foreign community in Shanghai has taken all possible precautions to protect themselves in case there might be a period of disorder in the city.
.HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canadian Nationals in China
Some weeks ago two North Star aircraft were lent by the Royal Canadian Air Force to Canadian Pacific Air Lines, in order that survey and familiarization flights might be made prior to the establishment of regular flights to the Far East by Canadian Pacific Air Lines. I should like to express appreciation to the president of Canadian Pacific Air Lines, who has just returned from China, and who has placed one of the North Star aircraft at the disposal of the Canadian ambassador in case it should be required to assist in evacuating Canadians. This aircraft, which has already been into Shanghai, is now standing by at Hong Kong.
As I informed the house on January 28, the Canadian destroyer, H.M.C.S. Crescent was dispatched on a training cruise to the Far East in order to be available for the assistance of Canadians in an emergency. This ship is still in far eastern waters, and is ready to render assistance if required.
The Canadian ambassador, Mr. Justice T. C. Davis, and his male staff, have remained at their posts in Nanking. This city has been cut off from rail and telephone communication with Shanghai, but word has been received by radio that all members of the embassy in Nanking are well. The wives and children of the members of the embassy in Nanking, and the female staff, were withdrawn from Nanking some months ago. The Canadian vice-consul in Shanghai, Mr. Frank Ballachey, is looking after the interests of Canadians in that area. I feel sure that the house will appreciate the willingness of our officials in China and their staffs to remain at their posts in the face of the difficult circumstances now prevailing.


Mr. Graydon:: I should like to ask the minister one question. Has he information as to how many Canadian nationals there actually are in China, or is it not available through the usual sources?


Brooke Claxton: I did not expect to be asked that today, and I have not looked at that matter for some months, but my recollection is that there were then in all China 841 Canadian nationals. Of those a very considerable proportion were in areas outside those affected. Quite a few Canadian nationals, of their own desire, particularly missionaries, have remained behind, and are now in that part of China occupied by the communist armies.


Gordon Graydon: In view of the fact that China appears to be divided at the moment into north and south sections, is it the intention of the embassy to move to any other part of China in the near future?


Brooke Claxton: That will depend on the development of events, but there is no immediate

intention of moving the embassy. It is expected that the ambassador will wish to remain at Nanking until conditions settle down, and then his future movements will depend on circumstances.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Argue) asked yesterday about proposed amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The information I have received is that proposed amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act have been drafted by the Department of Justice on instructions from the officials of the Department of Agriculture, but have not yet had the final approval of the minister, and have not yet been submitted to council.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. W. A. Robinson (Simcoe East) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 238 (from the Senate), to incorporate the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) moves that the said bill be now read the second time.


Major James William Coldwell: Next sitting of the house. I thought we were meeting this morning to deal with interim supply. After all, the question of supply for a period of four months is of great importance and should take precedence over these bills. I suggest that we defer second reading of these bills until later this day.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Later this day.


Major James William Coldwell: Or next sitting of the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No order for second reading can be made without the unanimous consent of the house, but if it is the desire of hon. members that the order be "later this day", that will be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the Prime Minister making that remark with respect to all these bills, or only with respect to the first one?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understood as to the second one that there would not be unanimous consent that it be read a second time

this day, and it cannot be done without unanimous consent. Each bill is being taken in turn, so that the order made now will apply only to the first one. That order would be that second reading take place later this day.


Mr. Drew:: I recognize that there must be unanimous consent; consequently if any member opposes the motion, that disposes of it. I do not want to leave the impression, however, that I am in accord with that procedure. If the government feels it is important that these bills be proceeded with, I think it is better to proceed with them in an orderly way, without any suggestion that there be the assurance that we return to them at any particular time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time? Later today.



ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY

Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 239 (from the Senate), to incorporate the Alberta Natural Gas Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next week.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Next sitting of the house. My hon. friend cannot object to that. I understand he can object to its being taken up later this day, but he cannot object to its being ordered for the next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



WESTCOAST TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED

Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 240 (from the Senate) to incorporate Westcoast Transmission Company Limited.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Later this day.



TRANS-NORTHERN PIPE LINE COMPANY

Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 241 (from the Senate) to incorporate Trans-Northern Pipe Line Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Private Bills


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Later this day.



BRITISH AMERICAN PIPE LINE COMPANY

George James McIlraith: the first reading of Bill No. 242 (from the Senate) to incorporate the British American Pipe Line Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Later this day.



WESTERN PIPE LINES

Mr. Ralph Maybank (Winnipeg South Centre) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 243 (from the Senate) to incorporate Western Pipe Lines.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Later this day.



WALTER OLIVER BEYER

Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 246 (from the Senate) respecting a certain patent application of Walter Oliver Beyer.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


William Moore Benidickson: that the bill be read the second time.


Mr. Jaenicke:: Will this bill be referred to the committee on banking and commerce?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: All right.


Mr. Speaker:: It will be referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Mr. Speaker, bills affecting patents have always been referred to the committee on banking and commerce. Should not this bill be referred to that committee?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand it is the practice to refer this kind of bill to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Questions


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I am just referring to the fact that in previous sessions bills on patents have always been referred to the committee on banking and commerce. The members of that committee have knowledge of matters pertaining to patents. This bill should be referred to that committee.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: I agree with that suggestion.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Before the bill is given second reading I would ask whether it will be referred to the committee on banking and commerce. When I asked the question before, someone said yes, and I presumed that it was the sponsor of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that all private bills are sent to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Only amendments are referred to the committee on banking and commerce. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to; bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



FIRST AND SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 244, respecting Guaranty Trust Company of Canada.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 245, to incorporate the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada. -Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 247, respecting the Canadian Artillery Association.-Mr. Isnor.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
SHIPMENT OF BACON TO UNITED KINGDOM Mr. Coldwell:
1.	Who was responsible for the suggestion and therefore the subsequent decision that 195 million pounds of bacon would be exported to the United Kingdom under agreement for 1948?
2.	What shipments of bacon were made to the United Kingdom during the first three months of the 1948 agreement?
3.	Was any suggestion made by Canada that the total amount of this agreement should be increased?
4.	If so, what reply, if any, was made to this suggestion?
5.	Was the contract for beef reduced or cancelled to enable the United Kingdom to use scarce dollars for bacon instead?
6.	To what extent, if any, did the United Kingdom agree to take bacon beyond 195 million pounds originally agreed upon?
7.	Under the revised agreement what was the total expected delivery of bacon to the United Kingdom in 1948?

8.	What amount did Canada actually deliver in 1948?
9.	What amount of bacon did Canada expect to deliver to the United Kingdom in 1946?
10.	What amount of bacon was actually delivered in 1946?
11.	What amount did Canada expect to deliver to the United Kingdom in 1947?
12.	What amount was actually delivered in 1947?
13.	What was the price per pound agreed upon in 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, and 1949?
14.	What amount of bacon does Canada expect to deliver to the United Kingdom in 1949?
15.	What amount was delivered during the first three months of 1949?
['The minister might look at a communication I sent to him yesterday indicating increases, not of 200 per cent but of almost 100 per cent.']
Mr. McCubbin:: Stand.
HEALTH GRANTS APPROVED AND PAID Mr. Coldwell:
i By provinces, and for Canada, how much of each of the health grants had been approved by March 31, 1949?
2.	By provinces, and for Canada, how much of each of the health grants had been paid by the dominion by March 31, 1949?
3.	By provinces, and for Canada, what per cent of each of the health grants had been approved by March 31, 1949?
4.	By provinces, and for Canada, what per cent of each of the health grants had been paid by the dominion by March 31, 1949?


Mr. Marlin:: Stand.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, these two questions in my name, having to do respectively with shipment of bacon to the United Kingdom and health grants approved and paid, have again been allowed to stand. They have been on the order paper for nineteen days, although they require only simple answers which are readily available to the department. I do not want to regard this delay as an indication that the department does not want to answer these questions before parliament dissolves.
I should like to have this information.
SITE FOR NEW PRINTING BUREAU Mr. Moore:
1.	Did the federal government purchase a site for the new printing bureau in the city of Hull?
2.	If so, what was the purchase price?


['Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, these two questions in my name, having to do respectively with shipment of bacon to the United Kingdom and health grants approved and paid, have again been allowed to stand. They have been on the order paper for nineteen days, although they require only simple answers which are readily available to the department. I do not want to regard this delay as an indication that the department does not want to answer these questions before parliament dissolves.\nI should like to have this information.\nSITE FOR NEW PRINTING BUREAU Mr. Moore:\n1.\tDid the federal government purchase a site for the new printing bureau in the city of Hull?\n2.\tIf so, what was the purchase price?']
Mr. Moore:: The third part of this question has been left out. The third part reads as follows: "From whom was the site in Hull purchased?"


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: The question standing in the hon. member's name on the order paper read as follows:
Did the federal government purchase a site for the new printing bureau in the city of Hull?
If so, what was the purchase price?

That is all that appears on the order paper, and the department answered those two questions. I can give an oral answer to the further question of the hon. member by stating that this site comprises quite a large area and there would be a number of owners of the various parcels of land.



Ronald Stewart Moore: Have fishermen of the Thicket Portage, Fikwi-tonei, and Wahowden areas of northern Manitoba requested the federal Department of Fisheries to guarantee loans on their behalf for the purchase of livestock feed until their fish is purchased under the Fisheries Prices Support Act?


Mr. MacNaughl:: This is the same question that was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Churchill when the orders of the day were called. I think I had better answer it now. The answer is no.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Murphy:: 1.	Has Bob-Lo island been sold or leased by the government of Canada? If so, to whom has it been sold or leased, and when?
2.	Who is the present owner or lessee?
3.	In the event of sale, what price?
4.	In the event of lease, what rent has been received to date by the dominion government?
5.	What were the conditions of any such sale or lease?


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. MacNicol (Davenport):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, of which I have given him notice. My question is related to the problem of rents being raised to inordinate heights on properties that are not subject to rent control. I have received many letters of protest-and I know that a similar situation exists in all large cities-about the raising of rents by as much as 300 per cent. Has the minister considered any method of preventing excessive and inordinate advances in rents on properties not subject to control?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend was kind enough to give me notice of his question just as I came into the chamber. I am not familiar with the details of the rent increases to which reference has been made. There have been increases, of course, in rents in respect of properties no longer subject to control, the principal ones being the properties constructed since Janu-
290S7-169J
Inquiries of the Ministry ary 1, 1947, and the others being properties which have become free from control as a result of becoming legally vacant. I should think that increases of as much as 200 or 300 per cent, while some may have been made, would be extremely rare. I shall, however, endeavour to ascertain what the situation is.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister might look at a communication I sent to him yesterday indicating increases, not of 200 per cent but of almost 100 per cent.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John O. Probe (Regina City):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State. On March 17 last I asked a question having to do with losses caused by fire in the various buildings of the Department of National Defence. This question was passed as an order for return on that date. Can the minister indicate when I may expect the information?


Hon. Colin Gibson (Acting Secretary of State):: I shall be glad to make inquiries and see whether the information can be brought down shortly.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Some time ago I asked him for a report in connection with disturbances in eastern penitentiaries. I should like to know whether he is in a position to give that report.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: My hon. friend's question was whether an investigation had been made of the disturbances at the Collin's Bay penitentiary and, if so, what was the result of that investigation. The answer is that an investigation is being made, but the final report and the details of the damage done have not been received.


John George Diefenbaker: As a supplementary question may I ask whether the report will be brought down before parliament is dissolved? The day before yesterday there was a report in the press to the effect that the minister stated this report was available and would be brought down. Three weeks and a half have gone by since this incident occurred.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I did not see that report in the newspaper, and I certainly never made any such statement. In what paper was it published?
2670	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Diefenbaker: It was a Canadian Press dispatch.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In relation to this penitentiary? Mr. Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will certainly bring the report in and table it as soon as it is received.


Mr. Irvine:: Which report? We cannot hear the minister.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The report concerning the disturbance at Collin's Bay penitentiary.



REMOVAL FROM MARKET TO SUPPORT FLOOR PRICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert McCubbin: On
Tuesday, April 26, 1949, the member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield) asked me a question in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. Today I wish to give a reply to that question.
Approximately 2,500,000 pounds of No. 1 creamery butter has been bought by the dairy products board at the floor price of 58 cents per pound, basis No. 1 solids delivered Montreal and Toronto. The policy has been to store butter at or near the point of purchase. Market quotations indicate that butter prices have been stabilized at the equivalent of the floor price.
No decision has been reached to sell butter below cost. This is a matter of government policy which will be decided at the appropriate time.


Mr. Hackett:: Will the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture say where the butter to which he has just made reference was purchased, and what is the total quantity now held by the government?


Robert McCubbin: I am not in a position at the moment to answer the question, but I will take it as notice and give an answer later.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert McCubbin: On
April 26, 1949, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) asked me a question relating to a resolution passed by the Manitoba legislature calling for the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. He asked whether the department had received such a resolution.
I can assure him that the resolution has been received by our department, but, in the


absence of the minister, no decision has been made concerning it.


John Oliver Probe: Where is the minister?


Mr. Zaplitny:: I understand that a similar resolution was sent to the Prime Minister. Can he indicate what the intention of the government is in that respect?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, he cannot indicate what the intentions of the government are, because the government has not yet decided what it will do about it. Hon. members must realize that we are working under a heavy schedule, and that all these things cannot be dealt with at once.
SUPPLY	'


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of supply.
He said: Perhaps I might say just a word before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated yesterday, the proposal which the government is now making for interim supply, to cover the period between probable dissolution of parliament and the time when it would be convenient for a new parliament to reassemble, is in accordance with the practice which was followed just prior to the dissolution of parliament in April, 1945. Yesterday I did not have the dates before me when I spoke, but I have them now. In 1945, the estimates were tabled on March 19. The interim supply bill was introduced, put through all the stages, and passed on Friday, April 13, giving five months' interim supply on all items, and additional amounts as usual on certain special items which fall for payment in the early part of the year. Parliament prorogued on Monday, April 16, of that year.
This year, as I indicated yesterday, I am asking for an additional four months on all items in the main estimates, and certain additional amounts on special items which fall due early in the year, such as legislation, the trade fair in Toronto, and one or two other matters, the details of which I shall give to the house when we are in committee. I want to point out that in asking for this interim supply we are not asking for the full amount of any single item. I assume that the same practice will be followed as was followed in 1945, that is to say, the main estimates will be retabled when the new parliament reassembles. No doubt the usual supplementary estimates will be tabled at the same time, or shortly thereafter, and there will be full opportunity to discuss every item in these estimates and in the supplementary estimates. It is quite clear of course

that during the holding of general elections provision must be made for carrying on the necessary services of the country. It is for that reason that the government believes it is following the proper course in asking now for further interim supply on the estimates as tabled. I should point out that the estimates this year were tabled on March 14, some five days earlier than they were tabled in 1945, and they had been ready some time before that had the debate on the address been concluded.


George Alexander Drew: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, several matters should be discussed which have a direct relation to the decision to proceed beyond this present stage with the motion which is before the house.
In the first place there is no similarity between the present situation and the situation in 1945, and the example given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is entirely without relation to the situation with which we are confronted here. He has just said that in 1945 the estimates were tabled on March 19, but what he did not tell the house was that no budget was presented in 1945, and that when the estimates were tabled on March 19 of that year, it was done with knowledge that there was to be no opportunity to deal with them in the ordinary way, because by the flux of time parliament was to be dissolved, unless it was dissolved earlier by the action of the government itself.
In order that hon. members may realize how little relationship the minister's illustration has to what is now proposed, I should like to read from page 839 of Hansard, of April 13, 1945, where the then Prime Minister of Canada is reported as having said:
This week, on Wednesday, April 11,-
This, I might say, was on April 13, 1945. -I reminded the house that if the business of parliament were not concluded before midnight on Monday of next week, this parliament would be automatically dissolved.
The whole procedure on that occasion was related to the fact that a special session had been called, for the limited and special purposes stated by the Prime Minister as reported on page 19 of Hansard of 1945. This is what he said:
This session has been called for two purposes. That has been made perfectly clear for weeks past. One has to do with this one international question, an all important one. It should be decided at as early a moment as possible. The other is to provide the supply that may be necessary to permit a general election at an early date and to make provision for the carrying on of the prosecution of the war and of civil government between the time of the beginning of the new fiscal year and the time that the new parliament assembles.
Interim Supply
That was an entirely different situation. The statement was made on Friday, April 13, that parliament was to be dissolved. Even if dissolution had not been announced then, and if parliament had been continued, it was to be dissolved by the flux of time on the following Monday, April 16. There is no similarity whatever between the two instances. This parliament still has considerably more than a year of its life to run, if that should be the choice of the government. The course that is being followed on this occasion is guided by no time limit; it is guided by no other consideration than political expediency, which consideration has guided the government's action in everything they have done at all times. The political expediency in this case is not to give the people of Canada an opportunity to pass on the government's record. The political expediency in this case is to avoid giving to the people of Canada an opportunity to have some knowledge of what the government have been doing, a knowledge which they could gain as a result of the presentation of the estimates and the calling of the public accounts committee.
After all, if any argument that was put forward by the Prime Minister had validity, it was possible for parliament to be dissolved and for the house to have dealt with the interim supply at the time that interim supply was put forward on an earlier occasion. As every hon. member will recall, there were certain emergency measures which this government preferred to continue as emergency measures instead of dealing with them as proper democratic legislation; and at the same time interim supply was asked for in order that government could be carried on in the ordinary way in the intervening period. Therefore they could have dealt with those matters and then dissolved parliament. But instead they proceeded with a budget which is an election budget carefully trimmed and made as attractive as an unsatisfactory budget can be; and having promised at last to give back to the people something of what they improperly took from them, and having sent out cheques to them, they placed all these things before the house. They tabled the estimates that accompany the budget. At this point, having done what they think they can do to mislead the public in regard to what is actually taking place-something I am sure will not happen-they now avoid the ordinary procedure.
The answer to any suggestion of this is the answer of the Minister of Finance: Well, of course, even though we are trying to fool the public, we will not try to fool the house. Then he goes on with one of the most cynical statements I have ever heard. While it is

Interim Supply
quite true, as the Minister of Finance said, that I have not been in this house as long as he has, may I say that I have had a limited experience in a limited field; and I would have been ashamed of the government of which I was the leader if at any time it had conducted its affairs in the way in which this government conducts the business of the country.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is the best one that we have heard.


Mr. Fraser:: That is the truth.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Finance yesterday indicated exactly what this government thinks of ordinary parliamentary procedure. In answer to the suggestion that the estimates provide the basis for discussion and examination of the facts upon which the members will judge when they vote supply to enable the government to carry on the business of the country and to tax the people for that purpose, he simply said that he had been sitting here for a number of years-I would have thought it was longer; I would have thought he had gotten into this bad habit by long practice-and that never had any real attention been paid to these estimates. That is not so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No-to the details of the estimates. There is a big difference.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, yes. I was talking about the details, and that is what I was talking about yesterday. It is the details we want. The statement that the Minister of Finance made yesterday is simply not so. An examination of Hansard will disclose the fact that there have been extended discussions of details, that extremely valuable information has been obtained, and that from time to time important statements have been made as to what the government would do as a result of the cross-examination of the ministers responsible for these accounts-and this is the main purpose of the presentation of the estimates to the house.
For instance, go back to the estimates of last year, and you will find that the silent service-in that I include all the national defence forces-was subject to appropriate comments, and that some information was obtained-much of it inaccurate; nevertheless some was obtained-on the examination of the estimates at that time. Go back to any year and you will find that-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Call George McCullagh.


George Alexander Drew: I hesitate, Mr. Speaker, to discourage these comments, because I am just wondering when a first-prize bloomer will exceed the one that was pulled yesterday if I let them talk enough.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That will hold you.


George Alexander Drew: For any minister to come here and suggest that it is unimportant to present the estimates to the house for examination-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No minister suggested that.


George Alexander Drew: When I heard that remote disembodied voice I thought for a moment that we were listening to a play, because it came from a distant point and not from the seat the minister usually sits in.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We are hearing a play now.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Finance definitely suggested that in his statement yesterday.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He did no such thing.


George Alexander Drew: Because he suggested that as justification for the fact that we were not to have the necessary estimates before us. One of the subjects that is before this house, and on which there should be careful and detailed examination, has to do with the Department of National Defence.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Another report from the Globe and Mail of George McCullagh.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member, who talks so much and with so little thought, read the publication to which he refers, his intelligence might be improved.


Gordon Graydon: Beaten down again.


George Alexander Drew: One of the departments that should be subjected to detailed examination is the Department of National Defence. This house has been sitting for more than three months.


Mr. Michaud:: And you talked most of the time.


George Alexander Drew: There are some signs of improvement on the other side, but not many. This house has been sitting for more than three months, and during that time different attempts have been made to obtain information about the Department of National Defence, with surprisingly-no, I should not say "surprisingly"-with a definite lack of success, and for a definite reason. During the course of this session there has been under consideration here, first of all, a draft North Atlantic pact, and we are informed that there will be presented to us for consideration the ratified document. At the present time that document presents the greatest hope of continued peace that the world has known since the frustration following the closing days of the last war. In a number of statements made in connection with that pact, the Prime Minister properly stated that this is an attempt to preserve peace by the combined power of

the free nations. He has emphasized the point, and properly so, that this means no merely pious hope of peace; that it is a positive statement by the free nations that they are ready to combine their strength for the defence of the freedom that was won on the field of battle in the war that closed in 1945. In a statement which he made not long ago in his tour of western Canada he said that without the power in the hands of the free nations jointly to preserve peace by their combined power, the effect of the pact could not be fulfilled. Therefore the estimates of the Department of National Defence assume an importance which has been clearly defined by the Prime Minister on a number of occasions during past weeks. They assume tremendous importance for another reason. That department is to receive substantially the largest allocation of any of the operating departments of the government. Under the estimates, and the supplementary estimates, which have been tabled, it is to receive some $390 million during this current fiscal year- no small sum of money for this or any other nation; and the mere expenditure of that money demands an examination of the estimates upon which the figure is based. It demands an explanation by the minister of the way in which these figures are to be compiled. It also demands on the part of hon. members some sense of responsibility in voting any money to that department without the most careful examination, in view of the inaccuracies of many of the statements made by the minister responsible. It is not only to the inaccuracies of his statements that I refer, but also to the obvious confusion that is displayed by the department in dealing with its responsibilities.
The Minister of National Defence is responsible for the plans for training of the defence forces which this country decides it should train. Hon. members will recall that I urged the setting up of a committee on national defence so that the responsibility of hon. members to know and to study the facts could be fulfilled. I urged that a committee be set up to which the chiefs of staff, the technical advisers and outside experts could come to give their opinion as to the types of equipment which would be most suitable, and the type of military organization which would make the most effective use of the money which this country allocates for defence purposes. This was not done. The argument was offered that it was not consistent with our practice, and also that it was essential that there be great secrecy about our national defence.
There are times when it is difficult to believe that the different statements, made by the minister come from the same person. On
National Defence
one occasion we are told that there must be a dark cloak of secrecy over all details of national defence, and the very next day there will be a statement as to what the Department of National Defence is going to do in connection with its aircraft and other programs, presented in such a way that if Russia were really interested in the details she would know all about them before members of this house would have the information.
We have had glowing accounts about the Vampire as an interceptor fighter aircraft. Those accounts were justified. But the minister did not admit that there is a real problem connected with the Vampire because adequate supplies were not available to keep them flying without a substantial measure of cannibalism. Today the Vampire is regarded by most experts as the most effective interceptor fighter now being produced. I am referring, of course, to the latest models, with the latest type of jet engine. It happens that this particular machine has been accepted as a standard defence machine by Australia and other parts of the commonwealth, as well as by Sweden and other countries. It is interesting to note that in adopting that machine as the standard defence interceptor, Australia, Sweden and other countries have also started production of jet engines suitable for that aircraft, so that they will have supplies of engines available at their bases of operation. It may be argued that the government should now change its view and abandon the use of the Vampire jet, and this is something about which the house has a right to have knowledge. Owing to the secrecy that is attached to the Department of National Defence, we have been reading and hearing outside of the house that the Department of National Defence has decided to produce in Canada the F-86, a modern interceptor fighter designed and produced in the United States.
The decision may be a wise one. It may or may not be the decision of the department. Following the standard practice of the department, you never know what comes from the minister or what comes from what is described in the press-the press quite properly use this expression, because they are advised that that is the way the report should come out-as "a highly informed source close to the Department of National Defence." According to the press, such a source stated that the F-86 would be powered with a new jet engine designed in Canada, which gives a remarkable performance, and so on. This habit may serve a useful purpose, because it gives the minister an opportunity to say that he never made the statement, although he hands it out. It is a useful device to create an impression and at the same time avoid responsibility.

National Defence
That was one reason why I urged the setting up of a committee of this house to deal with defence. It does not matter whether that has been the practice elsewhere or not; this house should make its own decision in relation to its own requirements of the house and the requirements of Canada. It should be obvious by now to every Canadian, and particularly to every member of this house, that if hon. members are to have any knowledge whatever that is based upon reliable statements, it is essential that there be a committee before which will be called those defence experts whose word can be relied upon. If that is done, this house will have information-


Mr. Baker:: I rise on a question of privilege. I am the parliamentary assistant to the minister concerned, and I should like to say that frank statements will be made and always have been made in the house so far as this department is concerned. If there is any confusion, it is-


Mr. Green:: Where is the privilege?


Loran Ellis Baker: -in the mind of the hon. member for Hong Kong-I beg pardon; the leader of the opposition. I know that, because I have been talking to service men who served in the last war, and they are disgusted at the general attitude and the inaccuracies of the leader of the opposition.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Where is the privilege?


George Alexander Drew: I am pleased to have this interruption, because it is evident now that the Minister of National Defence does not stand alone in his attempt to mislead this house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If that came from anybody else, you might ask to have it withdrawn, but not from him.


Loran Ellis Baker: I have not a high opinion for the statements made by the leader of the opposition, but I would ask that that imputation be withdrawn, because it is false.


An hon. Member:: It is unparliamentary.


George Alexander Drew: Which statement?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Unparliamentary and improper.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark.


George Alexander Drew: What statement, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: Misleading.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Whom do you think you are, anyway?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon.
member modify the expression he has just used, that it was deliberately misleading.


George Alexander Drew: I said "misleading," but I will add the words, "have made attempts to mislead the house."


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is hardly a withdrawal.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is not good enough.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The words complained about are "deliberately attempt to mislead the house." That is not the type of language I used to hear in parliament before the hon. member who now leads the opposition came to the house. I think it would be preferable, for the sake of the dignity of the house, if it did not become the kind of language used here.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the question of the-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Withdraw.


George Alexander Drew: I was discussing the proposal that was made to set up a committee to deal with national defence. I was pointing out that there would then be a better opportunity to obtain the information which this house should have. So far as the various-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member should be allowed to slide away from the suggestion you made that his unparliamentary statement should be withdrawn. He may have been discussing a hundred and one things, but he has made a statement in language which is not regarded as parliamentary, and language to which Your Honour drew his attention. I think Your Honour's suggestion that he should withdraw it should be enforced.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Withdraw.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I made-


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


George Alexander Drew: I recall-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Go back to Guelph.


Mr. Speaker:: I am obliged to ask the leader of the opposition to withdraw the remark that he made.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He said the minister was not alone in his attempt deliberately to mislead the house. Those are the words he used.


Mr. Speaker:: The leader of the opposition used the words "deliberately mislead the house." I ask him to withdraw those words.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to withdraw any statement to the effect that there has been an attempt to mislead the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I noted carefully the words of the leader of the opposition, and the exact

words he used were, "the parliamentary assistant's statement shows the minister is not alone in his attempts to mislead the house." That is what he said, and that is not parliamentary.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is what he said.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Go back to the Metropolitan opera.


George Alexander Drew: With respect, I submit it is parliamentary, and I do not propose to withdraw the statement because it accurately represents what has happened here.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Phone George McCullagh and get some more advice.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think it is the role of any member of the house, even though he is the leader of the opposition, to modify the rules of the house. If, in your opinion, Mr. Speaker, the language the hon. member used is unparliamentary, and the hon. member persists in stating that he will not withdraw it, Your Honour knows what is your responsibility and duty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Once more I ask the hon. member to withdraw what he has said. If he does not do so, I shall be obliged to apply the sanction. I should like to call his attention to the fact that this is my fifth session as Speaker of the house, and I have not yet had to apply the sanction. I do not like to have to do so. I think it is generous of the Speaker to say what he is saying. The house is to close this week, and I should like to see the dissolution of parliament take place without the Speaker being obliged to name any hon. member. If the hon. member does not wish to withdraw what he has said, I shall be obliged to name him.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to debate the matter, and I will withdraw whatever particular word it is that you feel I should withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I have already mentioned the words, "deliberately mislead the house."


Some hon. Members:: He did not say "deliberately."


George Alexander Drew: I will now proceed to discuss what I was discussing before.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member has withdrawn?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, that is right.
I find that the Minister of National Defence is not alone in presenting to this house the argument as to the limitation upon the infor-
National Defence
mation which it should receive. I want to point out why it is important that the house should have the information which it would have had if the house had had a committee available to it, or if there had been a proper examination of the estimates which support the budget that we were called upon to deal with.
Here is a department which at the present; time is making plans for enlargement, and for the training of an air force, something which gains new significance in the light of recent, events. We have the statement of the Prime Minister as to the training of this force at this time. We were denied certain information because, according to the government, that information, on a very limited basis, might have been of possible assistance to some potential enemy. On the other hand we were told through the press and over the radio that the government had made a decision to obtain a new military aircraft, and to have it manufactured at a particular plant with which the government has already had some experience.
One of the statements that has been made to justify the use of the aircraft that they are now designing-and in this case the statements emanate from those high but unnamed sources-is to the effect that it would be unwise to continue the use of even modified and advanced Vampires because they would be orphans-that was the term used in the dispatches-in view of the fact that the engine is not being produced in Canada. Let us see why this clearly demonstrates the necessity for a careful examination of the facts. If that argument is sound, then it was, equally sound as to the adoption of the North Star as the transport aircraft of the R.C.A.F., because the North Star uses an engine made, in Great Britain.
If the argument that has been presented to the public, presumably by the Department of National Defence, as to this new interceptor fighter, is a sound argument, then it applies and would have been a convincing reason for not changing the design of the DC-4 but continuing it as it was originally designed; or, in the alternative, for building up engine-producing capacity in Canada, and having made right here for our own use either the Rolls-Royce engine under licence, or the Pratt and Whitney, which was the original engine of the North Star as that machine was designed in the first place. They cannot have it both ways.
Either the argument that we should not have an orphan in the fighter field is sound, or it is not. If it is sound, then it is a most convincing argument why there never should have been any change in the original design of the DC-4, because it did not bring

National Defence
about the production of aircraft engines in Canada. It did not develop the Canadian aircraft industry in that way, which would have been a very helpful thing to do. These are all matters that should be examined. In the light of the present argument in regard to the interceptor, there was reason to examine what took place as to the contracts which were made with that same company. There were also reasons why it should have been possible to examine before the public accounts committee everything that took place in connection with the manufacture of North Stars. That was one of the reasons, and only one of the reasons, why a meeting of the public accounts committee was asked for.
This question has nothing to do with the ability of Canadian workmen to build aircraft, or with the standards of flying in Canada. Those who are making the North Star machines in the Canadair plant at Montreal are turning out an excellent mechanical product from the point of view of the finish and everything that goes into that machine. What one sees in that machine inside and outside is a tribute to the skill of Canadian workmen. It has an engine produced by a famous company-a Rolls-Royce engine; the very name itself indicates the background of the company which makes it. But that engine was designed as a military engine. It is a liquid-cooled engine-not an air-cooled engine, which is of a different shape and was the kind of engine for which those aircraft were originally designed.
In this particular case we have a hybrid machine which has followed a very fine proved aircraft, the DC-4, for the general wing and body design. It has added a splendid military engine, and the result is a combination which is creating grave difficulties for those who operate those aircraft.
We have in this country the finest pilots in the whole world. In two world wars young Canadians demonstrated that there is something inherent in the very life of this country which gives its youth special qualifications in the air. When the last war ended we had in Canada a greater pool of trained pilots, aircrew, ground personnel and engineers and supporting forces than could be found in any other country of comparable size. These young men have carried forward their skills into the years of peace. They have carried forward their skills into the service of Trans-Canada Air Lines and other air services in Canada. With what they have at their disposal they are doing a magnificent job.
But if there is one place that members of this House of Commons should be able to
get expert information it is before a public accounts committee where those with detailed knowledge of this subject could be called to give information as to what has been taking place. There is no doubt that we today are committed to an aircraft which limits our opportunity to expand our air lines in many parts of the world, because of the fact that we have not standard equipment as compared with what is being used elsewhere in those fields.
What has been done has been done. But the importance of examining these things is to enable us to avoid any repetition of the mistakes of the past. The present company operating as Canadair in Montreal is a company of proved ability and proved skill in the field of production of highly technical equipment. There is no doubt that this company is doing a good job in making the machines they were called upon to make; and they have no choice but to make them in completing those contracts. It should be remembered, of course, that the contracts had been made before this present company took control.
What happened was that the government had invested its money in an aircraft construction program. They had made a number of different kinds of aircraft in that plant. Then a management company was set up- the Canadair Company, which is not the present company, but the predecessor of it, of which a Mr. Franklin was the president. The details of this are something the house should know, and hon. members should be able to obtain information in the committee on public accounts-because the arrangement made in that regard was an interesting one. Mr. Franklin was head of a management company, not an ownership company. The company from the United States which took over the operation did not buy the physical assets from the Canadair Company; they bought them from the government; and in order that they might round out the transaction they bought the stock of Canadair Company from the management company headed by Mr. Franklin. It would be interesting to members of the House of Commons if they knew exactly what happened in this transaction, under which the management company originally incorporated with a capital of $10,000 sold its stock for a substantial figure.
I need not enlarge upon the matter, because I shall make a proposal which, in view of the present situation and in view of the whole picture ahead of us, I hope will find some support from the government. The government should give us the details of this transaction. They should tell us exactly how the thing was worked out, and what the reason was that this management company, which was not an ownership company, got a sub-

2G77
stantial figure from the company with which the dominion government was making an arrangement to carry on its operations-for which the government, in fact, had full responsibility, because they owned the property and all the equipment and all the inventory which had been accumulated. Without an examination of those details, any statement as to the cost of the North Star means nothing, because there is something which has not been fully recognized. When the government was making the North Star it was acquiring parts-aluminum and other components of production; and they reached the point where they thought it was not advisable to continue this under the management company. They then arranged this transaction and sold the whole inventory to the company which now operates it. Without a knowledge of the way in which that inventory was handled, any present figures of cost on the North Star mean nothing at all; one has to know exactly what took place at the time the accumulated inventory was handed over. At this point it is not necessary to say more than that it was handed over at a marked-down price which made it possible actually to manufacture the North Star at a figure which did not represent the actual cost of the component parts which have gone into them since the present company took over the management.
There may have been good reasons for all this, but those reasons should be placed before the House of Commons, and should be explained. We should know something about why production was continued in spite of the fact that there were many recommendations that it would be more advisable to go back to the Pratt and Whitney motor in the construction of these machines, instead of continuing with the excellent military engine which was presenting very real disabilities in both military and civilian operations in this country.
This is something which, after all, is known to every member of the house; there has been no mystery about it. The transaction is one which has been-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why go on talking about it, then?


George Alexander Drew: Because the details have never been given to the house; and the details are something which members of the house should have. I should think the hon. member who has just spoken would wish to have those details so that he could explain to his own constituents how this transaction did take place.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall explain to my constituents.
National Defence


George Alexander Drew: And it would be a wonderful story. We are told, Mr. Speaker, that this parliament is about to dissolve, and this proposal for supply would carry the business of the house forward until October 1. These will be momentous months. Decisions of great consequence are to be made in regard to the type and design of aircraft, the type of military equipment, and the policy of the government in connection with naval equipment and the whole problem of military supply.
In view of the fact that it is not the government's plan to place the estimates before the house in the usual way; that the opportunity of bringing matters before the public accounts committee has been denied; that it has been made impossible to obtain information which would be available in relation to each one of these amounts by proceeding with them in the ordinary way, may I strongly urge upon the government that they let this house and the whole country have a full and detailed statement of the present plans of the Department of National Defence. We should have a statement as to what that department actually contemplates in regard to these aircraft, setting forth step by step the developments up to the point where Canadair is now operating under the control of the Electric Boat Company of Groton in the United States. There should also be an explanation to the house of the emphasis that is being placed on one service and another, the allocation of forces; whether we are to continue to maintain the present relationship in proportionate numbers between the naval forces, the land forces and the air force, or whether there is to be a greater emphasis on the air force, as has been indicated by many of the statements that have been made by members of the government inside and outside the house.
I believe we should have information as to the evidence which supports the plan to abandon the use of the de Havilland Vampire as the service aircraft and to adopt the F-86. The house should be told whether this is the result of an examination of the models in comparative tests here in Canada, and generally what the basis is upon which the decision was reached as between one and the other. Let us remember that as we produce our aircraft for civil and defence purposes it is vitally important that we should extend our own base of supply. It will be of great importance to this country if, in producing our military requirements, we also obtain a broad base for our civilian requirements in the extended use of aircraft in the years ahead.
These things can be done, because it is a common practice in this and other parliaments to take a day or more in the discussion

National Defence
of national defence alone. We are being asked to deal with an international agreement which has been signed at Washington and which is in itself an expression of the belief of the free peoples of the world that their combined strength is sufficient to preserve peace-and let us remember it is a pact for peace, and not for war. It is a pact for peace based upon the assumption that the free peoples of the world will stand together with the strength to maintain their own freedom and preserve peace. At this time it seems to me that this house is entitled to the fullest explanation, the fullest details not only of the plans for the navy, the plans for the army, the plans for the air force, but also the plans for the bases of supply of all the equipment, whether sea, land or air, which will make those forces a reality.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I urge upon the government, in view of the amount of money that is being spent, in view of the amount of the taxpayers' money that goes to this vitally important purpose, and in view of the significance the Prime Minister and other members of the government attach to this department, that there be the fullest statement and discussion of this subject before we even proceed to discuss the question of supply. I urge that we have that information before a vote is taken on the motion now before the house.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, had the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) not seen fit to withdraw the remark he made a little while ago, I would have felt it my duty and my right to examine the accuracy of that remark at some length. But since it has been withdrawn, permit me to say that I think I have had, in private life and in public life, a record and a reputation for honesty and veracity. I shall let that record stand against any remarks of the leader of the opposition on any occasion.
Yesterday the leader of the opposition referred to the Hong Kong incident. I should have liked, at this or any other time, to examine the record of the leader of the opposition with regard to Hong Kong and his part in the work of the royal commission, as well as his comments since on that report. I do not believe, however, that the public is interested in that. I do not believe that the public interest will be served by spending the time of this house in discussing it. But I should like to say this with respect to one of the main points made by the leader of the opposition. He has asserted time and again that the Canadian government was given knowledge, in a telegram from the British

government, that should have led the Canadian government into believing that the expedition at Hong Kong would be immediately attacked.
In this connection the leader of the opposition has continued to maintain his own point of view, although the contrary has been expressed-by whom? By the former prime minister of Canada, the present member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King), whose reputation stands high in the public life of this country, and who is esteemed by the entire world; by the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), then minister of national defence for air, both before the royal commission and in this house; by the late minister of national defence, Hon. J. L. Ralston; by the then chief of the general staff, General Stuart; by the then commander of the Canadian army overseas, General Crerar; and if we want to take it outside of Canada, in a telegram, tabled by the then prime minister, from the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Right Hon. Clement Attlee; but above all, by the then Chief Justice of Canada, sitting as the royal commissioner, a man whose reputation for integrity has been second to none in the history of Canada, Right Hon. Sir Lyman Duff. When the leader of the opposition set his unsupported word against the statements of those persons, and thereby in effect said that they were liars, then I say that it is a distinguished company and it is an honour to be among them, and it is an honour-if I might add this-to be the object of the hon. gentleman's abuse.
With regard to some of the hon. gentleman's statements, I should like to make some comment. He said that they had been told that there must be a dark cloud of secrecy over all details of national defence. Nothing of the kind was said. Only one bit of information has been refused to any hon. member in this house this session, and that was information sought by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), on which I made a statement on March 17. That statement will be found in Hansard. It is the only piece of information that has been so far refused to any hon. member in this house, and it was refused on the best of advice and on the best of authority in this parliament and in the parliament of the United Kingdom. As I suggested then, if there is one piece of information which would be interesting and useful to any possible aggressor against Canada, it would be the strength and state of training of troops which would be designed to clean up any diversionary raid, namely, the paratroops now in training. How anyone can say that that refusal is not justified, or that it is setting a dark cloud of secrecy over all details of

national defence, is something that I just cannot understand.
The leader of the opposition referred to the inaccuracies of many of the statements of the minister responsible. I do not want to delay the house by going over the incident again, but since he has referred to that matter outside the house I feel that the record must be made clear again. The statements appear in Hansard. What happened was that the leader of the opposition made a statement about planes in reserve storage, and their being inhibited, a statement which I still believe to be inaccurate. But in denying that statement I went further than the facts justified at that moment, because I was not aware of the situation that had developed. The next day my officers called this fact to my attention, and the following day I made a correction. The correction was that there were four North Stars which were being put into reserve in accordance with ordinary practice. I knew that there were four North Stars in reserve, but I did not know the extent of the work that had been done. I made a correction when the error was drawn to my attention. But when the leader of the opposition makes an error, I think he goes on trying to have the whole world believe that he is right and that everyone else is wrong.
With regard to one or two of the questions he has raised, I should be happy indeed, if time permitted, to go into all those matters. We did it last year on the estimates, and at that time I made a full statement-a fuller one, I think, than had ever before been given in peacetime. The same course was followed at the previous session. I may tell the leader of the opposition that it has been the intention of the department to issue a paper on general defence policy and plans along the lines of the British white papers which are issued from time to time. I regard that as a useful practice. Work is already being done in the preparation of that paper. Had it been possible, and had it not been decided to have an election-which I think meets the views of all hon. members; at least I thought it did when it was announced-it would have been possible to put it before parliament when the estimates were being discussed, in accordance with the practice in the parliament of the United Kingdom. However, work will be continued on that paper, and it will be put together.
With regard to the aircraft question, my recollection is-and I was in the house-that the question of the capital structure, organization, work and administration of Canadair Limited, was gone into thoroughly by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on several occasions in this house. So far as I know, every question ever put to him on that subject was fully answered.
National Defence
With regard to the North Star question, we selected the North Star as a plane which would provide fast, economical, long-range transport for the air force. It was selected by T.C.A., and it is also in use by Canadian Pacific Air Lines and by British Overseas Airways. The plane was selected by the latter in competition with other planes. When it is suggested that this plane has not secured orders in other parts of the world because it is not standard with one type or the other, may I say that I have no knowledge of any orders having been turned down anywhere for that reason. On the contrary, inquiries have been received for the plane from every part of the world, by nations or corporations wanting to buy it. But the one obstacle has been the difficulty over exchange. Were it not for this difficulty, that plane would have been sold in half a dozen countries in addition to the United Kingdom.
With regard to the Vampire, of course the Vampire is an excellent plane. The Vampire Mark III, which is the one of which we acquired eighty-five two years ago, was then a good first-line interceptor. The Vampire Mark VIII, which is the latest Vampire under development, is not yet in production. The prototypes will be produced soon. The information on its anticipated performance has been available to the department. It has yet to be shown, of course, whether in tests those facts and figures on performance will be improved upon. On the other hand the F-86 is a plane which is in production. Its figures have been announced to a considerable extent. We believe that at the present moment it is one of the most effective fighter interceptors in the world, if not the most effective. Arrangements have been made for the production of that plane in Canada. Production will begin as soon as the plant can complete its tooling job for the purpose. Naturally the R.C.A.F., and the experts to which it has had access, took into account the relative performances of the Vampire and the F-86 in deciding to manufacture the F-86 in Canada. The main reason for making that decision was to have at least one interceptor plane manufactured in Canada of North American design and capable of being tested, flown and produced alongside planes of United States design. Our decision in arriving at that involves no reflection whatever on any industry in the United Kingdom or the performance of any British planes. It was based on our experience during the war, when at a certain stage the British commonwealth air training plan was seriously threatened because of the lack of parts and engines with which to equip and maintain planes of British design which we were using in Canada.

National Defence
With regard to the leader of the opposition's remarks about the adoption of the Orenda engine, which is now being tested at the A. V. Roe plant in Toronto for installation in the F-86, the matter is being looked into. The engine is completing its bench test, and it will require a good many months of examination and engineering before it is ascertained whether or not the F-86 can be equipped with the Orenda engine. If they can, some of the F-86's being manufactured in the United States might also be equipped with the Orenda engine. If that course is followed, it would be because the Orenda engine will have proved the equal of any engine, and superior to most other engines suitable for similar work. Therefore that is a matter which is being looked into thoroughly. It will take a good many months of testing and development to decide on a course of action. Should it prove possible to adapt that type of engine to the F-86, both in Canada and in the United States, I believe it would be a long step forward in the standardization of weapons with the United States, and in the economic production of weapons in both countries so as to make the best possible use of our combined industrial resources; and of course that is what we are trying to do.
I do not propose to delay the house much longer. The government put before the house, in 1945, 1946, 1947, and 1948, a series of plans for the effective organization, training and employment of the defence forces of Canada. That plan has been modified from time to time in accordance with changing conditions and changing needs, but the plan as announced and developed in my statement last June in presenting the estimates is substantially the plan on which we are still working. That again is of course subject to change with changing circumstances, particularly in the light of developments in the international field which may result from the ratification of the North Atlantic security pact. But I want to say that our defence forces are today larger than ever before in peacetime, with over 40,000 men in the active forces. They are seven times as large as they were in 1939. In addition we have some 20,000 full-time civilians who are in large measure doing work previously done by service personnel, because that is the most efficient and economic way to do that work.
We have over 40,000 in the reserve. Before hon. members say that our work in that direction is too slow with regard to the provision of reserve forces, they might examine the results achieved in various other countries in comparison. We have too, I believe, in the active and reserve forces officers and men of a quality that are well up to the high standard achieved by Canada
[Mr. Claxton.l
in either of the great wars or in the period between. They are keen; they are efficient they are, with few exceptions, young enough to occupy their positions in the jobs that they would serve in if there was an emergency. Having seen some two hundred defence establishments across Canada, I must say that I am proud to be in any way associated with that work.
Hon. members will agree that one of the most important efforts in our national defence is the training of officers. There I believe we have made as great progress as has been made in any other country, if not greater; because in our service colleges and Canadian officers training corps and university plans we have today as candidates for officers some 4,000 fine young Canadians, training to a standard equivalent to that of a university degree and a year's work in the field-a larger number training in proportion to that standard, I believe, than in any other country in the world.
Therefore I suggest, sir, that when these things are considered, and when the work done in the unification of our armed forces is taken into account, the work of national defence, industrial preparedness and the like, it will be seen that we have made progress. With the assistance of hon. members, and the continued and loyal support of the members of the armed forces and the department, I hope and expect to continue that development and progress in the future.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. Maxime Raymond (Beauharnois-La-prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the house for speaking at this time, but after sitting in this house for twenty-four years this is my last opportunity to express the views I hold on certain questions. From those who do not share these views I ask the same respect for me as I have for them.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, when, on March 28 last, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) introduced a resolution to authorize the sending of representatives to Washington to sign the North Altantic treaty, the terms of which were being submitted to us, I was prevented by tactics which I shall not discuss from expressing my views on the treaty and had to be content with registering dissent.
I now have the opportunity of stating the reasons I would then have given to justify my attitude.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I propose to define my position very clearly on the following three points:
In the first place the desirability or the need of an international organization for the maintenance of world peace and security.
In the second place, Russia and communism.
In the third place, the pact, its scope and its consequences to Canada.
I shall deal first with the need for an international peace organization.
On January 1 1944, I clearly stated my opinion on this matter. It will be found in my answers to a questionnaire put to me by the representative of Maclean's magazine.
Question: ''Do you believe the victorious united nations should found a permanent organization to enforce world peace? If so, should Canada join such an organization and agree to assist, by force, if necessary, in restraining aggression anywhere in the world?" Answer: "I am uncompromisingly opposed to the idea of an international organization which is to be permanent and composed only of the victorious united nations who would dictate peace to the world. Such a permanent organization would nourish the desire for revenge among the vanquished; and it would not be able to establish a world peace. It would split the world into two groups-victors and vanquished-and it would be a wonderful instrument for world domination by three or four of the greater united nations. It could not help repeating, through sheer aggravation, the errors of 1918 onwards."	.
' And I added:
"I am in favour of a permanent international institution which would have the characteristics of a genuine league of nations:
(a)	It would group together all the civilized states or at least the majority of them.
(b)	It would grant to them, small or large, equal rights; in consequence of this, it would not become the mere tool of imperial power and imperialists, as was the Geneva league.
Thirdly, it would prepare to establish a truly international order, both from the economic and the political point of view.
In our opinion Canada should work to form some such institution, then join it and take on responsibilities in proportion to her importance and interests.
Subsequently, in March 1945 I supported the resolution of the then Prime Minister authorizing the sending of representatives to a United Nations conference in San Francisco with a view to assisting the drafting of a charter that would create an international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. I also supported the aims and principles of justice that were to be the basis of the charter, but I clearly expressed my objections to the setting up of a security council which granted the five great powers the right of veto, a subject that was later discussed at the conference.
North Atlantic Treaty
May I recall what I stated in this house on March 27, 1945, on that occasion:
The Prime Minister has set forth the aims and principles outlined at the Dumbarton Oaks conference and referred to in the resolution and they have been highly approved. These aims and principles must be upheld and our representatives must endeavour to set up an organization which will guarantee that they will not be violated.
The security council will be called upon to play an important part. In view of the extraordinary powers with which it will be endowed it must be more representative than is advocated in the suggested proposals if it is not to be made the tool of one of the great powers. Recent events make it necessary to act cautiously. Indeed the security council, which is the supreme author tv entrusted with the maintenance of universal peace, will be composed of five permanent members (United States, United Kingdom, U.S.S.R., France and China) and six other members elected by the other nations. Decisions must be approved by seven of the eleven members. Moreover, if any one of the five great nations were guilty of an act of aggression, it could use its power of veto against any sanctions contemplated against it. I feel that should such authority be granted to the five great powers it would be tantamount to recognizing that might is right. This would be a violation of the democratic principle, of the principles which are to be the basis of a contemplated international organization. Its hands would be tied. As this is one of the proposals which will be discussed, I would ask the Canadian representatives to demand a larger representation on the security council for the secondary and smaller nations, and to refuse the right of veto to any of the five great powers.
We want an enduring peace based on right and not on might.
These statements should be sufficient to prove that I am no more an isolationist than an imperialist.
Unfortunately the charter adopted at San Francisco contains this defect, which I, for one, pointed out and which has paralysed its operation. The fears I had expressed have turned out to be true.
Chiefly to blame is Russia which, systematically and with revolting insincerity, used the right of veto to prevent the organization from playing a useful part. But the other great powers which insisted on introducing the right of veto into the charter, so as to hold sway, also come in for a large share of the guilt.
If you look up the conference proceedings for April 25 to June 26, 1945, you will see that the Big Five have insisted on that right of veto.
One does not call for a weapon unless one means to use it. Their stand is not calculated to inspire confidence among small nations; as far as their idea of justice is concerned, especially when we remember that article 2 of the charter says: "The organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members."

North Atlantic Treaty
In short the united nations organization was based from the very beginning upon a contradiction, not to say several. Time does not permit me to enumerate them; however,
I shall mention another which allows us to question the sincerity of the great powers' intentions.
An organization was to be set up, the purpose of which was to maintain peace. But following a decision made by those great powers, only the nations which had fought with the allies during the war or which agreed to declare war before March 1, 1945, were admitted into the organization. This meant that the nations which did not want war were excluded. A strange attitude, indeed, after having stated that any country desirous of maintaining peace should be allowed membership in the organization.
And so, on September 24, 1947, referring to the sabotage of the new league of nations, the parliamentary reporter for L'Action Catho-lique wrote: "Are the other nations so innocent, compared to the guilt of the communists?"
I have had opportunity, during and since the war, to voice in this house my feelings towards Russia. I do not believe there is any nation in the world which has accumulated more atrocities, or more crimes, within the lapse of thirty years. They have been crimes against morals, humanity and freedom, countless crimes of all kinds which have horrified and disgusted the civilized world.
Russia is, besides, the centre from which all communistic activities radiate.
We can easily find in the history of bolshevism and in the teachings of Lenin the policy which Russia has followed since 1919 with a view to spreading throughout the world the nefarious doctrine founded on materialism and atheism that is known as communism, and whereby it is immaterial what means are taken to achieve results.
But the danger that such a pernicious doctrine might pervade various countries is not recent. It has for a number of years been proclaimed by the Pope. It has been known to all.
May I recall that in 1927, Canada, following the example of Great Britain, had broken off its diplomatic relations with Russia. The Russian commercial delegation, established at Soviet House in London, had become a centre of communist espionage and activities.
Those facts show that communist plotting, the Russian peril, had been known for 30 years.
What has been the attitude of certain great powers towards Russia, especially over the past 10 years?

Time does not permit me to recite the events which took place at Teheran and Yalta, between Messrs. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill, nor the secret agreements arrived at to apportion certain spheres of influence, agreements which have contributed to strengthen Russia at the expense of smaller nations. The story of the designs of the Great Powers is a very sad one indeed. For the present, I will merely point out that the communist peril was known in 1941 and that, since that year, the association of Russia with the great powers was not designed to defend Christendom or civilization. When it is proposed that we should constitute an immovable bulwark against communist doctrines and infiltration, it is timely to recall the history of the recent years. Organized publicity and propaganda must not lead us to overlook the truth.
Communism is an ideology which is not to be fought by taking up arms but by social reforms. It was born out of want and want is the fruit of war. An evil must be fought by removing its causes. The only means to defeat communism is to build up a social system which will satisfy the conscience of men and suppress injustice.
To fight communism, it is not a military alliance that is needed but an economic alliance that will permit the exchange of goods, end starvation which is rampant in certain countries and constitute a barrier against want.
One of the organizations of the old league of nations mentioned the main economic causes of war: "The question of raw materials, that of manpower and that of markets."
And the famous American publicist, Walter Lippmann, wrote after the war of 1914-18:
The great crime of post-war policy in Europe was that , the victorious powers used their supremacy to monopolize the resources of the world.
Today, to cope with communism and a possible armed aggression on the part of Russia, a pact is proposed between certain nations. That is an admission of the failure of the United Nations, even though that organization was set up to the liking of the Great Powers.
What are the implications of the North Atlantic pact and what will be their consequences for Canada?
First we are asked to approve the aims and principles which are already contained in the United Nations charter. I am all for it. Besides Canada had already committed herself in that respect.
However, restating such principles is not enough to develop our confidence as to the

intentions of certain signatories to the pact and there are good reasons for that. The Atlantic charter, for example, contained wonderful principles which the Great Powers soon forgot, the better to violate them in the most odious manner.
The history of the last thirty years shows us that nations consider principles only within the limits of their interests. The late Geneva league, the new United Nations organization with a right of veto granted the Great Powers in utter contradiction of the principles of equality among sovereign nations as set forth in the preamble of the charter, seem to have been conceived solely for the purpose of serving the interests of the most powerful nations, thus sanctioning the slogan that "Right is Might". Too many facts have proven it. It is therefore with justified suspicion that I intend to weigh the meaning of the pact.
Under article 3 of the treaty, the parties agree to help each other, and to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
The first immediate consequence of article 3 is already seen in the considerable increase of our military estimates, which will represent this year about $650 million, and that is just a beginning. It should be noted that our total expenditures before the war amounted to only $500 million.
Why should our armed forces be increased? We are told that it is for the purpose of checking communist infiltration and meeting an armed attack on the part of Russia.
As I have already stated, ideologies are not fought with guns; the way to fight communism is to prevent or relieve destitution through social justice measures. For example, if instead of spending further hundreds of millions on armaments, we were giving more encouragement to the building of houses for those who are without shelter, we would prevent communism from becoming implanted in urban centres. A remarkable fact is that those European countries which remained neutral during the last great war: Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey, have not had to fight communism, while the nations to which war has brought the greatest hardships, such as France, Italy, Greece, Poland and other satellites of Russia, have been the scene of unprecedented communistic activities.
On the other hand, more sincerity would be shown in the struggle against communism if Spain, the most anti-communist of all nations, which has fought that doctrine without respite and with success, were not systematically excluded from the pact. But the
North Atlantic Treaty
materialistic interests at stake must always be reckoned with.
How can one explain the attitude taken by the Canadian government of failing to outlaw the Labour-Progressive party, which is openly communistic?
The Prime Minister has told us that the fact that the pact was fought by "the few communists living in our midst is sufficient evidence that it is in the interests of true Canadians to approve it".
Does the fact that the communist party of Tim Buck and Sam Carr supported the Liberal candidates and fought the Progressive Conservatives in the 1945 elections constitute evidence that the Liberal party favoured communism and that it was in the interests of true Canadians to vote for the Progressive Conservatives? Have they the intention of imitating the Conservative electoral propaganda of 1935?
I recall how indignant was the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, one of the Liberal leaders, when he exposed that kind of propaganda in the following words:
Infamous pamphlets and advertising are being distributed in the province of Quebec. Communists are shown crushing underfoot the crucifix and persecuting religion, for which King and Lapointe are held responsible. This is an infamy . . . They are endeavouring today to scare the electors with ghosts and bugaboos.
The Liberals were shown as friends of the communists because of their attitude in connection with section 98 of the criminal code. I have here these circulars where the communists are shown taking down the cross from the steeples, confiscating crops, burning churches, et cetera.
All this, it says, would be in order to prevent a possible attack from Russia. I do not propose to discuss, for the time being, the possibility of an attack from Russia, which is a very controversial subject. But let us assume that the danger exists.
The Prime Minister told us that the pact was a defensive measure, a measure of vital importance for the protection of Canada. That being so, why has Canada, a country of the American continent, systematically refused to join the Pan-American union? A chair bearing the name and coat of arms of Canada is still awaiting our acceptance. The union was organized on a basis of continental fraternity for the maintenance of peace and security in America. At the conference held at Rio de Janeiro in 1947, a pact of collective security was signed. Of the twenty-two nations of America, Canada was the only one not represented.

North Atlantic Treaty
Canada, as a part of the American continent, should be more interested in a pact for the defence of America than in a pact for the defence of Europe.
Mr. Sumner Welles, former under-secretary of state for the United States, said in 1946 that:
The security of the other parts of the Americas should always be of vital importance to Canada, as it is recognized that Canada's security is of the utmost importance to the other countries of America.
But Canadian members of Great Britain's privy council are always more concerned with the security of the empire than with the security of Canada. The Right Hon. Vincent Massey took upon himself to remind us of this fact.
If the pact has no other purpose than to oppose a strong front to Russian aggression, why does it not include Spain, a pre-eminently anti-communist country, also wonderfully situated to serve as operational base for the defence of Europe. There again, other considerations, unrelated to international security, come into play.
There is, however, a far more serious factor. At the very moment when a pact is being signed whereby we agree to increase our armed forces in order to face eventual soviet aggression, several signatory nations are helping to rearm Russia and her satellites.
What does this mean, if not preparation for war? Will there be a repetition of what happened between the two world wars when armament makers in allied countries rearmed Germany so that, in the long run, allied soldiers were killed by shells manufactured by allied powers.
I have not the time to go over the whole story of Germany's rearmament by the allies who allowed Schneider, Zaharof, Wendel and others to amass colossal fortunes.
Suffice it to say that the Vickers-Armstrong Company, of London, England, a large armaments factory with customers in every land, had a contract with an insurance company providing that if, in the five years between 1928 and 1932, its profits did not amount to $4,500,000 a year, it would be entitled to a yearly indemnity of one million dollars. Among the shareholders were Mr. Neville Chamberlain, then chancellor of the exchequer, and Mr. Austen Chamberlain, who had just received the Nobel peace prize. This information is to be found in an article appearing in Fortune for March, 1934, signed by Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, then chancellor of Columbia university.
In the last two or three years there have been many trade agreements between countries behind the iron curtain and certain powers who signed the pact.

During a sitting of the United States senate, on March 30 last, Senator Malone listed no less than 35 treaties for the supplying by England, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark -countries who signed the pact-of war material and other material intended for the economic reconstruction and for the building up of the war potential of Russia and her satellites.
In 1947, when relations with Russia were already strained, in 1948 while the Atlantic pact was already being prepared, and even in 1949 when this pact was about to be signed, Britain passed and filled contracts with Russia, Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia regarding the supply to those countries of steel, electric motors, generators, jet engines for warplanes, iron, copper, tin, rubber, aluminum, locomotives, trucks, excavators, steel rails, all types of machinery and equipment that could serve to increase their war potential.
Here are some of the most recent transactions. In May 1948, according to an item from U.S. News and World Report, Great Britain loaned thirty million dollars to Poland towards the payment of British machinery, wool and rubber. On January 14, she signed a new five-year contract for supplying Poland with ships, wool, rubber, gas, machinery and other goods, to the total value of $520 million. Around the same time, she entered into negotiations with Russia with a view to concluding a new trade agreement, although shortly before, Great Britain had authorized the Brash Electrical Engineering Company to sign a contract to supply Moscow with $22 million worth of diesel engines. According to a board of trade spokesman, the total value of goods exchanged between the two countries, under the provisions of the previous pact, was from $160 to $180 million for both countries.
England agrees to buy canned salmon from Russia and bacon from Poland at prices higher than those prevailing in Canada, and in return sells steel, sorely needed in Canada.
As recently as March 31 last, four days before the signing of the North Atlantic pact, we learned from an Associated Press dispatch that England was lending $36 million to Russia allegedly for the purchase of nonmilitary equipment. We know that when war threatens, everything becomes war material.
At the end of December 1948, a new Anglo-Yugoslav agreement was signed under which Yugoslavia was to get, in the course of one year, heavy industry machinery and rubber, of a value of $60 million. On April 2 last, negotiations were going on to set at five years the term of that commercial agree-

ment and at $400 million the value of the purchases.
In the U.S. News and World Report, dated June 4, 1948, one could read this:
Great Britain is the European country which sends the largest supplies to Russia. Her exports to the Soviet bloc last year amounted to $213 million of which Russia accounted for one quarter . . .
The bulk of the purchases in Great Britain consist of machinery, generators and electric motors. According to a treaty which is now in force, Russia is to receive in addition 1,100 locomotives, 2,400 trucks, rails, excavators, rubber, aluminum, etc.
Such transactions were vigorously protested against and comments were made in the American and London press, in the American senate, in the British House of Commons and in the House of Lords.
Here are a few examples:
Lord Amery, former secretary of state for India, wrote to the Times last December protesting against the shipping of diesel motors to Russia instead of Canada, adding that this was "strengthening the economy and political power of those who are a potential source of danger."
In the House of Lords last December, the Conservative leader, the Marquis of Salisbury, vigorously protested against the shipping of war material to Russia. He mentioned the shipping of rubber from Malaysia, the selling of military aircraft jet engines, of machinery, industrial diamonds and other essential goods to Russia.
The same protests were heard in the British House of Commons. On November 1, 1948, replying to David Eccles, M.P., who had protested against the shipping of war material to Russia, Mr. Strachey, the food minister, stated:
We are doing business with Russia because we judge that is a good policy.
On November 29, 1948, Mr. Byers, M.P., asked the following question:
(Text):
Has not the time now come to reconsider our decision to send strategic war materials to Russia, while the blockade of Berlin is persisted in by that country?
Mr. Bottomley, secretary for overseas trade, said:
So long as it is in the interest of the United Kingdom to do that trade, we shall continue to do it.
(Translation) :
On February 21, 1949, the minister of supply, Mr. George Strauss, replied to a member, Mr. Bonner, that Great Britain had delivered to Russia in 1947, 55 Rolls-Royce aircraft jet engines.
On March 24, 1949, the chairman of the British board of trade, Mr. Harold Wilson,
North Atlantic Treaty
replied to another member, Mr. Holt, who was inquiring about the government's policy with regard to trade agreements with Russia, Bulgaria and Hungary:
(Text):
The government is guided in its trade relations with these countries, by considerations of economic advantage and cannot make it a rule that trade agreements with these countries shall be subject to the settlement of political questions.
(Translation):
In spite of the British government's reluctance to give details on its transactions with Russia and her satellites, the questions asked and the answers from ministers indicate that the rumours of an eventual war with those countries do not interfere with a trade that increases their war potential.
My time is so short that I cannot give a list of trade agreements between France, Belgium, Holland, Norway and Denmark, on the one hand, and Russia or her satellites on the other hand. I shall merely add that through their export of war material and other goods, these countries, which have signed the pact, are helping to increase the war potential of Russia and her satellites, from whose attacks, we are told, we should help to protect those countries.
To conclude my remarks on that subject, may I quote what the leader of the opposition said on January 17 last in an address delivered before the Vancouver Canadian Club:
(Text):
Progressive Conservative Leader George Drew today advocated a "free nations" ban on the supply of potential war material to Russia . . .
"Such a course might bring Russia to her senses," he said. It might avert another war "without a shot being fired."
(Translation):
Those facts, to my mind, offer food for thought to those who are not ready to blindly accept this pact. I ask this question:	Is it
reasonable, under the circumstances, to increase the Canadian taxpayers' burden in order to increase our means of armed defence against a possible enemy to whom weapons are being supplied to 'attack us?
That is not all. There is another fact, pregnant with consequences, that cannot be ignored and which is alarming.
The North Atlantic treaty is in fact an alliance directed against Moscow. It is represented to us as such.
Now, among the signatories to the treaty, there are two nations, Great Britain and France, which both have treaties of alliance and mutual assistance with Russia.
The one with Great Britain is dated May 26, 1942-at which time communism prevailed

North Atlantic Treaty
in Russia as intensively as today-and the second is dated December 10, 1944. Both are valid for a period of 20 years and include the following clause:
Each of the high contracting parties undertakes not to sign any alliance nor to be a party to any coalition aimed at either of them. (Section 7 of the treaty between Britain and Russia; section 5 of the treaty between France and Russia.)
How could Great Britain and France be party to a coalition aimed at Russia without breaking a formal undertaking? What faith can we have in treaties?
Moreover, by virtue of section 4 of the treaty between Britain and Russia, Great Britain undertook, for a period of 20 years, to provide immediately to Russia all help, military or otherwise, and all assistance in her power in the case of an attack from Germany or from any of her allies during the war. Amongst Germany's allies, there is Italy, a signatory to this pact.
Should Italy declare war on Russia in order to prevent communist infiltration or to defend Trieste, Great Britain, having committed herself to military assistance, would be at war on Russia's side, but according to the Atlantic treaty she would have to fight Russia. Since the Liberal policy has always been that when Britain is at war, Canada is also at war, would we fight for or against Russia?
Those considerations offer food for thought to those who are not willing to accept blindly the North Atlantic treaty.
We are associating ourselves with two countries straddling the fence.
We are associating ourselves with allies of Russia, a country we regard as dangerous.
We are associating ourselves with countries that are asking us to increase our armed forces to help them fight Russia, while at the same time those same countries are rearming Russia.
In addition, we are associating ourselves with Holland in a pact against aggression. Yet that same country is guilty of infamous aggression against Indonesia, for the sole purpose of protecting material interests.
Such is the situation in which we find ourselves as a result of the pact.
What are our commitments? Under article 3, Canada agrees for a period of twenty years -for such is the duration of the pact mentioned in article 13-to maintain and increase its armed force continuously and effectively and to assist other signatories of the pact; under article 9, we entrust a defence committee with the task of recommending measures to implement this undertaking.
Under article 4, moreover, the parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, its territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened. Why should they consult one another if not to

fulfil the obligations assumed under article 5 by which we agree to assist with the means at our disposal, that is to say, with our armed forces, the party whose territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened? Remember that each party is sole judge of what constitutes a threat-and in order to avoid any misunderstanding, the Prime Minister in his speech of March 28 explicity defined the scope of the pact. He said:
We will create a situation which will enable us to speak in the only language they (the totalitarian leaders of communist states) recognize, the only language they understand-the language that speaks from strength.
Do you visualize the extent of the commitments embodied in these two articles, if words still have a meaning, if the signatures appearing at the bottom of the agreements still have significance?
For the next twenty years, we are bound by a solemn promise of effective aid to maintain a constantly increasing army so as to guarantee the integrity of the possessions of the signatory powers in every part of the world, since the limitation applying to the area described in article 6 does not apply to article 4.
We are implicitly undertaking, in the guise of justice and of vague generalities, to maintain the existing system of colonial status, to defend the integrity of the colonial empire of European nations, in Asia, in Africa, in the south seas, where the natives are exploited, treated like slaves and lead a miserable life, thus creating ideal conditions for communistic activities. Holland's revolting attitude towards the Indonesians is a striking example of what is taking place in certain colonies, yet this event occurred one month after a solemn declaration guaranteeing the freedom, the dignity and the rights of the individual.
Four of the signatory countries have an extensive colonial empire. We know that there is at present an armed conflict in Indochina where France maintains an army of occupation in order to defend its territorial integrity; the same is true of Indonesia, where the Netherlands are at grips with the Indonesians whom they hold under their domination.
Great Britain has armed forces in Malaya so as to cope with the rising of the population and the threat of a civil war.
Last year a conflict arose between Great Britain on the one hand and Guatemala on the other with regard to British Honduras and between Great Britain and Argentina and Chile, concerning the sovereignty of the Falkland islands which required dispatching of British warships.

These cases are covered by sections 3 and 4.
The territorial integrity, political independence, or security of a country may also be threatened in many other ways. Great Britain maintains strategic bases in several places throughout the world in order to protect its security. She has interests in the Middle East, in Asia and elsewhere which she believes to be essential to her economy.
If she considers her political independence or her security threatened because her strategic posts or her interests are in danger, we are committed to act.
If civil war in Greece threatens the security of England or of Italy, we must take part in that war.
If Norway, France, Italy or any other country which has signed the pact is threatened with civil war, either from communist activities or for any other cause, we may be involved in those struggles.
There is practically no limit to our commitments under articles 3 and 4 of the pact.
The consequences of article 5 are obvious. In the event of an armed attack against a party to the pact, Canada shall be considered under attack. Our country will then be automatically at war and undertakes to supply forthwith military assistance to help restore security. It goes without saying that the only way to fight an armed attack is the use of armed force.
When we read again articles 3, 4 and 5, we can come to only one conclusion.
Adhering to the Atlantic pact is a solemn pledge which binds Canada for the next twenty years without allowing her to withdraw and which compels her throughout this period, whatever may happen, to maintain continuously and effectively and even to increase her armed forces in order to preserve and protect the territorial integrity, the independence or the security of each of the signatories, and commits her to take action, whenever necessary, each time one of the signatories is deemed in danger. Canada commits herself automatically to wage war should an armed attack be directed against one of the signatories.
Such is the meaning of the treaty from which there can be no withdrawal and the government, whichever it may be, is authorized to enforce it without the intervention of parliament-the latter having already approved it-without mentioning that under section 64 of the Militia Act, the government is authorized to put the militia on active service anywhere within or outside Canada.
This legislation is leading us to conscription In peacetime and will certainly lead us to a third world war if the majority of the signatories to the pact continues, as I have
North Atlantic Treaty
shown, increasing the war potential of Russia and her satellites.
What should we conclude from all that? I think I have given part of the answer. Based as it is upon a series of contradictions, that treaty affords no guarantee that the intentions of many of the signatories are sincere; on the contrary, it inspires mistrust and under such circumstances it cannot be deemed a contribution to an equitable and enduring peace. Rearmament is resorted to for the defence against a prospective enemy to whom weapons are supplied; an alliance is arranged against Russia with countries already pledged with her by a treaty involving alliance, co-operation and mutual aid, which precludes them from concluding any alliance or participating in any coalition directed against her; it is desired to fight communism while Spain, an enemy of communism is excluded from the pact; it is the aim to ensure the security of Canada in America, but there is a refusal to associate through a security pact with countries of America; an antiaggression alliance is made with a country like Holland which, at the same time, launches the most brutal aggression against the Indonesians.
Offered as a peace program, it is an armaments race which may lead any day to an undescribable catastrophe. And Canada is bound for twenty years to come, having given up, through her signature, her right to remain neutral.
I am not an isolationist, nor am I opposed to an alliance aimed at ensuring, in international life, the triumph of justice and charity principles; but I am not ready to give a free hand to any government, whatever it be, to plunge us, without consulting parliament, into armed conflicts, in order to serve, in the four corners of the world, the interests of powers actuated by a spirit of domination rather than by a spirit of justice.
Unfortunately, our policy is inspired by London and I hope the day will come when, following the example of Ireland and India, Canada will declare her full independence by proclaiming herself a republic.
(Text):


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, before this session is concluded there is one piece of legislation which I believe the government should implement; I refer to Bill No. 135, which was passed last year, amending the wheat board act to enable coarse grains to be marketed through the wheat board. Hon. members will recall that last year, when this legislation was before the house, evidence was given that both the farmers who were using the coarse grains in eastern Canada, and the farmers in western Canada who were producing those coarse

Coarse Grains
grains, desired the grain to be marketed through the wheat board.
Pressure was put on the government here to pass the necessary legislation. That legislation was introduced in the form of Bill No. 135. When the bill was passed, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) insisted that complementary legislation should be passed by the provinces before the act would be implemented. On page 2422 of last year's Hansard he stated this:
I repeat that our powers are not sufficient, and this bill is not sufficient, to organize a compulsory pool on wheat and barley that would succeed. What others do is the responsibility of others.
It may be that we shall have sufficient legislation passed in those proper jurisdictions to enable the pool to be worked out. If that is so, the government has done its part, and will be ready to act.
The minister's statement is definite that when complementary legislation was passed in the three prairie provinces, this government would be prepared to implement the act. Such complementary legislation has now been passed. It was passed unanimously a year ago by the Saskatchewan government. It was passed early this session by the Alberta government, I believe unanimously. It was passed recently by the Manitoba government, by a vote of thirty-six to twelve, practically all the rural members voting for the bill.
In answer to a question raised by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on April 25, the minister stated:
The government set the prerequisite to the act being brought into force on two or three occasions. Apparently that prerequisite has been complied with. The government will study the situation in the light of what has been said in the past.
What was definitely said was that this legislation would be implemented when the provinces agreed to it; that was the prerequisite, and it has been met. I believe that this government should now, before the conclusion of this session, give notice that this legislation is being implemented, and announce the price that will be paid for oats and barley for the coming year.
The minister agrees that we should have greater production of coarse grains. In answer to a further question I asked on April 25, the minister stated this:
Speaking as the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I hope there will be a great deal of coarse grain sown this year. I can say again that the government will give consideration to the matter in the hope of making an early announcement.
I am sorry that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not in Canada at the present time. I understand he is in the old country on business which I believe is connected with the marketing of our products in Great Britain. What is the position in that regard? In 1944 we reached the peak in the marketing of our agricultural products in Great Britain.

In that year we shipped to Great Britain over 719 million pounds of pork products; this year our contract with Great Britain for bacon is for 160 million pounds. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) recently stated that he doubted whether we could supply that quantity. Why can we not supply it? The Minister of Agriculture has told this house time and time again that the production of dairy products and of meat products in this country depends primarily on the production of coarse grains. It is only when we have coarse grains to feed that we can increase our production of these products. Many people in this country are blaming Great Britain for not buying more Canadian products. How can we expect Great Britain to enter into contracts with Canada for these products when we cannot supply them?
There are two things which Great Britain demands of those who supply her with her food. One thing is continuity of supply. She wants to know that she is going to be able to get certain quantities of these products from year to year-not only this year but next year and two, three, four or five years from now. She wants to know that she can depend on that supply. How can she depend upon Canada when our production varies to the extent that it does?
Another thing that she demands is uniform quality. The Britisher likes to go down to the shop and to be able to buy his bacon or his cheese today, next week or next year and know that it is going to be the same quality. That quality can only be maintained by export boards in this country which will maintain the continuity and the uniformity of our exports. The first step towards that end is in securing an adequate supply of coarse grains for feed in this country. What is the position with respect to grains in western Canada or what will be the position? Under the world wheat agreement we have a sale for wheat of approximately 203 million bushels. Our average production of wheat over a number of years has been considerably over that figure. It has been something like an average of 280 million bushels a year. If we have a sale for only 203 million bushels and if we do not find other markets, it simply means that we shall get a surplus in this country and we shall be back on a quota with regard to the production of wheat.
In determining what he is going to sow, the farmer in western Canada takes into consideration two or three things. He takes into consideration the weather, the type of land he is sowing and the price of the grain that he may be sowing. A rough rule of thumb with regard to prices that is used by most farmers is this. If oats are selling at less than half the price of wheat, it pays

better to sow wheat. If barley is selling at less than two-thirds the price of wheat, the farmer prefers to sow wheat rather than barley, provided weather conditions are favourable and his soil is suitable. This year we have a guaranteed price for wheat of $1.75 per bushel. That is the floor under wheat. The floor under oats is 61'J cents and the floor under barley is 90 cents-approximately one-third for oats and one-half for barley. Naturally unless the government implement this legislation and give some idea of what the prices of coarse grains are going to be, the result is going to be that there will be from two million to three million more acres sown to wheat in western Canada this year than were sown last year. That situation will result in a surplus, with the result that we shall be unable to fulfil even our reduced contracts to Great Britain with respect to bacon, cheese and eggs.
I think that the government should immediately make an announcement stating that they have implemented Bill No. 135 and stating the price that they are going to be prepared to pay for oats and barley in the coming year. Unless that is done I feel quite sure that the result will be reduced sowings of coarse grains and reduced production of these products which should be the basis of mixed agriculture in western Canada.
The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) announced that the subsidy on coarse grains was going to be continued after July 31 this year. One of the things which reduced the production of bacon and dairy products in western Canada is the fact that the government were prepared to subsidize the freight on coarse grains while they failed to subsidize the finished product produced in western Canada to the amount of the freight to eastern Canada. Until this government decides to give more consideration to some of these matters, I am afraid that we shall lose our contracts with Great Britain, that we shall not be able to fulfil them, and that we shall destroy the agricultural industry in western Canada.
I want to urge just as strongly as I can that the government give immediate consideration to implementing Bill No. 135, stating the price that they will be prepared to pay under that bill for oats and barley in the coming year.


John George Diefenbaker: agree, Mr. Speaker, with the hon. member who has just taken his seat, that the uncertainty regarding the marketing of coarse grains as revealed the other day by the reply of the minister should immediately be removed. My reason for rising on this occasion, however, is to say a few words with regard to the loss of our agricultural markets
Trade
and of our other markets overseas, accelerated as it has been during the last few months.
As I listened this morning to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), I felt that his comments upon the cynical attitude of the cabinet might well apply not only to the ministers whom he mentioned but to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). When I hear the ministers speak with that certitude that characterizes them at all times, I marvel at their cynicism towards parliament. I do not wish to bring any political matters into the house today, but I am reminded of something that occurred a few days ago, and which has been exemplified today both by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) in their contemptuous regard for the opposition and any criticism it ventures to offer. I think that attitude had its culmination during the recent visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to western Canada.


Mr. Sinclair:: A great success.


John George Diefenbaker: When speaking on a number of occasions in western Canada-


James Sinclair: To capacity audiences.


John George Diefenbaker: -he said: "Either the Liberal party will win the election or no party will win." That is the attitude taken by members of the government. Indeed it is to be the campaign slogan. I do not often refer to incidents such as this. I was in a restaurant when the news came over the C.B.C., and the quotation from the Prime Minister was given in the words to which I have just referred. When the announcer had concluded apparently somebody put a nickel in the juke box. I am not an expert on modern music, sir, and it may have been only a coincidence-


Benoît Michaud: Or imagination.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend speaks with a degree of authority on that subject without opposition, in this house anyway.


Benoît Michaud: After listening to you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When do we get our nickel's worth?


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister spoke of the dangers facing this country unless the government were returned. When the C.B.C. news report concluded from the juke box came these appropriate words: "Drop that gun Louie, you are only fooling." Possibly it was only coincidence; nonetheless it was the most effective answer that I have ever heard to the new battlecry of the government.
I believe a catastrophe faces the country unless something is done to maintain our trade. In view of the remarks reported this

Trade
morning as having been made in London by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), I revert to the speech from the throne. In connection with trade one of the things referred to was this:
The continuing committee established by the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom to review the progress of trade between the two countries is presently meeting in London.
That was a reference to the maintenance of trade in our traditional export market. The time has come for this house to receive a report on the progress being made by that committee, and what stands or advances are being taken to preserve our trade.
A number of speeches have been made by members of the opposition regarding trade matters. One was made last evening by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Coyle) in which he set forth most ably and completely the situation with respect to tobacco. On previous occasions speeches have been made by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Charlton) and the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and others. The situation with regard to agricultural markets was referred to a moment ago by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). Among other things he stated that Britain should not be held responsible for the reduction in purchases from Canada because, on the contract for bacon, Canada had failed to live up to her responsibilities.
This is not a new problem. It is a problem which affects every person in this country. It affects the workman; it affects the farmers; it affects the entire prosperity of this nation. It has been evident for several months, and has accelerated since the month of January while parliament has been in session.
On January 29 the Financial Post set forth the situation in an editorial and pointed out that:
. . . the artificial and temporary prop of ERP . . . is frankly alarming. Except for wheat, which we are selling to Britain at a bargain price far below the real world value, in almost every other line volume has shrunk.
Then it referred to the agreements Britain was making with various countries in Europe. United States economic experts have for the past six months been referring to the dangers to Canada's trade in the failure of Great Britain to continue to purchase here.
On January 7 last one United States magazine, the United States News, set the matter forth very clearly when it said this:
Canadian producers are beginning to wonder where they can sell their big surpluses as Britain turns to Europe, Australia, New Zealand for these products.
A serious situation prevails in the province of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), British Columbia, in the mat-
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
ter of lumber and salmon. On April 2, the editor of the financial page of the Christian Science Monitor clearly described the situation in these words:
A number of adverse developments have pointed up the problem of the export-import gap. Foremost as a factor in Canadian thinking at the moment is the policy of the British government in reducing imports from Canada.
Then he goes on to show the reason for it:
This is regarded as a departure from the principles of true competitive trade and from healthy multilateral exchange, held as the trade goal by ITO countries.
A little further on he said:
The toughest problem thus far has been farm surpluses. Not long ago the United States secretary of agriculture declared wheat a surplus commodity, a decision which permits the economic co-operation administration to prohibit the use of Marshall plan dollars for the purchase of wheat in Canada.
Up to now ECA has availed itself of a legal loophole which allows Britain to continue her Canadian purchases, according to this editor, who goes on to say:
When and if the ECA acts to force Britain to buy its wheat in the United States, Canada will suffer the loss of $280,000,000 in wheat exports, or 40 per cent of her current source of Marshall plan dollars.
The article envisages the dangerous situation of Canadian agricultural markets and of the prosperity of Canadian farmers, and indeed our entire prosperity.
Finally, on April 20, there was a dispatch in the Daily Express of London which outlined the serious situation which prevails. It went on to say:
Britain buys most of her Canadian wheat with Marshall aid dollars. And Marshall aid dollars have conditions attached.
Now the United States has a glut of wheat. It is said that she will shortly declare a wheat surplus.
That would mean that Britain could no longer buy the 140,000,000 bushels of wheat she has contracted to take from Canada this year. Britain would have to buy United States wheat instead.
Trade is one of the major problems facing this parliament. We have been here for three months and nothing has been vouchsafed to this parliament as to what the government is doing in order to ensure and preserve these markets.
On April 25 the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) asked this question, which I submit, and I must be careful that my language is parliamentary, was answered in a way which is far removed from the truth. The hon. member asked this question, as reported at page 2520 of Hansard:
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Before he visits Great Britain will he make a statement to the house on the present situation of our British markets?
This is the answer:
The present state of our markets in the United Kingdom is quite normal.

Sir, that statement is far removed from the truth. Every bit of evidence is that our markets for farm products are not satisfactory. The minister went on to say:
My purpose in going there is to take part in the opening of the British industries fair, and not for any reason having to do with changing the situation in respect of British trade.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has always been cavalier in his treatment of parliament; that answer he gave a few short days ago is no exception. Since he gave that answer there has been further evidence of the loss of our potential overseas market for beef cattle. A Reuters dispatch from London datelined today reads as follows:
Britain today agreed to buy all the beef and mutton Australia can produce during the next fifteen years under new schemes to step up production in the dominion's huge undeveloped areas.
Britain, in return for an undertaking to promote these development schemes, was willing to guarantee a market at reasonable prices for the whole of Australia's exportable meat surplus for fifteen years.
Our exports of beef cattle to Britain are down to a mere trickle, yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that all was well with our markets in the United Kingdom. While our markets are disappearing one of the sister dominions Australia has secured a market for fifteen years for two products, one of which, beef, is of particular interest to Canada and for which a market might have been secured for us.
The minister affirmed that all was well, that he was not going to Britain to discuss trade conditions; yet a Canadian Press dispatch appearing in today's papers reads:
Trade Minister C. D. Howe arrived in London by air tonight and said the prime objective of his visit is the promotion of a better balance of trade between Britain and Canada.
When a question was put to him in the house his answer was a cavalier disregard of the rights of parliament to full information. When he met the press in Britain the reason he gave for being there was the reverse of the reason he gave in this chamber.
Is there any reason why members of this house should receive such answers in a matter as important as this? Has not the time come to restore true parliamentary government, when a minister declares in the house on April 25 that his visit has nothing to do with trade, and then on April 27, two days later, speaking to reporters in England, said that trade was the reason for his visit? That is one more example of what the leader of the opposition complained about, namely, the contemptuous disregard of certain ministers of this government of parliament's right to full and complete information.
Trade
Our overseas agricultural markets have fallen lower and lower in the last few months, and yet parliament has not been informed of what action is to be taken. Members must glean their information from press dispatches of interviews given by ministers instead of receiving it in this house. I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), or the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, to let Canadians know what the situation is. We should be told the results of the deliberations of the committee which has been sitting since January last.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has not been sitting since January; it does not sit continuously.


John George Diefenbaker: Then it should not take so long to tell us what it has been doing. Let us know what it has determined. Trade is a major issue. We in parliament and the people of Canada generally have the right to know what is being done to preserve our markets and assure their continuance before they are irretrievably lost.
Surely the farmers of this country have a right to know what the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) has asked. They want to know what are the plans for agriculture, and what is being done to preserve our markets for agricultural products? These markets have been dwindling in recent months and have been preserved by the United States permitting the importation of certain Canadian farm products and of purchases made under ERP. What is going to happen if markets disappear to the dairy farmers of this country, to the cheese producers, to the bacon producers and the beef producers? What is going to happen to the wheat farmer should the United States, as it is now in a position to do, declare that wheat is a surplus with the resulting annihilation of prospective markets for the Canadian farmer?
The status of our agricultural markets today is very much what it was in 1928 and 1929. At that time the government of the day did nothing. Before this parliament is dissolved, some minister should place before the country the plans for the next three months. Trade is not a thing that can be dealt with by governor general's warrants. It calls for plans in advance and parliament should be made aware of those plans.
Representing a rural riding in Saskatchewan, I should like to have certain amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act brought in. First we want the preservation of our markets and, second, we want assurance that everything wiil be done to improve the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to take care

Prairie Farm Assistance of drought conditions, grasshopper infestation and like calamities. This act should operate for the benefit of the small farmer, and I should like to suggest four amendments.
1.	There should be an amendment whereby the area of qualification is reduced.
2.	Provision should be made for the payment of allowances under the act to elderly couples or to the heads of families who are helpless or crippled and must hire others to carry on the farm operations. At the present time bonus payments are denied in such cases.
3.	There should be amendments to cover areas along the Qu'Appelle valley in Saskatchewan where drought conditions year after year prevent any reasonable crops being harvested. However with a large part of the townships within those areas producing reasonably good crops, the residents in those areas are denied benefits under the act.
4.	There should be a change in the set-up of the board of review to permit the board to exercise a degree of equity when reviewing decisions where the payment of the bonus to individuals has been denied under regulations. There are many instances where arbitrary rulings under the regulations deny justice to individuals who are entitled to it.
I shall bring before the house two resolutions-one from the council of the rural municipality of Loreburn, wherein the suggestion is made that, in so far as the small farmer is concerned whose crop of wheat is less than four bushels per acre, he should be entitled to the payment regardless of what the average may have been in other parts of the township; the other from the rural municipality of Arm River to the effect that, whereas the regulations under the P.F.A.A. require that eligible blocks in ineligible townships be of at least nine sections and rectangular in shape, an amendment should be introduced to the end that provision be made as far as possible for awards on an individual basis.
Farmers throughout Canada are asking from this government the reassurance that plans to maintain markets are being made, and that action is taking place that will assure them their markets. On the Saskatchewan plains there is a situation that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) must have seen as he passed through that province. Conditions there point to a repetition of the early 1930's, and everything possible should be done to the end that the bonus may be made available to as many farmers as have crop failures in order that they may be maintained upon the farm, and those farms kept in production.


George Alexander Cruickshank: did not intend to speak in this debate, but one of my kind friends opposite sent me a copy of the Peterborough Examiner of April 27, 1949. I presume Peterborough is a little town in Ontario. In that paper there is a picture, "Spring in Fraser Valley." Then there is a descriptive article which reads:
Spring came to the Fraser Valley in a blaze of glory, these daffodil fields with Mount Baker as a backdrop reveal. This photo shows the Paridon farm at Brander, B.C., thirty miles southeast of Vancouver. John von Paridon gathers the yellow flowers for shipment to B.C. and eastern markets.
I want to bring that out because of certain things that I have heard the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) say. I am a great admirer of the hon. member, and if I had had my way he would have been the leader over there instead of somebody else. When, however, he tells this pessimistic story about agriculture in Canada I want to say to the hon. member for Lake Centre that this government has done more for the farmers of Canada than any other government in the history of Canada.


Mr. Ferguson:: You cannot export daffodils.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am surprised that my friend, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson), does not know that in the province of British Columbia the Fraser Valley riding exports daffodil bulbs to Holland.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: They are pretty hard to eat.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We ship them to Holland. I do not like the pessimistic way in which the hon. member for Lake Centre talks about agriculture in Canada. It never was in a better position than it is today, including my own riding, and I am prepared to fight the election on that issue.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: After the elections we will send you lilies from Ontario.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You had better keep them for yourself.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Possibly my friend may send me some, but he certainly will not be back here to bring them to me. I am tired of this idea that Canada is in the doldrums. We heard that from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), this great authority on national defence, this great authority on aeroplane engines. I do not know what he is not an authority on, according to himself, but I want to tell him that he is not an authority on who will form the government of Canada for the next five years.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The Conservatives. You know; why ask that question?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not know whether we are going to shout one another down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am prepared to fight the election in my riding-


An hon. Member:: You had better be.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I believe when the C.C.F. have had to import a man to run against me from another riding I am pretty safe as far as they are concerned, and I am not worried particularly about the Tory opposition.


Benoît Michaud: Who is?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I believe that unity in Canada is one of the foremost things. Therefore in order to appease the hon. member for Lake Centre, whom I greatly admire-I think he should be on this side of the house because he has all the brains on the other side-I am now going to speak in French. I do not like these interruptions, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Johnston:: You had better just table it.
(Translation):


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, a man reports to heaven. St. Peter asks him what his profession is and he answers: "I am a psychiatrist." Very happy about it, St. Peter says: "Come in, my friend, you are just the man we need." The man enters and St. Peter whispers in his ear:	"Just imagine, God the
Father is quite ill. He keeps on saying that He is George Drew."
(Text):


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Even at this late time in the session I believe that the importance of the subject, to which I should like to direct the attention of the house for a few moments, justifies its inclusion in our discussion. I have reference to the matter of the trans-Canada highway route across the four provinces of western Canada. There are members in the house who will recall that on July 11, 1947, as recorded at page 5460 of Hansard, I raised this question for discussion, and was joined by a number of hon. members. The members for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum), Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), Weyburn (Mr. McKay), Swift Current (Mr. Bentley), Macleod (Mr. Hansell), Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Kootenay East (Mr. Matthews), Regina City (Mr. Probe), and others, spoke in favour of the southernmost route for the trans-Canada highway. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine), the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald) and other hon. members spoke in favour of the Yellowhead route. The points brought forward at that time I thought justified most careful consideration by the government of all matters pertaining to a trans-Canada highway.
At that time there were in the public mind three possible routes, namely the Yellowhead 09087-170J
Trans-Canada Highway route, or the Evergreen highway, running from Brandon to Saskatoon and Edmonton, through the Yellowhead pass to Kamloops, Hope and Vancouver. The central route ran from Brandon to Medicine Hat and Calgary, through the Kicking Horse pass to Hope and Vancouver. The southernmost route ran from Brandon to Medicine Hat and Lethbridge, then through the Crowsnest pass to Trail, Hope and Vancouver.
Since our discussions in 1947 a tremendous amount of interest has been developed throughout western Canada, and eastern Canada as well, and the government has given the matter considerable attention. One or two conferences have been held. Since that time, too, there has been an extremely rapid growth in several other respects throughout Canada. Oil developments in Alberta and other parts of Canada have been in proportions altogether unexpected, as regards their extent and richness. The possibility of developing our own steel and iron, and heavy industries in Canada, has been visualized as never before. The development of irrigation has been talked about and promised as never before, all through Alberta and Saskatchewan. There has been a kindling of national consciousness and a confidence such as we have never had before. We have come to have a: greater respect for the provinces, owing in large measure I believe to a wise change of attitude on the part of the government at Ottawa. We have had a renewed appreciation of the British commonwealth, as opposed to internationalism. In 1947 a great many people could not mention the United Nations, Bretton Woods, and all the rest of those organizations, without having day dreams. But now they are getting down pretty close to realities, and they are coming to the conclusion that the British commonwealth is a pretty good organization to be a part of.
If we look to the British commonwealth in any large measure for our safety in peace and in war it becomes necessary that we in Canada reorient our development in some measure with the British commonwealth in mind, as well as the United States. There has developed an enhanced realization of Canada's strategic importance in the British commonwealth of nations. All these matters have an important bearing on the necessity of developing at an early stage an adequate highway system throughout western Canada.
Up to the present time the interest of the various areas in developing the highway through their particular portions of Canada has been all to the good, because it has impressed upon the people as a whole the necessity for a trans-Canada highway. I hope this excitement does not go too far, because if it does we shall see a tendency for the various areas to nullify each other's efforts.

For a province situated as is British Columbia, that is a substantial sum of money. It costs a good deal of money to build highways in that province.
Then, for 1950 British Columbia proposes to spend money in the following amounts:
Osoyoos-Rock Creek	 $ 700,000
Greenwood-Grand Forks	 350,000
Cranbrook-Kingsgate	 400,000

For 1951 the expenditures are:
Victory Highway	 $1,200,000
South Slocan Revision	 300,000
Nelson-Balfour	 400,000
Elko-Crows Nest Pass	 600,000

I believe all members of the house will readily recognize that the province of British Columbia is prepared to do its share, and is planning in that direction. If the dominion government contributes an amount in proportion to the amount the province is spending or proposes io spend on the southernmost route of the trans-Canada highway, then we shall have that route very soon.
Let me now mention something of what Alberta proposes to do, which can be gathered from the amount of money Alberta has spent on roads. As to the southernmost route, may I say that Alberta has built a good share of that already. This is the amount of money that Alberta has been spending on roads generally during the last few years: In 1945-46 it amounted to $4,500,000; in 1946-47, $7,300,000; in 1947-48, $12 million. Those figures are only approximate, but they are substantially correct.
This will serve to show the members of the house that the province of Alberta is in no way neglecting her share in the building of highways, all of which will benefit Canada. I do not believe there is any necessity to point out to the members of the house that any development which takes place in any one province is an asset to the whole dominion. Especially is that the case in respect to roads when man travels so far and so fast all over this country.

I do not wish to put any block in the way of the other two highway routes or any other route that might be considered valuable. I should like however to leave with the house, and with the government, some suggestion of the reasons for the urgency in building the southernmost route of the trans-Canada highway. This route will pass through the most densely populated area in the provinces concerned. It will pass through the largest tax-producing area. It will pass through an area very important for farming, oil development, lumbering, fruit growing, mining and smelting, seed producing, sugar producing, parks and tourists' attractions. It is the most direct route from Winnipeg west to Vancouver. It is an all-weather route. It is the nearest route to the United States.
Owing to the fact that it is the nearest route to the United States, I think it is of the utmost importance that this route be finished first. I may be quite wrong, and my friends from other areas might disagree with me, but generally speaking we find that if you can get United States tourists inside this country and over the first one hundred miles, they take courage and probe further into the depths of Canada.
If we were to build the Yellowhead route, for example, and people were to enter Canada, let us say around Carway, which is near the Waterton lakes park, they would come in contact with nothing but just the gravel and they would never get up where they could use the Yellowhead pass route. On the contrary, if we could get this southernmost route built for all Canada to take pride in it. then we would stand a fine chance of getting many United States tourists to come into Canada. They would take heart and go far into the hinterland of the north. Remember that the Alaska highway would be reached before long from this southernmost highway.
There are upwards of forty connecting points of entry to the United States between Winnipeg and Vancouver, which strengthens what I am saying concerning this southern route. This route is the natural inlet to Canada's national parks. I do not think it would be advisable for me to take the time to name those parks. I shall simply refer to two in western Canada, namely, the Water-ton lakes park in my own constituency, and Banff national park which is well-known all over Canada, both easily accessible from the southern route.
Mr. Speaker. I think I have burdened the house long enough in connection with this matter. I have no desire to hold up the progress of the house at this time-


William Irvine: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. Has he studied the
Trans-Canada Highway population of the western provinces in relation to the various proposed routes? Is it not quite true that the majority of the people in those provinces live north of the proposed Yellowhead line?


John Horne Blackmore: No doubt that is true; I am not in a position to say offhand. May I tell the member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine)-I honour him for sticking up for his area in Alberta-that I am dependent for the information I have just given upon the pamphlet "Highlights of the Southern Trans-Canada Highway; an all-year short route", issued by the Southern Trans-Canada Highway Association. I think it will be found that that organization is very dependable.


Charles Edward Johnston: But somewhat prejudiced.


John Horne Blackmore: Just as the organizations for each of the other routes are somewhat prejudiced. I think we can depend upon the statements which I gave to the effect that the population along the proposed southern route is the most dense.


William Irvine: I believe that, very dense.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not know if the existence of the majority of the population north of the Yellowhead pass route would have any special bearing. They might be so far from the Yellowhead pass route that they could reach it only by boat. After all, what we must consider in contemplating the development of a highway, in relation to the people through whose area it is to pass, is the number of people who will be served immediately by that highway. When you consider the question from that aspect I am quite sure there is no doubt that there are more people along the southern route than along either of the other proposed routes.
May I repeat one remark before I close? I have no desire to concentrate the attention of the government on one of these highways excluding the others. All three of them are highly desirable and the three of them must be built within as short a time as possible. I believe each of them is exceedingly important strategically. At the same time, I think what I have said is sound.
While I am in favour of the development of a highway system, I think some one of these highways has to be developed first. I believe that, all things being considered, we should construct the southern route first.
I am interested in seeing that plenty of dominion money is made available. Some may say that a billion dollars is too much money for the government to spend on a highway system. I do not believe that. I believe that a billion dollars spent on a highway, in co-operation with the provinces, would be money well spent. I believe any

Interim Supply
administration would be able to look back with pride on the expenditure of that money. After a few years they would find it easy, even unnecessary, to defend it.
I suggest that we spend enough money to build the highways and that the dominion ask all the provinces to plan the most desirable highways. Then we should build those highways without delay.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: I should like to state very briefly what seems to me to be the substance of the proposal which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has submitted today. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1949, for the purposes of the government, this house voted $2,190 million. The government overspent that amount by $100 million and this parliament voted that additional sum by way of further supplementary estimates prior to the Easter adjournment.
In order to permit the government to carry on the business of government for a limited period while the house is in session, the house voted two months' interim supply on March 29. This provides the government with sufficient money to transact its business until May 31. When the Minister of Finance asked for that vote of interim supply, he offered the house the usual undertaking which will be found at page 2148 of Hansard. He said:
As I have said, the form of this bill is exactly the same as in previous years, and the passing of the bill does not prejudice the rights and privileges of members of the House of Commons to criticize any of the individual items in the estimates. And I give the usual undertaking that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of passing this interim supply measure.
That customary undertaking is some warrant for the house's proceeding to vote interim supply to the government before it has discharged its proper responsibility of reviewing in detail the proposed estimates of expenditure and also considering by what means the necessary supply is to be raised.
Today the house is being asked to vote an additional four months' interim supply. We have not been told the amount, Mr. Speaker, but we can assume that, on a pro rata basis, it must be approximately $750 million. It might even be a little bit more than that if there are some special items of expenditure to be made prior to September 30.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is about $541 million.


James Sinclair: What is a couple of hundred million?


Gordon Graydon: The minister might be wrong in that as he has been in other things.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In this next four months of the year he apparently does not have to meet
(Mr. Blackmore.l
expenditures on a completely pro rata basis, but he is asking for the tidy sum of $541 million-


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the approximate figure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -which will permit him to meet all the necessities of the government until September 30 next. 1 do not know whether it is his intention to offer the house the usual undertaking in the form in which he offered it to the house on March 29; but I do know this-


Douglas Charles Abbott: He always does that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If he does, the undertaking will be meaningless, because this parliament which is being asked to vote this money will not be given the opportunity of reviewing these estimates. That is inherent in the present situation because the government, exercising its right, has decided that the existence of this parliament shall be terminated the day after tomorrow.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Parliament will have the right, though.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In other words, Mr. Speaker, this twentieth parliament of Canada is being called upon by the government to assume the responsibility of voting the tidy sum of $541 million, and this parliament knows that it will have no opportunity of discharging its responsibility of reviewing the items of proposed expenditure before it votes that colossal sum of money. It is no answer for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to suggest, as he so glibly suggested yesterday, that it does not matter anyway because the next parliament of Canada, the twenty-first parliament, will have the opportunity of reviewing the estimates. That proposal is an invitation to this twentieth parliament of Canada to abdicate its responsibility. When members of this twentieth parliament are faced with responsibility in connection with the voting of the money of the people-because it is the people's money and not ours-it is no answer to say: Oh well, a later parliament, the twenty-first parliament of Canada, when the government sees fit to call it into session, will have that opportunity. It is this twentieth parliament that is being called upon to vote this colossal sum of money, and it is this twentieth parliament of Canada which must face the responsibility of either voting that amount of money or refusing to do so. If this twentieth parliament simply votes that money without having reviewed the means by which that amount is to be raised, and the ways in which that amount of money is to be spent, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this twentieth parliament of Canada will go down in history as a par-

llament which turned its back upon its responsibility and abdicated its proper duty to the Canadian people.


Mr. Lesage:: You have said that twice.


Mr. Warren:: We will be back.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) says: We will be back. I presume he is talking about himself and myself.


Ralph Melville Warren: I will be back.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not want to be too hard on the hon. member, but I am quite sure that by this time the electors in the riding of Renfrew North will have realized their mistake of 1945 and will set about rectifying it at the earliest opportunity.


Ralph Melville Warren: You are wrong there.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the responsibility for voting this money will rest upon the shoulders of this twentieth parliament, and it is not discharging its responsibility if it says: Oh well, the next parliament, when it comes into session, will have that opportunity. The money will be spent by that time. What is the sense then in talking about the power of parliament to review, when the money is already spent? This parliament in session here and now is the parliament which is going to bear the responsibility for submitting to the demand of the government for this vote of money.
I submit that there is one responsibility, perhaps paramount to all others, which a free parliament cannot lightly reject. The control of parliament over the raising of money and over the expenditure of money has been historically the means by which parliament has exercised its control over the executive branch of the government. It was when parliament in days gone by acquired that exclusive right to decide how money shall be raised and how money shall be spent that parliament won its conflict with monarchical power; and finally when parliament won that exclusive right, it established our present constitutional, parliamentary form of government on a secure foundation. Any departure from that principle of responsibility is a departure that will be taken with grave risk to our whole basis of government.
What does this mean in terms of our responsibility? The government has submitted a volume of estimates embracing 745 items. They total $2,218 million, and with supplementary estimates of $55 million, make a grand total of $2,273 million. If this House of Commons submits to the course that the government is demanding that it take, it simply means that this parliament will have
Interim Supply
no opportunity whatsoever of scrutinizing one single item in the whole 745 items of expenditure. Can any parliament with a sense of responsibility take the money of the people, having already voted two months' interim supply, and vote an additional four months' interim supply without having examined one single item of these estimates of expenditure? -not one single item, sir.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We had better look at one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that a government that asks parliament to abdicate its responsibility in that fashion is a government that does not deserve to live.


Gordon Graydon: And it will not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it will.not.


Gordon Graydon: It is practically dead now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have spoken of the fact that, on the one hand, parliament is to be denied any opportunity of reviewing so much as one single item of the expenditures, and the way in which this money is to be used. On the other hand, parliament is not going to be given the opportunity in the limited time that remains of doing its duty with respect to the ways and means of raising the money to provide the supply asked by the government. The government is saying to us in effect: There cannot be any time for the normal consideration of the budget because we have appointed a deadline, and this parliament will die when that deadline is reached. What does the government care about the responsibility of parliament? What do they care about their responsibility to parliament? I do not believe that any such thing exists in their minds. What do they care about our responsibility to the people of Canada, about what parliament is being asked to do today in taking that colossal sum of money belonging to the people of Canada and putting it at the disposal of this government, sir, which has shown such a total lack of responsibility? Sir, this is all of a pattern that has become but too familiar in this House of Commons. Parliamentary government is at stake, and if this House of Commons is to submit meekly to the demands of this government for the voting of this colossal sum by way of interim supply, then I say to you that this twentieth parliament will go down in history as a parliament that has shirked its responsibility.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: The third time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would be happy, sir, to repeat this simple proposition if I had some hope that it would make some impression upon the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet. It is his misfortune that he entered this parliament during the regime of a government

Interim Supply
that has lost all sense of responsibility to parliament. That is the atmosphere in which he has grown up here in these past four years. That is his misfortune. Most of us on the opposition side intend to breathe the clear pure air of responsibility no matter what obstacles are placed in the way by hon. members opposite, who have been invited by this government to treat themselves as so many ciphers, to obey the bidding of their lords on the treasury benches.
This is not the only aspect of the matter, sir, that ought to give this House of Commons reason for thought. We are asked to vote interim supply. The Prime Minister himself does not seem to think that it is necessary, because he undertook to make some comment recently on the subject of governor general's warrants. The house will remember that prior to the Easter recess my colleague, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), questioned the Minister of Finance as to whether the government considered it lawful to finance its expenditures by the use of governor general's warrants. The Minister of Finance was a little cagey on that occasion and indicated that he was not prepared to give an answer. But in the meantime the government had moved closer to the election and they had carefully investigated all aspects of their supply problem, because when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) arrived in Ottawa last Saturday on his return from his western tour he was met by the press and this question of supply came up. If you please, sir, the Prime Minister informed the press that financial supply could be authorized by governor general's warrants instead of by votes in the House of Commons. That is the statement of the Prime Minister. Why are we here? Sir, we are apparently just going through some motions here, because the government has already decided that whether it gets a vote of interim supply or not, it is going' to spend whatever money it wishes to spend between now and the date on which the new parliament will assemble. Did you ever see, sir, any more bare-faced renunciation of responsibility to parliament, any clearer evidence of the fact that this government has treated parliament, is treating it today as it has treated it hitherto, with studied contempt? This was a carefully calculated statement by the Prime Minister and we may be sure that he made it after due consideration.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance made some extraordinary statements. In effect, he said, "Oh, well, what is the use of taking time to review items of expenditures of $2,200 million, because in my experience of nine years in this house I have never seen anybody move to change any item." The state-

ment is to be found at page 2622 of Hansard. This is what he said:
During all the time that I have been in the house and associated with the Department of Finance, I have never found anyone on the opposition side- and I must say I have never found anyone on my own side-who said that an estimate should be reduced. Let us not try to fool ourselves, even if we are trying to fool the public.
So far as the last sentence is concerned, the Minister of Finance of course can speak for himself, but I wish he would get his facts straight, Mr. Speaker. Instead of bragging about the length of time that he has been in the house, he should just take a little time to get the facts straight before he makes those expansive statements.


Mr. Mitchell:: May I-


Donald Methuen Fleming: He should recall, for instance, that on June 29, 1948, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) moved the reduction of an item in the estimates. I am referring now to page 6121 of Hansard where the hon. member for York West moved to reduce item 83 in the Department of Finance-


Humphrey Mitchell: On a point of privilege, I know that my hon. friend wants to be honest with the people in his own riding.


Mr. Maclnnis:: How do you know?


Humphrey Mitchell: To be fair and decent he should have completed the statement of the Minister of Finance. Read the rest of it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was the end of his sentence.


Mr. Leger:: Read it all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was an interjection. If the Minister of Labour wants to go on and add another paragraph, let him do it on his own time. I have read the statement of the Minister of Finance, and I am putting the record straight by telling the Minister of Finance that he ought to get his facts straight-


Humphrey Mitchell: On a point of privilege-


Donald Methuen Fleming: -because his statement will not stand up. His statement that there had not been motions for reduction in expenditures in this house will not stand up.


Humphrey Mitchell: On a point of privilege, I have a right to stand in this house notwithstanding-


Gordon Graydon: In this case you have no right to say anything when you do stand.


Humphrey Mitchell: On a point of privilege, my hon. friend did not complete the sentence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did complete the sentence.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute. You will be a great help to your mother when you grow up. My hon. friend did not finish the statement. He thinks he is kidding the public. I think it is a vindication of what the Minister of Finance said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If we wanted any further vindication of the minister's statement we have had it now from the lips of the voluble Minister of Labour.


An hon. Member:: React it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All right. The next sentence is:


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will transpose that slightly, and
say I am stating the facts.
That is the next sentence. I say to you, sir, that if the Minister of Finance undertook to state the facts he has a very short memory, because here is the evidence. I am referring to Hansard of June 29, 1948, at page 6121, where my colleague, the hon. member for York West, moved a reduction of item 83 in the estimates of the Minister of Finance himself, the item for the foreign exchange control board, totaling $26,800,000. The hon. member moved that that be reduced to $1 and it was voted on. I can recall other instances, but I did not have time to dig them up since the Minister of Finance made this extraordinary and inaccurate statement yesterday.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Which statement is that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not have time to dig up some more to prove his inaccuracy, but I will offer this to the house-


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the only one I recall.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -as abundant evidence that in making these airy generalizations, in which the Minister of Finance indulges so freely, he was making them without regard for the facts. If the minister is going to impose upon the house those great conclusions of his based upon his long experience in the house, an experience that I am afraid is just about ended, then I suggest to him that in the short time that remains to him he take some trouble to acquaint himself with the facts instead of running about and making such irresponsible statements.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Another hon. member from the other side made that statement before the last election and he is not here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is not the only evidence we had from the Minister of Finance yesterday of his continued irresponsibility. He is saying to this House of Commons, elected by the people of Canada and responsible to the people of Canada, oh well, what does it matter anyway whether you look at these
Interim Supply
745 items of expenditures or not? What does it matter? That is about what the Minister of Finance-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I never said any such thing, oi course.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the attitude of the Minister of Finance as displayed in his flippant discourse yesterday.
If there are shortcomings, and there are grave shortcomings, in the procedure of this house in meeting its responsibility with respect to the review of expenditures, the principal responsibility rests upon the government and, not least of all, upon the shoulders of the Minister of Finance. The means of improving the procedure of this house have been pointed out times without number, and pointed out to the Minister of Finance.
Let me remind the house that on July 9, 1947, the public accounts committee, after having considered this matter and having heard the evidence of the Auditor General himself, made extensive recommendations to the government as to the means of improving the review of estimates and expenditures in this house. The Auditor General pointed out that at the present time so much is crowded into the program of the house that parliament is not doing its duty with respect to the review of expenditures. He said:
-complete examination of estimates is impracticable. Estimates should be presented in such a form that members do not have to guess purposes to which votes will be applied.
That report of the public accounts committee which embodied many recommendations set out the practical way in which this House of Commons could improve the manner in which it undertakes to discharge its responsibility with respect to the review of expenditures. The Auditor General offered recommendations from his long experience and those recommendations were endorsed unanimously by the members of the public accounts committee regardless of party. What has been done?


Mr. Isnor:: I doubt very much if the hon. member is correct in saying that the committee endorsed them. The committee has not as yet made its recommendations. There is no report from the public accounts committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) would wake up and listen to what is going on. I am talking about the report that was made in 1947, when the hon. member was a member of the committee. The hon. member had better listen to what is going on in this house or do his dreaming elsewhere. This report was made to the house by the public accounts committee and it

Interim, Supply
received the endorsation of every member of that committee, including the hon. member for Halifax.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Don't take yourself too seriously. Save it for the hustings.


An hon. Member:: Watch your blood pressure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What action has been taken in connection with these detailed recommendations from the public accounts committee designed to assist parliament in doing its duty? Those recommendations were made to the government. The Liberal members on the committee did not want them made to parliament because there might be a debate that might embarrass the government. In order to be sure of getting them before the house we compromised and agreed that they would be recommendations to the government.
What has this government done in the two intervening years in carrying out these recommendations for improving the method by which parliament could discharge its duty in respect to the review of expenditures? We have the answer, Mr. Speaker, in the strange stony silence from the benches to your right. Nothing has been done. As the Minister of Finance finds in the present procedure an additional reason for inviting parliament to abdicate its responsibilities I say that the responsibility rests upon his shoulders and the shoulders of every member of the government for having done nothing to put into effect those recommendations by the public accounts committee. That is the measure of the sense of responsibility on the part of the moribund government opposite.
There are special reasons why at this session of 1949 parliament should give special attention to these expenditures. I do not intend to review the ground covered by my honourable and esteemed leader in the powerful speech he made this morning, but I do say that it is high time that this parliament lived up to its responsibilities with respect to the use of public money by this government during the lifetime of this parliament. Because of the shortness of time I shall mention only two things among many. First, there are payments for services that were charged before the services were rendered and, second, there were advances made before parliament had authorized them to be made.
I shall be glad to give the house some details on this. In connection with payments charged before services are performed I would refer to the following orders in council:
P.C. 859 of March, 1948.
P.C. 938 of the same month.
P.C. 1051 of the same month.
P.C. 1101 of the same month.
P.C. 1186 of the same month.

Those orders in council covered payments made by the government before the expiration of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1948, and an effort was made to get the money spent before the services were performed for which the payments were to be made. Is that a responsible use of the money of the people of Canada? The amounts involved total quite a large figure. Under the first order is an advance of $113,000.


Mr. Grant:: That is not very much.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant) says that that is not much. That is another sample of the mentality of those who occupy the benches opposite. I am reminded of the remark made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) about three years ago on the subject of saving a million dollars in the estimates. The house was reviewing the estimates and when a way was pointed out to save one million the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "Oh, well, what is a million dollars?" He said, "You can take off a million dollars, but what is a million dollars?"


James Sinclair: On a question of privilege,
the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is not here to defend himself but it will be recalled that on Monday I dug up the actual reference made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at that time which was misquoted by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) in his speech and is now being misquoted by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). If hon. members will consult Hansard of April 26 they will find in detail what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said. At that time the committee was dealing with an item of $1,365 million of the war appropriation bill and the minister said that in this large amount the leeway of an estimate of expenditure of $1 million did not loom very large. As I said then, that is less than seven one-hundredths of one per cent, whereas the extra cost involved in the speech of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario amounted to $140 million.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is complete confirmation of what I have been saying. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "What is a million dollars?" They have been dealing with these astronomical figures, they have been throwing the money of the people of Canada around by the billion, and when it is shown that a million dollars can be saved, that remark is made.
I am reminded also of the remark made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) last fall when he was referring to the amount that would be required to be paid out to meet

the terms of the union of Newfoundland with Canada. I think the figure at that time was something like $175 million.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whatever it was, it was a figure in that neighbourhood. The comment of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was, "Well, that's peanuts." Can you expect the responsible use of the moneys of the people of Canada by a government-


Peter Francis Martin: On a point of order-


Donald Methuen Fleming: -dominated by a mentality like that?


Peter Francis Martin: The hon. member just said that the Prime Minister referred to the expenditure of $75 million-


An hon. Member:: $175 million.


Peter Francis Martin: -as a matter of peanuts. Will he tell us when the Prime Minister said that and where?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Last fall.


Peter Francis Martin: Where?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here in Ottawa.


Peter Francis Martin: No hon. member has the right to make that kind of assertion unless he can, on request by other hon. members, produce the proof. Failing to do that, I know that the hon. member will have the decency to withdraw that incorrect observation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member will have the decency to tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that as usual he does not know what he is talking about. That statement was made and was in the press.


Some hon. Members:: Where?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be glad to get it. It
was made last fall in connection with the negotiations with the delegates from Newfoundland. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not know that, and does not know that the Prime Minister made that statement, it is high time he did.


Mr. Martin:: Let us have proof of the statement, or withdraw.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing my correct statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what your leader said this morning.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not the only thing.


James Sinclair: He is copying his leader's mild and temperate language.
29087-171J
Interim Supply


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was another example of this irresponsible use of the moneys of the people of Canada by the government opposite.


Mr. Bentley:: Could we have this with music?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I just wish it were in order to read in detail at this stage of the proceedings from the last available annual report of the Auditor General. There is enough there to condemn the government for all time as a government that is not to be entrusted with the expenditure of the money of the people of Canada.


William Irvine: Let us have the election and stop talking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would be bad enough to be asked to entrust the expenditure of the money of the people of Canada to this government after parliament had had a proper opportunity to review the proposed expenditures in detail, but I say that for this government to come along with the record that it has and ask parliament to vote another $540 million to them sight unseen without parliament having the slightest opportunity of looking into these items of expenditure, is the last and crowning insult to parliament. The house ought to rise in indignation and decline to be a party to such a degradation of the parliament of the people of Canada.


Thomas Vincent Grant: You are back on that again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are special circumstances and special reasons why parliament ought to be vigilant this year above all others in reviewing expenditures before it authorizes the spending of a five-cent piece by this decadent government; yet the government is denying parliament any opportunity of undertaking the discharge of its elementary responsibility. There is the public accounts committee. It was set up because of demands from the opposition. We had two preliminary meetings, and had just begun to get into the meat of the work of the committee when it was literally stopped in its tracks by this government, which has decreed that parliament shall die on Saturday next. That is a fine example of governmental responsibility.
There is another reason why parliament ought to be especially vigilant this year before it entrusts the government with this colossal amount of money. We would like to have seen some serious attempt on the part of the government to eliminate extravagance. We would have had an opportunity this year, on a better scale than ever before, of exposing the reckless extravagance of the government.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Not a bit of it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That last comment of the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant) is a sample of

Interim. Supply
his sense of responsibility. It is quite clear that he would throw around all this money of the people of Canada without worrying in the slightest where the money is coming from or where it is going. If the hon. member for Kings wants to abdicate all responsibility in view of his pending transfer to another sphere, all very well; but I would remind him that as long as he is a member of the House of Commons he has a responsibility to the people who elected him even though they made a great mistake in doing so.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) commented on the amount of money that has been paid to one friend of the government in the city of Toronto for services rendered in the year 1948. I refer to Mr. W. C. Thomson, a former president of the central liberal association in Toronto, a candidate for the provincial leadership of the party in 1945, and a candidate for the legislature on occasion.


Mr. McCann:: A member of your profession.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The beneficence extended by this government to that worthy supporter was not confined to the year 1948. An earlier return this year will show to any member who cares to look it up that in the years 1947 and 1948 that gentleman received in fees alone, not including disbursements, the sum of $172,000 for services performed-a mere $172,000 for services performed. It was a very generous retainer that he enjoyed from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The labourer is worthy of his hire, and apparently, when he is a Liberal labourer, in the eyes of the government he is particularly worthy of very generous hire. I think the people of Canada, however, who are being called upon to dig down in their pockets to foot these bills on this scale of colossal extravagance, are going to demand a very good reason why this government should requite the services of one eminent Liberal in the sum of $172,000 over a brief span of two years.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: How much was disbursements?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Disbursements were not
included in that. There is not a cent for disbursements in that. Every cent of that is fees, and the hon. member can find that out if he will look up the return. It is $172,000 in fees in the span of two years. That is a mere average of $86,000 a year. It may be that his services are very valuable in the opinion of the government, even though much of the service was performed by students, but nevertheless this labourer-


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, it was a lawyer, not a labourer.


James Joseph McCann: What kind of a lawyer was it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In this colossal sum it may be a little difficult to distinguish between requitable labour and government beneficence, but so far as labour entered into it it was legal services.


James Joseph McCann: What kind of a lawyer was it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Abbott) or the voluble and restless Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) may have the answer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not been listening.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My time is practically up. I have just nicely started on my review of evidence of the complete lack of responsibility this government is manifesting until this, its dying hour. There is no semblance or indication of repentance on the part of the government even now in this final hour of its existence. All during the lifetime of this parliament we have seen the government treat the house with studied contempt, regarding itself as above the elected representatives of the people, and not responsible to them.
In conclusion may I express a sense of thanksgiving that time has sufficiently run its course, and that the people of Canada are at last to be given an opportunity, which they will welcome, of placing their verdict, their judgment, on the irresponsibility of this dying government.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Will the hon. member permit a question. Would he give us the date of the public accounts from which he quoted?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should be delighted to do so to accommodate the hon. member. He may have forgotten what I said. As I already indicated-because I have already given the reference-the report is to be found in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for Wednesday, July 9, 1947, beginning at page 752. This report states:
By leave of the house, Mr. Picard, from the standing committee on public accounts, presented the sixth report of the said committee, which is as follows:
Your committee at its meetings of July 1 and 2 heard evidence from Mr. Watson Sellar, Auditor General of Canada, and wishes to express its appreciation of the constructive suggestions submitted by him.
Many items of the report of the Auditor General were the object of your committee's attention and the information gathered conduces to a better understanding of the work, as well as of the important functions of his office.
Your committee is of the opinion that consideration should be given by the government to the desirability of amending existing legislation, as more fully explained in Mr. Sellar's memorandum dated July 1, 1947, with a view to regulating:
(a)	the form of estimates and the printed explanations associated therewith:
fMr. Fleming ]

(b)	the use of revenue arising out of services performed for the direct benefit of individuals;
(c)	the management of revenues;
(d)	the valuation of assets;
(e)	the management of stores and equipment inventories.
Your committee is also of the opinion that consideration should be given by the government to amending the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. 1931, in the light of Mr. Sellar's memorandum dated July 3, 1947, supplementing the oral evidence given by him on July 2.
Copies of these two memoranda are attached hereto and form a part of this report.
And I hope hon. members will take the time and the trouble to read them.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I have read them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And nothing has been done since.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am correct in saying that not one of the orders in council to which he referred, namely 859, 938, 1051, 1101 and 1186, was included in that report.


Gordon Graydon: You could carry this on indefinitely.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot allow a controversy of this kind to go on across the floor of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I say this one thing-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought I had given the dates of the orders in council. They were in March, 1948.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And the report was tabled in 1947.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: And never reported upon.


Mr. Real Caouette (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, during the next ten or fifteen minutes I shall prove to the house that under the present financial regime there is no possibility of assuring our Canadian people security with freedom, because we are working under an antiquated system, and neither the parliament nor the government has any power actually over the financial regime in this country.
To prove what I am saying I shall read opinions given by experts on private money monopoly. In the field of the creation of money-and I see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is laughing; I know that he knows I am right.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was laughing at one of my colleagues who is wearing a very snappy tie.


Gordon Graydon: And hat.


David Réal Caouette: Major L. L. B. Angas, in his book "Slump Ahead in Bonds", states:
The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most
Financial Policy
astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks in fact are able to create and cancel modern deposit money. They can in fact inflate, mint and unmint, the modem ledger-entry currency.
Then Robert H. Hemphill, former credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, says in the foreword of Irving Fisher's book, "100% Money":
If all bank loans were paid, no one would have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of currency or coin in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve! We are absolutely without a permanent monetary system.
It is the same in Canada.
When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible-but there it is. It (the banking problem) is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.
In Collier's of June 8, 1935, Mr. Eccles, head of the Federal Reserve Board, is quoted as having said this:
The banks can create and destroy money. Bank credit is money. It's the money we do most of our business with, not with that currency which we usually think of as money.
Mr. Irving Fisher, professor emeritus of economics at Yale, says:
When a bank lends or invests, it extends credit, i.e., creates cheque-book money. When it gets loans paid or sells investments, it contracts credit, i.e., destroys cheque-book money. In normal times such creation and destruction of money roughly balance. But when they do not balance the nation's money is inflated or deflated and causes a boom or a depression.
Then, let us take an expert like Thomas Edison, who said:
The only dynamite that works in this country is the dynamite of a sound idea. I think we are getting a sound idea on the money question. The people have an instinct which tells them that something is wrong and that the wrong somehow centers in money.
Don't allow them to confuse you with the cry of "paper money." The danger of paper money is precisely the danger of gold-if you get too much it is no good. There is just one rule for money, and that is to have enough to carry all the legitimate trade that is waiting to move. Too little and too much are both bad. But enough to move trade, enough to prevent stagnation on the one hand and not enough to permit speculation on the other hand, is the proper ratio.
I would ask the Minister of Finance to listen to this and take careful note of it:
If our nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond

Financial Policy
and an additional twenty per cent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way.
It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer and the other helps the people.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that before going to the people the Minister of Finance should stand up in this house and enunciate a policy of placing money at the service of the people, thus returning to the parliament of Canada the power of creating credit.
A former president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, expressed his fear of the bankers' power in what is commonly known as the Lincoln prophecy, which reads as follows:
I see in the near future a crisis arising that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow until all of liberty shall be lost and the republic destroyed. God grant that my fears may prove groundless.
His fears have been grounded instead.
That great businessman Henry Ford has also observed that:
The function of money is not to make money, but to move goods. Money is only one part of our transportation system. It moves goods from man to man. A dollar bill is like a postage stamp; it is no good unless it will move commodities between persons. If a postage stamp will not carry a letter, or money will not move goods, it is just the same as an engine that will not run. Someone will have to get out and fix it.
I do say, Mr. Speaker, that the only ones who are going out to fix the motor are the Social Crediters.
I have been quoting these men and I should like now to turn to this country and have a look at the conditions existing in Canada. Lately I have seen some pre-election advertisements. On one page of the paper one sees a photograph of the right hon. the Prime Minister and on the next page one sees a photograph of the leader of the opposition. One claims to be saving the country and the other claims to be saving it; both are saving the country. At the same time thousands and thousands of people are starving in Canada. These two gentlemen are saving the people just the same.
Last night I was reading this advertisement featuring a picture of the Prime Minister, a very nice looking man. It is in French and reads as follows:
Our farmers are prosperous under a Liberal government at Ottawa. The Canadian farmers have had a prosperity such as they never saw in the past.
The government issues this only at election time. I never saw this photograph before, not even a year ago. Only when we go to the people to ask for their vote in order to remain in power are we interested in the people.
[Mr. Caouette.l
Then money is spent on such advertising. The advertisement continues as follows:
The income of Canadian farmers Is three timas higher today than it was in 1939.
That may be true but the story does not end there.
It says here that:
The Liberal government has given security to the farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Just wait a minute and you will not say "Hear, hear."


Mr. Wylie:: Wait until the story is over.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: This advertisement continues:
It is the Liberal party that is the guarantee for the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, hear, hear. It says:
Do not play with your prosperity.
All these are great words.
Louis St. Laurent is your security.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the security of the Canadian people lies with the Canadian people and not with the government. The Canadian people have no security, actually, but the party politicians have a kind of security which is based on the people's lack of knowledge. I would say they are not truthful with the people. They will say that the farmers have an income three times higher than in 1939 but they do not say, of course, that the whole Dominion of Canada is producing today $15 billion a year, while in 1939 the total production amounted to about $5-5 billion. This amount was not produced by the government, but by the Canadian people.
These people do not say in their advertisement that our national debt has increased not merely three times, but much more than that. In 1939 our national debt amounted to $3,710,610,592.87. It was $3 billion in 1939, while in 1948 our national debt amounted to $17 billion. The figure three has been multiplied by nearly six. We say our farmers have an income three times higher than in 1939 while our debt is six times higher than it was.
The total interest paid on our national debt since the confederation of Canada amounts to $5,743,769,052. We cannot find money for our old age pensioners, but we pay $5 billion in interest. We may say we have increased the pension to $40 at the age of seventy, but what are we doing for the aged

who are between sixty and seventy? We have no money. Only the Social Crediters in this house are complaining about the money paid to the financiers of this country, to the controllers of our economic blood- money.
Then we find that the revenue collected in the form of taxes by the Department of National Revenue, that department which digs into the pockets of our people, amounted to $502,171,353 in 1939 and in 1948 it amounted to nearly $3 billion. Again, if you multiply it out you find that we are taxing the people six times more today than we were nine years ago. Yet, we tell the people of Canada that they have prosperity such as they never had in the past.
There is one matter to which I would draw the attention of the house. In 1913, before the first war, our national debt was $483 million. In 1920, after the war, our national debt was $3 billion. In 1930, before the depression, our national debt was $2,500 million. In 1939, after the depression, at the start of world war II, our national debt was $3,710 million. We were not able to find money at that time to establish peace and to secure liberty with security for all our people. While in 1939 our national debt was $3 billion, in 1948 it stood at $17 billion. To fight a war we found $14 billion, while during peacetime we could not find money in Canada. We would not go to the banks to borrow because we said that would increase the debt, and that we should not go into debt like that during that time. But when the war comes, with Christians fighting against Christians, we find money. But nowhere in Canada can we find it when it is time to establish peace for all and to establish a social justice which would guarantee to every citizen of this country security with freedom and also to help our aged, for whom I again ask a pension of $60 at the age of 60 without any means test.
I am asking for consideration for the cripples in Canada. Today there is no chance for them. We are treating animals better than we are treating our cripples who, after all, are human beings just as you and I are, Mr. Speaker, and as are all hon. members of this house. We cannot find money for them. There is no chance for them. Yet when we ask for a national dividend, we are laughed at. Some people find it funny. They say that Social Crediters are only talking about money. Money is not so important, they say; but money is of great importance, Mr. Speaker. We know that money power controls this government. We know that money power controls the Canadian government and all the ministers of the Canadian government.
Financial Policy


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can allow my hon. friend, in his enthusiasm, to go quite that far and say that money power controls the House of Commons and that money power controls the ministers of the government. I really must ask for your ruling in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: It is the only thing that gets him out of bed in the morning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member, as Mr. Speaker says, to moderate his language.


David Réal Caouette: I will comply, Mr. Speaker, with your request, and I will regulate my language in order to satisfy Your Honour.


John Lambert Gibson: Clean it up.


David Réal Caouette: I was just going fine anyhow.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Wind it up again.


David Réal Caouette: I would only add, Mr. Speaker, that we must be truthful to the people of Canada. Before an election as well as after an election, our first responsibility in this house is to serve the people of Canada. But when we see all these figures, we must admit that the welfare of Canada and the welfare of the Canadian people is not being served but that the welfare of the financial interests in this country is being served. The proof of that is right here. To my questions these answers were given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), or by his department. I asked:
What proportion of such interest (service of the debt) was paid directly to the chartered banks of Canada?
The answer given was "no information." We do not know how much money is paid to the chartered banks who are controlling the economic blood, which is money, in this country. They do not know. The accountants in the Department of Finance in our country cannot tell us what sum of money is paid in interest to the chartered banks of Canada. I will certainly ask that question again, because I intend to come back after the next election.


An hon. Member:: An optimist.


David Réal Caouette: I have another ten minutes before six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I shall now go on in French. Sometimes it is a little bit hard for me to speak in English, but I like my English friends to understand sometimes what I am saying. I may make mistakes, but I am doing my best, and I am willing to do it again.
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: For several months, we have been hearing of the communist menace which

Financial Policy
is rife in Canada as in the whole world. In fact, a member of the house has already introduced a bill to outlaw communism. I would be in favour of a measure that would make communism illegal in Canada. However, I defy anyone to arrest the spread of communism in Canada by passing legislation or even by throwing communists into jail.
Communism is an ideology. Now, it is impossible to kill or to jail an ideology. To fight an ideology, it takes a better one. There is no alternative.
Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes at my disposal I would like to show that communism originates somewhere, comes to light somewhere.
I have here a pamphlet entitled Economic Liberalism written by Reverend Father Gerard Petit, c.s.c.
We have stated over and over again that communism is nothing more than the legitimate offspring of economic liberalism. Now, to show what is understood by this term, I wish to point out its main shortcomings which are set forth in this little tract.
The first fault of economic liberalism is selfishness.
The Liberal system certainly reeks of selfishness, and I must draw the attention of the house to the fact that economic liberalism is doomed to oblivion because it is rotten with selfishness. It is for this reason that His Holiness Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, stated that economic liberalism was tainted with egotism. His Holiness also denounced:
That nefarious individualism that overlooks the social and moral character of economic life, that selfishness which seeks only its own profit and results in so unfair a distribution of wealth.
That is a cause of communism.
If the first error of economic liberalism is to make selfishness the primary motive of the economic body's operation:
The second is to urge people to produce rather than to serve. It is a consequence of the first error. Since they are concerned only with material wellbeing, disregarding the rules of ethics as extraneous considerations, they come to the point where they seek to produce as much as possible in order to get rich as quickly as possible. The worker is made subordinate to his machine and to the manufactured product, the consumer is swept by the torrent of frenzied competition and the interests of the producers. It is, it has been said, the manufactured article that controls the man who has made it.
It is the manufactured product that creates the need. It is competition that partly regulates wages.
It is the business which runs the businessman. The head of a concern is no longer its master, but its slave.

And now, Mr. Speaker, here is the third error of the Liberal system, of economic liberalism.
Liberalism worships a false god, a golden calf. It is this modern idol, this awful power with its international ramifications that can hold political authority in check, plunge humanity into wars and revolutions and throw into confusion the lives of individuals and of nations.
It is here that His Holiness Pope Pius XI denounces this control over our economic life blood.
Economic liberalism gives rise to communism. Before outlawing communism in Canada or elsewhere we should see to it that the present Liberal regime in Canada is outlawed itself. That is why we Social Crediters have suggested a real remedy for this situation, a solution which seems funny to some because Social Crediters are concerned with serving human beings. This may sound funny, but on June 27 next, in Quebec as in all Canada, an opportunity will be afforded the people to choose between a Liberal regime and a sound and Christian one.
The people of Canada will know how to mete out a just punishment to those who exploit them for the benefit of a small group which do not own the capital they administer, but are only its keepers.
(Text):



PRIVATE BILLS


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house I move that Bill No. 236, for the relief of Jessie Kathleen Batiste Latter, be read a second time and referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Motion agreed to; bill read the second time and referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.



GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF CANADA

Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: If I may
have leave of the house to revert to routine proceedings, I move that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Bill No. 244, respecting Guaranty Trust Company of Canada.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.


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


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Winkler.

Mr. Low:: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I presume at seven-thirty you will recognize the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Caouette) so that he can continue with his speech.


Mr. Speaker:: It will be the same debate. At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: By leave of the house I would ask that we revert for a moment to motions to enable me to lay on the table copies of order in council P.C. 1952 dated April 26, 1945, which provides for the transfer of the control and supervision of the government office economies control division from the Minister of National Revenue to the Minister of Finance, with effect from April 1, 1949.



PRIVILEGE


John Lambert Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in order to say something which I think would be in accord with the wishes of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Perusing Hansard of April 27 I note that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, as reported at page 2639:
He knows that if it had not been for my predecessor, Mr. Woodsworth, we would not have received old age pensions as soon as we did.
Of course I have no desire to detract in any way from the excellent record of the former member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Woodsworth, but I think the house would be glad to have me state the record of the gentleman whom I had the honour to succeed, Mr. A. W. Neill. Those hon. members who have been here long enough will remember that in the election of 1925 Mr. Neill had an undertaking from the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he would introduce an old age pensions act as soon as possible. It was not possible to carry through that act because of the action taken in the other place, but finally in 1926 the present Old Age Pensions Act was passed.
Privilege-Mr. J. L. Gibson
In recognition of the outstanding contribution which he had made toward getting this measure of social security for the Canadian people Mr. A. W. Neill had the honour of presenting the first old age pension cheque to the first old age pension recipient in the town of Alberni. I am glad to report that Mr. Neill is still in good health.


James Sinclair: As
a Liberal member from British Columbia I think I should say a few words in corroboration of the record of Mr. A. W. Neill in bringing about the early adoption of the old age pensions bill. We are ready to give every credit to the former member for Winnipeg North Centre, but we should remember that it was the government of the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King that actually introduced old age pensions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no objection to these hon. gentlemen trying to make this a question of privilege and passing credit around as they wish to do, but I think the record is clear as to the major part played by Mr. Woodsworth.


James Sinclair: And Mr. Neill and Mr. King.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And Mr. Heaps, and Miss Macphail, and Mr. Irvine.


James Sinclair: Where was the Tory party?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the Senate voting it down.

The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply.
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker,
I shall not go into the details of this debate on the Old Age Pensions Act which took place between the Liberals and the members of the C.C.F. party. I wish to say however that old age pensions in Canada have been obtained through the initiative of the Canadian people who asked for them until they got them.
Before the six o'clock recess I was saying that economic liberalism was the father of communism. I say that today in Canada two courses are open to us: communism on the one side and social credit on the other. There is no alternative. Either parliament will adopt the social credit policy in economic and social matters or, whether we want it or not, we shall experience the same consequences, the same troubles that Europe is experiencing today. There is no other road. We have to choose between communism and social credit.
During the election campaign which will start in a few days and which will end with the vote of June 27, we shall hear many statements and many noble speeches. I ask

Government Policies
our friends of the Liberal party that they explain to the province of Quebec and to the country, during that campaign, why so far Canada has not appointed an ambassador or a representative to the Vatican. We note and observe throughout the world that Great Britain, for example, is represented at the Vatican; so is the United States, as well as European countries, while Canada which claims to be a Christian country has not deemed fit to appoint a representative to the Vatican. Is that logical? I wish that during the election campaign someone would explain to the Canadian people why we have not yet appointed an ambassador to the Vatican.
Then I wish someone would tell us why the government and parliament have not as yet deemed fit to adopt a distinctive flag for our country, a flag which would make us known throughout the world as a sovereign, free and independent nation.
I wish to mention a third point. The matter of a national anthem has been discussed in the house lately and it was suggested that "O Canada" be recognized as such. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote) for having introduced a resolution to that effect and I consider as enemies of their country those who are opposed to the adoption of "O Canada" as our national anthem. All true Canadians favour the adoption of a national anthem for Canada.
I said a moment ago that the Social Credit party had a solution for the present-day problems. The only thing Canada now lacks for ensuring security and freedom to her citizens is purchasing power.
Much is said about compulsory health insurance, contributory old age pensions, and so forth. Contributions are not what will give us security with freedom. When the qualifying word "compulsory" is appended to a pension or to any social legislation, it is no longer freedom but servitude or dictatorship.
We want security with freedom. The means to achieve it is to put purchasing power in the hands of consumers, so that they may arrange their lives themselves. They could thus obtain the useful goods or the land and houses they need. In that way we would guarantee them security with liberty.
The cart should not be put before the horse, as is now the case. Let the government assume once again control as regards the emission and circulation of money in this country, let them increase the purchasing power in proportion with the real needs of the people. It will then be sufficient to take [Mr. Caouette.l
care of production. The Canadian people will have security with freedom and their way of life will be more in keeping with Christian principles.
For three years, I have represented the riding of Pontiac in this house. After the next election, I will represent the riding of Villeneuve.
I have not been elected merely to discuss the present system, but to wage the real fight of the Canadian people and more particularly of the electors of my county. I will continue this fight until the people enjoy a better treatment and I will not stop fighting the financial and economic dictatorship which now stifles the voice of the people. I shall always strive to provide our country with the system of freedom and security we are promising to each and every citizen.
(Text):


Mr. Alan Cockeram (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in this morning's Montreal Gazette there was a reference to a brief which had been submitted to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) by the Canadian Exporters Association, in which there was a charge that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had misled the public regarding the trade situation of Canada. I think this is the time when this matter should be discussed because, of the interim supply, a minimum of $27 million is desired for the next four months to carry on the Department of Trade and Commerce. In the brief, which was evidently given to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the government was also charged with allowing a further deterioration in the trade of the dominion.
The continued deterioration of Canada's export trade position is a matter of grave concern to this nation and one which demands immediate action by the government, action which should be taken before parliament is dissolved, possibly tomorrow. Unfortunately the government has chosen to defer dealing with this vital question in the hope that the election will be over before the people of Canada as a whole fully realize the serious situation with which they are now faced because of inaction and blundering by the Department of Trade and Commerce with their do-nothing policy as far as trade is concerned.
The government policy of leaning on the United States, because that is what we have done in the last few months, on the European recovery program, the Atlantic pact, and any other prop which may be available to the government at this time, has put us in the position in which we are today. In an effort to hide the true situation the publicity bureau

of the Department of Trade and Commerce is working overtime to tell the Canadian people about our increased exports to the United States, and how these were made possible by the actions of the present government. What they fail to mention, however, is the temporary nature of these exports, a situation which is rapidly being realized today as surpluses are expected in United States production.
The history of trade in the past has shown that, because of similarity of production in the United States and Canada, the Canadian producer always loses the United States markets as soon as they have an excess of supplies available in that country. Speakers, in an effort to justify the trade policy of this floundering government, have stated that export trade in 1948 has set a new peacetime record in dollar value. What they fail to tell the Canadian people is that this was due to expenditures of ECA money, and other moneys which the United States government made available for this purpose. They are relying on that more than they are on a sound or reasonable dependence upon United States markets, which take too great a percentage of their imports from this country in raw, unprocessed materials. As a result of misleading government propaganda, the Canadian people are not fully aware of the danger which today threatens their export markets.
I was very pleased today, as I was yesterday, to hear the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) deal with this subject. He treated it more from the point of view of agriculture than I propose to do at this time. As surpluses accumulate in the United States, and the indications are very definite that such surpluses are appearing there, Canadian export markets will be further restricted. Our export outlets to the United Kingdom have been lost largely because of the inadequacy of the government in dealing with situations as they arise from day to day. They have a tendency to drift along any course except that of facing up to the problem in line with their responsibilities as a government.
During the period 1939 to 1949 we negotiated 142 contracts with the United Kingdom for the supply of various foodstuffs, and had as many as twenty-two of these in effect at one time. Today we have three contracts left. Those other markets for primary products of the producers of this country have been lost to such countries as Russia, Poland, the Ukraine, Hungary, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Roumania, and many others that are too numerous to name.
It was mentioned in the house last night by the hon. member for Lake Centre that the
Trade
chief issue in the coming election will be the trade policy of the government. As one who represents an urban riding, where there are many factories, I certainly agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I subscribe to that view wholeheartedly because in this nation one-third of our national income is derived from our export trade, and I think everybody will agree that our export trade is being seriously threatened today by the wholly inadequate policies and efforts of the present government.
The hon. member for Lake Centre pointed out to the house this afternoon that two days ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce told the people of Canada that there was nothing to worry about as far as our trade was concerned, and that he was going to England, not to try to obtain trade, or to seek agreements, but to open the trade fair. The hon. member for Lake Centre also pointed out that in today's Canadian newspapers there appeared a statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce made in England to Reuters news agency, I believe, that his main reason for being in England was to obtain trade for this country.
In the month of February our favourable balance of trade with the rest of the world slumped sharply when it fell from $15,200,000 in January to $1,200,000 in February. For the same month last year our favourable trade balance was $28,100,000. These figures indicate clearly the present trend in our trade relations and speak in no uncertain terms of the reason the government hopes to get a snap election over with before the effects become widely known and felt by the citizens of this country as a whole.
The effect, Mr. Speaker, of this present trend in our trade, if allowed to continue, will mean in the next three months that where three men were employed in a factory in Canada one man will be left in employment. It will mean accumulated surpluses in the hands of primary producers of this country. Farmers will again be called upon to be the shock absorbers to a recession in our economy. There is no question about it that if this situation continues in the way it is today our farmers will have surplus farm products, our miners will have a surplus of base metals and, going right through the piece, our manufacturers will have a surplus of manufactured products.
Surplus production on the one hand and government policies resulting in loss of markets on the other means difficult days ahead not only for Canadian farmers but for Canadian industry and Canadian workers as a whole.
No one knows better the truth of the present situation I have just described than

Trade
the ministers of the government, and more particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I believe he is a little late in his desire or his ambition to go to the old country and to Europe to try to regain some of those lost markets which, I suggest, we lost through carelessness on the part of the department which handles these affairs.
The present loss of markets to Canada, arising largely because of the policy of the present government to depend upon the action of other governments, and their failure to take any constructive action themselves not only threatens to bring about a national crisis in this country in a matter of a few months, but threatens the very basis of our whole social security program.
While on the one hand the government talks of all the social security measures it proposes for the people of Canada, its policies of inaction, floundering and failure are losing marke.s which, in the past, have accounted for one-third of the national income of this nation. If we are to be in a position to pay for these social security measures, which every party in this house believes are most desirable, then we must maintain our export trade as a means of financing such social security programs.
Without maximum employment and maximum revenue from taxation, the old age pension which was passed yesterday, and many others of these social security policies, could not be brought into effect. The only alternative, if we cannot maintain our trade, is to finance such a program by excessive taxation-and we have seen something of excessive taxation in this country. It is only with the budget of this year that taxes have been reduced to a point where people do not find it so hard to pay them. The type of excessive taxation to which we have been subjected in the last few years has been a very heavy burden upon the people of this country.
Our volume of exports this year, to date, is much less than it was for corresponding months last year. Much more serious, however, is the fact that the reduced value of orders now on hand-and I think hon. members should understand this-is reflecting itself in a continuing downward trend week by week; and indications are it will become increasingly serious within a matter of some months, unless positive measures are taken immediately to halt the decline in our export markets.
Notwithstanding the apparent hurry of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to close off discussion in this parliament relating to matters of vital concern to the country, there are several aspects of the present government's policy upon which the Canadian people are entitled to further information. I
[Mr. Cockeram.)
propose to place on the records of parliament at this time several of these urgent questions pertaining to government policy on matters of trade, and I would ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce to provide parliament and the Canadian people with the information requested before calling for dissolution.
My questions are these:
1.	Under the provisions of the Atlantic pact, and in accordance with the statement of the Prime Minister on November 11 last that in the opinion of the Canadian government the Atlantic pact would not be fully effective if it is nothing more than a military alliance, but must concern itself with matters of trade as well, what representations, if any, have been made by Canada to-
(a) Instigate immediate discussions among countries presently signatories to the Atlantic pact, with a view towards discontinuance of the present trend of self-isolation in matters of trade through the medium of barter deals, particularly with countries within or under the shadow of the iron curtain?
I believe this is a very important question. We have signed the Atlantic pact, and if any discussion took place, then certainly trade matters were discussed. I say the government should say where we are heading in this regard.
2.	What representations if any have been made by the Canadian government with a view towards removal of the barriers to trade within the signatory nations of the Atlantic pact, particularly with reference to the dollar-sterling situation?
3.	What representations if any have been made by the Canadian government relative to the continued departure, by countries signatory to the Atlantic pact, from the expressed purpose of multilateral trade, as outlined in the Geneva and Havana trade agreements to which Canada and these other countries are also signatories?
4.	What representations if any have been made by the Canadian government to the government of the United Kingdom for the purpose of reviewing under present circumstances the disastrous effect upon Canada's present and future trade arising from the imposition of the present fiscal policy of the United Kingdom in matters of trade upon her colonies, which are members of the British commonwealth of nations, to which Canada belongs?
5.	I would ask that parliament be given a report on the findings, to date, of the committee established by the government of Canada and the United Kingdom to review the progress of trade between the two countries, reported in the speech from the throne

when parliament opened to have been meeting in London at that time, and reported in the press to have adjourned about a week later.
I bring these questions to the attention of the government because the people I represent-and I represent an urban riding-as well as the Canadian people as a whole want to know the position of the government in these matters.
The man who works in a factory is vitally interested because he knows that today orders are rapidly falling off because of our inability to export, and that unless some positive action is taken now he will be receiving a notice in his pay envelope that his services are to be discontinued.
Farmers know that unless markets are found for their products surpluses will accumulate, prices will fall to levels below cost, and their standard of living will be reduced accordingly.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, before this parliament dissolves the people of Canada are entitled to further information as to the trade policies of the government. The people should be told what action, if any, is to be taken to meet the present serious crisis arising in this country.
In voting supply for these additional months, one great source from which that supply must come must be the sales tax. I am one of those who believe that, as well as reducing the income tax for 750,000 people as the government has done, consideration should also have been given to the reduction of the sales tax. Every member of this house knows that the sales tax is a tax which is taken out of the pockets of the people. True, it is taken in a very innocuous manner, but it is taken out of the pockets of every resident in Canada.
After all, even at the old rates of income tax, there were a great many people in Canada who did not pay any taxes at all. Those people have received no benefit from the budget which has been brought down within the past few weeks. Those people are still paying these unseen and unknown sales taxes which in the aggregate amount to so much money. I believe that the only reason the government removed the tax on soft drinks was that the soft drink manufacturers came to the point where, when they advertised their goods for sale, they put the cost of the goods as five cents and the tax as two cents. I feel positive that is the reason for the removal of that tax.


George James McIlraith: Did you want that tax left on?


Alan Cockeram: I certainly did not want it to remain on. but the only reason it was
Taxation
removed was that the manufacturers of soft drinks advertised their goods in that manner.


George James McIlraith: Why are you kicking about its being removed?


Alan Cockeram: The hidden taxes which this government collects and of which the people have so little knowledge will supply the greater part of this interim supply which you want us to vote today. There is no question about it. Practically 60 per cent of the price of a package of cigarettes goes to this government in taxes. I am told it is about 75 per cent which comes to this government in taxes. You are asking us to vote this interim supply without an accounting to the people of this country. I object at this time, Mr. Speaker, to voting this enormous sum of money. After all, a billion dollars is a large sum of money and that is the amount this government is requesting. They refuse to let us discuss in the public accounts committee how this money is being spent and they refuse to give answers to our questions in the House of Commons. I see no reason why we should vote supply at this time.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: I ask
the indulgence of the house for a few moments to take up matters that are of importance to my own riding. Two years ago I asked the minister to consider allowing diabetics exemption from income tax for the cost of medical supplies. At that time he said he would consider it. This year I again took up this question with the minister and he said he would consider it. He has been considering it for two years. It is about time we were getting a little action. These unfortunate people who, because of their disease, have difficulty enough in making a living should be exempted for medical supplies if anybody should. It is not too late yet. I know we are in the dying hours of this government but they still have time to do a good turn for these people who need it. I think it would be a fitting gesture on the part of the Minister of Finance to consider that and he may use it as election propaganda if he desires.
Then, there is another matter. I asked to have a report by one of the top geologists of the Department of Mines and Resources tabled some three weeks ago. As yet, I have not seen it, nor have I heard of its being tabled. However, the department can continue its silence as long as it likes because I have found one. I took it out of the moth balls. This is a report on uranium by the top geologist of the department of mines at Ottawa.
In my riding we feel that this mine has been covered, not by moss or trees, but by this government, for about fifteen years In

Uranium Resources
1947 the then minister of reconstruction sent up to that area a geologist and his mining engineers. The people in that area furnished these men with equipment, dynamite, tools and workmen-everything they wanted. The people paid for that out of their own pocket and it amounted to over $800. Since that time they have been endeavouring to get a report of that investigation.
That commission was headed by Dr. Fortier. If the report was favourable we should like to know it, and if it was bad we want to know that. We do not want our people to continue working and investing their money if there is nothing there. We have had some of the top geologists of the North American continent in that area and they have told us the goods are there. The people have tried by every possible means to secure this report. When people put up that much money to assist the government they are entitled to a report, but so far they have not been able to get it. The Right Hon. Mr. Howe, the former minister of reconstruction, flatly refused to give them the report. He is not here tonight. If he is so interested in securing a trade agreement with Great Britain, he could have been over there long ago instead of being away in the dying hours of the session. When you do not want to hear what I have to say, it is a good time to absent yourself.
These are questions that I should like to put on the order paper, but not to be answered in the same manner as the question I put on about the timber controller. It was not answered at all. If they were treated in the same manner as the tabling of this report, there would be no use putting them on the order paper. I should like, therefore, to ask the Minister of Mines and Resources or his parliamentary assistant to answer these questions. If he does not want to answer them now, he can send the answers to me. I am anxious to have them. Why, since 1930, when its commercial possibilities were confirmed in the findings of the senior geologist of the mines department, did the federal government fail to assist in developing the Wilberforce uranium deposits while at the same time paying excessively high mining and recovery costs at the Eldorado mine?
The government has spent over $60 million at Eldorado and it is a well-known fact that Eldorado is petering out. It is well-known that the government is engaged in a frantic search for more uranium in that area in order to justify the expenditure in that place. At the same time we are satisfied, not only by the government's report that has been hidden, but by other geologists from the

United States, that there is a great ore body of uranium in the Wilberforce area.
Why, in the face of the Spence report, have both the federal government and the atomic energy control board refused to acknowledge the existence of the Wilberforce uranium resources? Since examination and confirmation of the uranium resources of the Wilberforce area by agents of the atomic energy control board in 1947, headed by Dr. Fortier, why has the government flatly refused to make the results of their findings available to the private enterprise that put up the money to finance that operation? Why was Dr. Lang of the atomic energy control board not allowed to put through his recommendation for the aid and development of the Wilberforce uranium properties by three or four of his top scientists of the atomic energy control board? Will the government give terms of reference to the special select committee of the House of Commons already set up or being set up to deal with questions relating to atomic energy in the Wilberforce area?
There is no doubt in my mind and there is no doubt in the government's mind or in the minds of any of the atomic energy commission that we have been and are breaking into a time of atomic energy. We need this available energy and power of all descriptions in peacetime. We may need it in wartime, but God forbid that we should. I hope we never do. At the same time the way to avoid war is to be ready for it. It has been proved that we need atomic energy. I think it is high time that this government gave the Wilberforce area some consideration or told us why they will not give it consideration. That area is within one hundred miles of their atomic energy plant. It is within one hundred miles of their Port Hope plant. I should like to know why it has not received some consideration, or why we cannot get some information, or why the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) flatly refused to give us information with regard to a report that was financed by the people of that area, not by a company or by a stockselling scheme, because we know that atomic energy and uranium are controlled by the government. It cannot be a stock-selling scheme if they are as efficient as they should be. But this is something that is sorely needed in Canada now. The minister does not need to take my word for it. He can ask the geologists and engineers in his department. They will tell him that uranium has become scarce, and that they are looking for new fields to discover. But why they will not discover them when they are so close to

their plant is a question we should like to have answered.
There are many other things I should like to say tonight, but in my last speech I had so many interruptions from the government side that I was unable to get what I wanted on the record at that time.


An hon. Member:: Humph.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Yes, Fraser Valley, "humph" if you like.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not saying a word.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Who are you "humphing" at?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not say a word.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You do not need to. You said plenty in the past. It is my turn now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not say a word.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: At that time-


George Alexander Cruickshank: You ought to be flattered to have my name in your speech.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: -I was speaking of payments made to lawyers that ran from $50,000 a year to $176,000. They did put in a footnote about the $176,000 and said that $68,000 was for searching of titles, et cetera, but after all there is $108,000 left; and for a year's salary that is not bad. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), with the abundance of lawyers employed by the government on salary, could save a great amount of expenditure there and help out the diabetic sufferers who are not many in number but who are certainly in need of a little help and a little exemption from the tax list. As to the old age pensioners, a distinction has been made between men and women. The government say that now they are going to give women the old age pension at sixty-five.


An hon. Member:: Where were you yesterday?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I do not know why the government has not gone all the way and made an exemption for everybody at sixty-five without any means test. If the people who do not need old age pensions build up a surplus, the government comes along when they die and takes it in succession duties anyway. Someone asked where I was yesterday. I was down in Toronto trying to elect the best premier in any province in Canada. It is the only day I have missed in this session since it started; and that is something that many of those on my left cannot say.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Who is "humphing" now?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: So Fraser Valley has started again. If you want to make a speech, go ahead. I have said all I want to say; so, Fraser Valley, let us hear from you.
Saint John Harbour Bridge


Mr. D. King Hazen (Saint John-Albert):: This motion, Mr. Speaker, enables me to bring to the attention of the government a grievance that many people in my constituency have put up with for a good many years. It would be perhaps more correct for me to call this an inconvenience rather than a grievance. It has to do with the fact that there is no bridge across the harbour of Saint John connecting the west part of the city with the east part of the city. A bridge of this kind has been needed for many years. In fact, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett proposed to construct this bridge. He had already rebuilt the docks and the elevators at west Saint John after a most disastrous fire but he was prevented from going on with this work by the world-wide depression which took place at about that time and continued for a good many years.
At the present time the connection between the east and the west side of the harbour is provided either by a ferry boat, which is inconvenient, or by a rather long roundabout route that crosses the bridge over the Reversing falls at the mouth of the river St. John and then passes through the parish of Lancaster to the west side of the city.
It is my purpose tonight to advocate the construction of this bridge. This bridge would shorten the distance between the west part of the city, where most of the ocean docks and terminals are situated, and the eastern part of the city where most of the business of the community is carried on. It would help to develop the freight business of the Canadian National Railways. It would be a matter of great convenience to the residents and the port workers who reside in both parts of the city, and it would help promote the business interests of the community.
The cost of such a bridge, it has been estimated recently by a reliable engineer, would be about $3,500,000. I regard $3,500,000 as a lot of money. I have never advocated in this house the spending of the taxpayers' money unless I have been convinced that the expenditure is justified on economic grounds, or that it is for the general good of Canada. But from the inquiries I have made I have come to the conclusion that this bridge would pay for itself if tolls were imposed for its use.
At the present time the Canadian National Railways pay forty cents per ton to switch their freight from their terminals on the eastern side of the harbour over the Canadian Pacific Railway bridge that crosses the mouth of the river to the docks and terminals in west Saint John. I am informed that the Canadian National Railways handle approximately 300,000 tons of freight a year. I am informed that a Canadian National Railways
2714	HOUSE OF
Saint John Harbour Bridge traffic expert has stated that if the harbour bridge were constructed the freight tonnage on the Canadian National Railways would be doubled in about five years.
The town planning commission of the city of Saint John made a traffic count last month and found 5,972 vehicles in one day passed to and fro between west Saint John and east Saint John or Saint John proper. These trucks and cars would in the ordinary course of events use this bridge if it were constructed.
At the present time the city of Saint John is losing about $75,000 a year in the operation of the ferry boat which crosses the harbour, and it will not be long before it will be necessary for the city to construct a new boat at a cost of about $500,000.
Then the transportation company of the city-that is the company which runs the buses between Saint John and west Saint John-could get along with three buses less than they use at the present time if the bridge were built and the long roundabout route it is forced to use now was eliminated. The company says that it costs between $15,000 and $18,000 a year to operate one of these buses.
What does all this add up to? If the figures that I have been given are correct, as I have reason to believe they are, it means that a bridge that would cost $3,500,000 would pay for itself.
Let me give the figures. First, as to the annual charges: interest at 3J per cent on $3,500,000 would amount to $122,000. Maintenance at 1 per cent would amount to $35,000. Depreciation at 2 per cent would amount to $70,000. Therefore the total annual charges would be $227,000.
As to the revenues, if the Canadian National Railways used this bridge to the extent of hauling 600,000 tons of freight-and that is the estimated amount within a few years- at twenty cents a ton, the revenue would amount to $120,000. Tolls from motor vehicles and passengers are estimated to amount to $200,000. Tolls from the bus company would amount to $30,000, and the annual deficit which the city has now on its ferry is $75,000. These amounts total $425,000.
I think these figures are arresting and deserving of a great deal of attention. If they are approximately correct, and I have received them from reliable sources, then the building of this bridge would be amply justified. My suggestion is that the government guarantee the bonds of the national harbours board in an amount sufficient for the construction of this bridge after it has checked my figures and entered into fair arrangements with the parties who are interested. I urge


strongly that this be done. The matter has been long delayed. If the figures I have given are about right then there is no reason why the building of this bridge should be further delayed. In fact it is of importance that the work be commenced at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): I rise on this motion to go into supply to say something about two grievances. The first is one that I have been hoping I could discuss with the Minister of Finance who has been coming and going; perchance he may come back in a moment or two. It arises out of a question which I directed to the Minister of National Revenue on April 5. The question was as follows, as found on page 2337 of Hansard:
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Since trade union dues are in the nature of a business expense, will the government consider allowing them as an income tax deduction?
The reply of the Minister of National Revenue was as follows:
That is a matter of policy, Mr. Speaker. When a change is made, it will be announced.
I think when I asked my question on April 5 there were a few twitters among some hon. members as though this were not an important matter. I want to say at the outset that the amount of tax to be saved by trade union members, if this allowance were granted, would not be very great; at least the amount would not now be great. It would have amounted to something substantial a few years ago. But the principle is felt by trade union members to be an important one, so important that one trade union in my city of Winnipeg has sought to make a test case out of it by taking the matter in the name of one member to the Exchequer Court of Canada. I refer to the case between Joseph A. Cooper, appellant, and the Minister of National Revenue, respondent. I must admit the very fact that this matter has gone to the exchequer court does reveal that there is at the present time some doubt as to the interpretation of the act on this point. It also shows, however, that the principle at stake is an important one. So far as the court case itself is concerned, the exchequer court has reserved judgment, and so far as I have been able to find out, judgment has not yet been given.


James Joseph McCann: If it is before the courts is the hon. member in order in discussing it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am just coming to the point of the minister's interjection. I do not propose to discuss the case that is before the courts. Rather I accept the statement

that the minister made the other day that whether or not such allowance will be granted is a matter of policy for the government to decide, and to make it clear in the Income Tax Act itself. I had hoped the fact that this matter has been brought to the attention of the government would result in an amendment to the Income Tax Act this year. However, there is no such suggestion in any of the budget resolutions which have been laid before the house.
May I draw to the attention of the government a number of comparable cases in which an allowance for income tax purposes is granted?
For example, take the case of lawyers. Lawyers are permitted to deduct from their income, before computing their income tax, the fees they pay to the law society.


Gordon Graydon: I would like to know who does it. I have never been able to do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to impart that information to my hon. friend. I checked it only yesterday with the Minister of National Revenue.


An hon. Member:: Repeat it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The information that I am asked to repeat is that lawyers are allowed to deduct from income before computing income tax the fees that they pay to the law society. I never was so popular before with my learned lawyer friends in the house. It is now April 28 and I hope they have not filed their income tax returns for this year, as I have.
That matter went to the Exchequer Court of Canada back in 1946. As the minister knows, the case has been closed. It was understood before 1946 that lawyers working on their own were permitted to deduct their law society fees but there was a question with respect to lawyers who were working for companies and being paid a salary. The matter was taken to the exchequer court in the name of Mr. Bond of Winnipeg and the court ruled that fees paid by lawyers to the law society were to be allowed as an income tax deduction whether the lawyer was working on his own or for a salary with a company.


Gordon Graydon: I wish I had known the hon. member before.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to give that information to my learned and hon. friends. Not being a lawyer, I shall make no charge for it. The next group of people to which I wish to refer are teachers. Perhaps some more hon. members will be surprised at the information I am going to give and likewise I offer it to them without charge.
Income Tax Deductions


James Joseph McCann: General counsellor for the country.


Donald MacInnis: Why not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What I am really doing is acting as aHw>os*te for a group that does not get the same privilege given to other groups.
I have in my hand the Saskatchewan Bulletin of February 1949, published by the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation. On page 49 appears a paragraph with respect to income tax which ends with this sentence:
You are reminded that federation fees are an allowable deduction.
As most people know, doctors are allowed to deduct the fees they pay.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Perhaps the minister put it in himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In reply to the hon. member for Dauphin I would say that I think that provision was in effect before the present minister took over the portfolio.
Yesterday I asked the Minister of National Revenue a question with regard to a newscast from Lethbridge, Alberta, a week or so ago in which the announcer stated that the chamber of commerce of that city had been informed that membership dues paid to the chamber could be deducted from the income of members before they paid their income tax.
Most of these fees that are allowed as deductions, assuming that the fees paid to the chamber of commerce are in the same class, are paid in connection with the carrying on of businesses.


Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Onlario):: Are
they obligatory?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is my point. They are obligatory, particularly in the case of trade union members who have closed shop contracts. Such men simply could not work in a closed shop without being members of the union, a principle with which I agree. And don't forget the Rand formula. Similarly a lawyer cannot practise law in a province unless he is a member of the law society and pays his dues. I submit that, as all these people are permitted to deduct their fees from their income, the same privilege should be granted to trade union members.
I submit that there is a parallel between these various deductions that are allowed and the permission given to businesses to deduct certain amounts as business expenditures in connection with the carrying on of those businesses. The practice in the United States is quite clear. They permit trade union dues as a deduction. They are treated as an expense incurred in the carrying on of a business. I have on my desk a copy

Income Tax Deductions of a letter from the corresponding department in Washington to the international typographical union pointing out that their members have the right to deduct their union dues from their incomes before computing their income tax because it is regarded as an expense incurred in connection with the carrying on of their business. This is the practice with respect to trade union dues generally in the United States, whether the members are employed in closed shops or otherwise.
I think I have stated the case sufficiently. I do hope that the government will give consideration to the matter. I submit that it is possible for the Minister of National Revenue to deal with it administratively. I suppose the minister is deluged with requests of various kinds that certain things be considered as allowable deductions, particularly those that would come under the heading of charitable gifts. One frequently hears appeals to contribute to this charity or that benefit to which is appended a notice to the effect that the contribution will be allowed as an income tax deduction.
Because of the provision in the Income Tax Act requiring secrecy in these matters it is difficult to get complete information as to what allowances are being granted. If my Bill No. 10 could get through it would change that picture a little. I am simply saying now that it seems to me that the Minister of National Revenue could rule that these dues are in the same category as the fees paid by lawyers, doctors, teachers and even those paid by the members of the Lethbridge chamber of commerce.
The Minister of National Revenue must exercise similar powers of judgment in connection with pension plans. The act does not specify the pension plan contributions that are allowable as income tax deductions. All that the act says is that contributions will be allowed in the case of approved pension plans and the minister has the right to approve or otherwise.
I submit that there is nothing in the Income Tax Act to prevent the Minister of National Revenue ruling as I have suggested. He may argue that there is nothing in the act that states he must rule in that way, but I submit that there is nothing to prevent him from ruling as I have suggested. I ask him to give further consideration to the matter on that basis.
If the government still feels that it is a matter of policy which has to be effected by a change in the Income Tax Act, then I address my appeal to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), and hope that when we get to the stage of budget resolutions, whether it is in this parliament or the next, there will be proposed

an amendment to the Income Tax Act to provide this change. I repeat that the amount of tax that has to be paid because this allowance is not granted is not great, but that is not the point. I think I overheard some of my lawyer friends, when we were discussing their case a while ago, say that they did not bother to apply for the deduction. Probably that is so because some of them figure it would not save them very much anyway, but everyone knows how deeply people feel about principles, particularly when they feel they are being discriminated against. I strongly appeal to the government to resolve the matter one way or the other, either by an administrative decision by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), or by the Minister of Finance amending the Income Tax Act, to make sure that trade union dues will be allowed as an income tax deduction.
The grievance, to which I wish to refer, is that as yet the government has done nothing, despite the fact that the matter has been raised a good many times, to introduce legislation in Canada comparable to the railroad retirement act of the United States. This matter was again highlighted in my own mind, and in the minds of railroad workers whom I know, by the announcement a couple of weeks ago that there was to be a rather substantial lay-off of Canadian National Railway employees. We were gratified when that announcement was followed by an order that these lay-offs were not to take place. I regret to say that the information I get from the Transcona shops at Winnipeg is that, although the huge lay-off that was predicted about two or three weeks ago was cancelled, small layoffs of fifteen or twenty employees a week are taking place. I hope that we will not be confronted with that sort of thing, and I urge that the government should not give the lead in the direction of unemployment as far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned.
It is my purpose now to discuss not so much the question of maintenance of employment for our railroad workers, which is extremely important, but rather the question of their security in terms of a proper pension system and other benefits. Frequent references are made in the house by myself and others to the need for a real advance in the field of social security. We recognize that to make that advance we must get, as soon as we can, a contributory over-all social security plan. The objection that members of the government raise to immediate action is that, as they see it, the British North America Act would have to be amended. I remind the government, however, that railway workers come under federal jurisdiction, and that that jurisdiction is provided for in the British North America Act itself. Here is a very large group of workers in Canada for whom such a plan

could be instituted without amendment of the British North America Act. I bespeak consideration of the case of railroad workers on their own behalf, but I also bespeak it because I am satisfied that if we could get started for our Canadian railroad workers something like the railroad retirement act of the United States it would not be long until that plan would be enlarged for all workers, and all people of the country.
Many people have the notion that railroad workers have good pension plans already. That notion is only partly true and is largely illusory. The two main railroads of Canada have each their plans. They are similar, although I do not think there is any doubt but that the plan of the Canadian National Railways is a little better than the plan of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I will not go into all the discussion that I have instituted in the past as to grievances about the way in which the Canadian Pacific Railway treated its employees in 1919. I still hope that case can be rectified before these men are all gone, as called for by a resolution of mine on the order paper, but at least we now have on the statute books legislation that will prevent such an injustice ever being repeated.
I said a moment ago that the Canadian National plan is in many respects a little better than the plan of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but even the situation with respect to C.N.R. employees is not so rosy as might be the general impression. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) gave information, to be found in Hansard of March 28, in response to questions I had asked. That information shows that at the present time there are 14,368 retired C.N.R. employees on pension. Of that number of 14,368 only 2,526 have pensions of $80 a month or over. I mention that figure because, with the amendment we passed yesterday $80 becomes the old age pension for a retired couple. Out of the 14,368 C.N.R. pensioners only 2,526 have a pension equal to the amount of the old age pension for a retired couple. On the other hand, there are 2,743 whose pensions are only $25 per month. In fact there are fifty-five whose pensions are under $25 per month. There are another 4,016 whose pensions are more than $25 per month but less than $40 a month. That is really very poor.
Some of us welcome every advance that has been made in industrial pensions, and we are glad to see the number of those increasing, but we must not try to kid ourselves with the idea that even the railroads of this country-and they have perhaps the best large-scale industrial plans going-have solved the problem of old age security for the workers of Canada. I could go further into the figures of the Canadian National Railways, but I have
Pensions for Railway Employees given enough to indicate that their picture is not as rosy as it is sometimes thought to be.
As to the Canadian Pacific Railway, I have endeavoured to obtain comparable information. As a matter of fact, I addressed a letter to the Minister of Transport, thinking that he might have a little better stand-in with the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway than I might be expected to have, and he very kindly wrote to the officials of that railway asking them for information comparable to that which he had given in this house with respect to the Canadian National Railways. For their own reasons the Canadian Pacific Railway refused to give that information to the Minister of Transport, but I am satisfied that if we had it the picture would not be any better than that of the C.N.R. retired employees, and would probably be much poorer.
Please bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that that is about all there is in the way of social security for railroad workers in this country, and remember that they come under federal labour jurisdiction. On the other hand, there has been in existence in the United States for a long time what is known as the United States railroad retirement act. It was first brought into being back in 1935, although it has been amended since that date.
The railroad retirement act of the United States provides pensions for their employees roughly 30 to 35 per cent better than any pension plans provided by any of the Canadian railroads. In addition to that, the plan in the United States makes it possible for railroad workers to move around from one railroad to another without interfering with their pension rights. It will be noted that the pension is administered by a federal government board. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will agree with me that mobility of labour is a good idea. He brought in an amendment to the Civil Service Superannuation Act-


John Thomas Hackett: It has all the characteristics of a private company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A year or two ago he brought in an amendment to the Civil Service Superannuation Act which provided for that sort of thing, namely for people moving into and out of the government service. In other words, he would agree with me that it is a good thing to encourage mobility of employment.
Under this pension scheme former pensioners whose pensions were too low had those pensions raised to a minimum of $60 a month.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What are the proportions of contribution?

Pensions for Railway Employees


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am afraid I have not those details immediately available. I may say, however, that it is a contributory plan, on a three-way basis: the government, the railroads and the employees.
In addition to the provision for retirement there are also provisions for disability, including the provision for pensioning off if disability occurs after fifteen years of service.


John Thomas Hackett: Whom is it administered by?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By the railroad retirement board, which is a federal government agency. And, when I am speaking of that, may I say that applications for pensions go to the railroad retirement board, and it is that board which awards the pensions. The only qualifications considered are years of service and wage rates upon which the contributions of the employees have been based.
The point is that the principle of pension as of right is felt at least by the workers to be much more clearly recognized by the government plan in the United States than by either of the railway plans here. In addition to the protection for railroad workers, both in terms of old age security and disability protection, there is a protection for the wives and dependents of railroad workers.
Hon. members might be interested in this. In addition to a copy of the act as amended,
I have some of the literature put out by the railroad retirement board. One would almost think that it was a private company with a product to sell, trying to show just how good that product is. Here is one-"The Railroad Retirement Act; what it does for widows, children, parents of railroad employees." Here is another: "How to compute retirement annuities under the Railroad Retirement Act"; and another: "How to compute survivor benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act"; and another, "Benefits for railroad workers and their families under the Railroad Retirement and Unemployment Insurance acts." Then, here is a colourful little booklet which bears on the front of it a design showing a railway train going down the track, and this booklet bears the slogan, "If you work for a railroad" -and then when one turns the pages he finds indicated those various things which might happen to him, and advice as to how to go about getting the benefits to which one would be entitled.
Then there is one other benefit I wish to mention, which applies to married women railroad workers. There is an allowance for maternity benefits. Then another of these benefits is a sickness benefit, in other words an allowance for loss of income as well as the money required to help pay hospital and doctor bills.

I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) must have studied these plans, and he must be interested in the measure of over-all social security which has been provided in the United States for this large group of workers, namely the railroad workers in that country.
As I said a moment ago, the railroad workers in this country do have certain contact with those of the United States. They have those contacts through their international unions, and also contacts because certain trains operate across the international boundary line. As a matter of fact there is a particular difficulty or grievance which arises among our Canadian National Railways employees, some of whom travel partly in the United States and partly in Canada. Operating in the United States they qualify for a certain portion of the United States railroad pension as a result of their service in that country. These employees who do get that partial pension from the railroad retirement board in the United States find that this sum is deducted from the pension which otherwise they would receive from the Canadian National Railways. That is another grievance which I have taken up with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) on a number of occasions. I have not yet been able to persuade him to rectify it, but I hope this may be done in due course. Of course this grievance could be wiped out if the government would place on our statute books a railroad retirement act for railroad workers in this country, similar to the legislation in the United States.
May I repeat what I said earlier, that many of us are keenly interested in seeing achieved here contributory over-all social insurance for all the people of this country. I do hope that that day is not far distant. But when I think of the difficulties which seem to beset dominion-provincial relations, and when I hear the government telling us that so-and-so cannot be done because it would require an amendment to the British North America Act, then I conclude that these things are still some distance off.
However, here is a field in which that commendable objective which government spokesmen say is their objective could be started. Railroad workers come under federal labour jurisdiction, and I say it would be a simple matter for the government to bring in this kind of legislation.
I thank ministers of the government and hon. members generally for the attention they have paid to my comments respecting these two grievances. I hope something may be done about both of them, and in the not too distant future. I hope that on the one hand

trade union dues will be allowed as income tax deductions, and on the other hand that it will not be long until the government will take this step toward over-all social security by introducing here in Canada an act like the railroad retirement act of the United States.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This afternoon when I was speaking I referred to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) last fall, in which he had referred to the sum of $175 million as peanuts. I was challenged by the Minister of National Health and Welfare: (Mr. Martin) to produce the statement. I 'aid at the time that it was a press statement which I did not have with me at the moment. I have it now, and I find I was guilty of inaccuracy-


James Sinclair: As usual.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is about as sensible a remark as we ever get out of the smart aleck who has just made it. The inaccuracy was this: I thought the amount was $175 million to which the Prime Minister had referred as peanuts. I find that it was $180 million. I cannot be accused of prejudice in choosing the source of the report, because it is contained in the Toronto Daily Star of November 6, 1947. This is the paragraph-


Peter Francis Martin: Make sure you have the whole text.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am reading it from the text in the Toronto Daily Star.


Peter Francis Martin: Make sure you have the whole text.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This bears the dateline of
November 6, and states:
One reporter said that he calculated confederatl'm would result, in a ten-year period, in a $180,000,000 deficit for Canada on the deal.
Mr. St. Laurent said he thought that estimate was high, but even if it were right, he said-
And this is quoted-
-"$180,000,000 is peanuts over a ten-year period for Canada."


Peter Francis Martin: Why not read the whole text?


Gordon Graydon: I guess the minister asked one question too many there.


Peter Francis Martin: You should always read the whole text.


James Sinclair: Does the hon. member think that that is too high a price to pay for the admission of Newfoundland?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was a question whether, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, $180 million was peanuts.
Pensions for Railway Employees


James Sinclair: The hon. member has not answered my question. Does he think that that is too 'nigh a price to pay for Newfoundland's admission?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I wish to follow up a matter that was raised by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I agree thoroughly with all the arguments he has advanced and, therefore, will not repeat them. I want to bring to the attention of the government, from the administration point of view, certain difficulties experienced by employees of the Canadian National Railways in applying for pension. I am only raising this matter because there will be no other opportunity to do so during the life of this parliament.
I have in my hand correspondence in connection with applications for retirement pension by employees of the Canadian National Railways. I find that there are a number of problems facing them which there should not be if the pension plan were properly administered. For example, the allowable days of the applicant are sent to him at the time he is ready to apply for his pension. Ordinarily those allowable days represent the number of days he is credited as having served the Canadian National Railways. Some of the applicants find that, having been sent a certificate stating the days allowable, they are later sent a letter asking for additional information which often has no bearing on their service.
I have, for example, correspondence in connection with one of the applicants. The letter written to him is in these terms:
Your pension papers are held up pending further information regarding your service in the year 1907.
This letter was written in August, 1948. I omit one part of the letter because it is not relevant, but I will read this sentence in the closing part of the letter:
Will you please advise why you worked short-time in July, August and September,-
That is of 1907-
-and if you were actually on leave of absence for a vacation, where and how did you spend it?
In my view, Mr. Speaker, that sort of request is simply ridiculous. To ask a person, who has been given his certificate of allowable days in 1948 what he did when he was on vacation for three months in 1907, does seem ridiculous. There is no one who could carry that information around in his memory and no record was kept because, at that time, there was no retirement plan.
That is one type of grievance which is fairly general. This is not a particular case, but it is the sort of case which is coming to our attention from time to time. I believe


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend does not even believe that himself.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I know there is some excuse, even though it is a thin one, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to be away because he is in another country; but I should like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), who has interrupted me, to tell me where the Minister of Agriculture is at the present time and what he is engaged in.


An hon. Member:: He does not know.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I would ask him to tell me whether he is out on government business or whether he is out on business of the Liberal party.


James Sinclair: It is the same thing.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I notice that the Minister of Labour has lost his power of speech.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is the same thing. What is the difference?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have before me the latest issue of the Financial Post. On the front page of that paper is a headline which reads: "Trade Major Election Issue". I am not going to say that what the Financial Post says is always right; but apparently one large important publication in Canada thinks that our trade is going to be a major issue in the election which is now in the near-offing. Yet at a time when that matter appears to be coming out as the chief issue, we find that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the other minister who is or should be most interested in trade, particularly the export trade of our agricultural products, have both absented themselves from the house, without any excuse as far as anybody has heard so far. Apparently the Minister of Labour has some information as to the whereabouts of the Minister of Agriculture, but he declines to give us that information. It is "the case of the missing minister".


Humphrey Mitchell: You will be missing yourself after the next election.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The Minister of Labour has been missing for a long time. I want to assure
hon. members that this matter of trade is going to be a major issue in the next election. This article to which I refer reads as follows:
With the election date set, Canadian trade policy is emerging as one of the major issues.
Then the article follows on with other paragraphs, but this one is significant:
In the Liberal camp it is freely admitted that Canada could make more deals with the United Kingdom if this country were prepared to embark on the program of controls and embargoes necessary for bilateral trading.
But it is the C.C.F. which is advocating barter, and the P.C.'s don't want to find themselves in that bed.
This afternoon the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), speaking on trade, made a statement which I could hardly credit, because he was complaining about Great Britain having made a long-term agreement with Australia which he said could well have been made with Canada in connection with wheat. Unless I have not heard correctly the previous speeches of the hon. member and those associated with him, they have been objecting strenuously in this house to a wheat agreement with Britain in any instance-


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the statement that my hon. friend quotes me as having made was not made. If he will say what I said, I will stand by it, but not by his interpretation or endeavour to put words into my mouth.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is of course the hon. member's privilege to correct a statement if he feels that he is not correctly quoted. For obvious reasons I have not the record before me, because it is not yet printed. But the way I heard it was that the hon. member complained that Great Britain had made a long-term arrangement with Australia-I believe it was a fifteen-year agreement-for the purchase of wheat.


An hon. Member:: It was with regard to meat.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the hon.
gentleman was not hearing accurately or else he exercised his usual powers of presenting his interpretation. I was talking about beef. He is talking about wheat.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I stand corrected as to the product, but the principle is the same. I want to assure the hon. member that I did not try to misrepresent what he said. When he said "meat" it sounded like "wheat" to me. Because of the fact that he has moved a few seats away, it is more difficult to hear him.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not the first time the hon. member has misinterpreted what has been said.

Trade


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The principle behind the idea of trade agreements is the same whether it is grain, meat products or anything else. The fact of the matter is this. We of the C.C.F. in this house have attempted, ever since this session began, to bring to the attention of the government the seriousness of our trade position at that time. When parliament first met at the end of January, when we mentioned the fact that we were losing our trade with Great Britain we were laughed at, as a matter of fact, by members on both sides of the house. But as time went by, and more quickly than we are happy about, we found that that is certainly the case; and today we have heard several speeches from the official opposition highlighting their concern over the loss of trade with Great Britain. As I pointed out, the Financial Post headlines that as the major issue of the coming election.
I know that the attitude of the government is that they will not enter into what is commonly known as barter trade or bilateral trade because they feel that that means that eventually the government will have to take some responsibility for carrying on the trade of the nation. It will necessitate the setting up of export and import boards; and that will mean in the long run the cutting out of speculation and the cutting out of profits in the matter of trade. We in the C.C.F. have advocated that very thing, and we have no hesitation in doing so; because we believe in the principle that our agricultural products should be taken to the customer as cheaply as possible, handled as efficiently as possible, and that there should be as little speculation as possible, or profit, in the transaction. We are not here to defend the interests who speculate in the staff of life. We are here to see that this nation prospers and that the people who need our products get them with the least possible interference. Therefore we have no hesitation in supporting bilateral agreements with Britain or any other country that is willing to give us a fair deal.
Our friends to our right have taken a different position. Member after member in that group has risen in this house-and so have others-and stated, as did the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), that he did not care who made a profit or who gambled with this product as long as he got a good price. In other words, they are all for the open market. They do not believe in trade agreements as a principle. But the time has come when the parties must place their policies before the people, and that is a different proposition. So what does the

Financial Post say? It refers to the Progressive Conservative party in these words:
The Conservative strategy, it appears, will stop short of proposing solutions. As one P.C. said, "our job is play on the psychology of fear." If the electors can be persuaded that things are bad enough, it is thought they may be persuaded to vote for George Drew as the man who will put them right without being told just how he will do it.
We have no hesitation in saying how we would do it. We have suggested trade agreements with Great Britain on a bilateral basis. We stand by that policy. We have no fear of the objections that the government has made, particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his budget speech when he said that this will lead to interference by the government in the matter of trade. Of course it will. But no government, regardless of what party may be in power in the future, is going to be able to assist the primary producers of this country without interfering in the business of trade. All other talk about expanding our trade, all the big promises made at election time by any party which does not believe in government interference, is just a lot of poppycock because they will not carry them through.
I am not unmindful of the election of 1930 although at that time I did not vote-I was not old enough. But I remember very clearly those slogans of the late R. B. Bennett, that he would blast his way into the markets of the world.


An hon. Member:: He did.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: My hon. friend to the right says he did.


Mr. Case:: Of course he did.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am not going to argue with him. I will only refer him to the statistics from 1930 to 1935 and let him study them and judge for himself how much blasting was done and in what direction.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Judge in relation to other countries as well.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes. I am concerned, and I am serious about this. The people of Canada, before they vote on such an important issue as trade, should really know what the situation is.


Gordon Graydon: And know the difference between beef and wheat.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes. The hon. member for Peel would not know the difference.


Gordon Graydon: I raised more and sold more than you did in your time.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I did not hear what the hon. member said. The situation in 1949 is much

the same as it was in 1929. There is a sort of deadly parallel there that we have to observe. In 1929 our trading position was beginning to slip. The Conservative party came along and said that if elected to power they were going to blast their way into the markets of the world and see to it that the farmers received a better price for their farm products.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: They did.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It was a reasonable proposition for the people of this country to believe that they could do it, and they gave them the opportunity to do it. In the space of a few years they discovered that they were being blasted themselves and that our trade had gone backwards, and that butter, which was one of the chief issues in 1930, was down to the price where it was cheaper to use it for axle grease than to buy axle grease.


Mr. Brooks:: How much was it in the United States and in other places?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The Republicans were running the show in the United States and they were the Tories of the United States. Today we are back in the same position where we were in 1929. Our trade position is deteriorating. Our trade is slipping. The government frankly admit that they will not do anything about it. They do not even bother to say that they cannot do anything; they just simply say they will not do anything because they do not believe in bilateral trade. They are going to cling to the United States dollar. The people are now faced with the situation where they see the failure of the government. The primary producers can see surpluses piling up in front of them. On the other hand they know the alternative of the Conservative party, because they had a taste of it. There is only one thing for them to do, which is obvious, and that is to support the C.C.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Lambert Gibson: What an
alternative.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: While the hon. member for Dauphin has intimated that you can see the failure of the government, you can also see the tragic mess that has resulted from the socialist government in one of the great provinces of Canada. They have learned that the system which they have been condemning as a profit system is a profit and loss system, and their losses are exceeding their profits. If they do not watch their step they will go to the wall.
Trade
This is an occasion when we are supposed to air our grievances. It appears that the grievances of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) were against the Progressive Conservative party. We accept that as a compliment because it indicates all too clearly that we are the ones he believes he will have to defeat in the coming election.


Mr. Young:: You are flattering yourself.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: While it is not my responsibility in any sense of the word to reply to any observations made by the hon. member for Dauphin, nevertheless I think it is only fair to say that when he was talking about the late Lord Bennett attempting to blast his way into the markets of the world, he could very well have admitted that the late Lord Bennett made an able attempt to do business when the world was in complete economic collapse. Hon. members who are a little older than the hon. member for Dauphin professes to be recall full well that when the late President Roosevelt, the leader of the Democratic party, which is comparable to the Liberal party of this country, came into power in the United States in 1932, it was necessary to close the banking institutions, and the people of that country were unable to obtain currency except through some of the life insurance companies which were able to continue to function. Therefore, having regard to the over-all picture, I do not think anyone will say that there was any great success, but at least it saved this country from economic chaos. I think the late Lord Bennett is entitled to our commendation for the noble efforts he made to see this country through one of its most critical periods in our history.
lake some other hon. members, I feel somewhat confused since we are now asked to vote interim supply. This is the second time that we have been asked to vote interim supply during this session. We are now asked to vote $541 million, and the amount of interim supply we voted some time ago was something like $300 million. That brings the total to over three-quarters of a billion dollars.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The other amount was something over $100 million.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Looking back over the record and recalling the experience we had in passing $100 million of supplementary estimates, when the opposition endeavoured to investigate and obtain information with respect to how the money was expended, I am quite satisfied that it is asking a very big order, because when the Speaker leaves the chair we shall not have an opportunity to
2724	HOUSE OF
Superannuation for Members investigate the estimates. We shall be asked to approve of the bulk total straight across the board.
As has already been pointed out, this action is absolutely unprecedented. Reference has been made to 1945, and it has been said that that was a similar occasion. It was entirely different because at that time no budget had been presented to the House of Commons, and we were advised that we were to be asked to vote interim supply.
On his western trip the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) must have been advised along the lines we hear sometimes that this is a good budget. But they must also have advised him that if he attempted to have it analysed by the House of Commons its effectiveness would be destroyed. For that very good reason he returned here fully convinced that it was necessary to appeal to the country and say that they have set up the budget in the hope that the people of Canada will understand it; and relying on that that it will result in encouraging the people to believe that this indeed is the one party which is concerned about their welfare, in spite of the fact that the budget will take over $2,300 million of hard-earned cash from the taxpayers of Canada.
I should also like to make one comment in regard to the observations made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with respect to the railway workers. Of course this is nothing new in this house. As a matter of fact we all have sympathetic consideration for those who are charged with such great responsibilities. There has been in this House of Commons no greater champion of the railway worker than the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Dief-enbaker). I can recall the many occasions when he offered solutions to their problem. It will be noticed that when the socialists attempt to place an estimate upon pensions they seem to assume that the pension should provide for everything.
I think it must be assumed that the railway worker is gainfully employed for practically his whole lifetime, barring unforeseen emergencies. I think it is more important to see that the worker receives a proper wage and then encourage him to practise the old Scotch virtue of thrift and lay something aside for a rainy day. Everything should not be left to some central fund or central authority to guarantee future economic security. These workers may need some encouragement to practise thrift but they should be encouraged to build up their own reserves.
When I first spoke in the first session of this parliament in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I urged


that the government should consider providing superannuation for members of parliament. Of course many laughed at that statement but now that we are approaching an election day I think it would receive a more sympathetic hearing. I think the idea is a good one. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said something with which I am in entire agreement, that we are approaching a future period when there should be contributory pensions. When that day comes those who will be the ultimate recipients will have a greater appreciation of the money they have set aside.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Contributory social security in all forms.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: That is what I am referring to. I think it would be good for members of parliament to set an example. There will be some who will not be privileged to come back here. After all this is a democratic country and there are many people who are going to have something to say about that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will send my hon. friend copies of my speeches next year.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: A superannuation plan for members of parliament could provide certain privileges for those who were not re-elected. They could either withdraw what had been paid into the fund or continue to contribute. In that way you would have at least a contributory scheme.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member think that that would be better than sending them to the Senate?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Possibly the other place constitutes a form of superannuation in the minds of some, but I have no doubt that those who find themselves there feel that they earn what they receive. There are not sufficient appointments to go around so we could not afford to rest upon that source of security. Members would contribute to the superannuation fund when they were members. I am speaking as a member with only a few years' experience so I will not be misunderstood. But there are members who have devoted their entire lives to the public service of this country, and I can think of no better example than the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King). While I do not intimate that he is in circumstances that would require consideration from this house, yet I am sure that had there been a scheme like this in operation the right hon. member would not feel any worse.
The issue for the election has been indicated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and others associated with him as being the trade policies of this country. I

think the official opposition are prepared to accept that as one of many issues. It is interesting to note how meagre a thread our trade position hangs upon today. Only last week the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated in effect at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, that if the United States were to declare wheat surplus it would result in the complete economic collapse of Canada. Those were serious words and they conveyed something to the western farmer.
I was glad to note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), speaking on another platform, intimated that he felt that there was no danger of such an event taking place-


Douglas Charles Abbott: As a matter of fact I did not refer to it.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: -because relations between Canada and the United States were good. The minister was quoted as referring to the Geneva trade pact and the Atlantic charter-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not refer to either the Geneva trade pact or the Atlantic charter.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Be that as it may, then the words of the Minister of Agriculture leave us in a much more precarious position. During the trip I was privileged to make through that part of Canada, many farmers throughout the west complained to me that they were greatly concerned over their future. They complained of the inability to find markets for their products and, rightly or wrongly, they charged this government with driving them out of the production of hogs. I heard that complaint in many parts of Saskatchewan.
As I see it, the real challenge is the expansion of our trade. As Canada is a great exporting nation I think we will have to tackle this problem of the convertibility of currency. Until we have complete convertibility we will never have multilateral trade; we will have the situation referred to by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) where we have bilateral agreements in connection with foodstuffs and other products. If we make longterm contracts which prove unprofitable someone will have to take up the loss and no doubt that would be the state or the taxpayers.
It is possibly a good thing that we are going to have a short, snappy election campaign which will give us the opportunity to test public opinion and carry our messages to the people in an effort to have them believe that which we think in our own minds is best for the country.
This quick decision to dissolve parliament has worked a hardship on many people. I have in mind a deputation that came to Ottawa all the way from Thombury up in the Georgian bay district to seek a grant to improve their harbour facilities. They were 29087-172J
Grant to Ottawa City
received most courteously by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and were encouraged to believe that something would be done. But everything will be washed out since we are not likely to see the supplementary estimates during the life of this parliament.
There is another grievous hardship being faced by certain bodies in this country. My early experience in public life was in municipal affairs. Since being elected I have been honoured by being appointed honorary president of the Ontario mayors and reeves association, of which organization I was president for two years. I have had a constant concern for the position of municipal governments which are charged with the responsibility of providing local services when their sources of revenue are limited. Many of these municipalities are hard-pressed to find the necessary funds to carry on.
For some time the city of Ottawa has been receiving an annual grant of, I believe, $300,000. When this matter came before parliament I pleaded with the government to apply some formula whereby the city of Ottawa would know exactly how much money they would receive each year. I suggested that the first approach should be a complete assessment of all government buildings in the city. Then the department could estimate that the tax rate would be levied on the mill rate set by the city on a basis of 40 per cent of that mill rate, or 50 per cent or 60 per cent, but in any case by the use of some formula so that the city of Ottawa would not have to come back to the government year after year with hat in hand seeking this grant.
Unfortunately the authority for providing the grant has expired. I am taking it upon myself to speak for the city fathers of Ottawa. I had thought that the Liberal members on the other side of the house would appeal on their behalf, but I am taking this occasion to speak on behalf of the city fathers of Ottawa. I know how trying and difficult it must be for them to strike their budget when they do not know the amount of money they are going to receive from the federal authority. You can understand that the situation creates a real hardship, and therefore I appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and to those in authority, that as the government is now seeking interim supply some provision should be made to provide in part at least for the grant which is normally and properly made to the city of Ottawa. They have the good fortune, of course, to have the capital established here, but the servicing of public buildings and the provision of other necessary facilities are costly to the taxpayer.

Rental Control
' In taking that position I am at least consistent, because I have constantly questioned the advisability of any public utility operating, particularly if it is in competition with private enterprise, that does not pay its proportion of the taxes which provide the necessary services. Therefore in that sense I believe that the proper basis for determining efficiency of operation is by putting them more or less on the same level with private enterprise.
I felt I wanted to bring to your attention at this time, Mr. Speaker, the great concern felt not only by the farmers of western Canada but also by the farmers of the county of Grey which I have the honour to represent, and which I might say produces the largest number of beef cattle-and I am not saying wheat-in the province of Ontario. We are large producers of livestock. Our farmers have a tremendous stake in the future of Canada, and we are greatly concerned about markets. If you want to go to the country on the trade policy of the government it will not be very difficult for us to establish how our trade is being whittled away, how our markets are disappearing, all because we have become leaners and have tied our economy to that of the United States through our dependence upon ERP, and our ^neglect to stand on our own feet and to seek those markets which could have been secured for Canada if we had not been so foolish as to interfere with the value of our currency. Rather we should have let it seek its value in the markets of the world. After all it is *only by goods and services that you can improve the prosperity of the nation. Canada, <of all nations in the world, depends primarily upon trade to maintain its economy. As has been said in this debate, our great social service structure depends upon the expansion of our trade. In other words, our hopes depend upon the productive capacity of our people, and our prosperity depends upon our ability to market that production in the markets of the world.


Mr. W. A. McMaster (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, in the next five minutes I hope to present a grievance which is not at all political or partisan in its nature, but is one that affects a great many people, and will come to the fore in the next few days. I refer to one of the orders issued by the rental control division of the wartime prices and trade board. In its origin it was order 793,
I believe, but it has been consolidated in order 800 as rule 15 (a). This order refers to the six months' notice which has to be given by owners who were owners prior to the first of November, 1947, and it follows another order in which the question of greater need arose. Under the prior order a man with a
tMr. Case.]
wife and two children could get possession of a home from a tenant with a wife and one child.
It is true that in the new order the word "need" appears, but it seemed so unimportant that no one thought it had any significance, especially as there was already the rule which spoke of greater need. A form had to be made out, an affidavit had to be made out, a statement of the time when the owner purchased the property, and all that was said after that information was given was that the owner needed the house. The owner took for granted that, since he had bought the house, and since he was living in a rented house, there was every reason why he should get his home, and that he would not be forced to show special need of any kind.
After these notices were given in the month of October last, some of which will expire on the last day of April or the first day of May, it became apparent that the word "need" had some significance, and the question arose as to how much significance. I can generally settle matters with the officials of the different departments, but in this case I cannot find out from the rental control division of the wartime prices and trade board what the word "need" means. No yardstick is fixed. If you own your own home, how badly do you have to need it? If there was the question of greater need you would understand it. If there was any yardstick fixed you could understand it, but no lawyer and no other person can say to anyone who has given such a notice whether or not he will get possession of his own house on the last day of April or the first day of May until the matter has gone before one of the county courts of the province of Ontario, or the appropriate courts in other provinces.
Perhaps by prearrangement, perhaps by all deciding what would be the best thing to do, or possibly by each expressing his own idea of what need is, and the amount of need that is required, the judges will decide these matters. It is a matter that should be settled ahead of time. Perhaps never in the history of Canada has there been so much trouble and so much ill feeling created unnecessarily as in the use and exercise of rental controls. It would seem to me that at this late date the rental control board might take some means of making everything so clear that landlords and tenants would know their rights without having to go to court to find out what they are.
I strongly urge on the government that in the next few days some rule should be established as to the amount of need that is necessary, and thus enable landlords and tenants to know ahead of time, without having to go to court, whether possession can be

secured. I know that it is very late to bring up this matter. It has been taken up with the rental control board, but they have not done anything. I think the people of Canada are entitled to expect something better than that. We do not agree with all the orders that have been made. In fact, some of them are very bad. We have heard in the last few days about the exorbitant rents that have been charged. I have heard of cases where $50 or $60 a month is being charged for one room. By a very simple statement, a very simple order, the government could say that there will be a ceiling of some kind on the rents that can be charged.
The unfortunate part of the whole matter is that some people are paying $25 a month for a six-room house, and other people are paying $20 a week for one room in a house. That is discrimination of the very worst kind; there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, and rightly so. The whole matter could be settled very quickly if the rental control board, under instructions from the government, would deal with the situation in a manner that was consistent and would do justice to both landlords and tenants. I hope that in the next few days, notwithstanding the great haste as to certain election matters, the government will face the issue, because if they do not they will have to assume whatever responsibility may arise by their failure to deal with this comparatively simple matter.


Rodney Young: should very much like to associate myself with what has just been said by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. McMaster). I know that people in the city from which I come are suffering from the conditions which he describes. Like him, I thoroughly agree that it is due to faulty government regulations, and the fact that they are not being carried out very equitably. I have a grievance which has been in my mind for some time, and which I have wanted to present to the house. It has reference to a most gallant and honourable group of citizens, namely the merchant navy veterans. I feel they have been done a great injustice.
When I entered the chamber this morning I had no intention of raising this grievance. I felt that the government had a program to follow, a program under which the house would have to consider the North Atlantic pact, the international wheat agreement, certain bills for the carrying of oil through pipe lines, and other important matters. I realized that the house was in the last few hours of sitting, and that the time is short for the disposal of this business.
However, during the course of the sitting I have listened to forty-minute speeches which, while they were directed to grievances,
Railway Employees
were largely taken up with the procedure of vilifying the existing government-for which probably I have as little use as had the vilifiers. Those speeches were taken up largely with witticisms at the expense of cabinet ministers. I do not believe the members were doing what I thought was the right thing, or that they were acting in the interests of the public in following that procedure.
With the knowledge that the house is soon to rise for the last time in this parliament, I believe we should have done what we could to dispose of that portion of the country's business which is imperative to the interests of the citizens. Had it been possible to extend the life of parliament, I would have been in favour of doing so. I think it has been made fairly clear, however, that that is not possible.
I feel I cannot discuss my grievance without making some reference to the excellent exhibition to which we were lately treated by the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case). He made reference to pensions, and it was with some enjoyment that I noticed he referred to the efforts of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to obtain social services, pensions for railroad workers, and to obtain for them a railroad retirement act following along the lines of that used in the United States.
The thought which seemed to hit the hon. member for Grey North was: would it not be a very fine thing if the workers of Canada could be paid wages high enough so that they could practise the old-fashioined quality of laying a little aside for their old age? What an excellent expression that is; what a wonderful idea! When we look back over the years in this country of ours, and realize the struggles workingmen in Canada have had to make to achieve that very thing to which the hon. member for Grey North referred, namely a chance to earn enough, wages so that they could practise the old-fashioned quality of thrift; and when we remember the efforts of the huge corporations like the Canadian Pacific Railway at the time of the general strike of 1921 or 1922, and the efforts of the great cartels and monopolies to prevent that very thing; and when we remember the efforts made by the owning class in this country to prevent a rising standard of wages, and to prevent it through the use of economic force and by instilling fear in the minds of the average worker that if he went out on strike he would lose his job; and then when we find this Progressive Conservative member-

Superannuation for Members


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member is attempting to quote what I said. I know he would want to be fair, and I would point out to him that I said pensions were a good thing and should be encouraged. I said further that workers should not be encouraged to depend entirely upon pensions, but that they should seek to lay something aside as well.


Rodney Young: I am sure the hon. member will believe me when I say I had no intention of misinterpreting what he said. I agree that that is what he said; but he laid stress upon the principle of each man receiving wages high enough so that he could practise the old-fashioned ideal of thrift, and thus lay aside a little for the declining years of his life. I have not attributed to the hon. member anything more than that. But I am going to attribute something to the party to which the hon. member belongs. I would say that since confederation the policy of that party has not sufficiently encouraged the principle of higher wages to make his ideal possible. I offer that as a personal opinion, and it is possible that the hon. member will not agree with me. However, I will leave that to the people of this country on June 27, and we shall see whether they agree with me. But as a man who has worked for wages all his life, with the exception of the short period when I was in the armed forces, and the period when as a D.V.A. veteran I drew $80 at first and then $90 a month-and with the prices we have had since the war-and in the light of my experience as a picket on strike lines, I find it extremely difficult indeed to appreciate the point of view put forth by the hon. member for Grey North.
I have no objection to people who work for a living in this country having high wages so that they may put some of them aside. That is a splendid idea. But when we refer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre we are dealing with an idea of putting through parliament-and I hope it may be done by the next government-a railroad retirement act which would be beneficial to the railroad workers, whether they get high enough wages to lay something aside, or whether they do not

and the latter would be more likely the case if the existing social order of capitalism continues. Since in the past that has been the condition, it is in the nature of the system, with the competition of one man against another in order to procure a job, or perhaps to stand with the unemployed, who, when capitalism functions, stand outside the gates, to take away that job if any individual dares to strike for higher wages-I say it is in the nature of capitalism

that in those circumstances we will require a railroad retirement act.
I was also interested in the suggestion of the hon. member for Grey North that there have been many men who have devoted their lives to public service in parliament, in the legislature and in other walks of life, and his suggestion that it would be a nice thing if those men could also have some sort of retirement fund. My, how my heart is wrung for the unfortunate members of parliament! How my heart is wrung! And when I think of the widows of the imperial veterans in my riding who receive no pensions, whose husbands have died and who are left to scrub floors on their hands and knees-how my heart is wrung with the desire of M.P.'s for a pension! What a splendid thing, gentlemen! Is it not strange that we have not considered the case of the poor, the indigent, the case of the cripples and those people who have no pensions and who need them so much worse than we do? Do not hon. members think it is somewhat of an anticlimax at this late date, in view of the hours remaining for this house to sit, to bring up this suggestion of pensions for members of parliament? When the people of this country read that speech-and I hope they will-they will most certainly be amused. They will be amused enough to do something about pensions for M.P.'s on June 27 or thereabouts, I hope.
My time is limited and, as I said at the outset, I did not rise to make a forty-minute speech. But the speeches to which I have listened and which were forty minutes long have compelled me to say something at this time, something which I consider should now be said. Let me now say, on behalf of merchant navy veterans, that conditions as they exist at the present time are intolerable to many of the young men who in 1939 went voluntarily to man the ships we were so busy building in our shipyards so that we could transport to beleaguered Britain the food that was to make possible the maintenance of that island fortress of democracy. These young men voluntarily undertook that service, one which at that time was most dangerous, the service of the battle of the Atlantic.
During the years that they were at sea, many of them had their ships sunk under them. They came back and, at the end of the war, when the rewards were meted out by a grateful people through its government, we found that the army, navy and air force were given the full benefits of our Department of Veterans Affairs allowance for education. Many restrictions, however^ were placed upon the men of the merchant navy. These men are granted an allowance while studying to become plumber, bricklayer, car-

penter or any one of the useful trades that we need in this country; but the army, navy or air force veteran is permitted, provided that he has the entrance requirements, to go to university. These veterans are permitted to enter the professional classes. They may become doctors, dentists or lawyers.
The only inference that can be drawn from the different treatment accorded the merchant navy veteran who served his country as gallantly as any member of the armed forces and is a veteran of the armed forces, is that the merchant navy veteran is considered mentally deficient. Many of these men entered the service as boys of eighteen or nineteen. They undertook a very dangerous work. Is it considered that they are unable to become members of the professional classes and that they should be restricted to the trades? I do not think that is fair. I think an injustice is being done to our merchant navy veterans. I should like to say this, Mr. Speaker, that not only are they saddled with these disabilities by comparison with the veterans of the other services, but if they reach the age of thirty they receive no assistance for education. No attempt is made to give them an opportunity to even learn a trade.
These boys who joined in 1939 at the age of twenty, in 1949 are already thirty. The years when they could have been learning something useful they devoted to the service of the cause of democracy in order to contribute what they could to the downfall of nazism. They are now being told, "You are thirty or over thirty; I am sorry there is nothing to be done for you."
At the very time that this is being done to the merchant navy veteran, a policy is being pursued by the Department of Transport by which ships are being sold to foreign flags. Canadian merchant navy veterans who are serving now in the merchant marine in peacetime are having the keels sold under them. They are unable to find work in the ports of Vancouver, Halifax or in the other ports of Canada. At the very time when they could be learning some other way of making a living, even this is denied them. The government is presiding very gracefully over the dissolution of the Canadian merchant marine. Contracts that were made with companies purchasing ships formerly owned by the government stipulate that when the ships are sold the government is under no obligation to rebuild or lay a new keel for a period of five years. At the end of the five-year period a two-year extension can be granted, which means that for seven years there will be no replacement.
Merchant Marine Veterans
Within the last few months two or three dozen ships have been sold; that is quite a slice out of our merchant marine. The result is that the crews are being laid off. The men who sacrificed so much during the war are not to be allowed any reward or recognition for the services they have rendered. I raised this matter earlier and one hon. member-I do not hold it against him since it was probably an excellent humorous remark-suggested that simply because a man was a merchant navy seaman whose ship had been sold and whose job taken away, that did not mean he could not learn to do something else. He went further and said that, like myself, he might become a member of parliament. Of course, the number of jobs as member of parliament is limited; I think that is very obvious.
I might say that is precisely what I am proposing here tonight and I hope that the hon. member who made that statement is with me one hundred per cent. If these merchant navy men are not going to be allowed to work as mariners any longer, if we are going to sell all our merchant marine, they should be given an opportunity of learning some other trade. One way in which that could be done would be to extend the age limit for merchant navy veterans beyond the thirty-year mark. These men of thirty should not be told, "We will give you no assistance in learning a trade." Another way in which it could be done would be to permit these men to enter not only the trades but also the professions.
There is a case in my own university of British Columbia. This young man entered the merchant navy during the early years of the war. He went through the battle of the Atlantic and when the dangerous period was over, this gallant young man decided he was no longer needed in the merchant navy as much as he was needed in the army. Leaving the merchant navy, he joined the army and went overseas. He saw some action, after having had one ship sunk under him in the battle of the Atlantic. Under the D.V.A., he was able to go to the university of British Columbia. After he had been there for less than a year and after having gone through the veterans' school to pass the necessary entrance examination, he was notified his credits in the army were now completed and that the government would be unable to grant him further credits.
He went to the department and told them that he had served with the merchant marine during the early years of the war. They said, "Oh, yes; well now, would you like to be a plumber or a carpenter or a steamfitter?" It happens that this boy wants to be a doctor.

Potatoes
He is willing to serve the seven or eight years which it takes to become a doctor. We are short of doctors in this country and the boy has ability. Simply because he volunteered during the dangerous period of the battle of the Atlantic to face the worst dangers any man could be called upon to face and, when that danger was over, switched to the army, which was the next most dangerous task, he is being penalized. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a grave injustice. As a veteran, and even if I were not a veteran, but as a Canadian citizen and as one who is grateful to the men who did so much for Canada in the recent conflict, I believe that before this house closes this government should give some assurance of better treatment for these men. I appeal to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and I appeal to the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as to the cabinet, that they do something for these merchant navy veterans. I believe, politics and elections apart, that the least they could do would be to raise that age limit beyond thirty.


Mr, H. H. Haliield (Victoria-Carleton):: did not intend to speak at this time, but I have one or two grievances to bring before the house. The first concerns the manner in which the agricultural prices support board handled the support for potatoes in the maritime provinces this fall. During August and September the price of potatoes went below the cost of production owing to a surplus crop throughout the world. As hon. members know, the agricultural prices support board was set up in 1944 by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and it had the unanimous support of this house because every member from an agricultural constituency thought it was a good act and a fair one. The farmers and producers of agricultural products throughout Canada were held down by ceilings during the war years. They were also asked to produce to the limit, and they did a good job in producing. They did a better job than those in any other part of the world. I want to read some statements made by the Minister of Agriculture when he put this act before the house in 1944. As reported at page 5581 of Hansard of 1944 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) quoted the views of a Liberal convention held in Ottawa as follows:
We advocate a policy under which Canada will (h) provide security for farmers and fishermen by safeguarding against inflation now and by guaranteeing minimum prices for their products against collapse of prices after the war.
Then he went on to say:
Speaking at London, Ontario, on October 15,-

That was October 15, 1943.
-I made this statement as Minister of Agriculture when speaking to a group of people, representatives of agriculture in that area, got together by the Kiwanis club, as reported in the Windsor Star of October 16:
"In placing ceilings upon products, with limited subsidies now, the government is assuming responsibility to maintain floors until this country is reestablished after the war. The government owes this to the farmers who have maintained production under ceilings, and also owes it to the men and women who will return from the services to the farms."
On December 2, 1943, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), speaking over the radio said:
"As an essential part of its post-war policy the government intends to ask parliament, at the next session, to place a floor under the prices of the main farm products."
In the speech from the throne this statement was made:
"To insure economic stability for agriculture, you will be asked to make provision for a price floor for staple farm products."
The bill which is based upon all these statements is the bill which is now before the house, and I submit it to the house, Mr. Speaker, for second reading, with the suggestion that in the committee stage I shall be prepared to answer any questions I can that may be asked by different members of the committee.
Then Mr. Perley, the member for Qu'Appelle, asked this question during the debate as reported at page 5582 of Hansard:


Mr. Perley:: I should like to know also whether
the minister will forecast what will happen in the twelve years following this war. He made a comparison between 1918 and 1930, a period of twelve years. What does he forecast will take place with respect to prices between the time this war ends and 1956? It would be interesting if the minister would tell us that.


Mr. Gardiner:: I stated my reason when I gave
the figures; it was in order to show that it would be impossible to have this bill run for a stated number of years, because the real drop in prices after the last war did not come until 1931. That was true not only in this country but in all other countries.


Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):: What does that
prove?


James Garfield Gardiner: It proves that you cannot say this legislation should last for only three years or only five years. It must be left to the government of the day to determine how long it should be retained. We are not attempting to say now that this legislation will be retained for only three years or five years or any definite period. For the same reason I would not try to prophesy what will happen between now and 1956. We are setting up this board to keep track of what happens.
Then the Minister of Agriculture went on to say that it would be unfair to ask the farmers to cut down production after the war because the government asked them during the war to produce goods to the limit. He said it would be unfair to the men returning from overseas to the farms to ask them to cut down production and to take lower prices and a lower profit on the cost of production. Speaking to the Ontario milk producers on

February 9, 1949, the Minister of Agriculture stated that Canadian farmers were entitled -to prices to justify their wartime sacrifices. But how was the delegation treated that came here from the maritime provinces with regard to potatoes after the price had gone away below the cost of production? The first delegation came on August 30, 1948. They received no encouragement, although they were told that the board might consider a starch program. At that time potatoes were selling in Canada away below the cost of production. That was not in accord with what the minister stated this act would do to keep potatoes not only above the cost of production but above the cost of production plus a profit during the time that the act was in effect. I asked the minister this question when the bill was going through the house, as reported at page 5624 of Hansard, of 1944:


Mr. Hatfield:: My understanding of this bill is that if the price of an agricultural product goes below the cost of production the board immediately takes action to remove the surplus from the market or to bring the market price up to the cost of production perhaps by taking the commodity off the market, putting it in storage or processing it. Is that right?
The Minister of Agriculture replied as follows:


James Garfield Gardiner: I was careful to see that there was nothing in the bill which said that we were going to base any decision on the cost of production. The cost of production may be only part of the consideration. I think it is possible the board might determine that the farmer should have considerably more than his cost of production because of some other experience he has had in order to get through the transitional period in a proper position.


John Horne Blackmore: What we are concerned about is that the time may come when the board may force the farmer to take less than the cost of production.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would hope that that time will not come and I do not think it is likely to under this bill.
And he goes on further to say that there will be no agricultural products dumped during the time that he is Minister of Agriculture. I would say to him that, if he is not relieved of his position on June 27, he will see agricultural products dumped in the maritime provinces. I assure him of that.
The first delegation came here on August 30, 1948, as I said before. I drew the attention of the government to the matter in August. I also drew attention to it in a letter of September 16 addressed to Mr. Taggart, chairman of the agricultural prices support board. The minister of agriculture of the province of New Brunswick, Mr. Taylor, sent to Mr. Taggart, chairman of the board, this telegram on October 7, 1948:
Received your letter re prices support on potatoes. Greatly disappointed board's refusal to recognize appeal potato growers of Canada particularly in
Potatoes
light of announcement re Nova Scotia apples. This appears to me as rank discrimination in light of loss of South American markets. Letter following.
A. C. Taylor, Minister of Agriculture,
New Brunswick.
The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught) asked the chairman of the agricultural prices support board to give some relief to the potato producers of Prince Edward Island, in another letter. Letters were also sent to the Minister of Agriculture and the deputy minister of agriculture. The result was that three delegations came to Ottawa and were turned down. After that happened the United States government took a hand because we were shipping into the United States market under their support price and using their support plan to support our potatoes. They threatened to put an embargo on potatoes going into the United States market. On October 27 the agricultural prices support board was asked to come to Washington. The chairman of the agricultural prices support board, the deputy minister of agriculture of Prince Edward Island, the deputy minister of agriculture of Nova Scotia and the deputy minister of agriculture of New Brunswick proceeded to Washington on November 1, where they met with the United States government. An agreement was entered into at Washington on November 2, under which our government promised to put an embargo on our table potatoes entering into the United States market. They also agreed to police the shipments of certified seed potatoes to the United States market. What happened? They returned to Canada and nothing was done. The deputy minister of agriculture of Prince Edward Island wrote a letter to the chairman of the agricultural prices support board on November 22 and this is what he said:
I may say that I have been bombarded with questions regarding the potato situation since our Ottawa and Washington trips and have managed to keep silent and look stupid, the latter phase being less difficult than the first, right up to the present time.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) W. R. Shaw.
Deputy Minister.
He was keeping something to himself that he should have told the farmers. That is the reason he said, less difficult to keep silent than look stupid. The hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) came here with a delegation on September 20. We had a meeting with the agricultural prices support board. We also interviewed the Minister of Agriculture. The minister told us that he was quite agreeable that we should have a support price on potatoes and that he would put it on as soon as he had a report from the board. The hon. member for Restigouche-
2732

Potatoes
Madawaska wrote to the Minister of Agriculture under date of September 22 and this is the first paragraph of his letter:
Dear Mr. Gardiner,
I came to Ottawa Monday mainly for the purpose of discussing the potato situation with the officials of the agricultural prices support board. I was informed of the meeting by Mr. H. H. Hatfield, M.P. for Victoria-Carleton. As you probably know, the two of us represent by far the two largest potato-growing constituencies in New Brunswick.
The hon.. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska wrote to the agricultural prices support board asking for a support price. What happened? They put a support price on potatoes effective April 1, after the farmers had gone to the expense of holding their potatoes, and the price was set below the cost of production. That price was $1.15 a hundred in the bins on the farms. Just compare that with the agricultural prices support board program across the border in the United States. It was $3.25 a hundred loaded on the car, compared with $1.15 a hundred in my constituency in New Brunswick and in Prince Edward Island in the bins on the farms.
On motion of Mr. Hatfield the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: We still have to deal with interim supply, the Atlantic pact, the international wheat agreement, third reading of the pipe lines bill, the pipe lines incorporations, and the budget debate, and we shall take them in the order which may be found to be most convenient, but interim supply will have priority in the forenoon at least.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I dare to hope that the international wheat agreement might follow interim supply.
At ten-thirty the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on March 14, 1949.

Friday, April 29, 1949